[governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF

[William Drake]

Hi

I haven't had time to follow the Plenipot closely but was just looking at the press section and noticed this:

—————

http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/newsroom/highlights/oct06.html

WSIS Forum meets Internet Governance Forum

A proposal by the Russian Federation was put forward to consider whether the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should become part of the WSIS Forum, as it was suggested that all WSIS outcomes, which include the IGF, should be dealt with in the WSIS Forum. The United States and Norway (on behalf of CEPT) suggested that the IGF should be kept as an independent body and that it retain its “unique” non-binding, bottom-up, non-decisional, multi-stakeholder status. Egypt questioned the rationale for folding the IGF into the WSIS Forum and noted that the authorities responsible for the future of the IGF are the UN General Assembly, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). 
 
The Chairman of the Working Group of the Plenary concluded that the proposal from the Russian Federation was not relevant to the outcome of PP-10 and that it should be presented to the appropriate bodies of the UN system. In fact, the future of the Internet Governance Forum is scheduled for review by the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly and that review will be completed before the end of the year.

—————

So, that's at least one less lousy idea/development to have on our radars….

Bill

On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 1st, I add my congrats to Izumi and thanks to Rafik and Marilla.
> 
> 2nd, I agree with Wolfgang the Plenipot machinations should be seen in broader context. The likelihood of getting something objectionable agreed to this time around is unlikely. But they'll be back, whether at
> next Plenipot or at UNGA or WSIS Forum or...IGF.
> a) which gets to main point, how well can IGC manage to broaden its view to simultaneously engage with and monitor whole range of bodies and actions in play in Internet Governance in 2011.  IGF helps of course but...we are facing a challenge.
> 
> 3rd,Note that  while at the Plenipotentiary level the traditional rules of the 145-year-old ITU game are clearly evident, and political posturing is dominant, at lower levels of course cs has long participated as invited experts often, without the huge or any fees.  (eg, see Lee making fun of early ITU proposals to regulate VoIP as unworkable at www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/iptel/workshop/mcknight.pdf - and I give credit, some at ITU have sense of humor - I've been invited back since ; ).
> 
> 4th, to expect a perpetually broke international organization that governments expect to raise significant income from document sales and sector memberships - to forego that income, or carve out exceptions for individuals and civil society - just ain't happening on any broad scale. At least it hasn't yet, and some of us have been working on cracking this nut for..sigh, decades.  We've won some and lost some over the years.
> a) and let's remember that ITU is one of ICANN's parents, there at conception, even on the first blind date, so to a certain extent we are dealing with the older authority figure vs the teenager who wants to pretend it never had anything to do with - mom or dad.
> b) not that teen is perfect either....but anyway that is discussion for different day, as to what elements of present ITU critique of ICANN GAC are on target, and what not.
> 
> 5th, in ITU case, the real cs representation question is what Avri and Bill bandied about, ie either persuading an existing CS organization to decide to be our house techie org/ITU-T (and/or D) sector member, ie raise the $20k, and commit $X more to support more or less standing representation whether by an organizational rep or by multiple cs individuals who are able to come in under that org's membership. Maybe one joins T and another D....and shares notes and costs? And permits say IGC members - to participate as honorary members of either org?? ; )If/when any of us have $ and time to attend ITU  meetings.
> Which is time-consuming and expensive....and cs as whole hasn't cared enough about ITU to bother.   And foundations and universities yawn if cs types start talking up ITU.
> 
> ISOC and ITU on other hand have had a more or less amicable coordination and division of labor arrangement in place for years, with Harvard's Scott Bradner - certified good guy - the liaison. Maybe it has changed lately, I haven't been paying attention. Not that it's easy but it is ongoing.
> 
> ICANN is free to do the same, and if/when in ITU's house it must like everyone else play by house rules. I have previously suggested it is past time for ICANN if only for self-defense to be on the ground in Geneva, permanently. Or at least appoint a specific liaison a la Scott Bradner...but that is for ICANN to decide.
> 
> Starting a new ITU/cswatch org as Avri and Bill spoke of...is doable too, if folks have time and energy and can find the $.
> 
> 6th, with regard to one of our higher ambitions, of initiating change in ITU-CS relations....given that it is an international treaty organization only certain things are possible....without a change in the treaty.
> Therefore, if CS cares enough about ITU to decide (at least within IGC) that ITU reform is an objective, then we are beginning a 4-8 year process, ie through 1-2 Plenipot cycles, and good luck to us.  It can be done but it is a slow slog.
> 
> 7th, while I have suggested it is real hard to change ITU, in fact the org is always changing. For example some of us helped past Sec Gens - in our individual capacity of course - kill off the CCIR which had outlived its usefulness.  Bill, or maybe Marilyn, if we buy them enough drinks, could tell us near-endless behind the scenes tales of when they helped - or failed at - rewriting ITU agendas...
> 
> 8th, Point is, if we had a specific, plausible plan or suggestion for change in ITU we could pursue it. Over time. Meaning rather than just playing defense we can go on the offensive too. I think Wolfgang's note is a good start on some of the stakes, but recalling we are playing a mutli-dimensional global chess game, we can't just worry about Plenipot, which is too far along this time and unlikely to be subject to outside influence at this point. (If more substantial rumors of bad decisions getting rammed through are proven, then there are ways to undermine that, but at moment we just have a Russian shot across the bow and no surprise.)
> 
> 9th, and I promise i will stop soon, 2011 should indeed be seen as a pivotal year for tipping - IGF, GAID, UNGA, WSIS Forum, ICANN, and who knows even ITU, in one direction or another.  Shaping/setting the agenda is our task, meeting locations and timing is just the playing field.     (Though I do need to note the ironic twist that moving a WSIS Forum meeting further from Geneva is seen still as making it more ITUish, when one might think just the opposite.)
> 
> In sum, we play our game, across venues, for cs objectives.  CS and yeah business interests, in spite of international politics, remain the prime movers in most of these fora, including ITU-T, for which ITU staff play mainly secretarial/support role. So we need first to step back i suggest and decide what our prime objectives are for 2011...and then pass a very heavy load to Izumi and Jeremy to help us execute on.
> 
> Starting with the suggested statement is a good 1st step, and if well done, can be recycled in various ways through the year of agenda setting.
> 
> best,
> 
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:45 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF
> 
> Hi Bill and others
> 
> thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where the key idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism and to kill the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which are defined and controlled by governments. This is the old hierarchical top down policy model. This is how the ITU works. This is how the ITU organized its "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF).
> 
> Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an application, explaining why you want to participate. This application was checked by an unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I got the permission for registration. The three day Forum was organized in a way that the whole first day was filled with official speeches by governmental delegations. There was no debate. There was a speaking order, reserved for governmental speakers only on Day 1. People like me with a NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back of the room. There was a clear seperation between the governmental and the non-governmental rows. On Day 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to make a comment to one of the speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from Saudi-Arabia who was also member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words and explained to me that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed to speak. Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or of they are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member you have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website (you know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the public).
> 
> Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. The podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was filled with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It was chaired by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. When I asked him in the public debate about the principle of multistakeholderism and why no representatives of civil society and private sector are on the podium he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the podium) has hundreds of NGOs accredited and ITU has hundreds of private sector members. This is enough to meet the criteria of multistakeholderism. Wow!
> 
> Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June 2002. There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and the IGF we moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, inspired by the Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle accepted even by the Heads of State. However obviously some governments do not (and/or will not) remember what they signed and secondly they have a special interpretation of the agreed texts.
> 
> On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point of view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this position has a chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary Conference, where all governments have to agree. On the other hand the statement makes clear that the battle of 2005 is not over but has just restarted.
> 
> One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments to test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the decision will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a WSIS Forum in May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an IGF in September 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, evaluated then by the governments of the UN member states in November 2011.
> 
> Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground for a third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU gives up (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to organize a 3rd WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another opportunity to work towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an intergovenrmental framewok. If people are interested into the various ideas they should go back to "model 3" and "model 4" of the WGIG report from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the moment) its intention to get the hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the IAHC but got as a compensation the mandate to start the WSIS process.
> 
> No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not 2005 and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of more problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the DNS. They call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an open and transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred times in 2005:  The political challenges of the 21st century can not be settled with the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be innovative and have to create something which is able to manage these challenges. ICANN and IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the beginning of a new historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, not backwards.
> 
> What could be done?
> 
> 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to contact their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and in the forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them the background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding of the various dimensions of the  issue
> 
> 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> 
> Wolfgang
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein
> Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>> Dear Bill,
>> 
>> You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take
>> a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming
>> open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group.
>> Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position
>> statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue?
>> 
> I really hope something like this will start.
> 
> 
> Norbert
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake
>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread.  The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated.  Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here.  The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia,
>>> 
>>> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York.  The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort."
>>> 
>>> So voila.  This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years."   There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc.  And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better.   All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Bill

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t