AW: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Dear Wolfgang, Bill and all

Very intersting this "thematic debate" about the ITU. Bill pointed at some of the good reasons for explaining (not excusing) the Unions's attitude towards ICANN. One of the main reasons resides in the Convention which rules this intergovernmental body, and which can only be changed by its memberstates in the framework of the Plenipotentiary Plenary. Its non-governmental members (the so-called Sector members) are not eligible for modifying the ITU Convention and can only be part of an advisory body (e.g. TDAG), together whith governmental represntatives, that can propose modifications to the Convention submitted to the members states for approval. 

But the other main issue ITU is facing is the financial crisis which led to the lay-off of 20% of its staff during WSIS phase 1 (BTW : where was the WSIS-CS during the protest meeting held by the ITU people during PrepCom 3 near the CICG? I was there to show my solidarity). The primary cause of this crisis is the "telecoms sector" deregulation and the consequent weakened role of the member states, which in its turn led to lowering or limiting the member fees (more than 80% of the ITU budget). I'd just draw your attention to the fact that sector members pay only one sixth of the member state basic fees. 

ITU is therefore in a very critical situation and I guess that this explains that, i.e. its attitude towards ICANN. Conversely, why is ICANN outside of ITU whereas other bodies such as R&D, IDATE, GSMA, etc are inside ... and are paying for that ?

Whatever could be argued about the ITU (and CSDPTT is very critical about its neoliberal zeal, course and activities) it has an important role to play in the Internet domain and, in my humble opinion, this includes some governance aspects. Therefore a cooperative way is to be preferred to a conflictual one. This way would be very effective when ITU and ICANN act jointly and consistently. A renewed ICANN ("ICANN 2G") could be this future ITU partner for promoting an Internet governance that people in ICs and DCs are waiting for. 

Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT  


> Message du 02/09/10 09:48
> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "jefsey" , governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : AW: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter
> 
> 
> Bills comments are very useful and right to the point. It starts with the UN. And it is very linked to "budget". The need, to pay for all the ITU facilities in Geneva and the big staff in the many offices is an important driving force behind ITUs ongoing effortsd to look for new business which could help them to bring additional money into their empty pockets. BTW, it would be good to re-call the report of the Cardozo Commission on CS involvment in the UN. We should do this at the IGF when our speaker touchesd the issue oif the future of the IGF, multistakeholder processes and the role of CS in global policy development. 
> 
> And JFC asks the right question: The Resolution does not point to a text of a GRC Charter. Dies anyboday has an idea where a draft of this charter is pubished?
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: jefsey [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com]
> Gesendet: Mi 01.09.2010 23:40
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter
> 
> 
> I am afraid I cannot find any "Global Relationships Committee Charter " document anywhere. What has the BoD adopted?
> jfc
> 
> At 16:54 01/09/2010, William Drake wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree with Rafik, it wasn't very strategic of ITU and could be useful to ICANN et al (whether this was a strategic calculation or "trap," who knows, ask Rod I guess). Among other things, it helps to set a frame for how the Plenipotentiary outcomes will be received and reported, e.g. if ITU does more resolutions etc asserting its centrality to IG, right to make policy on ICANN matters, etc., it won't play terribly well in many circles that ICANN's leadership was not even allowed into the building while all this was happening. There will be ripples...
> 
> Also agree with Milton about procedures actually being part of the story. Similarly, I'm told that companies that pay to join, say, ITU-T, are not allowed to attend meetings of ITU-D unless they pay there too. The budgetary model is an issue with respect to possible CS participation as well. If they were integrated into the UN system some things might be easier, but that won't happen.
> 
> B
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100913/b058996f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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