[governance] Russia

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi
 
back from Dubai I still have to figure out what the main conclusions are. 
 
I disagree with Milton both with regard to 5A & 5B as well as with the resolution. 
 
1. Look at the statement from the Russian Federation in the signing ceremony. This what you get if you agree - in the spirit of consensus - to unclear language in a legally binding treaty. 5A & 5B would have been acceptable in a WSIS like (non-binding) political declaration but not in a legally binding treaty where different interpretations (as we know from "enhanced cooperation") will produce not only an endless political discussion but can lead to legal cases. Here is the offocuial text from the RF:  
 
The delegation of the Russian Federation "proceeds from the assumption that views the Internet as a new global telecommunication infrastructure, and also as a part of the national telecommunication infrastructure of each Member State, and, accordingly, at ensuring that Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources are considered a critical transnational resource, and reserves for its Government the right to: 

1) establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance, and ensure security of the national Internet segment, as well as regulate within their territory the activities of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic;

2) establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use;

3) take necessary regulatory measures to ensure security and confidence in provision international telecommunications services, provide implementation of these measures by operating agencies;

4) take any action it may deem necessary to protect its sovereign rights and interests in the sphere of telecommunications should violation of the Regulations or reservations, or actions taken by other Member States jeopardize its telecommunication services."

The Russian government should raise its problems with "Internet naming and numbering" in ICANNs GAC. But this is not what it wants. It wants to see that it controls not only its own cctLD but also the name of a registrant (living under Russian jurisdiction) wh0o has registered iwan.com via a registrar in Germany. This brings us further down the road into the issue of the extension of national sovereignty into cyberspace. Howe far this will go? 
 
The second point is the Internet Resolution. There was no discussion of the varioous elements. When p. 55 of the Tunis agenda was proposed to add to 38, Abdulla from Saudi-Arabia (he was a WGIG member and knows exactly the language) intervened and blocked it. If you refer only to 38 this brings you back to the day of WSIS 1, long before Tunis time. Para. 55 in the Tunis agenda recognized the "existing system". Rejecting para. 55 means non-recognition of the existing Internet Governance Eco-System. Furthermore the "invites" both to the Member States and to the ITU SG in the proposed resolutions did mention the multistakeholder model but it was unclear whether the ITU should become part of the broader IG Eco-System or should develop its own alternative multistakeholder Internet Governance model as an alternative to the existing Eco-System. Before we came to the discussion of the "invites" Iran proposed the voting. The chair wanted before a voting get the "temperature" of the room. Hands were raised but not really counted. In my eyes it was around 60 for the resolution as it stands (without 55 Tunis agenda) and 40 against. A lot of delöegatiopns were confused. And then the chair declared the "temperature measurement" as a decision by the chair to adopt the resolution as it is. The other day he said this was not a formal voting but he decided (in consultaiton with the ITU SG) that the resolution should remain as it was. Germany had prepared additional language for the "invite" part to make clear that ITU should enhance its cooperation with the existing IG eco-system (to avoid that the invitation can be interpreted to start the building of an own (alternative) multistakeholder IG system (under ITU/Member States leadership as we know from the WSIS Forum). But we had no chance to propose the language. This was a classical case for ITU autoracy. We planned also to invite ITU memberstates to patricipate actively in ICANNs GAC. But Abdullas said that Saudi Arabia will never become a member of the GAC. Insofar the rejection of the resolution was well justified.
 
Best wishes
 
wolfgang   

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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