[governance] Reply to Milton's blog post

Sun Dec 16 07:40:06 EST 2012

Dear Olivier,

Thank you very-very-very much for all your work at all and for this
letter especially.

My country signed (according to official information on ITU web-site)
ITRs. But there were some chances they would not do it. And I am sure
that we just lacked some pressure on our official delegates at this
moment, so physical absence of Ukrainian CS was wery negative.

I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do
it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that
they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I  had nothing
to answer to them.

I had real chance to participate in this conference as a journalist
(by the way, Ukrainian media absolutely ignored this event). I am sure
that it might have some impact, but again I did not have money. In
Baku I participated on my own expences, and it was real financial
disaster for me. But the workshop I organized (thousand of thanks to
all who participated in it) and a lot of other discussions are
priceless for me.

I like very much the word multistakeholderism, but let us stop just to
talk about it! We have to analyze where it works and where and when it
does not work and why. I am sure that in developing countries it
nearly  does not work, while exactly multistakeholderism (in all
sheres) and informational technologies can transform developing
countries into developed one.

Just few remarks on it.

1. Respective roles of each stakeholder. Our former prime-minister
Yulia Timoshenko is in prison now for signing international treaty
without enough seal. I am not saying that I support such treatment,
but I am sure that dozens of Ukrainian officials HAVE to be in prison
for signing international treaties without enough seal.Very often the
only one reason to sign any treaty for them is to put money into their
own pockets.

Our government concerns with Internet issues. Our Communication
Administration (State Service of Special Communication and Information
Protection of Ukraine !!!!!) ignored my propositions because they
could not open my file in .odt (!!!!!). They use only Windows, and 70
% of this software (in governmental agencies!!!) are steal. And they
will protect cybersecurity and dictate to me what to do and what not
to do in Internet!

2. Transparency - Ukraine is the member of GAC (on paper). But now I
am said that ICANN is not international organization, so why Ukraine
has to be the member of it? But WE ARE  the member! But it is
impossible now to find documents who and when apllied for GAC from
Ukraine. I am not even talking on WCIT - no ANY information on
official site of Ukrainian agency.

3.  Accountability - no words at all(

4. Consensus - some opponents in prison or Hudson, a few to buy.

What to do?

Yes, of course, we urgently need literacy, capacity buiding, awareness
raising, engagement, and in this case the role of ICANN is nearly
zero. I extremely thankful to Olivier, Sebastien, Wolf, Bertrand,
Sandra, Wolfgang, Yulia (I hope I did not miss anybody) for coming to
Ukraine and participating in our events. They realy did great job, and
influence a lot on many discussions! But on institutional level ICANN
did not ever participate in them! With OFFICIAL meetings with
Ukrainian officials, with discussions of the most critical issues,
with organizing some educational programs! That is why a lot of in
Ukraine really don't know what is ICANN, and a lot of prefer to make
show that they don't know.

I talk about Ukraine, but I mention all post-Soviet Russian-speaking
culture. That is why during teleconference call with Ambassador Kramer
I proposed to organize in Ukraine sub-regional Forum and to initiate
standing discussion on multistakeholderism and freedom of Internet. I
can not imagine it without pro-active role of ICANN.

I am sorry for such long letter, but I would like to add some words about trust.

I do not trust to my government, so there is no dissapointment with
their activity in Dubai. But now how I can trust to Dr. Toure and to
Chair of the conference, if they can't keep their words (about
consensus instead of voting)? How can I  trust to ITU at all, which
fully demonstrates its absurdism? How can I trust to UN at all, if by
mouth it defends human rights and democracy, but by hands it puts me
behind the bars of criminal regime and close before me the door to
open and prosperious informational society?

Once again sorry for bothering you with our problems,
Best regards,
Oksana

 2012/12/16 Peter H. Hellmonds <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>:
> Thank you, Olivier, for sharing your very passionate and personal, yet balanced experience and viewpoint on the happenings and the mood on the ground in Dubai.
>
> Peter H. Hellmonds
> <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
> +49 (160) 360-2852
>
> On 15.12.2012, at 22:55, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post
> here, to widen the discussion. Please find below.
>
> --- snip --- snip --- snip ---
>
> Dear Milton,
> many of us on the ground were really sorry not to see you in the room in
> Dubai. Perhaps then would you have actually understood the situation and
> tension that was present in the room.
> Without wanting to go into details, several parts of the ITRs were
> deeply flawed.
> 5A needs to be read along with ITU Standard Y.2770 which makes it
> mandatory to implement deep packet inspection (and not even a mild case
> of DPI) to all “next generation networks” which could be easily
> interpreted as the IPv6 network. As a standard it is far from mandatory.
> But 5A and 5B bring this much closer to make it mandatory – and you’ll
> notice that the language in Y.2770 is very close to the language of 5A
> and 5B.
> 5B is an absolute NO-NO when the beginning of the document says that the
> ITRs are not about content. In fact, in it is unclear whether later
> recommendations take precedence over earlier recommendations in a
> document as is the case in some legislatures. Indeed, you should have
> seen the opposition from some countries to having the “no content”
> clause included – which completely killed any remains of trust between
> the two “sides”.
> Then you have the Resolution at the end which is a real provocation for
> some and not enough for others who would have wanted the Internet to be
> included in the ITRs, including taking over numbering and addressing by
> States.
> The EU came very close to signing although many countries had serious
> reservations about ITRs which simply did NOT make any sense. How can
> Spam not be content? The Spam debate was fuelled by claims that it
> flooded some country networks yet email traffic is less that 5% of
> Internet traffic, less that 3% of all telecom traffic (estimated) and
> therefore with Spam being at, say 50% of email traffic, countries were
> arguing for a Regulation to filter traffic and perform DPI on maximum 2%
> traffic gain? It simply did not make sense.
> So the strategy of the EU countries, after having made a lot of
> concessions, was to wait and see the final proposal from the Chair,
> which although it had all of these inadequate articles, was a real
> improvement.
> But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on the right
> of States to telecommunication services and put it on a par basis with
> Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was the same as the
> Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland,
> expressed its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by some
> countries that oppress their people about Human Rights. And then Iran
> called for an abrupt end to the discussion, after having intervened more
> than any country in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I
> remind you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has
> assured us there would be no vote.
> This derailment was self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the
> vase to overflow. Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun
> tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries
> opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would lose a
> vote.
> For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and Match. My country,
> the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a
> say in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the many
> countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the table and guess
> what, most of these countries have not signed. Does this not tell you
> something?
>
> So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at the
> heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff which I
> would really like the Internet to be preserved from.
>
> But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid concerns
> from developing countries that they were not able to participate in the
> multi-stakeholder model because of lack of funding, lack of
> understanding and a lack of proactive work from our “own” side.
> I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more
> to bridge the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora in
> which they can participate and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to
> them and the ITU where they have a voice. During the hour that followed
> the dramatic vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and
> whilst not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and
> I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are intent on
> following up with countries that do not appear to have hidden intentions
> are are genuine about the level of despair they displayed at this
> conference. Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of a
> better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in promoting, reaching
> out, building capacity.
>
> In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs and the
> ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil Society has the
> ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several governments that have
> understood this. Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again
> a similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair.
>
> Olivier
> (speaking entirely on my own behalf)
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-------------- 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