[governance] Russia

Sun Dec 16 10:55:25 EST 2012

Dear Alejandro & Wolfgang:

Just for an update: Abdullah AlDarrab is currently the head of the TRA in
Saudi Arabia.

Qusai

On Sunday, December 16, 2012, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:

> Wolfgang,
>
> thanks for providing this important level of detail in facts and accurate
> interpretation of their implications.
>
> For the record the friend you mention is Abullah Al-Tarrab (or Al-Darrab)
> and he has indeed been a significant actor since at least WGIG times.
> though officially he is in a telecommunications company, he is a government
> representative, not the least because the company is or was
> government-owned or controlled.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> ! !! !!! !!!!
> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
>
>
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO
>
> SMS +525541444475
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> ________________________________________
> Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:;> [
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:;>] en nombre de
> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<javascript:;>
> ]
> Enviado el: sábado, 15 de diciembre de 2012 14:33
> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:;>
> Asunto: [governance] Russia
>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121216/159ed389/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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