[governance] Re: ITU Propaganda in APRICOT: "ITU is the original multistakeholder approach !!! "

Wed Feb 29 01:51:36 EST 2012

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Copied from the APRICOT live transcript, proceedings of the session
> Internet Governance:
>
> .....
>
>  In terms of what I would like to say for the structure, I think the most
>> important thing to remember -- when I was introduced, there was
>> reference made to my role in the expert group appointed by the secretary-general
>> of the ITU on internationaltelecommunication regulations, ITRs.
>> I thought it was fascinating, because that is in fact the second attempt
>> to create anintergovernmental organization -- the very first one was the
>> ... postal union.
>> Those associated with ITU, like myself, we don't talk about the IPU that
>> much, but as a schoolar, I have to be honest and say the UPU was the
>> very first one.
>> Then in 1865 the governments of Europe got together to come up with
>> rules about how the telegraph would be governed.
>> The telegraph was active from 1848.
>> Among the things, among the at the nomna they had to deal with were
>> things like the telegraph line coming from Germany to a place called Achen
>> and stopping, and then the physical messages being carried across the
>> border in France and being put into the telegraph line again on [ ...]
>> on the other side of the border, because this was seen as something the
>> governments wanted to control.
>> Of course, we had the at the nomna of a man called Julius Ryeter, whose
>> name lives on in the company Reuters, who decided to use the pigeons to
>> accelerate the processby which this information came from the telegraph and
>> was walked across the border and then re-inputd into the telegraph.
>> He carried the financial and economic information using pigeons from the
>> Germanside, who were not amenable to the customs procedures and so on, and
>> as a result the ah kayak procedure that was in place did not last for
>> very long, Mr Mr Reuter managed to leverage his activities into
>> longstanding and powerful news organization that carries his name until
>> today.
>> So you can see that from the very beginning of electronic communication,
>> the question of governmental coordination, governmental control over
>> content, the private sector's involvement in it in various ways, including
>> in getting around thegovernment controls, was a feature of the way
>> electronic communications weregoverned.
>> I find it interesting to think that these issues that we think are being
>> addressed for thevery first time were in fact addressed -- they are not
>> really new, they have just taken different forms.
>> One of the things about the ITU that was created at that point and which
>> continuesuntil today is the involvement of technical experts in the day-to-day
>> activities of decision-making and coordination.
>> For example, while the deliberation that some of us, for example, when I
>> was working in government, I used to go to the meny potentialry and
>> spend five or [ ...] five or six days, go through interminable long
>> discussions about how to elect the nextoffice bearers and give direction
>> to the organization per se.
>> But in fact the really important work in the ITU is done in the various
>> Working Groups.
>> Under the ITU, particularly under the standard spot and under the radio,
>> ITUR.
>> In these cases there is involvement far beyond that of ..., it is the
>> technical people, the manufacturing companies, the operating companies,
>> various entities that participate inthe actual decision-making.
>> One could say that the ITU is the original multistakeholder approach.
>> And we have to keep that in mind, because governments by themselves will
>> havedifficulty in understanding the complexities and offsetting --
>> ^correction and of setting the framework for this extraordinarily dynamic
>> sector of the economy that now we call the Internet economy.
>> So with that context, I think it is important for us to understand that
>> we are at an important decision point.
>> We have had five years of the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, and we
>> are nowlooking to see IGF 2, the mandate has been renewed, but how can
>> it be strengthened, how can it be enhanced? There are, of course, different
>> viewpoints on this matter,about making it an outcome-oriented organization,
>> which Mr Ravi Shanker will talkabout, as against keeping the value of the
>> organization as a platform that people can freely express their ideas.
>> Because one of the difficulties, of course, is that the minute you go
>> beyondgovernance, one vote per country kind of model, it becomes very
>> difficult to getdecision-making.
>> We have seen that in the ITU world, in the Internet world, we have actually
>> broughtnew ways of decision-making among experts that are actually quite exemplary,
>> even in terms of governments should be wanting to learn about what we
>> call ... working code -- getting the job done, rather than interminably talking
>> about things, and by the time the definition is arrived at the matter has
>> been already resolved on the ground.
>> Those are the kinds of issues we will be talking about.
>> My task here is basically to set the frame, which I will be joined in by the
>> panelists through their opening statements, and then to raise a few questions,
>> to see whether we can get some interactivity among this multistakeholder
>> group and with you, and hopefully advance our understanding of the
>> issues, the challenges that face us today.
>> With that, let me invite Mr Hasanul Haq Inu, member of Parliament and chairman
>> of the standing committee on post and telecommunications from Bangladesh.
>
>
> APPLAUSE>>Hasanul Haq Inu: Thank you very much, Professor.
>
> [ ...] My co-panelists, good morning and good afternoon.
>> I am from Bangladesh and I am a politician, one of the persons who is in a
>> position --people become scared, because when ... for this to close it.
>> So do not get afraid, because the moderator, is in due time I will try
>> to close my mouth and listen to you, because in politics, those
>> politicians are successful when they are good at listening, and those
>> who do not hear, they are bad politicians.
>> The world is governed by bad and good politicians.
>> I am one of them, so I have bad things and good things also.
>> In December 2012 in tube, the ITU Conference is going to be held (Dubai
>> ^).
>> At that Conference they will discuss the governance issue of the
>> Internet, but on thegovernance issues we should be very clear, the
>> governance is ITU and the Internet Governance is very different, but the
>> governance of the Internet is a broad based issue which needs to be
>> addressed properly.
>> In that Conference, I think the government and the multistakeholders will
>> debate onthe jurisdiction of the international Internet.
>> Many governments are also considering the continuation of the existing
>> policy on the Internet.
>> This could signal a shift in the regulatory paradigm on both the
>> international and national levels.
>> Well in 1998 the treaty was adopted by ITU which will be reviewed in that
>> Conference, and some member states may put forward the idea of major
>> changes with respect to the Internet.
>> So we are on the brink of a very interesting debate, and we need to take
>> veryimportant decisions, and there are many proposals floating across the
>> world.
>> One proposal is to develop an oversighting body on the nongovernmental
>> multistakeholder organizations, like i [ ...] ICANN,* there are other
>> proposals **and to bring under ITU the core functions of many organizations
>> and nongovernmentalorganizations like IEEE, ISOC, ICANN, WOCC,
>> particularly with respect to the design of systems infrastructure, the development
>> of protocols and the management of domain numbering associations. *
>
>

> Whether in that Conference or across the worldings we are going to
> determine the appropriate role of the governments in the 21st century.
> These are the things, the proposals from India, and South Africa, they
> are floating aproposal, and Russia, Arabic and other organizations are trying
> to float other proposals, and the Indian, Brazil and South African
> proposal is the committee to -- to develop a committee for Internet
> related policies, CIRP, so these are the proposals.
> [ ...] But the major question is how this world body, [ ...] can
> establish authority over the technical and personal functions of the
> Internet.
> That is the question.
> As you know, access to the Internet and information is a ... of the
> people, unlike most communications media, Internet technology is based on global,
> open and nonproprietary standard and thus do challenge the existing
> regulatory institutions based on national boundaries.
> First is a very broad term, used in many different context -- as plying
> to activity as diverse as operation of technical standard, operation of technical
> infrastructure,development, evolution, [ ...] its activities are not restricted
> to the activities of the government or a world body.
> Many different types of stakeholders have a role in defining and carrying out
> Internet Governance activities.
> In public policy areas, governmental intervention has taken place in
> order to deal with specific issues that might hinder access or use of Internet,
> for example domesticrestrictions are removed by the government to pave
> the way for the entry of IP companies, including allowing IP telephoneo,
> developing ... to connect withsatellites, setting up nationwide local
> call tariffs or flat fees for local Internet dial-up, providing easy market
> entry and interconnections of ISPs.
> Also access for international bandwidth.
> These initial steps have contributed to offering public Internet services.
> Moreover, experience has shown that subsidising basic intrash content and
> skills in terms of access and use can benefit the sectors development.
> Moreover, the governments do have a strong contribution to several critical
> public policy ideas, limited to Internet, such as security, privacy,
> telecommunications policy,universal access, protection, e-commerce and other
> economic issues.
> Besides these governmental roles, the cyberspace and many international
> agencies and other intergovernmental organizations are playing a role in
> Internet Governance, for example ITU, Unesco, other party organizations, organizations
> for economic cooperation and development, OECD, and council of the Asia
> Pacific forum.
> Apart from these, the governments -- the critical Internet resource, CIR,
> cannot function at all, is complicated.
> As you know, the current structure of the ICANN is ... because of this
> relationship with the US Government.
> The Internet's technologycal development as well as administration grew
> overall withlittle government regulatory intervention.
> It developed from the bottom up, plainly by technical developers,
> providers and users.
> The model contrasts with that of telecommunication and broadcasting
> industries, while in many cases top-down national government regulation
> historically guided the structure, the design of the media.
> The technological development and administration of the Internet is
> involved in ensuring that the network is interoperable, functional, stable,
> secure, efficient, as well as capable in the long run.
> No single person, organization, or country manages the Internet.
> Instead, the Internet's tellingcal management is handled by many entities which
> work with a coordinated and open framework, such as IEGF, IEAP,
> governmentalconsortium, consensus driven bottom-up in the field.
> Most of the protocols at the core of the Internet are protocols based on
> open standard that are efficient, trusted and open to global
> implementation with little or no licensing restrictions.
> They are available to anyone, everyone at no cost.
> So here we are now with the governmental bodies, intergovernmental
> organization,national institutions, so we need to develop a consensus on
> dos and don'ts and we need to take care of the don'ts to develop the
> relations, the technical protocols as well as programs.
> Here comes the role of the governmental body.
> The open nature of the Internet needs to be kept and not to be Dibbs turn.
> It will not be wise, from my understanding, that it will not be wise to
> push IEGT,IEAP, WOCC or ICANN or APNIC under ITU or any other body, but
> intergovernmental and governmental bodies can be developed and can
> function in a complimentary way and can have a direct relation.
> So a new multilateral treaty or agreement on certain principles can be
> developed to keep going the functioning of the Internet and promote
> solidarity and cooperation between states and underline the public value
> of the Internet beyond commercialinterests.
> IGF needs to focus on finding a new way of intergovernance, softer
> governance, to define the parameters for the rights of the Internet.
> Having said that, I will come back after listening to you, with the
> national ideas andregional ideas need to be activated and need to be very vibrant,
> to keep going the Internet paradigm.

Thank you very much APPLAUSE>>Rohan Samarajiva: Thank you very much, MrINu
for a comprehensive overview.

*India's views on Internet Governance:*

I would like to invite Mr N Ravi Shanker to make his opening statement.

>>N Ravishanker: Thank you.

At the outset I would like to say that the distinguished panelists have set
> the tone for the session.
> I will only add what I can call flavour from the government side, some
> experience of having participated in several ideas and ICANN meetings
> When we think of Internet and governance as descrint words, we look at Internet
> and trade, the Internet represents free trade, free thought and free world,
> a ... thought process.
> When you look at government as a separate word, you think it controls,
> and you begin to use another word called draconian, so you have draconian
> and somewhere you have to try to put the words for Internet Governance
> and try to say what does Internet Governance mean.
> I think the whole concept of Internet Governance dwelt on the sole issue
> -- yes, thereis a community, there is a community who needs a direction and
> in order to have a direction we need to have principles, protocols -- principles
> and protocols are all what governance is about.
> Whether we like the word governance or not, it is what is important.
> Ultimately, TCP and ICP are all protocols.
> So when we work in the Internet sphere, we have so many technical bodies and
> we evolve standard and we come to a common understanding, yes, we will
> adhere to these standards.
> As a large user community grows, and there are issues that perm yacht
> beyond technical but go into the associate logical realm, that is where governments
> come into play, then you begin to say, well, all aspects of the Internet
> are not technical but there are many aspects of the Internet which are socio-economic
> and associate logic, and governments begin to regulate on these things.
> Often, it is the clash between two sets of ideas or ideologies, technical
> andgovernance related.
> If you look at the broader picture, as the honourable member for
> parliament of ban la desh has mentioned, we move to a situation where legislation
> is brought aboutthrough a process of dialogue and discussion.
> We into to look at Internet Governance from the larger area, that it is
> to foster goodwill and ensure there is a degree of coherence and
> consistency when we deal with these issue.
> Let's look at the bodies that handle Internet Governance.
> We have ICANN, we have APNIC and the various ... and the IGF ICANN
> typically deals with names and numbers and the numbers have been further
> delegated down to the IR, of which APNIC is one such entity in Asia.
> Each one of the bodies, whether it is ICANN or APNIC and other RIRs, work
> under a set of protocols and processes to which they try to govern the
> names and numbers.
> We who have been using the CGDEs and now the ideas variations of [ ...]
> ICT, all of those are something where we have what we can call standard
> protocols.
> Behind the standard protocols are other bodies, union core, WTC and the
> like, all of which refer or relate to saiding up standards through
> conferences and dialogue discourse.
> The whole issue -- I am sure my friend from Google would like to respond
> when those issues come up -- when governments across the globe look in
> their respective spheres as to what should be regulated, and in the
> Indian context, our information technology Act, you look at features or
> aspects which govern society and that which govern society, you try to
> bring about the regulation in order to ensure that within aspeck
> sovereign boundary, you try and delineate what should be allowed and what
> should not be, according to a set of social mores defined in that
> particular soavment this is exactly what we feel the sovereign responsibility
> is in the whole process of legislation, and the government tries to
> create discourse and dialogue in order to bring about what we call legislation
> and a set of rules.
> Whenever there is a new diversion or way in which things work, there is
> always a certain amount of ... but at the end of the day we have to have
> give and take and see each other's point of view.
> I am getting to the point of the ideas per se.
> The idea is a body which has been created in a manner to have open forum, open
> dialogue with multistakeholders.
> Even ICANN and APNIC are also multistakeholders in that respect.
> However, the idea of this multistakeholders in the sense that it has
> industry, academic and society and the government in the process of the
> MAG.
> I would like to dwell upon the way in which the MAG should work, because
> whenthe renewal of the ideas ernetprocess has occurred, we from the
> Government of Indiaarticulated the vie point that while the idea has
> worked well, we feel it should movetowards a new paradigm, being that it should
> have a development orientation and should move in the direction of an outcome
> orientation.
> The development orientation because as one of the developing economies,
> we feel that the Internet and several issues relating to the governance
> and related aspects would be only when it has some socio-economic growth
> and inclusiveness into it.
> That is why, when we hosted the third IGF in India at Hider be a add, we called
> it Internet for all, and the idea of Internet for all was inclusive
> growth.
> Subsequently, the chairman at Vilnius also adopted that, and the movement
> has been towards the development paradigm, rather than any other
> contentious issues of theInternet.
> There are two tracks in the idea, one is the enhanced cooperation and
> another is what is called implements of idea.
> We have articulated views for the implement of the idea, but the enhancedcooperation,
> we feel certain aspects which are falling under the domain of theUNSCD
> should move to such a platform, so that the bodies can discuss the public
> policy issues.
> Today there is no such entity or committee which can do that, [ ...] and
> many of theissues which have been mentioned by the [ ...]-on member of
> parliament from Bangladesh, we need to talk on public policy issues, for
> which we need an outcome orientation and this would help us look at it as
> a committee of nations, in order to move toward commonality of thought
> and purpose.
> I would like to leave it at this and thank the panel for giving me the
> opportunity to express my vie point.

Thank you >>Rohan Samarajiva: I would like to invite Mr Paul Wilson,
Director General of APNIC, to make his openings comments.

>

>
> Session in progress.
>
> http://meetings.apnic.net/33/remote
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M
> ISOC India Chennai
> http://isocindiachennai.org
>
>
> facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG
> LinkedIn:  goo.gl/eUt7s
> Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a
> http://internetstudio.in/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120229/36908bb6/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