AW: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)

Sat May 23 07:17:27 EDT 2015

Hi

this history is more complex and goes back to the ITU Kyodo Plenipot (1994) and Jon Postels idea to have an IAHC under (his) control via IANA but with WIPO, INTA and ITU participation (1995). The ITU (under Butler and Pekka Tarjanne)realized in the early 1990s, that the end of UNESCO´s NWICO debate (with the Windhoek Declaration in 1991) created an empty space. The "technical" ITU became surprinsingly a champion for the "Right to Communicate" (RTC). Pekka Tarjanne came to the PTC Conference in Honolulu and addressed the MacBride Round Table in Global Communication in 1993 (alongside with Johan Galtung, Cees Hamelink, Kaarle Nordenstreng and others) to support the RTC. In Kyodo in 1994, ITU became a pioneer by opening the door of an intergovernmental organisation to non-governmental stakeholders, so-called private sector members. Those members got a voice (but no vote) and it was a first step into a direction which is called today "multistakeholder". BTW, the fee for private sector membership was so high that it excluded any NGO, academic  or civil society organisation. 

But while Tarjanne was succesful in opening the door to private sector members (with the support of the USG), he failed to get a green light for a "World Communication Conference". This was watered down in Kyodo (1994)to what later became the "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF) which took place since that sporadicly every four or five years (the last one was in Geneva in May 2013). And indeed it was the USG who was behind this watering down. They feared a reopening of the UNESCO-NWICO debate under the ITU umbrella. 

But when Jon Postel and others signed the IAHC new gTLD MoU in May 1997 the constellation was different when ITU had its next Plenipot in Minneapolis in 1998. For the USG to keep the DNS management outside of the UN System was more important than to block another "talking shop". The outcome is known: The IAHC new gTLD MoU was not ratified by the Minneapolis PP. The resolutions 101 and 102 reduced the ITU role in DNS Management drastically. But in another resolution the Minneapolis PP opened the door for a feasability study with regard to a "world conference". This was the start for what later became WSIS. The study recommended in 1999 to have the proposed conference under the UN. The UNGA adopted a resolution in 2001 and did invite the ITU to do the practical work. ITU was happy about the additional functions. It was fighting with budget problems and was looking for an extended mandate and new business. So it worked for the ITU. The ITU (under Utsumi) presented itself as the real "masters of the WSIS game". UNGIS was established only later. The WSIS PrepCom Badges had always the ITU Logo. The main subject for WSIS was bridging the digital divide. But the ITU used the regional PrepComs between PrepCom1 (2002) and PrepCom2 (June 2003) to include Internet Governance into the list of issues with the aim get back what they "lost" in Minneapolis. We know the rest of the story: WGIG, IGF, Enhanced Cooperation, WSIS 10+? 

BTW, four weeks before the Minneapolis conference Jon Postel defended the draft of the ICANN bylaws in the US congress and he distanced himself from the IAHC. And ICANN was formally established ten days after the end of the Minneapolis conference in Cambridge. Postel died in November 1998. ICANN 1 took place in February 1999.

Wolfgang

On May 23, 2015 7:53 AM, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday 22 May 2015 08:01 PM, jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>
>> Dear Michael and all
>>
>>
>>
>> The "original sin" of WSIS was the decision of UNGA (or UN-ECOSOC?) to
entrust the ITU the management/oordination of a "society centered" high
level and global event. ITU hasn't got any capacity in societal issues and
this was fairly known by all (except the UN HQ ? :-)
>
>
>
> Of course it was known to everyone. It was the US that insisted it be the
ITU and not UNESCO, which due to its social expertise in info issues was a
natural contender. You can read about this bit of history in Sean O
Siochru's 'Will the real WSIS please stand up?'
http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/66/3-4/203.abstract  .
>
> Why, because US was still cut up with UNESCO over NWICO issues and did
not want WSIS to begin stirring up those fires again - basically, not bring
up issues like communication rights and stuff....

Ha! I only vaguely suspected that the whole setup had something to do with
the after-NWICO universe, that the drama that subsequently played out
(around communication rights and then Internet governance) wasn't just an
afterthought, an unforeseen collateral effect. Well, good to know now.

Mawaki
>

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