[kictanet] "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power

Wed Oct 13 14:17:57 EAT 2010

Badru,

I understand where ITU is coming from; they have been
relevant since the traditional telephone was created in the late
1880s.  But now that you can make telephone calls (and other things)
via the internet, ITU has been left holding a "shell" so to speak.  To
remain relevant they must find space in the Internet Governance System...

And that is where the "culture-clash" is happening. The current Internet Governance System (ICANN,
IGF, IETF, RIRs etc) is build on a "bottom-up" approach that is so
alien to the ITU (top-bottom) approach.  Internet has grown because of
"rough"-consensus from the various loosely interconnected stakeholders
playing at the "edge"/"grassroot".  ITU would love to change that to a
centralist, top-bottom approach...with itself ofcourse at the top -
calling the shots - unilaterally as it has always done over the last
100yrs.

Unfortunately, as you rightly put
it, ITU has managed to rally serious governments on its side to drive
this agenda - under the pretext that the internet would be safer if it
were under one central(read "governments" through ITU ) control. 
Whereas this maybe debatable, my take is that it may not be the true
reason for ITU's push to get into the internet space...

I can
say alot on this but I dont want to hog the space for the current MJs
thread...so am out for now but must say add that this a hot
international debate that each government must carefully examine by
asking which is more beneficial  - Internet under a "multi-stakeholder"
environment or Internet under a centralized, unilateral environment? 

walu.
--- On Fri, 10/8/10, Badru Ntege <ntegeb at one2net.co.ug> wrote:

From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb at one2net.co.ug>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power
To: jwalu at yahoo.com
Cc: "'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Date: Friday, October 8, 2010, 9:02 PM

Interesting  The struggle for the control of the internet continues.  I'm
worried that this time they ITU( governments) have strategically regrouped
and might actually make some progress.  

The problem is do they understand the beast they are trying to reign in??
I'm not a proponent of "if it aint broken don't fix it"  but I still do not
see what positive value the world will get by replacing the GAC with a
private (closed) club of bureaucratic technocrats.  

Maybe it's just me someone help me out here and show me the light.

regards  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kictanet-bounces+ntegeb=one2net.co.ug at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+ntegeb=one2net.co.ug at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On
> Behalf Of alice at apc.org
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 7:23 PM
> To: ntegeb at one2net.co.ug
> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> Subject: [kictanet] "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power
> 
> "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Murphy, October 6, 2010, 13:14:29 (UTC), Domain Policy
> 
> The ruling body of the International Telecommunications Union this week
> kicked off a major policy-making meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, and
> has already seen the US and Russia taking opposing stances over the
> future control of ICANN.
> 
> 
> 
> A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation's
> Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should
> give itself veto power over ICANN decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of
> Communications (RCC) calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory
> Committee to be scrapped and replaced by an ITU group.
> 
> 
> 
> Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions
> of GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the
> authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If
> it is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to
> consult ICANN on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> The proposal was first noted by Gregory Francis at CircleID.
> 
> 
> 
> It says that the GAC is currently the only avenue open to governments
> to "defend their interests" but that it has "no decision-making
> authority and can do no more than express its wishes".
> 
> 
> 
> It also notes that fewer than 50% of nations are members of the GAC,
> and that only 20% or fewer actually participate in GAC meetings.
> 
> 
> 
> The proposal was apparently submitted to the ongoing ITU
> Plenipotentiary Conference but, in contrast to ICANN's policy of
> transparency, many ITU documents are only accessible to its members.
> 
> 
> 
> A reader was kind enough to send me text extracted from the document.
> I've been unable to verify its authenticity, but I've no particular
> reason to believe it's bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> The RCC was set up in 1991 to increase cooperation between
> telecommunications and postal operators in the post-Soviet era. Its
> board is comprised of communications ministers from a dozen nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Its position on ICANN appears to be also held by the Russian
> government. Igor Shchegolev, its communications minister, is chair of
> the RCC board.
> 
> 
> 
> At the Plenipotentiary on Tuesday, Shechegolev said (via Google
> Translate):
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that the ITU is capable of such tasks to international
> public policy, Internet governance, its development and finally,
> protection of interests of countries in ICANN.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the US has committed itself to the multi-stakeholder model
> of internet governance as embodied by ICANN. The State Department's
> Philip Verveer told the conference:
> 
> 
> 
> the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is
> fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably
> successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements.
> Changes, especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are
> likely to impair the dynamism of the Internet-something we all have an
> interest in avoiding.
> 
> 
> 
> ICANN itself has no formal presence at the Plenipotentiary, after ITU
> secretary-general Hamadoun Toure turned down a request by ICANN
> president Rod Beckstrom for observer status.
> 
> 
> 
> The conference carries on until October 22. It's likely that we haven't
> heard the last of the anti-ICANN rhetoric."
> 
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerryR smartphone from Zain Kenya
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 
> This message was sent to: ntegeb at one2net.co.ug
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ntegeb%40one2net.c
> o.ug

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: jwalu at yahoo.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20101013/bdce68a9/attachment.htm>