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@one2net.co.ug> wrote: From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb@one2net.co.ug> Subject: Re: [kictanet] "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'" <kictanet@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@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+ntegeb=one2net.co.ug@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of alice@apc.org Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 7:23 PM To: ntegeb@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@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: ntegeb@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@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com