RE: [governance] RE: [Ecommerce] ICC Seeks U.N. Takeover While Excluding ICANN, U.S. Government from Meeting

["William Drake" <wdrake@xxxxxxxx>]

Wolfgang,

Thanks for the info.  But I don't really see how this is different from what
I said.  Under their proposal as you describe it, the TF would be used to
discuss the issues and maybe make some nonbinding recommendations, not
become some sort of permanent bureaucracy with oversight of ICANN as was
reported in the IHT.

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter [mailto:wolfgang@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 11:13 AM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: New, William; Rutkowski, Tony; essential ecom; General Assembly of
> the DNSO; Anriette Esterhuysen; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [Ecommerce] ICC Seeks U.N. Takeover While
> Excluding ICANN, U.S. Government from Meeting
>
>
> I was with the Press Conference where Cattaui and Al Ghazaleh talked
> about ICANN and had also a talk to Cattaui later. My interpretation is
> different. After the IHT report from Tuesday, Al Ghazaleh was more
> specific, moving a little bit backwards and saying that the UN ICT TF
> meeting end of March in NY could be used to discuss the issue, not to
> put the new group under the TF. One could imagine, that the TF is used
> a springboard to something new. In the shadow of an existing group
> nobody would start a big discussion about composition or so and then it
> can grow bottom up. Another option is to have no formal group but, as
> the resolution says, an open process with a small facilitating team
> which summarizes and structures reports from discussions.
>
> Best
>
> wolfgang
>
> On lørdag, dec 20, 2003, at 10:35 Europe/Copenhagen, William Drake
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > William, thanks for the additional background.  As always, good stuff.
> >
> > I'm a bit surprised that Cattaui went ahead and publicly endorsed the
> > notion
> > that the UN working group should be under the UNICT TF.  The issue is
> > still
> > unresolved, so some governments may not welcome business' preemptive
> > intervention endorsing a particular solution while they are still
> > sorting
> > things out.  Since there is no obvious cost or benefit to the private
> > sector
> > in doing it this way rather than as a separate body under Anan's
> > auspices,
> > one suspects this was a gesture to her colleague Abu-Ghazaleh.  If
> > there's
> > one thing WSIS demonstrates, it's that it's reasonably easy to make
> > gestures
> > when the stakes are low.
> >
> > Anyway, your reportage seems consistent with what I said other day.
> > She
> > endorsed the UNICT TF for multistakeholder "discussions" about
> > governance
> > issues but insists that "businesses do not seek the creation of a new
> > organization to oversee the Internet," and that "The ICC does not
> > support
> > any kind of governance issue being put into any kind of
> > intergovernmental
> > hands."  ANY kind might be a bit strong, but the position is clear
> > enough to
> > put an end to the speculation about ICC's position that started this
> > thread.
> > ICC is NOT calling for the UNICT TF to have operational "oversight" of
> > ICANN, as Jennifer Schenker of the International Herald Tribune
> > reported.
> >
> > The press coverage of WSIS has been pretty bad, entirely fixated on
> > controversies (to be expected) but often sloppy on important details.
> > Having sat through five weeks of preparatory meetings it's not obvious
> > to me
> > how many of the reporters running around screaming "IMMINENT UN
> > TAKEOVER OF
> > THE INTERNET!!" could have actually sat through the plenaries and
> > working
> > groups and carefully digested the various positions being staked out,
> > the
> > different coalitions being formed, and the prospects for anything
> > really
> > happening.  It's clear that there are a bunch of developing countries,
> > plus
> > China and France, that want to talk about the need to put in place
> > intergovernmental rules for a host of issues that fall under the
> > rubric of
> > Internet/ICT governance, and it also seems clear that for better or
> > worse,
> > no such thing will happen without the support of the US, other key OECD
> > governments, and the private sector.  So we'll have some lengthy
> > debates in
> > the working group and WSIS that will hopefully be constructive rather
> > than
> > just dumb, and maybe some shifts and compromises on the way certain
> > issues
> > are managed, but I wouldn't expect a cosmic battle of Wagnerian
> > proportions
> > that results in ECOSOC deciding how TLDs should be managed etc.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bill Drake
> >
> >>
> >>> Hi, this is William New, reporter at Tech Daily. I attended WSIS and
> >>> reported on Abu-Ghazaleh proposal and directly as Catuai her
> >> position. This
> >>> is reported in several stories in Tech Daily from last week,
> >> one of which I
> >>> included below. I'm not sure how to put it on the listserve but
> >> feel free to
> >>> do so if it's helpful.
> >>>
> >>> NATIONAL JOURNAL'S TECHNOLOGY DAILY
> >>> 12-10-2003
> >>>
> >>> International: U.S. Announces $400 Million For Overseas Tech
> >>> Investment
> >>>
> >>> GENEVA--The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a
> >> U.S. agency
> >>> that insures private-sector investment in risky countries, announced
> >>> Wednesday that it would establish a $400 million support facility to
> >>> encourage U.S investment in the telecommunications and information
> >>> technology sectors of emerging markets.
> >>>
> >>> The announcement comes a day after a gritty compromise was reached by
> >>> negotiators here at the World Summit on the Information Society to
> >>> study
> >>> the issue of whether a new global development fund for information
> >>> and
> >>> communications technology is needed. The United States had resisted
> >>> the
> >>> developing country proposal for a new fund, preferring instead to
> >>> strengthen existing funds.
> >>>
> >>> In a press briefing Wednesday, OPIC President and CEO Peter Watson
> >>> said
> >>> the new money is "part of an ongoing effort" to fund ICT
> >>> development.
> >>>
> >>> Debate also resurfaced Wednesday over Internet governance, as
> >>> International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) President Maria Cattaui
> >>> publicly
> >>> endorsed a proposal to designate the U.N. Information and
> >>> Communications
> >>> Technology Task Force for multi-stakeholder discussions about
> >>> governance
> >>> issues.
> >>>
> >>> Cattaui said in a press briefing that the responsibility for
> >> the directory
> >>> of Internet domain names held by the Internet Corporation for
> >>> Assigned
> >>> Names and Numbers (ICANN) is separate from the emerging
> >> governance issues
> >>> such as criminality, intellectual property and security.
> >>>
> >>> She argued that the Internet is a "unique" mix of public and private
> >>> components operated in a cooperative, not dictated, way. For
> >> instance, the
> >>> basic protocols of the Internet are not owned by anyone, "they are
> >>> just
> >>> there," and therefore a public good, she said.
> >>>
> >>> Cattaui emphasized that businesses do not seek the creation of a new
> >>> organization to oversee the Internet, but rather a platform for
> >>> discussion. "It is premature to talk about an organization," she
> >>> said.
> >>> Cattaui also stressed that there is no parallel for the Internet to
> >>> telecommunications networks.
> >>>
> >>> The proposal was made in response to the weekend agreement by WSIS
> >>> negotiators to form a group to study Internet governance over the
> >>> coming
> >>> year. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, vice chairman of the U.N. ICT Task Force,
> >>> who
> >>> made the proposal in question, stressed that he does not wish
> >> to criticize
> >>> the United States.
> >>>
> >>> "We all owe a great debt to the United States of America for giving
> >>> us
> >>> this great gift," he said in the briefing. "That said, this
> >> great American
> >>> gift needs to be internationalized."
> >>>
> >>> Cattuai said in an interview, "The ICC does not support any kind of
> >>> governance issue being put into any kind of intergovernmental
> >> hands." With
> >>> ICANN President Paul Twomey sitting nearby, Cattuai praised ICANN's
> >>> work
> >>> to bring various constituencies together to focus on the domain name
> >>> system. But ICANN is not expected to deal with standards and
> >>> protocols,
> >>> which should be left in the hands of existing technical and
> >>> engineering
> >>> organizations, she said.
> >>>
> >>> Cattuai and Twomey agreed separately that they would not seek to
> >>> expand
> >>> ICANN's mission to cover emerging governance issues. "We are not
> >>> looking
> >>> to expand our charter," Twomey said in an interview. Cattuai
> >> said she did
> >>> not expect a decision on the working group at this week's meeting.
> >>>
> >>> by William New
> >>>
> >>> National Journal's Technology Daily
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:07 PM
> >>> To: William Drake
> >>> Cc: john bolk; ecommerce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann board address;
> >>> General Assembly of the DNSO; Paul Twomey
> >>> Subject: Re: [Ecommerce] ICC Seeks U.N. Takeover While Excluding
> >>> ICANN,
> >>> U.S. Government from Meeting
> >>>
> >>> William and all,
> >>>
> >>>   I also have no idea of exactly what Abu-Ghazaleh said to anyone
> >>> other
> >>> than what has been reported to me form trusted INEGroup folks that
> >>> were in attendance.  It is clear enough to me and our members, that
> >>> some factions loyal to the UN and/or are associated closely with the
> >>> UN
> >>> that a desire to do a power grab by one of more UN organizations
> >>> is factual.  It is also clear to me and almost all of our members
> >>> that ICANN's leadership from it's very beginnings is less than
> >>> adequate or responsible to ALL stakeholders/users, either
> >>> commercially oriented or not.
> >>>
> >>>   As such it if logical to consider either dismantling ICANN
> >>> as it is currently or have all of its current BoD and staff members
> >>> resign and hold elections where any and all stakeholders/users
> >>> of interest or interested parties elect whom they wish to assume
> >>> ICANN's duties as outlined in the White paper and MoU.
> >>>
> >>> William Drake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I of course don't know what Talal Abu-Ghazaleh actually said
> >> to Jennifer
> >>>> Schenker of the International Herald Tribune, or how she
> >> understood it.
> >>> But
> >>>> in her article she has him proposing that ICANN should be
> >> "placed under
> >>> the
> >>>> umbrella" of and subject to the "oversight" of the UN's ICT
> >> Task Force, of
> >>>> which he is Vice Chair.  This implies that the Task Force
> >> would have some
> >>>> sort of actual authority over ICANN on an ongoing basis.
> >> Hence, we now
> >>> have
> >>>> people speculating here about a UN power grab with corporate
> >>>> backing.
> >>> This
> >>>> would be a rather strange bedfellows scenario.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, if this is really what Abu-Ghazaleh told Schenker or what
> >>>> he
> >>>> proposed in the Dec. 9 private meeting, it is not what he has said
> >>>> in
> >>>> public.  For example, in his plenary speech at WSIS
> >>>> http://businessatwsis.net/mainpages/position/policy/tag.php  he
> >>>> merely
> >>>> stated that, "The UN ICT TF provides a dynamic
> >> multi-stakeholders forum to
> >>>> debate issues concerning the Internet as called for by the Prepcom
> >>>> resolution. ICANN performed well under its mandate. What is not in
> >>>> its
> >>>> mandate is yet to be addressed."  Similarly, on the ICC site
> >> (he chairs
> >>> the
> >>>> ICC's E-Business IT & Telecom Commission), his proposal is
> >> described as a
> >>>> suggestion that the TF could be "a platform for future discussions"
> >>>> on
> >>>> Internet governance, and he is quoted as saying that there should be
> >>>> continuing "operational management of the internet under
> >> private sector
> >>>> leadership, driven by the dynamics of business."
> >>>>
> >> http://www.iccwbo.org/home/news_archives/2003/stories/tag.asp.   Also
> >> on
> >>> the
> >>>> ICC site, one finds a piece from Dec. 10 called "Don't
> >> sidetrack ICANN is
> >>>> business plea"
> >>>>
> >> http://www.iccwbo.org/home/news_archives/2003/stories/icann.asp in
> >> which
> >>> he
> >>>> states that "companies engaged in e-commerce wanted to preserve the
> >>> existing
> >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers," and ICC
> >> Secretary
> >>>> General Maria Livanos Cattaui warns "against proposals to
> >> replace ICANN
> >>> with
> >>>> any intergovernmental organization to manage root servers,
> >> domain names
> >>> and
> >>>> address assignments."  And in the "The final business
> >>>> statement--WSIS
> >>>> Geneva,"
> >>>>
> >> http://www.iccwbo.org/home/news_archives/2003/stories/wsis_final.asp
> >> the
> >>>> Honorary Chair of ICC, Richard McCormick, told the plenary
> >> that the notion
> >>>> of Internet governance is an oxymoron and that the net should remain
> >>> subject
> >>>> to private coordination.
> >>>>
> >>>> This all seems rather different from the IHT account.  Anyone who
> >>>> has
> >>>> participated in its meetings knows that as currently
> >> constituted the TF is
> >>>> in no position to exercise oversight over ICANN or anything else; on
> >>> policy
> >>>> matters, it's mostly just a floating, open forum, and it has
> >> a very tiny
> >>>> support staff.  Making it an operating entity with authority
> >> would be a
> >>> huge
> >>>> step that governments are highly unlikely to take; indeed,
> >> mention of the
> >>> TF
> >>>> was removed from the WSIS texts.  So my guess is that he was simply
> >>>> proposing that the working group governments decided to set
> >> up at WSIS be
> >>>> under the ICT TF.  We know that as an input to the next stage
> >> of WSIS, the
> >>>> working group is supposed to discuss questions like what is Internet
> >>>> governance and what public policy dimensions might require
> >> international
> >>>> frameworks.  But what form the WG will take is very much up
> >> in the air.
> >>> The
> >>>> governments and Kofi Anan could decide to connect it to the TF or
> >>> separately
> >>>> constitute a group of luminaries or follow a more constituency-based
> >>> model;
> >>>> only time will tell.
> >>>>
> >>>> If my guess is wrong and Abu-Ghazaleh actually did suggest that the
> >>>> TF
> >>>> should acquire operational authority, from the ICC statements
> >> above I'd
> >>>> guess further that he was speaking entirely on his own
> >> without clearing it
> >>>> with private sector colleagues.   Perhaps someone who has seen his
> >>> proposal
> >>>> or talked to him could clarify.  Either way it doesn't
> >> matter, the UNICT
> >>> TF
> >>>> seems unlikely to be in charge of anything more than a discussion,
> >>>> if
> >>> that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Bill Drake
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: ecommerce-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [mailto:ecommerce-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of john bolk
> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 12:04 AM
> >>>>> To: Jeff Williams
> >>>>> Cc: ecommerce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann board address;
> >> General Assembly
> >>>>> of the DNSO; Paul Twomey
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Ecommerce] ICC Seeks U.N. Takeover While
> >> Excluding ICANN,
> >>>>> U.S. Government from Meeting
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> >>>>> The really interesting thing about the ICC WSIS proposal is that
> >>>>> ICC represents many big US companies such as AT&T, Microsoft,
> >>>>> Boeing, Oracle, Verizon, AOL, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With big US companies supporting the proposal to let the UN ICT
> >>>>> Task Force take over ICANN's responsibilities it looks like
> >>>>> things could change soon.  Not sure I understand why a buzz org
> >>>>> would like governments to govern the Internet though?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The proposal was stated again by an ICC official at WSIS today:
> >>>>> http://businessatwsis.net/mainpages/position/policy/tag.php
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://businessatwsis.net/mainpages/media/press/news.php?news_id=15
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> John and all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not surprised to here of the unfortunate forcible removal of
> >>> ICANN's
> >>>>> CEO Mr. Twomey's removal form this UN ICC meeting. As ICANN has
> >>>>> snubbed many stakeholder groups including ICC and INEGroup amongst
> >>>>> many others form it's terribly flawed "Reform" process started by
> >>>>> the former
> >>>>> ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn, and finalized by Mr. Twomey. The
> >> much discussed
> >>>>> and debated ICANN Cabel has led it to growing disdain on global
> >>>>> basis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However all this aside, it is also obvious that from earlier
> >>>>> reports that the
> >>>>> US is not interested nor willing to consider a major Role
> >> of the UN or
> >>>>> any UN agency to play a significant management role for managing
> >>>>> the central aspects of the Internet, nor determine policy there
> >>>>> unto
> >>>>> pertaining.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ICANN was warned time and time again of the "error in its ways"
> >>>>> as far back as 1999, and either ignored such warnings unwisely
> >>>>> or did not have the intellectual capacity by which to address these
> >>>>> many and repeated warning adequately and as such has served
> >>>>> to divide stakeholders/users rather than act as a catalyst to
> >>>>> unite them...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> john bolk wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> >>>>>> CircleID, Dec 09, 2003
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ICC Seeks U.N. Takeover While Excluding ICANN, U.S. Government
> >>>>> from Meeting
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> An organization which purports to be "the voice of world
> >>>>> business" is proposing a de facto U.N. takeover of ICANN. The
> >>>>> proposal by a senior official of the International Chamber of
> >>>>> Commerce (ICC) would place ICANN under the U.N. umbrella and give
> >>>>> a strong role to U.N. agencies and to various national
> >>>>> governments, including those that suppress free speech and free
> >>>>> enterprise. In a move of breathtaking arrogance, the ICC refused
> >>>>> to even invite ICANN or U.S. government representatives to the
> >>>>> meeting at which they are presenting their proposal. As reported
> >>>>> here by Jennifer Schenker:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Paul Twomey, the president of the Internet's semi-official
> >>>>> governing body, Icann, learned Friday night what it feels like to
> >>>>> be an outsider. Mr. Twomey, who had flown 20 hours from Vietnam
> >>>>> to Geneva to observe a preparatory meeting for this week's United
> >>>>> Nations' conference on Internet issues, ended up being escorted
> >>>>> from the meeting room by guards. The officials running the
> >>>>> meeting had suddenly decided to exclude outside observers. Mr.
> >>>>> Twomey's ejection may underscore the resentment of many members
> >>>>> of the international community over the way the Internet is run
> >>>>> and over United States ownership of many important Internet
> >>>>> resources. Although Mr. Twomey is Australian, Icann - the
> >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - is a
> >>>>> powerful nonprofit group established by the United States
> >>>>> government in 1998 to oversee various technical coordination
> >>>>> issues for the global network. Icann and the United States
> >>>>> government are expected to come under heavy fire at the conference,
> >>>>>  which
> >>>>>> begins Wednesday in Geneva and will be one of the largest
> >>>>> gatherings of high-level government officials, business leaders
> >>>>> and nonprofit organizations to discuss the Internet's future."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any proposal or process for overhauling ICANN's governance that
> >>>>> excludes key stakeholders is a major step backwards for the goals
> >>>>> of openness and transparency. Furthermore, for a business group
> >>>>> to propose giving a strong role in managing the infrastructure of
> >>>>> the international information economy to the United Nations, an
> >>>>> organization best known for unwieldily, costly, ineffective, and
> >>>>> unaccountable bureaucracies, is downright strange. Corporations
> >>>>> that contribute to the ICC may want to reconsider how best to use
> >>>>> their shareholder's resources.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.circleid.com/article/394_0_1_0_C/
> >>>>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > governance mailing list
> > governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >
>
>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance