Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

The trouble is, Marilyn, that ICANN is accountable to neither Governments
nor individuals, but only to the US Government. This is not an adequate
basis for the future development of an Internet for the whole world.

Particularly not, in a world where the United States has a
take-it-or-leave-it attitude to the United Nations.

Particularly not, in a world where the United States exercises economic
supremacy for its own interests.

The ITU may or may not have more to offer than this Californian quango, but
in the end the sovereign governments of the world may legitimately accuse
ICANN and USG of lack of accountability, and seek alternatives where all
participating nations have as much influence as the US.

You refer to lack of democratic voting mechanisms within the ITU - but make
no reference to ICANN's rejection of democratic voting mechanisms for the At
Large. Just about everything to do with ICANN is autocratic, top-down, and
controlled - paying lip-service to participation but in effect affording DoC
and USG continued oversight of DNS administration.

Until a truly multi-national model is adopted, with ICANN accountable to a
body *other* than DoC / USG, the control of the DNS is "captured" and the
impression of imperialism / supremacy is re-inforced.

Alternatively a User-democracy model needs to be developed, with or without
the help of bodies with more international status than ICANN.

What is *not* acceptable or satisfactory is the present ICANN model, where
ICANN Directors owe no accountability to the international community or
international users, and can retain their control as long as they carry out
their primary function, which is to provide USG with continued oversight and
control of the DNS.

Key Questions: "Why should it have such oversight and control? Why shouldn't
oversight and control (and accountability) be transferred to another body
which more fully represents the interests of other nations and their
individual users?"


Richard Henderson


----- Original Message -----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP <mcade@att.com>
To: <richard.hill@itu.int>; <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments
on proposed Bylaws modifications)


> Richard, I read your response to Marc Scheiders, which seems to be an
explanation of the ITU's operations
> and functional responsibilities, and suggest that there is a need for
clarification in a few areas.  You are undoubtedly describing part of the
activities of the ITU, but for those who are not fully informed of its core
mission and responsibilities, it may not be actually factually helpful since
it omits so much in your undoubtedly very well intentioned effort to be
brief.
>
> I suggest, for instance: the use of the word "no cost" in regard to
services available...
>
> First, for the record, AT&T is a sector member of the ITU, and greatly
values its role in telephony and related convergence issues and areas. I've
said this publicly many times, and do want it clear that we are strong
supporters of the role of the ITU in its areas of core competency. However,
we are also involved in other organizations mentioned in your email, and I
suggest that it is possible that some may misunderstand some of the comments
you made.
>
> First, you seem to be saying that there is "no charge" for some of the
services of the ITU :-) This could imply "free".  I think you mean that the
particular service is subsidized by member fees and that there is not a
specific charge for it. BUT, your comment could imply that the service is
"free" and indeed that the workshops are "free".  Your careful use of the
words "no charge" are factual. All services of the ITU, like services of any
organization, are paid for by someone.
>
> It's important to be clear.  All who read your response should understand
that "no charge" does not mean "free" but that the core budget of the ITU
bears the subsidy.  And that of course, with the financial status of the ITU
and indeed all organizations and even corporations these days, changes may
occur in the ability to provide such subsidies.  Some may not be familiar
with the ITU's financing, nor its reliance on unit contributions by
countries, and sector member fees, etc. Nor, perhaps fully informed of the
rather substantial budget shortfall faced by the ITU, as described at the
ITU Plenipot '02.  The Council of ITU is charged with addressing this
substantial -- as I recall, somewhere around $23m sf -- budget shortfall and
determining how to address this.  The financial stability of the ITU was a
significant focus of the ITU Plenipot '02, as all know who kept up to date
by reading the excellent announcements by the ITU staff on the ITU site
which described the work of the!
>  Plenipot '02.
>
> Secondly, while you are describing some of the ways in which the ITU
interacts with interested parties, via workshops, forums, etc., you made no
mention of the way that voting takes place in the governing bodies of the
ITU. The description below didn't include a factual portrayal of how
decisions are actually taken in the policy bodies and treaty conferences by
the member states of the ITU, where, of course, only member nations vote and
where the sector members or observers have no to extremely limited presence
or voice. And, again, at Plenipot '02 significant discussion did take place
by member nations regarding whether there should be any change in the
ability of sector members to participate more directly.
>
> Perhaps it is more helpful to be clear that your response below seems to
focus primarily if not solely on the workshops
> and forums which the ITU hosts, and does such a good job of providing in a
variety of areas related to telephony and
> convergence, and international standards in those areas.  Again, as you
state, the costs for sponsoring these are borne by the ITU core budget
[supported by unit fees to member nations and sector member fees], and  no
registration fees for attendance are charged.
>
> Folks on this list have a wide range of familiarity with the ITU, and its
core purposes.  You and I have discussed this many times, and you and I are
in agreement that the concerned parties related to the coordination of the
technical aspects of the global Internet do not work at the ITU on these
issues. There are many reasons for that, of course.
>
> And, of course, there are working relationships between some of the groups
where this work is underway and various entities of the ITU, where there may
be convergence issues or the need for coordination.
>
> Of important acknowledgement, with the support of the GAC, and the wide
set of global private sector parties, many do work at ICANN.  I think it
very important to note to all that the ITU is a member of the GAC at ICANN
and has a significant influence and voice in the role of governments and
itself through that participation.
>
> Perhaps it is useful to note for the GA list that the GNSO council in fact
recently voted strong support for a resolution, which restated the Council's
support for the role of governments, and multi-lateral inter-governmental
organizations, such as the ITU, WIPO, and others, to work effectively and
supportively of ICANN via the GAC. This resolution was forwarded by Council
to the ITU workshop just held as a contribution and is available both on the
GNSO council site, and on the ITU's site as a workshop contribution. As a
member of Council, I was pleased to support that resolution and its
contributing to the Workshop.
>
> However, Richard, I do wish to call your attention to a concern I have
with your email below. You rely on telephony examples in how you explain the
role of the ITU via telephony and related convenience examples. This is
quite appropriate, because the ITU is and has been such a significant
contributor in the international standards areas of telephony and in working
to bring teledensity to developing economies, through the important work of
the D sector.  And, of course, the important work of the R Sector is well
known and well respected, as is the T Sector's role in international
telecommunications standards. However, you seem to imply [perhaps I
misunderstand] that this extrapolates to the Internet.
>
> I am not sure that your efforts to extrapolate from telephony into the
Internet are quite a "fit". I know that it is often done for expediency sake
particularly by those more comfortable with the telephony world or even as a
means to try to bridge the two worlds.  I fear that relying on explaining
the Internet from a telephony perspective does in fact a disservice to not
only users, but policy makers. All of us should strive for new and better
analogies, while respecting the concerns and experiences of others. And
since I trust that you truly want to be helpful in "decoding" some of these
issues, I suggest that this is a mutual challenge, and that we should all
strive for better analogies, rather than relying on extrapolations from
telephony.
>
> A better approach for all would be to continue to talk about the Internet
technical coordination, where the private sector has been the lead, not
governments, and not governmental entities. And, to start from and continue
from that perspective, and to discuss the important, even critically
important, supportive role of governments and intergovernmental
organizations in advisory and supportive activities.
>
> I continue to hope that the ITU will participate in a supportive manner in
support of ICANN, through the
> GAC. Certainly the resolution passed by GNSO Council and forwarded to the
just past ITU Workshop endorsed strong
> support for that participation by the ITU in the GAC, and in support of
ICANN. Accordingly, I trust that you will attend the ICANN meeting at Rio
and look forward to seeing you there.
>
> Finally, I offer one point, which others more expert than I must validate.
My understanding is that at the IETF, that one participates as an
individual, and that in fact, all documents are publicly available. Of
course, at the ITU, there are both public documents, and then, there are the
documents which are available under subscription as a member. And, of
course, during the course of treaty conferences, many documents are not
available at all until they are finalized.... One simply shouldn't confuse
the ITU, a treaty organization, with the responsibilities of such an
organization and the realities of its treaty responsibilities, with any
other kind of organization. Probably in your interest of being brief and
concise in your communication below, some of that wasn't clear. But I trust
that it was an effort by you to support the ITU's work at the GAC in support
of ICANN.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marilyn Cade


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html