[APAC-Discuss] Beijing meeting - your input

Sat Jan 12 16:16:56 UTC 2013

Dear Holly,

The issue I am pointing out is clear from your response. These are more
broad debates well suited for discussions at IGF, G8, G77, D8, SAARC, Arab
League, EU, CoE, African Union, Eurodig, Arab IGF, Pacific IGF, African
OECD, APrIGF, NATO, and all those other settings and multilateral or
regional treaty organizations.

ICANN is not a multilateral treaty organization and it has a GAC that ALAC
can directly talk about on these issues through a joint meeting and you
will be able to gauge how much people at ICANN are concerned or bothered
about it.

WCIT will be well discussed during the APrIGF and that's where it will have
an impact. If you do desire, a 45 minute session could be dedicated to
which a least bothered gathering will just listen to one or two people that
had nothing to do with WCIT or their countries did not even sign the ITRs.

My country did not even attend the WCIT ITRs or the plenipotentiary and on
the other hand ICANN was invited by ITU to work more closely together. We
have to be realistic about issues. ICANN has constituted a Middle East
strategy group send f which I am a member from Pakistan from civil society,
that will have some advice for ICANN and is an important issue. The access
to Internet and connectivity is constantly under threat in South Asia.
These are issues for South Asian countries and not WCITs. When I look at
ALAC rationale, our objectives to be discussed at ICANN are very different
from broader policy issues that are relevant to spaces like IGF or APrIGFs.
The legitimacy of CS and CS based technical community in ICANN needs to be
strengthened beyond ISOC chapter interests into the broader issues based
around ICANN transparency, accountability and affirmation of commitments
with respect to broader public and inclusive participation of RALO member
ALSes. Its the RALO members we serve and they should identify the issues
and not us imposing our version of common interests and issues.

WCIT is no more a real issue for ALAC only but more of an issue to have a
joint discussion between all ICANN constituencies with GAC and ICANN board.
ICANN has the US delegation to ITU already on its side. Let's still try to
be realistic.

Fouad Bajwa
On Jan 12, 2013 4:28 PM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:

> Hi Fouad
>
> I agree that there has been a great deal of discussion about WCIT - more
> along the lines of who 'won' and who didn't 'win'.  I was not proposing
> that kind of topic.
>
> However, there were serious issues raised at WCIT by many parties -
> including not only Russia, many African and Middle Eastern countries, but
> the European Telecommunications Network Operators as well.  And those
> concerns do include the shift in revenue generation such that the PTTs are
> losing out.  The latest decision from France - that the operators cannot
> discriminate against Google and its carriage of ads - highlights a very
> current concern that Google and others are not paying the operators in
> relation to the costs of transport - which makes funding the roll out of
> broadband (and therefore user access to broadband) more difficult.  Other
> issues that were the subject of debate are also current - and will continue
> to be debated.
>
> What I am saying is that many quite important and current issues were
> raised, and we should understand what they were - and understand that there
> are many legitimate points of view - so let's hear them  You want a
> discussion away from the developed world point of view - and I had assumed
> that is exactly what we were proposing to hear. I don't think anyone was
> proposing anything other than an informative and sensible discussion on the
> many, legitimate and important issues that were raised - and are still of
> concern to many.
>
> Indeed, you mention content blocking as something more important than
> WCIT.  Yet that was one of the issues that were an important part of the
> discussion. Indeed, the strategy for ICANN - which you suggest as a more
> important topic - would be significantly affected by WCIT discussions on
> who has responsibility for numbering/IP addresses.
>
> You are complaining that 'we tend to stay away from the real issues'.  But
> what we are proposing is exactly the opposite.  We are proposing to try to
>  understand just what the real issues are and how they will impact on ALAC
> and ICANN.
>
> So please - don't stay silent.  Please make sure that the issues you feel
> need to be discussed are on the table for discussion.
>
> Holly
>
>
> On 10/01/2013, at 7:49 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
> > IMHO, I would actually support the proposal to keep WCIT out of
> > discussions. Its been over discussed. The real threat posed in our
> > part of the world is the blocking of Internet content in the name of
> > religion, national security, war on terror, shutdown of Mobile and
> > Cellular Internet and Services to prevent terrorism where we have had
> > nearly  a week of such mobile blocking during the past year across
> > Pakistan. WCIT proposals, signatories and implications do not directly
> > affect present policy issues, they may in the far future but at the
> > moment the issues are very different. We need a divergence away from
> > the G8 or developed west point of view on Internet related issues. We
> > have to discuss the strategy for ICANN and its implications for the
> > Middle East, South Asia, Asia and the Pacific, Australiasia etc. My
> > reason sometimes for staying silent during such threads is the fact
> > that we tend to stay away from the real issues asserting a
> > self-perceived point of view without a real baseline from our
> > stakeholder countries and regions. Thats also where outreach collapses
> > and the opportunity to engage and contribute is reduced. We need to
> > hear from stakeholders what the issues area instead of telling them
> > what the issues should be. Thats my two cents.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Fouad
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> >> Hi Holly,
> >>
> >> Etsuko Nakanishi, Japan GAC rep was at WCIT.  But she might prefer to
> >> have someone else from her ministry speak (they might attend if
> >> invited.)   More important perhaps to hear from government/others who
> >> supported the new ITRs and would like to see ITU role in governance
> >> strengthen by WTPF.  Not sure if many of those governments would be
> >> particularly open about their reasons, or want to get into an
> >> open-ended debate.  But worth asking China, as meeting hosts.  India
> >> seem somewhat in the middle.  Perhaps someone from India's telecom
> >> ministry: Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal seems to have broad view,
> >> perhaps ministry staff would join, if someone knows how to reach them.
> >>
> >> Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 4:49 PM +1100 1/10/13, Holly Raiche wrote:
> >>> Hi Adam
> >>>
> >>> Great idea.  I"m inclined to agree with you.  The thought of having
> >>> WCIT on the agenda was really to unpack what the outcomes mean for
> >>> ICANN and the ITU.  But WTPF is probably better.  I"m sure Paul
> >>> Wilson would talk, Raj will be in Oz late Feb/early March so we can
> >>> discuss.  Given the ten strong Oz delegation to WCIT, I"m sure at
> >>> least one or two of them would be in Beijing (certainly Peter
> >>> Nettlefold who is now GAC VC).  Any further thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Holly
> >>> On 10/01/2013, at 4:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> (not sending this to apralo-beijing-oc at atlarge-lists.icann.org as I'm
> >>>> not a member.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Good proposal, however, I wouldn't discuss WCIT.  It's over, there
> >>>> will be implications, but they will be hard to divine and will involve
> >>>> a lot of guesswork.  Not sure of the value.
> >>>>
> >>>> More relevant is the next ITU process, WTPF (World Telecommunication
> >>>> Policy Forum <http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/default.aspx>)  The
> >>>> theme of the meeting is "International Internet-related public policy
> >>>> matters".  It will be held May 14-16, so there is a chance to
> >>>> influence people attending (ICANN will for sure, as will APNIC, many
> >>>> of the ccTLDs, ISOC etc.)
> >>>>
> >>>> WTPF will "discuss all Internet-related public policy issues raised in
> >>>> Resolutions 101, 102 and 133 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010)"
> >>>>
> >>>> Resolution 101 Internet Protocol-based networks
> >>>> Resolution 102 ITU's role with regard to international public policy
> >>>> issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet
> >>>> resources, including domain names and addresses
> >>>> Resolution 133 Role of administrations of Member States in the
> >>>> management of internationalized (multilingual) domain names
> >>>>
> >>>> each attached.
> >>>>
> >>>> Having IDNs on the WTPF agenda makes it even more relevant (agneda
> item 3.)
> >>>>
> >>>> There will be carry-over from WCIT (expect the resolution on Internet
> >>>> particularly) to WTPF.
> >>>>
> >>>> People to invite: APNIC (Paul Wilson, Pablo Hinojosa) and ISOC (Raj
> >>>> Singh, Constance Bommelaer, Markus Kummer).  Look around for
> >>>> government reps:  Australia takes regional leadership as does Japan.
> >>>> China and India will have opinions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Adam
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Holly Raiche
> >>>> <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The APRALO Beijing Events Organizing Committee seeks your input
> >>>>> on possible topics for a Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable in
> >>>>> conjunction with the April 2013 ICANN Meeting in Beijing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The criteria for the policy topics are as follows: (1) highly
> >>>>> relevant and important to the region and ICANN; (2) require
> >>>>> multistakeholder engagement to address.  For each topic proposed,
> >>>>> please provide recommendations on relevant discussion leaders.
> >>>>> These discussion leaders should be knowledgeable about the topic/s
> >>>>> and respected regionally or globally.  We would like to have
> >>>>> discussion leaders from a broad range of stakeholder groups (i.e.,
> >>>>> government and inter-governmental, business, non-profit/NGO, and
> >>>>> end user).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Possible topics include:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Implications of the World Conference on International
> >>>>> Telecommunications (WCIT) for the Internet and the
> >>>>> Multistakeholder Model;
> >>>>> New gTLDs and Implications for the Asia-Pacific and Australasia
> Region;
> >>>>> Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Implications for the
> >>>>> Asia-Pacific and Australasia Region.
> >>>>> Please do send us your suggestions and ideas (or your support for
> >>>>> any of the above with list of recommended discussion leaders) by
> >>>>> Jan 15, 2013.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The APRALO Beijing Events Organizing Committee:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> APAC-Discuss mailing list
> >>>>> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
> >>>> <Guadalajara RESOLUTION_101.pdf><Guadalajara
> >>>> RESOLUTION_102.pdf><Guadalajara RESOLUTION_133.pdf>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> APAC-Discuss mailing list
> >> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
> >>
> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards.
> > --------------------------
> > Fouad Bajwa
> > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>
>