Re: ITU takes over?

Dear Vint,
You may guess that I am deeply involved in that prepartory issues and I 
probably can help with some (I will try) unbiased understandings (I am 
sorry if this hurts some) of what happens, focusing on ICANN and IETF.
At 00:36 09/12/03, vinton g. cerf wrote:
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> There have been fairly intense discussions in a series of meetings called 
> "PrepComs" as in "preparatory committees" leading up to the World Summit 
> on the Information Society (WSIS) taking place December 10-12 in Geneva.
The main impact of these meetings has been the progressive understanding of 
the @large (in ICANN wording) reality. The entry of the civil society was 
very important at a time when "altermondialistes" became more cooperative 
and the US general policy pushed peoples to ally with their governments.
This helped many to understand that a network is first made of people and 
not of machines, bandwidth and protocols.
> In the most recent meetings, a "government only" rule was invoked that 
> excluded interested parties such as ICANN, among others, but the texts 
> have been made visible. Of course, it remains to be seen whether these 
> texts will be adopted by the summit meeting representatives.
This is technically true. Last meetings were "open" but only US/Europe and 
LMC (Linke-Minded countries) were allowed to speak to go faster and avoid 
confusion. Meetings were very often attended by private people who 
cross-polenized. ITU go by countries, this does not mean that ideas go by 
Govs.
It shown us that US lobbying is sometimes totally inneffective or counter 
productive when a few pros (the good and the bad scenario ...) are trying 
to overcome genuinely motivated people, all the more when one has to talk 
of the life of billions of people and incidently voters.
The Linke-Minded Country group was very determined - SA, Brazil, Saudia 
Arabia, China, Egypt and Malaysia. However the proposition of Gabon to 
quote ICANN by its name was not accepted.
> The texts cover principles and action plans, respectively, for 
> "realization" of the Information Society.
Yes. It can be said it is the world (as a customer) network project and 
specifications. The market of the century for leading technologies.
> The subject of "Internet Governance" has been a large focus of attention, 
> as has been a proposal for creating an international fund to promote the 
> creation of information infrastructure in the developing world. Internet 
> Governance is a very broad topic including law enforcement, intellectual 
> property protection, consumer protection, tax policies, and so on.
The internet is technically to be understood in the definition of 47 USC 
230 (f)(i) (all the connected computers of the world) and for most of the 
discussions in a purely brainware way: "what people think the internet is 
or shoud be".
Most never heard about TCP/IP. But they heard about the root and the surety 
problems we discussed in here, and more about the national security problem 
(ie; the errors that can be commited and the attacks they may suffer). This 
is NOT yet a widely expressed concern - by far - by delegations members. 
But it IS a serious (or main) and motivating unspoken (or spoken) key 
concern by Govs.
> It also happens to include some of the things that ICANN is responsible 
> for. Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the 
> only really visible example of an organization attempting to develop 
> policy (which is being treated as synonymous with "governance").
Let speak clearly. The ICANN governance is asimilated by most to a US 
dominance. Why? Because the way it carries its double ICANN job (No one 
forgot atthe GAC the mails where Joe Sims talked of the ICANN rules saying 
"like other US agencies". This was famously summarized by an European 
Member of the GAC as the "AmerICANN joke".
This is to the point that USA faught ICANN (the US rep refused to let the 
ICANN rep. [Anne Rachel Inne] to help her...). This surprised.
ICANN's role is to make sure the root systems works and the IANA parameters 
are managed.
- you expressed clearly here that ICANN thought that not interfering with 
root servers was the best for them to work. May be technically and humanly. 
But this is perceived as a way to protect them from accountability, what in 
turn does not help protecting them and from them.
- the way ICANN protects and propagates an old centralized status quo in 
naming and numbering is perceived as a way to control the network. IPv6.001 
and its unicity is going to be a genuine and important issue.
- the ccTLD handling is perceived (and who would contest that building the 
ccNSO through bylaws instead of an MoU does not go that way) as a way to 
replace RFC 920/1591 ccTLD independance by a contractual control, 
deliberately fighting the WSIS position without any technical groud? No one 
forgot ICANN's claim for axfr on ccTLDs. No one forgot post KPNQuest 
delays. No one forgot Louis Touton's attitude towards small states. You may 
see Paul Twomey's Cathage declarations as good strong support of ICANN. It 
is not. He paid it in Geneva. The bargain was summarized by the head of a 
prepcom II African delegation saying "how much for us to buy the root bluff?".
I do not say that I support all this. I try to make a clear report of the 
reasons why. Please also note that in this I concatenate many points. 
Things are much more complex. There are also a lot of supporters for ICANN, 
but they are usually considered as carrier minded or US afraid people. This 
is very worrying, because this kind of people quickly follow from where the 
wind blows. We need stability.
> ICANN's mandate is very limited and it would be helpful if the broad 
> governance issues mentioned above could find other organizational homes.
You keep saying that. And this is right. But it is NOT the image ICANN 
propagates to the world. If ICANN's real mandate is just that, why is it 
larger than two part time people (for back-up) and a secretary? How many 
hours a day did Jon Postel spend on IANA. What are Regional VP and offices 
for?
The more you say ICANN's mandate is very limited, people think. "then, what 
does he want such a big administration for?"
> ICANN's work could be fitted into a larger framework
Totally true. And it is URGENT to work it out. Again, ITU today is 
perceived by Govs and people as an UN body (and one calls on NY lawyers, or 
ITU lawyers absurdly explain that IDN are multilingual or even vernacular - 
John Klensin should be happy :-). But to fight or compose with something 
one has to know it weel. ITU is NOT an UN body.
ITU is a 136 (one hundred and thirty six) years old body. It is a 
cooperative insurrance by the Governements that e-networking would go on, 
whatever the situation. Technical evolution, war, catastrophy, economical 
and legal changes. bakruptcies, etc.
In that ITU there is NO place to welcome Internet. This is what is urgent 
for us to do. To make the need of the ITU-I accepted. The way to do it is 
http://i-sector.org. Let be clear, the situation has been confused by ICANN 
unilateralism and contract strategy. But we desesperately need ICANN. But 
NOT as a dominance, as a common servant. Somebody is to be the "net 
keeper". We will see the root server system blown in the comming years: who 
is to be the secretariat of the root matrix? ICP-3 ( 
http://icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm ) shows that ICANN can think well - once you 
remove the controversy.
Today ITU is ITU-T. T for telephone. We do not even speak the same 
language. They are as much afraid of us as we do not want them. They are a 
limited set of large operators like WorldCom. Not a bunch of free people 
like IETF. ICANN is an equilbrium that some very large US corporation 
(stakeholders) found together. This is what the world wants to reduce. But 
they have the same equilibrium built in the ITU-T. Just for a longer time. 
Let spell it out ITU-T is them.
Our chance is that ITU-T also means votes and that Europe is 25 and USA 1. 
So it is on this we should play to find a better, Internet oriented 
solution. Not the same however than the ICANN board. This is what the UN 
Secretary is to find. We have two years to have IETF to propose a way to 
organize itself within the ISOC/ITU-I framework, to protect what it wants 
to protect and to better what it wants to better.
This is why we need specialized WGs. Surety and ITU-I lobbying.

> but some people seem to think that if ICANN doesn't do all the things that 
> might fall into "Internet governance" then ICANN should be replaced with, 
> eg, an ITU or UN body.
Idealy that should be the ITU-IANA with three part-time staff. Why not in MdR?

> This is, of course, a controversial matter with sovreignty of states mixed 
> into a variety of political attitudes about the US, the Department of 
> Commerce role with ICANN and so on.
Yes. One must understand that this is nicknamed by some "nsicanntiab" NSI, 
ICANN, NTIA, IAB. It is not that easy for people whose job is people life 
and protection to understand the subtleties of all this.
NSICANNIAB also pays the price for the legend of the Internet building the 
International data network. It is felt that all this is a DoD continuation. 
All these subjective aspects are to be remembered.
NSICANNTIAB has obviously a PR problem. It is very common but if it is not 
addressed it will not solve by itself.
One very simple way would be to propose a technical solution to kill spam. 
This would be credited to IETF and the image would "the ones who killed 
spam" rather than "the US DoD project which wanted to conquer the world".
Another way, IETF/IAB could resume leadership in proposing (eventually) a 
network model everyone could use to support innovation. If there was an IAB 
model the way there is the OSI model, who would - among politicians and 
real decision makers - think IAB/IETF do not fit?
> It should come as no surprise to anyone that I would prefer to see a 
> solution to the broad governance problem that continues to limit the ICANN 
> mandate and creates organizational homes for that which ICANN cannot or 
> should not undertake.
This IS what we have to join forces to fight for. To help udnerstanding the 
way it is to work. The ways it worked before the Internet. The way it works 
with other technologies. The way it should work together with other 
technologies.
There is not a UN General Secretary work force on Telephone or Posts. 
This  really means that the world think ICANN - and to some extent - IETF 
with no spam solution, no clear model, centralized IPv6 numbering scheme is 
an urgent _danger_ for mankind.
> Just as plainly, I don't favor replacing ICANN with a UN-agency.
This is where ICANN is to urgently reorganize the way ERC could have 
permitted it:
- the IANA with an MoU with ITU - so we are the nets keeps stable.
- the GNSO, as the legacy TLD representative within a generaized name space 
concertation (European meaning - like the G8 under rotating Chair) 
toegether with other namespaces : ccTLDs, nomenclatures, ITU-T (T for 
telephone namespace), user networks name spaces, etc.
- the "cybercampus" I advocate where USA or multilateral efforts will 
welcome, support and cross-polenize the "mission creep".
> You may make a search on key words, like "internet governance" at that 
> site www.wsis-online.net and will see all relevant meetings.
> Hope this is helpful.
I too.
jfc