Dear all, I am extremely sorry for my mistake. I received the letter from Olivier, and I decided, that it was posted on this list. I wrote my comments to it as for ALAC members. But it was IGC list((( For IGC list I was preparing to raise broader scale of issues. This was written espesially for ALAC. Now I just resend my letter to this list. It is extremely important for me to receive your feed-backs. Best regards, Oksana ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod@gmail.com> Date: 2012/12/16 Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org, "Peter H. Hellmonds" <peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Копия: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Dear Olivier, Thank you very-very-very much for all your work at all and for this letter especially. My country signed (according to official information on ITU web-site) ITRs. But there were some chances they would not do it. And I am sure that we just lacked some pressure on our official delegates at this moment, so physical absence of Ukrainian CS was wery negative. I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing to answer to them. I had real chance to participate in this conference as a journalist (by the way, Ukrainian media absolutely ignored this event). I am sure that it might have some impact, but again I did not have money. In Baku I participated on my own expences, and it was real financial disaster for me. But the workshop I organized (thousand of thanks to all who participated in it) and a lot of other discussions are priceless for me. I like very much the word multistakeholderism, but let us stop just to talk about it! We have to analyze where it works and where and when it does not work and why. I am sure that in developing countries it nearly does not work, while exactly multistakeholderism (in all sheres) and informational technologies can transform developing countries into developed one. Just few remarks on it. 1. Respective roles of each stakeholder. Our former prime-minister Yulia Timoshenko is in prison now for signing international treaty without enough seal. I am not saying that I support such treatment, but I am sure that dozens of Ukrainian officials HAVE to be in prison for signing international treaties without enough seal.Very often the only one reason to sign any treaty for them is to put money into their own pockets. Our government concerns with Internet issues. Our Communication Administration (State Service of Special Communication and Information Protection of Ukraine !!!!!) ignored my propositions because they could not open my file in .odt (!!!!!). They use only Windows, and 70 % of this software (in governmental agencies!!!) are steal. And they will protect cybersecurity and dictate to me what to do and what not to do in Internet! 2. Transparency - Ukraine is the member of GAC (on paper). But now I am said that ICANN is not international organization, so why Ukraine has to be the member of it? But WE ARE the member! But it is impossible now to find documents who and when apllied for GAC from Ukraine. I am not even talking on WCIT - no ANY information on official site of Ukrainian agency. 3. Accountability - no words at all( 4. Consensus - some opponents in prison or Hudson, a few to buy. What to do? Yes, of course, we urgently need literacy, capacity buiding, awareness raising, engagement, and in this case the role of ICANN is nearly zero. I extremely thankful to Olivier, Sebastien, Wolf, Bertrand, Sandra, Wolfgang, Yulia (I hope I did not miss anybody) for coming to Ukraine and participating in our events. They realy did great job, and influence a lot on many discussions! But on institutional level ICANN did not ever participate in them! With OFFICIAL meetings with Ukrainian officials, with discussions of the most critical issues, with organizing some educational programs! That is why a lot of in Ukraine really don't know what is ICANN, and a lot of prefer to make show that they don't know. I talk about Ukraine, but I mention all post-Soviet Russian-speaking culture. That is why during teleconference call with Ambassador Kramer I proposed to organize in Ukraine sub-regional Forum and to initiate standing discussion on multistakeholderism and freedom of Internet. I can not imagine it without pro-active role of ICANN. I am sorry for such long letter, but I would like to add some words about trust. I do not trust to my government, so there is no dissapointment with their activity in Dubai. But now how I can trust to Dr. Toure and to Chair of the conference, if they can't keep their words (about consensus instead of voting)? How can I trust to ITU at all, which fully demonstrates its absurdism? How can I trust to UN at all, if by mouth it defends human rights and democracy, but by hands it puts me behind the bars of criminal regime and close before me the door to open and prosperious informational society? Once again sorry for bothering you with our problems, Best regards, Oksana 2012/12/16 Peter H. Hellmonds <peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu>:

Thank you, Olivier, for sharing your very passionate and personal, yet balanced experience and viewpoint on the happenings and the mood on the ground in Dubai.

Peter H. Hellmonds <peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> +49 (160) 360-2852

On 15.12.2012, at 22:55, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

Dear all,

I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please find below.

--- snip --- snip --- snip ---

Dear Milton, many of us on the ground were really sorry not to see you in the room in Dubai. Perhaps then would you have actually understood the situation and tension that was present in the room. Without wanting to go into details, several parts of the ITRs were deeply flawed. 5A needs to be read along with ITU Standard Y.2770 which makes it mandatory to implement deep packet inspection (and not even a mild case of DPI) to all “next generation networks” which could be easily interpreted as the IPv6 network. As a standard it is far from mandatory. But 5A and 5B bring this much closer to make it mandatory – and you’ll notice that the language in Y.2770 is very close to the language of 5A and 5B. 5B is an absolute NO-NO when the beginning of the document says that the ITRs are not about content. In fact, in it is unclear whether later recommendations take precedence over earlier recommendations in a document as is the case in some legislatures. Indeed, you should have seen the opposition from some countries to having the “no content” clause included – which completely killed any remains of trust between the two “sides”. Then you have the Resolution at the end which is a real provocation for some and not enough for others who would have wanted the Internet to be included in the ITRs, including taking over numbering and addressing by States. The EU came very close to signing although many countries had serious reservations about ITRs which simply did NOT make any sense. How can Spam not be content? The Spam debate was fuelled by claims that it flooded some country networks yet email traffic is less that 5% of Internet traffic, less that 3% of all telecom traffic (estimated) and therefore with Spam being at, say 50% of email traffic, countries were arguing for a Regulation to filter traffic and perform DPI on maximum 2% traffic gain? It simply did not make sense. So the strategy of the EU countries, after having made a lot of concessions, was to wait and see the final proposal from the Chair, which although it had all of these inadequate articles, was a real improvement. But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on the right of States to telecommunication services and put it on a par basis with Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was the same as the Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland, expressed its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by some countries that oppress their people about Human Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the discussion, after having intervened more than any country in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has assured us there would be no vote. This derailment was self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the vase to overflow. Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and Match. My country, the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a say in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the many countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the table and guess what, most of these countries have not signed. Does this not tell you something?

So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff which I would really like the Internet to be preserved from.

But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid concerns from developing countries that they were not able to participate in the multi-stakeholder model because of lack of funding, lack of understanding and a lack of proactive work from our “own” side. I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more to bridge the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora in which they can participate and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to them and the ITU where they have a voice. During the hour that followed the dramatic vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are intent on following up with countries that do not appear to have hidden intentions are are genuine about the level of despair they displayed at this conference. Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of a better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in promoting, reaching out, building capacity.

In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several governments that have understood this. Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again a similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair.

Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf)

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t