<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi. <br>
<br>
This list is the list of the ISOC chapters, and the discussion is
what the chapters <b>and </b>ISOC could / should / might do to
make sure the Internet continues to evolve as a network, based on
open standards, produced by the IETF, and without any particular
entity gaining control over it. <br>
A conversation about how the Internet can be secured, without
losing its freedoms. How users can be safe, without limiting their
digital rights. <br>
<br>
In this conversation, we exchange opinions, views, ask questions,
wonder, or just read - and there's nothing wrong with any of
these. I find it strange that no matter how chapters raise any
question, they end up being misunderstood by ISOC HQ. <br>
<br>
I made a simple suggestion - to see which chapters could involve
in the work the ITU does, using the Resolutions 101,102, 133,
etc., using the ITU regional offices, or the governmental
representatives to the ITU (usually Ministry of Communications).
This suggestion moved to something which I have not suggested, and
even went ad hominem, hopefully that's behind us now. <br>
<br>
But a point which Fred said below, and is to be seriously
considered is in the words about the increased role of the ITU in
Internet governance. <br>
Fred, ITU has not tried to position itself as a player, it is a
player, <b>one of the many</b>, as you can tell from the WSIS
resolutions, which serve as the foundation of all this talk about
Internet governance. In fact, these resolutions mention only a few
organizations, and ITU is one of them, which automatically makes
it a player. It has a very interesting role, as defined in para 35
of the Tunis Agenda. Public policy is not amongst them. <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><i><font face="Verdana" size="2"><font face="Verdana"
size="2">35. We reaffirm <span style="font-weight: 400;">
that the management of the Internet encompasses both
technical and public policy issues and should involve all
stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations.</span></font></font><br>
a) Policy authority for Internet-related <b>public policy </b>issues
is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and
responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy
issues. <br>
d) <font face="Verdana" size="2"><font face="Verdana" size="2">Intergovernmental
organizations have had, and should continue to have, a
facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related
public policy issues.</font></font></i><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
So, to "increase the role of the ITU in Internet governance" does
not mean it could engage directly in public policy; no country
would allow that. But ITU can increase its facilitating role in
the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues, which -
if you think about it in the context of the WSIS declarations, is
something quite good, because they are the ones, putting civil
society, business, and governments on the same level. <br>
<br>
<br>
best,<br>
veni<br>
</font><br>
On 12/15/2010 15:01, Fred Baker wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:32E5965F-6D00-4942-96A7-50524DC13CFF@cisco.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Chapter interaction with the ITU makes a lot of sense.
Let me point out two issues that folks should be aware of. These are captured in the words "in order to increase the role of ITU in Internet governance" in the snippet you posted.
Throughout WSIS, WGIG, and the current IGF activities, the ITU has tried to position itself as a major player and leader in Internet technology and policy.
In point of fact, it is not a leader in Internet technology, and the work it has done on MPLS, voice and video, and the NGN has largely been at odd with work done in other places, something various folks have had to fix. Technically, the IETF would welcome an improved working relationship with the ITU, and has spent the better part of 15 years trying to make it happen. That said, the IETF is about "making the Internet better adapted to changing needs"; we would appreciate the ITU adopting a similar stance as opposed to "to increase the role of the ITU".
As to internet-related public policy, the ITU is one of many places that this is discussed, as is the IGF. And the US FCC, and the European Commission, and a long list of other places. Yes, I think the chapters would do well to interact with their relevant governmental entities on policy, and that probably includes the ITU. The one question to beware of is the intent of the folks one is meeting with. Productive meetings are on the topic of "making the Internet better adapted to changing needs from a policy perspective"; "increasing the role" of any single venue is not a good reason to meet.
On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:19 AM, Veni Markovski wrote:</pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>