[Chapter-delegates] [MemberPubPol] Draft ISOC comments on WGIG report

[Ian Peter]

Mike,

Thanks for the rare opportunity to comment on policy evolution within ISOC.
Let me begin with the most significant concern.

Throughout the WSIS process I have sometimes wondered which planet ISOC is
on. Clearly the major concern that drove WGIG into existence was perception
of US dominance in Internet governance, characterized by unilateral US
Government control of root zone authorisation . To anyone following the
debate even loosely this question is a major one requiring attention.
Unresolved, it will result in fragmentation of the root. 

The WGIG report addresses this with "No single Government should have a
pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance." One
government clearly does at present, and this is clearly upsetting others. I
don't know why ISOC is in denial about this and doesn't comment. It only
makes you appear to be some sort of defender of US control. You make ISOC
irrelevant by refusing to acknowledge the major issues. I believe you have
to make a direct statement about this, and certainly not "We are happy to
see that a consensus seems to be emerging that today's arrangements have
significant value to the Internet".

On other statements in your response

" the Domain Name System, IP addressing, and interconnection costs-received
far more attention than seems warranted"

You seem to deny the effect of interconnection costs in developing
countries. It's a significant issue that needs more attention and more
creative solutions IMHO. 


"We are also concerned that the report is too focused on policy issues and
often leaves the impression that regulation and international treaties are
the best solutions to a range of Internet-related issues, even where it is
clear to most experts that far more effective, global solutions could be
provided by new technologies and standards or improved business practices or
some combination of both."

Which experts, and experts in what? This is an outrageous statement really,
and I urge you to think about what it does given the perception of ISOC as a
body that represents technical interests only. I'm sure you could re-express
this to indicate that technological advances, improved business practices
etc have a role to play along side policy issues, but to deny the importance
of policy evolution is not the best way to propagate that argument.



Otherwise, you make some good points!





Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.3/66 - Release Date: 8/08/2005