[chapter-delegates] Re: ISOC Annual Report 2003

[Franck Martin]

Alejandro Pisanty wrote:

>Hi,
>
>let's try to start with a step forward (not forgetting the past, just 
>trying to discuss forward instead of backward.) 
>
>I've sent out the present-day summary of responses to the WGIG 
>questionnaire in order to spark a discussion among chapters, and in the 
>pubpol list, to see if it can in turn lead to an expression of the 
>chapters that can be taken to the WGIG in at least two ways, one of them 
>through the formal ISOC representation and another through several of us 
>who are WGIG members (I recall at least Vittorio Bertola is in all three 
>universes, probably Carlos Afonso too?)
>  
>
Where did you sent it? Cannot find it on the chapter-delegates list...

>For the formal representation we would have to have a quite finished 
>statement, and to be able to assess the level of consensus behind it.
>
>For the direct route into WGIG we members will make good use of whatever 
>feedback we can get from this community.
>
>I'll be glad to help clarify as much as materially possible the background 
>and other questions that may appear.
>
>This could be an opportunity for us to help shape what we want ISOC to do 
>in the future by concrete, though strategically broad, views and 
>proposals.
>
>Certainly when we read again and again the statements that express the 
>"need" for a "new body" to discuss Internet governance, I see recurrently 
>a vacuum that should have not existed, that should or could have been 
>filled by ISOC, and that a number of reasons caused for it not to be 
>filled by ISOC. If ISOC is to be one of the primary forces to shape the 
>future of the Internet, especially given the WSIS/WGIG framework, now's 
>the time, but we still have to actually do it.
>
>
>  
>

I have read ISOC comment to the WGIG, while I agree with it, it does not 
provide a solution. ISOC has the right to be critical, but this comment 
is likely to be rejected if it is not supported by a show of power. Will 
any government will ask WGIG to answer to ISOC comments? This would be 
something.

In the other hand, ISOC can be part of the solution and highlights 
everything it is doing today and request people to join ISOC and its 
chapter for better Internet Governance. The best way is to monitor WGIG 
but to not let their actions and statements stir away ISOC from its 
mission. Remember the UN system is based on public servants who prime 
goals is to get the UN retirment package after doing 5 years there, 
while not upsetting anybody. They do that by recommending that 
consultants do the work on the ground and report back to them.

In the ISOC answer, I would have said that the liberalisation of Telecom 
did not generate the growth of the Internet, but that the growth of 
Internet generated the liberalisation of the telecommunication industry. 
As soon as you touch the Internet, and see its potential you want to be 
able to contact anybody anywhere at the cheapest price talking about 
anything. Before you wanted to contact only the close people to you in a 
reliable fashion.

Where do we go from now?

Cheers


-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Franck Martin
franck at sopac.org
"Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question"
G. Bachelard

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20050605/fc45d757/attachment.asc>