[chapter-delegates] Re: ISOC Annual Report 2003
Lynn St.Amour
st.amour at isoc.org
Mon Jun 6 02:10:43 PDT 2005
All,
I would like to strongly second Alejandro's
request for input and thank Franck for his input
to date. Unlike the last year or so where the
WSIS/WGIG efforts were largely focused on
educating people on the current model and the
roles of various players, we are now entering new
ground with specific proposals now coming to the
fore and we need the collective wisdom of all the
Internet Community to be able to respond as
completely and intelligently as possible.
Also, I support this discussion moving to the
Members PubPol list as this is the specific and
advertised purpose of the list and is even more
broad than this list. If Chapter delegates are
not subscribed to this list, please do subscribe.
Regards,
Lynn
At 10:56 AM -0500 6/5/05, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>Franck,
>
>while we discuss the way forward, the reference for the report on
>responses to the WGIG questionnaire is in
>http://www.wgig.org/docs/IG-questionnaire-response.pdf.
>
>Patrick Vande Walle has suggested that the discussion about this summary
>is better suited for the Members PubPol list and in fact he already made
>a contribution there. What do others think?
>
>Alejandro Pisanty
>
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
>UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
>http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
>*
>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Franck Martin wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:52:36 +1200
>> From: Franck Martin <franck at sopac.org>
>> To: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
>> Cc: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>, chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [chapter-delegates] Re: ISOC Annual Report 2003
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list