[Chapter-delegates] How can ISOC chapters help in the development of IP-based networks?

[Veni Markovski]

Hi.

This list is the list of the ISOC chapters, and the discussion is what 
the chapters *and *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.
A conversation about how the Internet can be secured, without losing its 
freedoms. How users can be safe, without limiting their digital rights.

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.

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.

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.
Fred, ITU has not tried to position itself as a player, it is a player, 
*one of the many*, 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.


/35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both 
technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders 
and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations.
a) Policy authority for Internet-related *public policy *issues is the 
sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for 
international Internet-related public policy issues.
d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to 
have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public 
policy issues./


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.


best,
veni

On 12/15/2010 15:01, Fred Baker wrote:
> 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:
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20101216/94dcd862/attachment.htm>