[Chapter-delegates] ITU reciprocity, was Re: How can ISOC chapters help in the development of IP-based networks?

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Bill,

thanks for this important note and complete, concise but broad 
information.

I will focus briefly on the point of "reciprocity" which is demanded by 
the ITU in its relationships with other organizations in the Internet 
space (some of what follows may be well known.)

The ITU demands reciprocity in its resolutions of the 2010 
Plenipotentiary. In the text this means that the ITU will yield a bit 
(like, recognizing all the Internet-related organizations in a footnote) 
if other parties yield something too.

Yet the ITU is permanently invited to ICANN meetings, attends regularly, 
forms part of the GAC and influences policy through it, but could not be 
bothered to have ICANN attend the Plenipot as it was closed to all but 
governments and sector members (and I surmise that it is not proper for 
ICANN to apply to become a sector member, but others may differ.)

The ITU opens a sector member slot for ISOC yet captures resources from 
ISOC's donors for projects which have been objectively shown as faulted by 
ISOC members.

The ITU gives a footnote to the IETF yet ignores it in the now two years 
old MPLS brouhaha and has thrown a spanner in the works there.

So for us to now follow on the coattails of vacuous ITU initiatives, 
further lending ISOC's name, prestige, competence, and weight cannot be 
based on arguments of reciprocity. We have to expect far more.

Those who have the chance will of course continue to work in good faith 
with ITU initiatives, participants, and members (state or sector) in so 
far as the projects are of benefit for the Internet, but a clearer 
framework will be needed in analyzing what to do and how to become 
involved.

(the above is an expression of my personal views; glad to see more debate 
about the subject and to learn from it.)

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

* Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
* LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
* Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

* Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
*Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Bill Graham wrote:

> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:57:55 -0500
> From: Bill Graham <graham at isoc.org>
> To: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
> Cc: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>,
>     Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] How can ISOC chapters help in the development
>      of IP-based networks?
> 
> All,
>
> I don't feel it's appropriate for me to engage on some of the questions in this thread re: what Chapters should and should not do.  But I want to strongly agree with Fred's message here.  I also would like to draw your attention to some of the work staff has been doing to try to nudge discussions in the ITU away from an "us vs them" conversation, and in the direction of "making the Internet work better and be more accessible for more people."  To quote our working framing statement for ISOC involvement with the ITU:
>
> "ISOC engages with the ITU in areas where it makes sense to support their activities to advance the Internet, while working to create awareness of different and complementary activities taking place in the Internet ecosystem.  We are always working to ensure that the Internet ecosystem continues to evolve to support a usable and useful open Internet."
>
> As we pursue that goal, we have consistently for several years produced briefing papers for governments, and as ITU Sector Members in the Standardization and Development Sectors we have submitted them to the ITU as official documents.  Some of them have been submitted several times, because they are relevant to a number of the meetings, conferences, study groups, working parties, ad hoc groups, etc., that have been created in the ITU.  You can find all of our work specifically developed for use in the ITU context at the following URL:
> <http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/community/itu.shtml>
>
> Please note in particular the basic papers that have been translated into all six United Nations languages, to ensure that they get maximum exposure in the ITU, and among our Chapters and members who may wish to talk to their national government officials involved in the ITU on Internet-related topics.
>
> In that respect, we also prepared for our membership a guide on to how to reach out to government organizations responsible for their ITU activities.  that guide is available at: <http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/governance/itu_forum_20080223.shtml> before the 2009 World Telecom Policy Forum.  We provided a similar guide with a brief discussion of issues before the last World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly of 2008: A Members' Guide to Internet Society Participation in the WTDC at
> <http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/wtdc_20100507.pdf>
>
> That information remains valid today, and I hope it is useful.
>
> While it is not linked directly from the ITU site, one of the documents that several governments have told us is most useful is the Internet ecosystem graphic, that has now been expanded by adding text that describes in detail how the various parts of the ecosystem fit together.
> 2 page Internet Ecosystem Graphic and Glossary <http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/factsheet_ecosystem_20090310.pdf>
> Expanded full-text version <http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/internetmodel.pdf>
>
> The full text version includes a section on the ITU that places it in context.  In terms of "making the Internet work better and be more accessible for more people", it is important to remember that while the ITU's Plenipotentiary decision that Veni referred to will mean the ITU can be expected to reach out more broadly to the Internet organizations, the ITU is not one of the primary organizations that deals with Internet issues, although it certainly has a role to play.
>
> For now and the foreseeable future, as shown in the Internet Ecosystem documents referred to above, the Internet institutions are central and key to the development of IP-based networks.  This has been one of the primary areas of work for ISOC as an organization, and our activities are directed to ensuring that the Internet and its organizations remain healthy and well functioning.  The ITU footnote from the Plenipotentiary calls for involvement "on the basis of reciprocity."  That is a key concept.
>
> Until now, many of the ITU Member States have been inward looking.  That is to say, they have worked to create bodies *within* the ITU that are supposed to undertake work of various sorts on Internet-related issues and standards.  To participate in that work, the native Internet institutions have had to go to the ITU's meetings to try to help shape the discussion in a way that at least respects their own mandates.  A prime example of that is the joint ITU-T and ITU-D Group on IPv6
> <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/others/ipv6/Pages/default.aspx>.
>
> Member States are correct to be concerned that the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 takes place, and no doubt have questions about the mechanisms for that and a need for capacity-building and the sharing of best practices.  The RIRs are the most appropriate place for that discussion, and most if not all actively reach out to governments as well as the private sector and local Internet communities.  One hopes that the Plenipotentiary will lead those concerned, and the ITU itself, to participate in the RIRs' activity, rather than creating a stand-alone group in the ITU, where the RIRs, ISOC, ICANN and concerned governments and Sector Members feel a responsibility to participate, to ensure that the discussion is fact-based and to help direct on-going work in a positive direction.  (Another example of an ISOC paper that was widely used and referred to by governments is the briefing paper "A Fine Balance: Internet number resource distribution and de-centralisation", which you can find at:
> <http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/address-allocation_200906.pdf>
>
> As you know, on December 14, the UN held a consultation on "enhanced cooperation."  I sought your views, and shared the ISOC contribution that we provided to the UN in mid-November.  I requested, and got, a speaking slot during the consultations.  Since then, the IAB asked me to make it clear that I was speaking for them as well as ISOC at the event this week.  A point I stressed in that speech was the need for governments and intergovernmental organizations to recognize and participate in the native Internet organizations:
>
> "When speaking about Internet governance, it is vital that we cooperate in an open and reciprocal way.  Enhanced cooperation should not mean just that governments and intergovernmental organizations reach out and invite stakeholders from the private sector, civil society and the academic and technical community to come to their meetings.  It is equally important for governments and intergovernmental organizations to recognize that many of the relevant stakeholder groups have existing expert organizations with well established and open processes already dealing with Internet issues, which welcome all who want to participate.  Of course, some governments and intergovernmental organizations already do take part – the issue is one of enhancing the cooperation by learning to work together in the most appropriate venues, in partnership."
>
> That point seems particularly relevant to the discussion about what approach ISOC (writ large) should take to involvement with Member States and the ITU itself.
>
> Bill
>
>
>