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

[Franck Martin]

ICANN counter acted some of the ITU politics/brouhaha by creating the fellowship for developing countries.

ITU uses countries in need of money or listening to push their agenda.

Give money for better value shopping trips, or have a local presence, and you will dry the ITU source to help them find their raison d'etre on the Internet.

The ISOC IETF fellowships are also a good initiative in this sense, the InternetOn and INET conferences properly handled could bring the clueless to start barking at the right tree leaving a few oddballs in ITU.

Another group to watch, is the cybersecurity conferences organised by the European Council (in Strasbourg, not Bruxelles).

Franck Martin 
http://www.avonsys.com/ 
http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys 
twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys 

Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
To: "Bill Graham" <graham at isoc.org>
Cc: "Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Sent: Thursday, 16 December, 2010 5:46:36 PM
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] ITU reciprocity, was Re: How can ISOC chapters help in the development of IP-based networks?

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.)