[Chapter-delegates] Report from ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, week 1

[Veni Markovski]

Bill is doing good job covering the ITU Plenipit.
ISOC could have sent more than 1 person, because there are competing
events at the Plenipot and 1 person can't cover them. Bill may agree
that in some cases help from a friend is needed.
The results from the Plenipot will define to some extent what ISOC
might be doing in the years to come, so it is good to participate; it
is not good it can't influence the outcome, and can't speak, as
speaking is only allowed to governments :-( and some of the latter
need ISOC to, hm, advice? them :)

ISOC should spend more resources on bringing chapters on board with
the ITU; the Mexican chapter should have been in Guadalajara, and some
others could have joined governmental delegations, too.

I'd also like to hear such reports from the different ITU working
groups, which ISOC is allowed to participate in. And, of course, I'd
like to hear chapters volunteering people (and ISOC covering expenses
for them) to go to such WG meetings.

Would that be possible (and, to use Franck's note, positively?) for ISOC?


Best,
Veni
http://www.veni.com
(via blackberry)


On 10/10/10, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick at vande-walle.eu> wrote:
> +1
>
> "Franck Martin" <franck at avonsys.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not saying that Bill being at ITU is a waste of resources, I'm
>>saying that fighting the ITU is a waste of resources.
>>
>>While we try to counteract ITU plans, we don't spend our resources in
>>the development of the Internet.
>>
>>Negative position vs Positive position, this is what I'm advocating.
>>
>>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: "Christopher Wilkinson" <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>>To: "Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>>Cc: "Executive Team" <exec-team at elists.isoc.org>
>>Sent: Sunday, 10 October, 2010 4:22:57 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Report from ITU Plenipotentiary
>>Conference,	week 1
>>
>>Dear Franck:
>>
>>I think we know each other well enough for you not to be miffed that
>>on this occasion we disagree a little bit.
>>
>>I consider that this is an excellent and well worthwhile use of Senior
>>
>>ISOC Staff resources, and of the ISOC budget. We need that.
>>I think Bill and colleagues will have their work cut out to keep up
>>with the whole of the ITU PP10 during the next two weeks.
>>We look forward to their further reports.
>>
>>On the substance, there is clearly a good deal of education and
>>clarification still needed in ITU on matters such as OSI and 'NGN'
>>Also, if I may be allowed to quote a posting from our friend and
>>critic, William Drake, recently on the Governance List:
>>
>><< It's a pity there are no CS (Civil Society) organizations prepared
>>to test the (ITU) secretariat's frequent declarations of openness to
>>CS participation and actually apply to be sector members in ITU-T or
>>ITU-D;
>>the only related entity participating is ISOC, which has made many
>>good interventions against heavy intergovernmentalism but has not
>>sought to be a vehicle for wider member/community/CS engagement etc.>>
>>
>>Perhaps faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
>>
>>Regards to you all,
>>
>>CW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Chapter-delegates mailing list
>>Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
> Best regards,
> Cordialement,
>
> Patrick Vande Walle
> --
> Sent from my mobile phone. Apologies for the typos and the brevity of the
> reply.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device