[Chapter-delegates] ISOC Report on Plenipotentiary Conference week 2 & views on Internet issues

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Bill, Veni,


On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

> Bill,
> it would be good to include in the Synopsis a note that says which exactly
> are these "Internet Organizations", who provide their perspectives.
> Currently, as there's no such note in the document, one may think that all
> RIRs are behind them, as well as (including, bu not limited to) the IETF,
> the W3C, and ICANN. You say in your email, it's the RIR at the ITU Plenipot,
> but does that mean all of them - ARIN, AFRNIC and APNIC, or only some of
> them?
>



>
> Also, while the Synopsis seems good at first reading, a second reading
> throws some doubts on its objectivity. For example, there's no mentioning of
> the role of governments in the Internet-related public policy (except when
> you quote the title of one of the resolutions), which under the Tunis
> agenda, is a matter for governments to deal with, and as far as I remember,
> no Internet organization has claimed it's not the right thing to do for
> governments. See paragraph 29 and 35
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.htmlop
>
> It is only now that I have the time to review in full length the document,
> and I am surprised to see that it rejects some of the basic principles of
> the WSIS documents,


ITU's aspirations to control the WSIS process needs to be checked. ISOC's
second week document is very clear on the limits of ITU's role in the WSIS.

In the Governance list I posted this contextually, with the suggestion that
the task of ORGANIZING the WSIS should be a mutl-stakeholder process:

Sivasubramanian M ✆ to governance, Wolfgang, Izumi, Yrjö
show details Oct 23 (2 days ago)
*Dear Wolfgang,*
*
*
*I read that one of the resolutions pertinent to ITU's role in WSIS
is RESOLUTION 140 (Antalya, 2006) ITUʼs role in implementing the outcomes of
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) [a revision of Antalya,
2006?]*
*
*
*In the context of this resolution "**Several Contributions to PP ʼ10 seek
to alter and in some cases expand the role of the ITU, particularly in the
field of Internet governance. In addition, one Member State advocated that
the ITU should organize a third WSIS to be held in 2015."  *[This was an
observation at the end of Week 2, but there might not have been changes in
contributions to that effect during Week 3.]
*
*
*In an ISOC communication, I read that these are ISOC's views: *
*
*
*"It is also important to remember that the WSIS was not an ITU Conference;
the **UN General Assembly authorized it, as we were reminded by the
delegation of **Egypt in the Working Group of Plenary. That is an important
fact to keep in mind **at PP ʼ10. For example, the ITU has not got the
authority to change the **decisions of the WSIS by instructing the IGF on
how it should work, or by **advocating a role for the ITU that is not
consistent with the Tunis Agenda action **lines.*
*
*
*We believe it is important for the ITU to play a key role in implementing
the **outcomes of WSIS. But in doing so, we also believe it is important to
respect and **take advantage of the multistakeholder processes that were
proven to be **valuable in the WSIS -- Internet Society"*
*
*
I recall that you (Wolfgang Kleinwaechter) first raised the though that
there should be a review of WSIS just as we have a review of the IGF. The
views quoted above clearly indicate that there is a need for clarity on how
the WSIS should be organized and for clarity in the role of stakeholders in
ORGANIZING WSIS.

Sivasubramanian M
India.


*
*
- Hide quoted text -

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 1:48 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang
.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Thanks Yrjö
>
> interesting to see how realities (and innovative looking forward
> approaches) reach the bastions of yesteryears tradition. This opens the door
> for "enhanced cooperation" in a new way and will probably significantly
> influence the forthcoming consultations by the UN on this issue.
>
> Here is another question: What the PP plans to decide with regard to WSOS
> 2015 (and the role of the ITU PP 2014) in this process?
>
> Thanks
>
> wolfgang
>



> which were agreed in the first of its kind cooperation between governments,
> civil society, and business.
>
> Would be good, if you open the document for consultations with the
> chapters, and the other relevant organizations, and put it in the
> perspective of the next four years. I'd be happy to engage from
> ISOC-Bulgaria personally.
>
> best,
> veni



Sivasubramanian M
http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz


>
> On 10/20/2010 18:35, Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I have attached copies of a new report on the goings-on at the ITU
>> Plenipotentiary Conference now going on in Mexico.  These will also be
>> posted to the web site soon.  I hope you find them useful.  I have also
>> attached a document about the main issues related to Internet issues at the
>> conference prepared on 15 October in cooperation with the RIRs in
>> attendance.  I hope these are useful for you.  Feel free to use and
>> distribute them as you see fit.
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20101026/9a7b0296/attachment.htm>