[Chapter-delegates] Input Request: ISOC Comments to WCIT

Wed Oct 24 23:57:00 PDT 2012

Dear Alejandro, Sally,

Indeed, your text is quite clear and correct. As you know, I'm also focusing on the security aspect of the Internet and that requires in some cases a kind of control on what's going on. Not that I say we should allow governments to block on a general basis access to the Internet. When actions on the net are an infringement on national or regional law, we must allow government and LEA's to act as quickly as possible. I know, it is a contradiction in itself, but still I'm convinced of the fact that we need mechanisms to self protect the Internet from harmful actions and usage. How to solve all this is again another issue. Anyhow, openness of the Internet is primer to all other elements. A good balance of both are required and will need further in depth study how to do so. Perhaps this could be part of a study group within ISOC.

Rudi Vansnick

Op 25-okt-2012, om 02:46 heeft Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch het volgende geschreven:

> Dear Sally,
> 
> thanks. To restate my point more bluntly: 
> 
> I think that most chapters must make clear to the governments of our countries that when we move in favor of Internet openness, interoperability, multistakeholder governance, etc., and against negative or potentially negative resolutions in conferences like WCIT, we are not only following a global agenda and certainly not putting ourselves at the service of foreign powers or private companies. 
> 
> Therefore it is incumbent on all of us to show that what we propose is aligned with the national interest of each of our countries and what we oppose is against it. 
> 
> So, if in a given country the representatives to WCIT were to favor resolutions that enable, enhance, or provide a political shield for overreaching measures for blocking communications claiming grounds of national interest, we have to argue that in fact the overreaching measures are aginst the national interest. When possible we have to argue this based on proven factual evidence. 
> 
> This is necessary on grounds of principle and doubly necessary given the stigma that "globalization" carries in many places, and the possible misconstruction of the I* community as servers of large corporate interest or of foreign powers. 
> 
> Is that clearer? Do others find this useful?
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
>   
> ! !! !!! !!!!
> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
>  
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> 
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO
> 
> SMS +525541444475 
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> 
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
> 
> Desde: Sally Wentworth [wentworth at isoc.org]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 24 de octubre de 2012 17:18
> Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates
> Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Input Request: ISOC Comments to WCIT
> 
> Hi Alex, 
> Thanks for this.  
> 
> Let me be sure I understand your point.  I think that you're hoping that we make clear that openness isn't for openness sake - rather, openness allows for local solutions, local "discovery of best practices" as you put it.  Rather than a one-size-fits all, global approach, the open Internet allows for policy makers and local communities to come together to develop policy, technology, commerce, etc that meets local needs rather than having to conform to laws and regulations coming from Geneva. 
> 
> Recognizing the text above is rough and not as elegant as yours, is this close to the right idea?
> 
> Sally
> 
> 
> Sally Wentworth
> Internet Society 
> +1 703 439 2146
> wentworth at isoc.org
> www.isoc.org
> 
> On Oct 24, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
> 
>> Dear Sally,
>> 
>> let me add one very important angle here (hoping to develop it further later):
>> 
>> All the issues you mention for WCIT and the revision of the ITRs reflect on national-interest dimensions in every country and we should be able to express that angle clearly. 
>> 
>> Much of what you say here with regard to WCIT and the proposed revisions to the ITRs is - correctly - framed in a global context, as is appropriate to the single, global Internet.
>> 
>> However, that global angle may make readers in national contexts feel that our concerns are too abstract. In some cases, further, there is an appeal to the national interest in being able to protect local businesses, including telcos and carriers, and to filter, block, or otherwise shape the contents and conducts that use the Internet.
>> 
>> Those views are in conflict with one of the national interest residing in connectedness and openness of the Internet, of shared leadership for change in the world, and using the same, global, open Internet and its tools to deal with content and conduct issues at the proper layers. These issues are better addressed by laws and agreements specific to the problems that undoubtedly need to be solved, but on a platform of communication that serves all equally.
>> 
>> Keeping the platform open and broadly shared allows for the discovery of best practices to curtail the evils that national authorities don't only want but actually need to address. That is the enlightened national interest in the Internet era. Leading on, with, the Internet, not against.
>> 
>> It would be highly desirable to instill that vision - if you share it - into each of the issues in your list. We've done so in the ISOC Mexico contribution to our national delegation (you have copies of our document, unfortunately only available in Spanish for now.) 
>> 
>> Yours,
>> 
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>> 
>>   
>> ! !! !!! !!!!
>> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
>>  
>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>> 
>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO
>> 
>> SMS +525541444475 
>>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>> 
>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
>> 
>> Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org [chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Sally Wentworth [wentworth at isoc.org]
>> Enviado el: martes, 23 de octubre de 2012 06:29
>> Hasta: ISOC Chapter Delegates
>> Asunto: [Chapter-delegates] Input Request: ISOC Comments to WCIT
>> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>>  
>> As you may be aware, the ITU has set up a system to accept public comments on the draft ITRs or other issues related to WCIT.  We have decided that the Internet Society should submit its views via this consultative process.  The good news is that we have much material to draw upon - found here: http://bit.ly/TvpSD7
>>  
>> Our intended comments are along the following lines:
>>  
>> -       to outline a positive way forward for the ITRs; 
>> -       to emphasize the things that have worked in the field of telecommunications; 
>> -       to make a case for why the Internet should not fall within the scope of the ITRs; and,
>> -       to highlight specific proposals where the Internet Society has strong positions.   
>>  
>>  
>> In terms of specific proposals, ISOC has already made its views clear on a few topics which we will probably reiterate in our contribution: 
>> -       Nature of ITU-T Recommendations in the treaty - ITU-T Recommendations should remain voluntary;
>> -       Concepts of competition and liberalization should be included in the treaty as key to the development of international telecommunications worldwide;
>> -       Inclusion of spam definition and provisions - concern with inclusion of content into the treaty;
>> -       Security - ISOC has already expressed concern with security-related provisions and has explicitly said that content, national defense and security, and cybercrime aspects should be excluded from the ITRs;
>> -       Interconnection Agreements - a new interconnection model via the ITRs runs the serious risk of fragmenting the Internet.  ITRs should not set out Interconnection criteria;
>> -       Naming, numbering and addressing - ISOC has opposed references to Internet resources such as IP addresses in the ITRs.
>>  
>>  
>> Some additional topics for consideration:
>> -       Scope of Application of the ITRs - use of the term "Recognized Operating Agency" versus use of term "Operating Agency" throughout the treaty text;
>> -       Changes to definitions of "telecommunication" and "international telecommunication";
>> -       mandating QoS and related network configuration and management issues in the ITRs; 
>> -       Traffic routing regulations related to IP traffic in the ITRs; 
>> -       ITR Regulations related to Internet naming, numbering or addressing. 
>>  
>> I would appreciate hearing your comments on the additional topics above or other aspects of the contribution by Friday, 26 October.  We will be submitting our comments to the ITU by the 03 November deadline (or earlier if possible). 
>>  
>> Kind Regards, 
>> Sally
>> 
>> 
>> Sally Wentworth
>> Internet Society 
>> +1 703 439 2146
>> wentworth at isoc.org
>> www.isoc.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20121025/f6c94d03/attachment.htm>