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

[CW Mail]

Dear Rudi:

Whilst I generally understand and appreciate your interest in Internet  
security, I think it is time to say that your specific participation  
in the "Clean-IT" project is a source of embarrassment and concern  
among your colleagues in European Chapters. May I ask you either to  
withdraw completely from Clean-IT or to make it quite clear both to  
the participants and to your ISOC colleagues that you are doing so  
exclusively in a personal capacity.

Thankyou and regards

Christopher Wilkinson
Vice President, ISOC-Belgium Wallonia Chapter


On 25 Oct 2012, at 08:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121025/2e470084/attachment.htm>