[Chapter-delegates] ITU conferences

[Holly Raiche]

Hi Alejandro

Actually, our chapter is holding a meeting on 21 March, with three of the members of the Australian delegation to Dubai talking about the issues that were raised by WCIT andaddressed - or not - and what the outstanding issues are for the WTPF meeting in May.  Happy to report back.

Holly


On 07/02/2013, at 4:33 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:

> Veni,
> 
> thanks for sharing this! My reaction is somewhere between "I confess" and "Orwell." 
> 
> We definitely must work hard with our governments.
> 
> We would do well in quickly assessing what went well and what didn't work or even was counterproductive in our interventions (individual, collective, through HQ and in the aggregate) for WCIT in order to do even better in WTPF.
> 
> What does each chapter see as highlights and problems? let's list no more than three each in this round. 
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
>  
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>  
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> 
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 
> 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 Veni Markovski [veni at veni.com]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de febrero de 2013 10:22
> Hasta: Giandomenico Massari
> CC: 'Chapter Delegates'
> Asunto: [Chapter-delegates] ITU conferences
> 
> I think you should familiarize yourselves with these selected quotes from the Iranian contribution to the Sec-Gen report  on the WTPF (attached). 
> 
> It might be good for chapters to start thinking how better to educate our governments, so that they don't fall into issuing similar statements.
> 
> v.
>  
> …
>  
> Internet has been used as a tool/means to disseminate false, untrue, misleading, inciting, provocative information, propaganda, cultural attack which have had adverse impact on culture, dignity, customs, tradition, conviction belief, friendship, family life, honor of peoples in certain circumstances, and for certain countries as well as social instability, security, integrity, unity, solidarity, integrity, political stability and peace in certain other countries.
>  
> …
>  
> Are we serious that Internet is part of telecommunication infrastructure (wired and/or wireless? At recent WCIT-12, Internet was considered as a “Holly Word “and no one was allowed to pronounce it loudly otherwise the action could have had a severe consequences?
>  
> …
>  
> The catastrophic issue is that  some country , exercises  major  control over a vital area of Internet governance  improperly and misleadingly claims that the broaden intergovernmental participation in the governance of Internet would  result in handing  over the key issues to  other countries to have any role in the governance of the Internet . 
> The question is that requiring  that  service providers to block access to certain websites, very much contrary to official positions  claimed by  some country on censorship and internet freedom, is  almost certainly in contradiction with  transparency,   openness, and democratic functioning of Internet.
>  
> …
>  
> The fundamental question here is whether Today’s Internet is , transparent and democratic and open. Due to the fact that these adjectives have different meaning in view of different  entities /people  In view of many governments, in particular, those of developing countries none of these three adjectives prevail in the Internet Process .a) it is not transparent as the relevant information is not actually clear and transparent. It is not democratic since governments has either no role or little advisory role in the management of the Internet .It is not democratic because governments are not treated with / on equal footing with respect of other players .It is there under almost private or  less inclusive / non collective management. In fact some of the most important area of Internet dealing with public policy issues are not governed by collective governments cooperation or any intergovernmental organization but by individual national government( s) and big businesses as a totally decentralized bottom-up regime of governance .The most blend of that is that a very narrow pro WGIG DEFINITION of Internet governance exclude vital issues such as intellectual property, privacy, enforcement, and data protection on line filtering and network neutrality.
> The catastrophic issue is that some country, exercises major control over a vital area of Internet governance  improperly and misleadingly claims that the broaden intergovernmental participation in the governance of Internet would  result in handing  over the key issues to  other countries to have any role in the governance of the Internet.
>  
> ….
>  
> Best,
> Veni
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best, 
> Veni Markovski
> http://www.veni.com
> https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski
> https://twitter.com/veni
> 
> The opinions expressed above are those of the 
> author, not of any organizations, associated 
> with or related to him in any given way. 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130207/2d83b6d1/attachment.htm>