[Chapter-delegates] ITU conferences

Thu Feb 7 01:25:21 PST 2013

Dear Alejandro,

To answer your question: "What does each chapter see as highlights and
problems?" 

I belong to the Middle East region were all of the governments’
representatives at ITU voted for the ITR in Dubai and I am not proud of that
at all. So in view of the humiliating failure, I will skip the highlights.

Few days before the WCIT meeting, Lebanon’s representative speaking as a
panelist at INET Qatar, was passionate at defending the Internet
multi-stakeholder model and went even further to ask for no government
intervention at all. The political manipulation that led  to the
contradictory vote is still a mystery to us but we were not very surprised
from the outcome.

During ISOC Lebanon Chapter preparatory strategic planning works in November
2012 we reached to the following:

1 . What are the key challenges facing ISOC (Global) over the next 3 to 5
years in accomplishing its objectives in the Middle East region?

a.         Distrust in ISOC’s stewardship mainly from governments

b.         Disinterest from the region in participation and contribution to
ISOC bodies/groups such as Advisory Council, IETF, etc.

c.         Lack or poor understanding of the region geo-political,
eco-social and cultural dynamics

d.         Well established competition such as ITU, ESCWA, Arab League

e.         Shy ISOC presence in the region at all level (official visits to
government, media coverage, targeting advertizing and marketing,
conferences, workshops, etc.)

2. What are the actions or strategies that we can consider at the regional
level in response to these challenges taking in consideration the
unexploited capabilities and unemployed capacities?

a.         Increase representation from the region in ISOC

b.         <confidential restricted to ISOC-LB leadership team>

c.         Create ISOC bodies/groups for the region from the region – shy
mailing list exists

d.         Promote the value of the multi-stakeholders model to government,
civil society, business and academic

e.         Foster two-way engagement between ISOC and the Internet community
in the region with focus on governments

f.          Develop and train next generation leaders from the region

g.         Support and sponsor Internet related awareness and training
activities such as Internet Governance, copyright, privacy, e-transaction
laws, arbitration, IPv6, DNSSEC, security, routing, TLD management and
operation, IX management and operation, etc. 

h.         Promote ISOC and ISOC local chapters via official visits to
government officials and key stakeholders 

i.          Promote ISOC and ISOC local chapters via public media coverage,
targeted advertizing and marketing campaigns, conferences, etc.

As ISOC chapters we are a bunch of good intentioned volunteers, sparing
whatever time and resources we can afford to promote the Internet and defend
it. When we approach government official we are actually unofficial
representative of they don’t know what. On the other hand ITU, ESCWA, the
Arab League representations are official with full time personnel mandated
with research, marketing, negotiation and lobbying tasks.  

If we are the government faced with that unruly but vital development tool
that might make or break the economical competitive edge of the country,
deeply impact its political system and cultural identity, etc. which point
of view we would consider more seriously? The point of view of enthusiastic
hobbyist or those of ITU where you are treated as equal with full voting
power? (not to be misunderstood I am not promoting ITU’s operandus modi)

With ITU intervention (and in our part of the world the Arab League) we are
entering new playgrounds that we are not prepared or equipped for.  We
should rethink our model of local representations to be taken seriously and
to gain legitimacy/authority. Dependence on our personal assets proved to be
inadequate to say the least.

Best regards,

Nabil

-- 

Nabil Bukhalid

President

ISOC Lebanon

P.O.Box 113-6596
Hamra, Lebanon 

M: +961 (0)3 779116 <tel:%2B961%20%280%293%20779116> 
E:  <mailto:nabil.bukhalid at isoc.org.lb> nabil.bukhalid at isoc.org.lb 

 <http://www.isoc.org.lb/> W .
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/ISOC-Lebanon/157181607638474> Fb .
<http://twitter.com/ISOCLebanon> T 

---

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/20130207/24d78eb6/attachment.htm>