[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Statement on theNETmundial Initiative

[Richard Hill]

Dear Carlos,

I agree that your 3 below is an issue. It it affects the cost of connectivity, in particular in developing countries.  This issue has been under discussion in ITU for many years, see for example:

 http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com03/iic/

So one might conclude that it is not sufficiently addressed by ITU.  But the reason for the relatively slow progress of the discussions is that there were major disagreements regarding the causes, and thus regarding what measures to take to address the issue.

Recently, there has been quite a bit of progress, because consensus has been reached that there are multiple causes, and all should be addressed, see:

  http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-D.50-201305-I!Sup2 

I doubt that some other forum could have progressed the discussions any faster, unless it was a forum that did not include the full spectrum of views (for example, if the forum included mostly developed country operators, you would reach conclusions quickly, but they would not be necessarily accepted by developing county operators).

So, for the particular issue you raise, I don't see the need for any new groups.

I do, however, see the need to improve existing groups, and this is, I think, consistent with the ISOC statement.

Best,
Richard
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Carlos Raúl G. 
  To: Livingood, Jason 
  Cc: chapter-d >> Chapter Delegates 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Statement on theNETmundial Initiative


  1- YES
  2- YES 
  3- regional traffic Infraestructure and local market conditions for access 

  Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
  +506 8335 2487
  Enviado desde mi iPhone

  El nov 19, 2014, a las 12:57 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com> escribió:


    On 11/19/14, 9:58 AM, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
      @Raul  It is not well understood that this is NOT our final position, and a bit of negative publicity has resulted and a few other actors have used this announcement to campaign against NETmundial.


    It is not about NETmundial, it is about the newly proposed NETmundial Initiative, something quite different. 


    I regret that you feel it put us in a negative position but we strongly disagreed with the entire top-down concept of oversight of the group. 


    Some questions I have:


    1 – Do you agree that the IANA transition is a very important priority for us to continue to focus on?


    2 – Are there major “Internet governance” issues that cannot be addressed by existing groups – OR are being insufficiently addressed by existing groups?


    3 – If so, what are those issues?


    Thanks!
    Jason


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20141119/97f47038/attachment.htm>