[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Statement on theNETmundial Initiative

[Richard Hill]

Dear Alejandro,

I fully agree with what you say below.  And I would add that I* folks did contribute to the discussions in ITU, as did ISOC itself (I don't remember whether ISOC participated in ITU-T Study Group 3, but I do recall that ISOC participated in discussions in certain other ITU groups).

Best,
Richard
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alejandro Pisanty 
  To: Richard Hill 
  Cc: Carlos Raúl G. ; Livingood, Jason ; chapter-d >> Chapter Delegates 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Statement on theNETmundial Initiative


  Richard, 


  we mostly agree. This is barely an Internet governance issue - at least 50/50 a teleoms issue, and it's not an orphan issue. 


  The stakehoders whom NMI might breing together are already meeting and working together elsewhere.


  Yes, it might be of interest if some telcos and governments meet in Davos and agree to make progress in the existing fora. "Meeting in Davos and agreeing for some other forum" is more Kaffeklatxch (gossip while drinking coffee) than a new Internet governance mechanism.



  So, most likely, one "orphan issue" which turns out to have parents, grandparents, uncles, siblings and a whole, huge family, not an orphan.


  This of course does not mean that it doesn't need attantion nor tha ISOC - and other I* organizations - can't contribute. But we do scratch it from the "absolutely needs NMI" list.


  Alejandro Pisany


  On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

    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


    _______________________________________________
    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






  -- 

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       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
  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20141119/57fbe8b3/attachment.htm>