[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Statement on theNETmundial Initiative

[Richard Hill]

Dear Carlos,

Whether or not to "increase speed" is a delicate matter when there is lack of unanimity.  It is not necessarily a good idea to force decisions when there is no true consensus.  I think that was the case at WCIT, but also at Netmudial, where, as you know, several civil society organizations expressed reservations about the outcome.

On the other hand, I agree that sometimes decisions do need to be taken, even if there is not unanimity.  But it is a delicate matter.

Best,
Richard
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Carlos Raúl G. [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org]
  Sent: jeudi, 20. novembre 2014 01:27
  To: Richard Hill
  Cc: Livingood, Jason; chapter-d >> Chapter Delegates
  Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Statement on theNETmundial Initiative


  Dear Richard!


  Thank for your good explanations. But if we don't need new groups or not, we agree that the present ones have to increase their speed exponentially and not wait just for the next meeting.


  The speed of he cross community working groups on the IANA transition or the speed of the Net Mundial declaration should be the new benchmarks for the local/regional issues as well, if we want continuous support from the bottom of the connectivity ladder.


  Best regards

  Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
  +506 8335 2487
  Enviado desde mi iPhone

  El nov 19, 2014, a las 4:40 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> escribió:


    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/20141120/27dbdd3f/attachment.htm>