[Chapter-delegates] Call with Chapters in advance of the ITU Plenipotentiary 2018 (18 Oct, 10:00 and 20:00 UTC)

Mon Nov 5 08:18:05 PST 2018

Nadira

I've had the opposite experience at ITU, often engaging is useful
discussions up to the level of Secretary-General. I suspect that's because
I stick to the areas where I have expertise that's useful to them. My work
gives me depth in topics like the right wireless technology for rural areas
and the cost obstacles for expanding broadband.

For example, at the WCIT, I instigated what became a meeting between the
Secretary-General and key civil society delegates.
--------------
What doesn't work is presenting yet another opinion on topics the listener
have heard before. The question of whether the ITU should be involved with
things like OTT has been the centre of discussion since well before 2012.
Are you bringing ideas they haven't heard before? The comments by people on
this thread, including the well-informed Alejandro, have been often
discussed before. Something like two-thirds of the delegates believe that
the ITU is the better place to have these discussions because it is far
more representative than, for example, ICANN. (Check the board members in
detail.)

There are clearly problems of importance here. Google is trying to avoid
US$Billions in ordinary taxes in India. The most important International
issue affecting the cost of access is cartel-like pricing on backhaul &
transit. Facebook until recently hired almost no one in Africa despite
hundreds of millions of subscribers. If you try to estimate the flow of
funds from the developing world to a few Internet giants, you'll discover a
large figure that is enough to affect any local efforts to grow the net.

The one that strikes people in the gut is the incredibly effective
surveillance by the NSA as revealed by Snowden. People like Alejandro and
Vint may have deep philosophical reasons to keep governments away from the
Internet I can respect. But everyone in the process knows that the U.S.
government's primary goal in restricting ITU is to protect the freedom of
the NSA to do what the NSA does. That's the elephant in the room that
cannot be ignored.

In fact, *the traditional role of the ITU is as the U.N. agency that
relates to the Internet. *That was strongly supported in earlier days by
the United States. The source of my information is Dick Beaird who was Senior
Deputy United States Coordinator International Communications and
Information Policy.

The strong majority of Internet users are in Asia and now Africa and Latin
America. Where else can their concerns rise to the top of the agenda?

Editor, http://Fastnet.news http://wirelessone.news gfastnews.com
Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One. (2
or 3/month)

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:18 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:

> Richard,
>
> thanks for conveying the ITU view. We should now continue to work on the
> ISOC view.
>
> Borka, Nadira, some of our chapters have taken part in consultations
> convened by governments in the preparatory stages and otherwise made
> expressions to them in the sense that the scope of the ITU with respect to
> the Internet should be kept restrained as much as possible. We have a
> slight chance of making known now that the "Internet resolutions" are not
> complying with that view, both in direct correspondence and in open ways,
> through social media. At least in the Plenipot eight years ago, some
> resolutions were becoming the laughing stock of the Internet (such as
> refusing to mention ICANN, the IETF, the RIRs and ISOC by name, not even in
> footnotes.) Public, social-media pressure was effective then. The national
> delegates and the ITU authorities may have become more impervious to this
> kind of pressure but we will not know if no one tries.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 12:24 AM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>> Dear Alejandro,
>>
>>
>>
>> ITU-T Study Group 3 has been studying OTT since 2013, see:
>>
>>
>>
>>   https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2013-2016/03/Pages/q9.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2013-2016/03/Pages/ott.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>> A summary of the status of the work as of October 2017 is at:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-Seminars/bsg/201710/Documents/Park.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> The work is continuing, with the Terms of Reference at:
>>
>>
>>
>>   https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/03/Pages/q9.aspx
>>
>>
>> Given the sensitivity of the topic, it might be difficult to find
>> consensus in ITU-T Study Group 3 on Recommendations regarding OTT.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding “resolutions in the ITU Plenipotentiary that are out of scope
>> for the organization”, ITU - like all other intergovernmental organizations
>> and most organizations in general - defines its own scope. So, by
>> definition, a PP Resolution cannot be out of scope, since it defines the
>> scope.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that what you mean is “resolutions in the ITU Plenipotentiary
>> that, in our view, should be out of scope for the organization”. If indeed
>> that is ISOC’s view.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 4, 2018 04:41
>> *To:* Richard Hill
>> *Cc:* Elizabeth Oluoch; ISOC Chapter Delegates
>> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] Call with Chapters in advance of the
>> ITU Plenipotentiary 2018 (18 Oct, 10:00 and 20:00 UTC)
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> it's happening, as reported in social media. Drafting by a huge
>> committee, resolutions in the ITU Plenipotentiary that are out of scope for
>> the organization, while all "sector members" (i.e. companies and operators)
>> and organizations like ISOC have 1.5 rows of seats at the back of the room,
>> without power outlets. See this figure:
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we in ISOC Chapters promptly draft a petition to each of our
>> governments, easy to translate into many languages, to demand that they
>> vote to fullly retire this resolution? We certainly can do it without
>> becoming subservient to the OTTs or any other private, for-profit
>> interests, going instead against "mission creep" (an unjustifiable growth
>> in scope of the ITU) and its negative effects on the Internet. What do
>> other Chapter delegates think?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181105/d50dad5d/attachment.htm>