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

Tue Oct 16 09:31:34 PDT 2018

Richard,

one of the ways in which this works to the detriment of Internet principles
is to force the counterpart into a drill-down to ever more minute detail
until the investment of effort in counterarguments has too little return to
be worth the effort. Thanks but no thanks.

The first type of violation experienced in large ITU conferences is the
schedule. There is an evident sigh when the first meeting after dinner is
called. It goes from then on.

The other type of egregious violation consists of suddenly superseding the
supposedly tidy, long rules-compliant process of building up text for
resolutions through national and regional preparatory processes to drafting
and negotiating text on the fly.

The third thing ISOC representatives attending the Plenipot should be wary
of is of consultants who appear to be friendly to the Internet but are
actually doing hack jobs for operators and governments; and sometimes both,
as some operators are owned by governments or closely allied. This gets to
the point of becoming a fifth column against the long-term evolution of a
free, open Internet for all. Fortunately just watching who they sit with
over sessions - in the middle of enfranchised participants, while ISOC is
given one chair in the last table at the end of the room - is enough to
unmask them.

Alejandro Pisanty

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:32 AM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Please see below.
>
>
>
> Thanks and best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Chapter-delegates [mailto:
> chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On Behalf Of *Alejandro
> Pisanty
> *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2018 22:20
> *To:* Elizabeth Oluoch
> *Cc:* 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)
>
>
>
> Elizabeth,
>
>
>
> fully agree and I again commend this approach as taken. Now is the time
> for us in chapters to forcefully make our basic points of view known to the
> national delegations that will be attending, and to make sure they continue
> to listen to us through the Plenipot.
>
>
>
> >RH: Agreed. However, as I’ve pointed out before, I think that we should
> devote at least as much energy to influencing trade negotiations, in
> particular because trade negotiations result in binding treaty provisions,
> whereas the ITU PP can at most adopt non-binding resolutions.  Recall that
> the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) mandates that the ccTLD will publish WHOIS
> data. I would not be surprised if such proposals appeared in future trade
> negotiations.
>
>
>
> It is a long, gruelling few weeks, full of surprises and jarring
> violations of ground rules disguised in different ways.
>
>
>
> >RH: Could you please provide examples of violations of procedural rules?
> ITU’s procedural rules are very complicated and many people don’t actually
> understand them. So it would be good to have actual examples of violations.
>
>
>
> Secrecy in negotiations should not be allowed to hide what each delegation
> is doing, what principles they are actually championing and which they are
> hiding or openly violating.
>
>
>
> >RH: All of the proposals to the ITU-PP are publicly accessible on the ITU
> web site. And all the formal negotiating sessions are open to all people
> registered to attend PP.  Non-state actors (including ISOC) can ask to
> speak (but cannot take part in formal decision-making).  There are informal
> negotiating sessions between states that have differing views, and those
> are limited to the representatives of those states, but in the end the
> concerned states have to present their proposals in sessions that are open
> to all registered participants.
>
>
>
> >RH: Contrast that to WTO (and other trade negotiations), where not all
> proposals are made public, and the negotiations are limited to state
> representatives who make it a point not to consult (except perhaps big
> business).  Had anybody seen the text of the USMCA before it was formally
> agreed?
>
>
>
> SNIP
>
>
>
> there is a lot of non-transparent politics for these elections and that
> the negotiations may involve trading off or becoming silent on principles.
>
>
>
> >RH: The negotiations for elections are indeed kept confidential (secret,
> if you wish). But the voting is secret: nobody knows who voted for which
> candidate. So a state can promise a vote, and fail to deliver it. So I
> seriously doubt that there is any real horse-trading going on. What does go
> on is that many states tell several candidates that they will vote for
> them. In my experience,  in the past, several candidates had been promised
> enough votes to have a majority on the first round, which is obviously
> impossible.
>
>
>
> SNIP
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     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/20181016/af86025b/attachment.htm>