[Chapter-delegates] What ISOC is doing

[vinton cerf]

Folks,

We might consider that ITU has three major branches, ITU-R, ITU-D and
ITU-T.
ITU-R is really the only venue for radio frequency allocation
discussions and for the most part has been effective, as far as I can tell.
ITU-D works along with others including UNDP to increase access to
telecommunications. ITU-T is a source of standards and is perhaps most
overlapping with ISOC, IETF, W3C and, as a nominally multi-lateral entity,
subject to a good deal of national political pressure.

One can readily appreciate Mike's perspective.

v



On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:58 AM Mike Godwin via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:29 AM Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:
>
>> Nothing of substance has come out of the big meetings in the ten years
>> I've been involved. After the US walked out at the WCIT, it's become mostly
>> a talkfest because they don't want to take on the US.
>>
>
>  This is not the most compelling argument in favor of the ITU that I've
> seen. But, to be clear, I'm not advocating that ISOC or anyone else simply
> ignore the ITU. What I'm saying instead is that governments--mostly of
> unfree countries--have been seeking to deploy the ITU as a way of
> controlling the internet for the last decade. There's no reason to think
> the ITU will be either competent or benign if it obtains that power.
>
>>
>> Multistakeholder/democratic is great. But that's not on the table here.
>>
>
> Nor is this a strong argument in favor of giving the ITU what
> its institutional tropisms want, which is control over the internet
> generally.
>
>>
>> ISOC itself is looking more to the UN and its Internet agency, the ITU.
>> Andrew responded to Veni's note with how we are working with the UN.
>>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "looking more to the UN and its Internet
> agency, the ITU."
>
>>
>> Neither the US nor the EU really cares about "multi-stakeholder" and on
>> important issues goes government to government. So we can advance the idea,
>> but in our work we should concentrate on what can work.
>>
>
> What can work, and what has worked, is the development of entities that in
> various ways have served as counterweights to the ITU.
>
>>
>> ISOC should not be taking sides in the cold war.
>>
>
> I don't know what this sentence is even about.
>
>>
>> What organization in our field has strong representation of all Internet
>> users? Toure reached out to us and slews of NGOs virtually begging us to
>> get more involved. The US had been attacking him for not being
>> multi-stakeholder and he saw us as allies to deflect that attack. He did
>> things like ask me to arrange a meeting with all the NGOs at the WCIT. NGOs
>> also could give him strength against Russian power plays, which he
>> privately didn't like.
>>
>
>  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with regard to Touré, who
> hasn't be SecGen for a while now.
>
> At any rate, my views remain as stated below. I'm not speaking for ISOC or
> any employer or client, but only with regard to my own views.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 8:57 PM Mike Godwin via Chapter-delegates <
>> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> My personal view, which does not reflect any institutional affiliation I
>>> may have, is that the ITU will never be an adequate venue for
>>> multistakeholderism that adequately includes non-governmental stakeholders
>>> (such as NGOs). Consider just this one factor, for example: many of the
>>> people whose interests will be directly affected by things the ITU cannot
>>> afford to take off two or three weeks every four years to hang out in a
>>> plenipotentiary meeting in Dubai and Romania. ITU by its very nature will
>>> always favor multilateralism over multistakeholderism. I can't speak for
>>> the Trump Administration's handling of its relationship with the ITU, but
>>> the USG has not been the primary motivating impulse behind multilateralism
>>> and privileging the ITU as somehow having innate power and authority over
>>> the internet despite having originated in the era of the telegraph and
>>> partaking of a century and a half of monopoly wireline traditions before
>>> belatedly realizing that the internet was turning into something important.
>>> It's the non-free nations (as defined by, e.g., Freedom House) that prefer
>>> multilateralism, and they make up a majority of members of the ITU.
>>>
>>> Let's not nurse fantasies of the wonderfulness of the ITU as an arbiter
>>> of tomorrow's internet.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> 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://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20210707/b1c41aa1/attachment.htm>