[bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

[Wisdom Donkor]

Nicola is raising an important point. I am wondering what the motivation is
why ITU is now interested in internet policy. They should rather contribute
to the enhancement of the multi-stakeholder process instead of seeking new
roles in the development of core internet resources.

How is ITU going to do this, considering the fact that almost all their
meetings that i no off are top-down approach, very selective process of who
should attend their meetings. The same business men and women who are on
the ITU board are the same guys going to run the process unless other wise.



WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh


On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On 23/10/2014 3:09 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi Enrique
>
>
>  On Oct 22, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Enrique Chaparro <echaparro at VIALIBRE.ORG.AR> <echaparro at VIALIBRE.ORG.AR> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Bill, for keeping us in the loop and all others for their
> contributions.
>
> While I agree on Avri's characterization of NCSG, i.e., that
> NCSG does not need to be a (whatever)state-sanctioned body
> to have a role and its own word on Internet-related policies,
> I have several strong objections to the wording of the document
> and would _not_support NCSG endorsing it.
>
>  The NCSG PC (on which I do not have a vote) presumably would make a decision if able based on the thrust of member inputs and its own assessment.  Re: the former, it’d be helpful to know to what bits of text you have strong objections and why….
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> From the text:
>
>  *"ITU role in internet governance*. The ITU should work with other
> actors to contribute to furthering multistakeholder internet governance,
> rather than attempting to take on new responsibilities for the development
> of international internet public policy. The ITU should not seek a role in
> the development of policies on core Internet resources such as domain name
> and addresses. *The ITU should continue to focus on ever more important
> core issues such as access, infrastructure and related capacity building. *
> (*My emphasis*)"
>
> and
>
> "*Capacity-building*. The ITU should enhance the provision of
> capacity-building support to developing countries through ITU-D, ITU-T and
> ITU-R, in their respective roles and through collaboration, whilst also
> ensuring that these efforts are coordinated with those of standard-setting
> and other bodies that do similar or associated work."
>
>
> Made me want to say that the last time the ITU (ITRs) tried to meddle with
> access (and indirectly, in its own [faulty] justification, with
> infrastructure and capacity building) I wasn't impress (see
> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-04/itrs.html for a great introduction
> to parts of what was going on).
>
> I was gonna say that I'm not eager to have our name next to a "yeah, why
> don't you guys ― an international treaty org, mind you, with great
> democratic lacunas and many more possibilities for undemocratically
> enforcing bad schemes ― focus less on our turf and more on ... say ...
> access and IP interconnection termination billing scheme ... and stuff ....
> "
>
> But then I read more:
>
>
> * "International interconnection and net neutrality*. The ITU should not
> attempt to address access and infrastructure issues in developing countries
> through policy and regulatory changes to global peering and
> interconnection, but encourage IXPs, infrastructure build-out, local
> content development and enabling environments that promote investment and
> competition." (...)
>
> (...) We share the concerns expressed by many Member States about
> infrastructure investment and buildout around the world — particularly in
> developing countries. The high cost of international connectivity is being
> dealt with through a range of measures, including competition, enabling
> environments and investment, increased traffic demand and reduced costs,
> Internet Exchange Points and local and regional traffic exchange, increased
> access to undersea cables, work in ITU SG 3, and work in ITU-D to
> incentivize Internet investment in previously underserved and unserved
> parts of the world.
>
> Evolution of interconnection for IP traffic and IP enabled services
> remains an unsettled issue with no broadly accepted set of standards to
> govern international settlement. Currently, individual countries have the
> authority to regulate IP interconnection rates as needed, and this remains
> the optimal approach in such a dynamic and evolving market.
>
>
> And my reservations were mostly put to bed. In the time I took this
> morning to make up my mind, I do not see why we shouldn't sign this.
>
> Nicolas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141023/69969767/attachment.htm>