<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 24 December 2012 01:57 AM,
michael gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3">http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Could not open this link but saw on youtube ar <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A</a><br>
<br>
A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me,
and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive
agenda at the WCIT by civil society.<br>
<br>
Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side,
and there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)...
(paraphrased)<br>
<br>
And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being <i>on the
telecom side</i>.... Of course, he (like us) was happy that ENTO
proposal did not pass, he clearly seems to agree that it belonged
to the telecom side, and thus to ITR's mandate. <br>
<br>
This is very significant. (Others who know US positions better can
perhaps clarify.)<br>
<br>
If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very
disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection
regimes be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's
case that ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/
infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that<i>
some kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs</i>.<br>
<br>
Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at
the WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not
something members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it
surprised me, but this statement is consistent with the above one
on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is Internet, right! <br>
<br>
This is perplexing. Does the Ambassador say that US would have
accepted to write in the ITR's high-level principles that, say,
ETNO kind of proposals should never be encouraged (I mean, of
course, in some form of non-specific formal text) and that, say,
more competition should be promoted to improve universal access to
broadband .<br>
<br>
From his speech I clearly get this impression. And if true, that
makes a revealing point. <br>
<br>
Why did the civil society then had this single agenda - no
internet in the ITRs (as if the Internet was a kind of virus
which, even if present in the minutest quantity, spreads
everywhere quickly) - without making the distinction between the
physical/ infrastructure player (with issues like broadband
access, net neutrality, inter-connection regimes) and higher,
application and content players. <br>
<br>
Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda
around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis
the issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. <br>
<br>
Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the
secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the
extreme libertarian actors, to just see the ITU die, and with it,
also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national
levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play
games and say so it clearly. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even
the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant
for the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance
addresses the issue of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net
neutrality' was identified as a key cross-border issues by a
Council of Europe's expert committee, in which incidentally,
Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are
questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG
civil society'.<br>
<br>
Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the
intense ideological struggle taking place around the remit and
powers of the FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality
is now all but lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own
national regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out!<br>
<br>
That was at least as big a game that played out at the WCIT as the
efforts by some authoritarian countries to use ITU to carve out
tightly controllable 'national segments' of the Internet. But,
such is the power of the neoliberal social intermediary space - in
which I include media as well as the civil society - that only one
story is coming out of the WCIT. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>