<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I agree that there is much
that could happen at the ITU which poses danger to the Internet as we
know. And we need to be careful, vigilant and active. I also agree with
Avri's hierarchy of concerns, in this regard.<br>
<br>
What I dont like is <br>
<br>
(1) One sidedness of the hugely dominant discourse that can rent all
public spaces and avenues to cry hoarse over the minutest, actual or
imagined, activity that hurts the nicely settled status quo, which is
largely a Northern take on things, while it so completely ignores or
pooh poohs real and legitimate concerns of many actors from the South,
vis a vis the status quo. This onesidedness is the problem<br>
<br>
(2) A somewhat related onesided-ness of the hugely dominant and shrill
discourse vis a vis the claimed gov-control and civil-political human
rights issues, and complete ignoring of the very real dangers of
corporate control and economic and social rights issues. For instance,
everyone seems to be happily ignoring the fact that the recently
released background brief on WCIT has the following as perhaps the only
para describing a substantive issue<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> "Meanwhile,
some companies offer web-based services that are growing in popularity,
but which use increasing amounts of network capacity without
necessarily generating larger revenues for the companies that provide
the infrastructure. The market is evolving fast, just as demand is
booming worldwide. How is new infrastructure to be expanded to cope
with demand (especially in developing countries), and who should pay
for its expansion and its use?</font>"<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
A solid global network neutrality related alarm bell if they ever could
be one. Also shows the domination of telecom firms over ITU and how
this could be a such big problem - destroying the basis of the Internet
as we know. <br>
<br>
Other substantive issue that is mentioned is a right to communicate,
something I look to with much positive anticipation. Again, it is the
hegemony of certain powers and their discourse that even a 'rights
based framing' gets exclusively seen in suspicious terms, completely
ignoring its good potential. I do think that the ICT space should be
constructed from a rights based perspective, and a right to communicate
is a solid basis to start such a construction.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
On Friday 15 June 2012 01:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:3e213383-5b4f-4b43-be60-9ab76a07b3cc@email.android.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I thought WCIT was a vote, not consensus.
If it was consensus I would have little concern, but with a vote I have more. And as I say I am much more concerned about the protocol issues than numbering issues and these more than any naming issues.
I know that you and the NYT have told me I need have no concern, but for now I just don't see it that way.
avri
Milton L Mueller <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu"><mueller@syr.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">a
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">another
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">agenda...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Right. Right. Right. This is why the ITU conspiracy talk irritates me
so much. National govts - of all types and stripes - are objectively a
far greater threat to Internet freedom. Not that the ITU is no threat
at all, but it can't do much without a fairly wide consensus among
national govt members, and the inordinate amount of attention devoted
to it has certain features of a diversionary tactic.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Personal comment: if democratic countries do this, what message does
this send to undemocratic countries?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Exactly.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>