<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that this<b><i><span style="color:#1F497D">[</span></i></b><span style="color:#1F497D">root zone control]</span> has absolutely no place in the ITRs. The ITRs are not a framework
agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty of rather questionable utility that pertains to how traditional telecom services offered to the general public should be organized at the political level. DNS matters absolutely do not fit in here even if the Russians
and some Arab countries would like to stir it into the pot, and its inclusion would be a regressive step that would correctly engender such extensive Reservations as to make it meaningless.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Yes, yes yes! And it is not just the Russians and Arab countries who are responsible for this conflation of the ITRs and IG. One of the utterly
counterproductive things U.S. civil society and business seem to be doing in their attack on the WCIT is inadvertently feeding the idea that the ITRs revisions _are_ actually about the root zone, ICANN, etc., and that the ITRs actually CAN effectively do something
about them. In fact, the ITRs have nothing to do with that and even if there were support to make them about it, as Bill points out any attempt to do so cannot be effective as it would generate so many reservations as to destroy the whole treaty. There is
actually very little effort to make the ITRs about IG CIR, even among the worst states. Russia seems to be making some half-hearted efforts to put IP addressing in there, but they failed miserably in Guadalajara in 2010, and have no more support, possibly
less, this time. A Russian proposal to revive the ITU country internet registry idea, for example, was made 18 months ago and did not appear in TD-64, the basis for negotiations, which means it has no real support.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>