<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#CCCCCC" text="#000000">
Milton,<br>
<br>
It would appear from my August 9 email on this <u>S</u>ubject: has
me standing with the "worst states" and conflating IG and CIRs with
the upcoming ITRs. That was not my intent, and thank you for
pointing that out. Let me make clear that I am not a proponent of
expanding the December ITR meetings to include root resources. <br>
<br>
However, I do believe that civil society should make clear the
desirability of a more inclusive governance process for the CIRs.
That we should advocate for a thorough exploration of the technical
and process requirements enabling same, via an expansion of the root
resources, their reallocation, or otherwise. And that we should make
it an ongoing goal of the IGC to introduce and advocate these policy
recommendations in all appropriate venues.<br>
<br>
Without a shove, there's little prospect of the U.S. relinquishing
its root controls. With the U.S. the leading global power
(financial, military, media, donor nation...), there's little
likelihood of an uprising or coalescing of less powerful states
demanding a loosening of those strings. And with this being an
arcane and complex subject, who but civil society can lead the way?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/11/2012 11:15 AM, Milton L Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E3936@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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]-->
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>