<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com" target="_blank">toml@communisphere.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div 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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Question: Do Critical Internet Resources fall under Critical Infrastructure? </div><div><br></div><div> US Department of Homeland Security define critical infrastructure as "<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px">Critical infrastructure are the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof." See: </span><a href="http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure">http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure</a>. In fact it goes on to define the various sectors one of which includes Communications Sector which includes the IT Sector which provides <span style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">provides critical control systems and services, physical architecture and Internet infrastructure, see: </span><a href="http://www.dhs.gov/communications-sector">http://www.dhs.gov/communications-sector</a>. Worth noting is that the IT Sector is one of the 18 critical infrastructure sectors established under the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7). </div>
<div><br></div><div>If one looks at the Briefing papers for the WCIT, one of the topics of discussion is Critical Information Infrastructure Protection. This is something that countries have been looking at whether they are countries within Europe (see: <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/nis/strategy/activities/ciip/index_en.htm">http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/nis/strategy/activities/ciip/index_en.htm</a>, Australia ( see: <a href="http://www.tisn.gov.au/Documents/Australian+Government+s+Critical+Infrastructure+Resilience+Strategy.pdf">http://www.tisn.gov.au/Documents/Australian+Government+s+Critical+Infrastructure+Resilience+Strategy.pdf</a>), Asia (Japan/Korea etc etc) etc</div>
<div><br></div><div>In terms of Internet Governance, the issues then become:-</div><div><ul><li>who is in control?</li><li>who is in control of what?</li><li>what is being controlled?</li><li>why is it being controlled?</li>
</ul></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#CCCCCC" text="#000000">
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 8/11/2012 11:15 AM, Milton L Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span><u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span>[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.<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span><u></u> <u></u></span></i></b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div>P.O. Box 17862</div><div>Suva</div><div>Fiji</div><div><br></div><div>Twitter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div>
<div>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851</div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div><br>