<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:21 PM, David Conrad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:drc@virtualized.org" target="_blank">drc@virtualized.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Sala,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:55 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> [...] Personally, I've always found it somewhat depressing that people in forums such as this focus on stuff like what TLDs will be created or who has the power to deny those TLDs when the _real_ "critical Internet resources" are things like fibers and base stations and electricity and environments that allow folks to interconnect their devices and networks together. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I apologise for the delayed response. One of the four Policy areas being as the <b><i>Infrastructure and Management of Critical Internet Resources</i></b> described within the WGIG 2005 Report and I enclose the link for those new to the list and new to IG discussions (<a href="http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf">http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf</a>) page 5 Part III para 13:-</div>
<div><br></div><div>"(a) Issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical Internet </div><div>resources, including administration of the domain name system and Internet </div><div>protocol addresses (IP addresses), administration of the root server system, technical </div>
<div>standards, <u>peering and interconnection, telecommunications infrastructure, </u></div><div><u>including innovative and convergent technologies</u>, as well as multilingualization. </div><div>These issues are matters of direct relevance to Internet governance and fall within </div>
<div>the ambit of existing organizations with responsibility for these matters; "</div><div><br></div><div>It is not unusual to have discussions on any of these aspects. I agree that there is not alot of space within the IGF to have sufficient discussions and "air time" on these. I do know that Packet Clearing House along with ARIN and ISOC on Peering and IXPs which I thought was very relevant to the issue of "Access". </div>
<div><br></div><div>There are some diverse challenges globally and it would seem to me that the IGF is a fantastic place to raise and share best practices lessons so that when these stakeholders return can leapfrog. I agree with you in this regard. That does not mean however that there are no discussions on other aspects. I will just use two examples, to make my point.</div>
<div><ul><li>Whois Look Ups is a significant issue especially when it comes to accuracy of records and at the end of the day it becomes incumbent on Registrars to properly manage these. </li><li>Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 etc [poor anti dumping laws, and general lack of awareness can make Telcos in the Pacific region vulnerable targets especially when procuring supposedly v6 compatible equipment that do not meet certain standards. There are lessons to be learnt from across the world so that errors are not repeated - for the industry this can mean huge cost savings which is plus especially in countries where resources are severely constrained;</li>
</ul><div>I personally think that the RIRs are already doing an excellent job in engaging with all stakeholders especially in the region. My sense that they are an excellent role model for other Internet Stakeholders. I perceive them to be not "political" but just purely operational and technical. </div>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">None of these are in ICANN's purview, but I guess it is a lot easier for folks to throw rocks at ICANN and/or the USG than deal with the policies and infrastructures in their own countries.<br>
</div><div class="im">> I respectfully disagree with your comment about people not wanting to deal with policies and infrastructures in their own countries and would rather throw stones at ICANN.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm not sure we disagree, rather we're talking about different actors.</blockquote><div> </div><div> Yes I may have misunderstood what you wrote earlier. </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Having been to a couple of IGFs in the past (Rio and Sharm), numerous ICANN meetings (both as staff and not), and witness to discussion on this list for a couple of months, I've observed lots of discussion about who should allow what strings into the root zone, who permits/forbids what content, etc., but precious little discussion about how to improve the physical infrastructure and regulatory regimes that permit/promote Internet connectivity particularly in lesser served areas. Since the latter is sort of a pre-requisite for the former to be more than an academic exercise, I have always found this ... confusing.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>I suppose people are free to write about what interests them. Please feel free to generate discussions on any topic of your choice as long as it's related to Internet Governance or if you can link it or have spin off one of the IG policy areas as people have done with the recent Assange ;)</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In my experience, the folks who are actually doing stuff to improve the connectivity situation (either infrastructure or policy) in their countries aren't the ones throwing rocks -- after all, they tend to be pragmatic "how to I get stuff done"-types and are generally too busy doing stuff (:-)).<br>
</blockquote><div> </div><div>I agree and you also have the exception as is with life in general...:)</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
</div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
> The tLD market also affects us in the Pacific.<br>
<br>
</div>Out of curiosity, in what way? </blockquote><div><br></div><div> The tLD market affects the Pacific just as it affects the rest of the world.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Specifically, how does the current bottom-up consensus policy approach not work for folks in the Pacific </blockquote><div>I never said it did'nt.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
-<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> I would not be surprised that this is a view commonly held by many as the issues and complexities of small island developing states are not rarely known because it is often seen as insignificant in the grand scheme of things.<br>
<br>
</div>I won't bore you with my background, but I suspect I might have a bit more understanding of issues in the Pacific than most. In fact, my knowledge of the difficulties and costs in building infrastructure in the AP region in particular has been one reason I've gotten frustrated at IGFs/etc: the priorities seem skewed to me -- what is the point in arguing about TLDs (etc) when entire countries can't get reliable/affordable connectivity to query those TLDs?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Your statement is again premised on developing countries focusing on rolling out infrastructure and not raise issues if it is TLD related. I think they can and should do both otherwise they will be left behind. I hear what you are saying but I also think that generally countries are competent in raising their issues and prioritising what they see fit. Within the Pacific region, I know that currently Prime Ministers are gathering in Cook Islands as they do every year to discuss regional priorities. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
> The recent Pacific Broadband Forum which was facilitated by the ITU gave us the opportunity to hear first hand from countries in the Pacific and this included the Private Sector and Government.<br>
<br>
</div>While at ICANN, I was asked to speak at a Pacific Islands Telecommunications Association (<a href="http://www.pita.org.fj" target="_blank">http://www.pita.org.fj</a>) meeting and of the more interesting parts of the meeting to be when various folks from all over the Pacific got up and spoke about the various issues they were having and the ways they got around those issues. It's nice to know the ITU is facilitating similar meetings although I suspect it'd be nicer for folks travel budgets if the facilitators of the various regional meetings could cooperate in order to coalesce at the same time/place (e.g., it would be cool to get an APRICOT meeting, a PITA meeting, and a PBF meeting co-resident).<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The ITU facilitated the meeting with PITA, SPC and others. Yes this was also raised during the Pacific Broadband Forum to have all key meetings back to back, not only would that save costs but it would increase collaboration, remove duplication etc. To be frank, there is so much work to be done that no single stakeholder can do it on their own. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
> That's exactly why WCIT-12 in Dubai has to deal with some Internet matters. Not all, but it's part.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm pleased to hear that basic infrastructure issues for lesser served economies will be a topic for WCIT-12. However, one of the past complaints of those sorts of meetings (at least from Internet folk) is that they have tended to try to reinforce existing policy regimes (or even to rewind the clock to past regimes) instead of looking to see how telecoms infrastructure and policy can be adapted to rapidly changing technology. Perhaps this meeting will be different. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Regards,<br>
-drc<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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>