<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 24 December 2012 01:57 AM,
michael gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3">http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Could not open this link but saw on youtube ar
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A</a><br>
<br>
A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me,
and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive
agenda at the WCIT by civil society.<br>
<br>
Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and
there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased)<br>
<br>
And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being <i>on the telecom
side</i>.... Of course, he (like us) was happy that ENTO proposal
did not pass, he clearly seems to agree that it belonged to the
telecom side, and thus to ITR's mandate. <br>
<br>
This is very significant. (Others who know US positions better can
perhaps clarify.)<br>
<br>
If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very
disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes
be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that
ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/
infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that<i> some
kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs</i>.<br>
<br>
Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the
WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not something
members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me,
but this statement is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of
course, broadband is Internet, right! <br>
<br>
This is perplexing. Does the Ambassador say that US would have
accepted to write in the ITR's high-level principles that, say, ETNO
kind of proposals should never be encouraged (I mean, of course, in
some form of non-specific formal text) and that, say, more
competition should be promoted to improve universal access to
broadband .<br>
<br>
From his speech I clearly get this impression. And if true, that
makes a revealing point. <br>
<br>
Why did the civil society then had this single agenda - no internet
in the ITRs (as if the Internet was a kind of virus which, even if
present in the minutest quantity, spreads everywhere quickly) -
without making the distinction between the physical/ infrastructure
player (with issues like broadband access, net neutrality,
inter-connection regimes) and higher, application and content
players. <br>
<br>
Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda
around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the
issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. <br>
<br>
Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the
secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the
extreme libertarian actors, to just see the ITU die, and with it,
also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national levels.
If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play games and say
so it clearly. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even the physical/
infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for the ITU. Which
may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue of '
global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a
key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee,
in which incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think
that these are questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the
'global IG civil society'.<br>
<br>
Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense
ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the
FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but
lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own national
regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out!<br>
<br>
That was at least as big a game that played out at the WCIT as the
efforts by some authoritarian countries to use ITU to carve out
tightly controllable 'national segments' of the Internet. But, such
is the power of the neoliberal social intermediary space - in which
I include media as well as the civil society - that only one story
is coming out of the WCIT. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>