<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
pre
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{font-family:Consolas;
color:black}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Not to get between Milton and Parminder - ok I will add a few comments ; )<br>
<br>
1) ITU survived WWI, WWII, the Cold War...the Internet's not going to kill it. Someone/some org has to handle highest level agreements on use of spectrum and orbital arcs....and you don;t hear a lot of complaints about ITU in those spheres. Well you did back
in the 70s/80s, but they put those behind them. Good luck volunteering ICANN or whichever non-profit to get in middle of those state to state headaches. Not happening. Other functions of ITU are admittedly more debatable, but ITU as entity is here to stay.<br>
<br>
2) And speaking of ITU, who was it again that called WSIS into being, which led us more or less to the point we are at now which includes a globally accepted defintion of - gasp - Internet governance? Oh yeah, that was ITU. Can we think of the next most logical/able
UN agency that could have played that role? Lots of pretenders, but none with depth of tech expertise needed to talk in this space.<br>
<br>
3) Next as to dividing line and functional separation of roles, naturally as with any agency ITU will aim to grow, and also naturally the dividing lines between what is and is not ITU's business will remain blurry, given lack of consensus on definitional scope/breadth.<br>
<br>
It seems like a lot of cs folks had a weird sense of deja vu in Dubai, like they were in a smoke-filled room in Vienna in 1865 when ITU was created. When only states spoke and everyone else listened.
<br>
<br>
No matter how msh-ish the ITU gets, and it did make progress in 2012, more than some of us frankly anticipated, it's always going to be first and foremost about its treaty obligations. So for example while ITU would welcome more paid attendance at WTPF, real
decisions coming out of there are not very likely imho. <br>
<br>
In conclusion, for most IGC participants, associating with the ITU will be a part-time activity at best. Especially since the line in the sand in Dubai between Internet and ITU in the end was blown higher still. In my estimation, certain players misunderstanding
which way the wind was blowing (cough, Toure, cough, the UAE chair) left them with not much more than - sand on their hands. Further rounds of definitional games around the ITRs will continue no doubt. But odds of ITU gaining consensus for the expanded roles
it has been dreaming of since the 90s...well at least it's not likely to die in this century, which is more than you can say for the rest of us.
<br>
<br>
And on that cheery note, best wishes for the new year! ; )<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF439065"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller@syr.edu]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">Dr, Mueller here, to administer some ideological antidotes…</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D"> </span></i></b></p>
<div style="border:none; border-left:solid blue 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being <i>on the telecom side</i>.... <span style="color:#1F497D">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
<span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Parminder: I don’t know why Kramer said the ETNO proposal was telecom. It actually dealt with internet interconnection agreements. As such,
it is not “physical layer” but network layer (layer 3, and usually includes layer 4 as well). However, in one sense internet interconnection is and always has been in the ITRs, and that is through Article 9 Special Arrangements, which says they are deregulated
and to be left to commercial negotiations. </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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! <span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] No, not necessarily. In the current environment of course 99% of all users, both business and consumer, would use broadband capacity for internet
access, but if broadband means a high speed “pipe” it is indeed physical layer and that pipe could be used for non-internet data communication protocols, television signals, burglar alarms, whatever.</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">Anyway, I would not take seriously Kramer’s or any American’s comments about how the ITU can help with the spread of broadband. This is a well-worn tactic; “helping
developing countries” through unspecified means, usually purely informational, is always held up as an alternative to or diversion from the other stuff they really don’t want it to do.
</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.
<span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] By a “positive agenda” you mean an agenda that would make hierarchical governmental agencies take more responsibility for supply of infrastructure
and services, and more regulation, am I right? Just be aware that not everyone in civil society thinks of that agenda as “positive.”
</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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,<span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] As above, I am wise to the rhetorical games being played and would urge others to be aware of them as well. First, civil society is ideologically
heterogeneous on those issues. So don’t pretend that the so-called “extreme libertarian actors” are not “we, the CS.” Second, unless you want to be dubbed an “extreme socialist” or “extreme authoritarian” or “extreme regulator” I would get rid of the needless
adjective “extreme” and try to use accurate labels rather than scare terms. </span>
</i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Many people did openly call for ITU to die. See Andrew McLaughlin’s comments at the NAF event, for one, which were well-received. I have openly
stated for months that the ITRs are not needed and that it was a mistake to try to update them – although I have not specifically called for the ITU to die. However, you don’t have to be a libertarian to understand that there is something less than appealing
about intergovernmental organizations governing the internet, or international communications generally. You just have to be aware of basic international relations theory and have a commitment to freedom of expression and a willingness to accept technological
developments that disrupt established social orders. </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">Anyway, once again one has to be aware of the rhetorical ploy here. To want the ITU to die does not necessarily mean one wants all regulatory regimes around
the internet to die, nor does it mean that one wants all national regulatory regimes to die with it. </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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'.<span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Are you seriously suggesting that ITU could become a force for global net neutrality? Well, at least you are being consistent. As a pro-regulatory
guy, a person who seems to have never met an economic regulation he didn’t like, you should indeed view the ITU as something not to be thrown away casually. If only you and your friends could get ahold of it, surely it could become a progressive force, right?
<gales of laughter></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">Anyway, tell me again why we should care about whether the ITU survives? That would be an interesting conversation for “we CS people” to have.
</span></i></b><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!<span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Here I have no idea what you are talking about – when did “we” (a term that generally excludes me in your lexicon but nevertheless strives
to embrace the entire IGC) take sides on the FCC? And how was this struggle lost? The FCC passed its Open Internet rules and has actually applied them in a couple of cases.
</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<pre> </pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre> </pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>