[governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

[Thomas Lowenhaupt]

Milton,

It would appear from my August 9 email on this _S_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.

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.

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?

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt


On 8/11/2012 11:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that 
> this*/[/*root zone control] 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.
>
> *//*
>
> */[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./*
>
> *//*
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120811/5b2a7c84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t