[governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign

[John Curran]

On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net> wrote:

> On 2012-12-05, at 11:50 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> it might be good if you knew a bit more about who Jody Westby is and what she stands for
> 
> In that Forbes article, Jody Westby says:
>> [U.S. Government] ...  goes on to declare that the groups that have long played an important role in the development of the Internet, such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), “are most capable of addressing issues with the speed and flexibility required in this rapidly changing Internet environment.” One is left to wonder how these groups are going to be able to do this without interacting with all of the communications providers that actually deliver content. Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks, content will sit on servers. 
> 
> Actually, "Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks," this one here is left to wonder how any discussion of what the Internet is and does, and how it is steadily driving the cost of transporting "content" towards zero, thus blowing away the business plans of communications carriers, is even possible.  Also "content" is NOT created "in " the interoperable networks.  It's created at the edges (I and thou), where the desire and will and public benefit (i.e if you must, market demand) to interconnect and interoperate exists.

On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net> wrote:

> On 2012-12-05, at 11:50 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> it might be good if you knew a bit more about who Jody Westby is and what she stands for
> 
> In that Forbes article, Jody Westby says:
>> [U.S. Government] ...  goes on to declare that the groups that have long played an important role in the development of the Internet, such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), “are most capable of addressing issues with the speed and flexibility required in this rapidly changing Internet environment.” One is left to wonder how these groups are going to be able to do this without interacting with all of the communications providers that actually deliver content. Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks, content will sit on servers. 
> 
> Actually, "Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks," this one here is left to wonder how any discussion of what the Internet is and does, and how it is steadily driving the cost of transporting "content" towards zero, thus blowing away the business plans of communications carriers, is even possible.  Also "content" is NOT created "in " the interoperable networks.  It's created at the edges (I and thou), where the desire and will and public benefit (i.e if you must, market demand) to interconnect and interoperate exists.

Agreed. 

Furthermore, the author seems to imply that "these groups" need the ITU
to be involved with the Internet, so that they can interact "with all of 
the communications providers that actually deliver content."  Of course, 
nothing could be further from reality - the Regional Internet Registries 
collectively have more than _nineteen thousand_ organizations as members, 
including nearly every communication provider, hosting company, major 
content firms, as well as governments, academic institutions, etc.
We have very little difficulty having solid discussions on Internet 
number policy matters with the organizations which are directly affected 
by the outcomes, and somehow suggesting that the ITU is necessary for 
these interactions also implies a serious lack of understanding of the 
actual structure of the Internet ecosystem.  

The Forbes article's additional premise that the ITU somehow has led the 
Internet and must be involved in its future just doesn't reflect reality, 
and is anchored solely in author's strongly held belief sans evidence:

"Good grief. If the multilateral organization that has been in charge of 
global agreements on interconnectivity, interoperability, and availability 
of networks and communications for 147 years has nothing to do with the 
Internet, who does?"

Note - if one were really pressed to make the case for the ITU-led success of 
the Internet, one would have to cite the ITR allowance for "special arrangements" 
[ITR Article 9], as it allowed arrangements made between parties which were to 
be otherwise beyond the scope of the ITRs.  The "special arrangement" option
might be considered a key enabler for the Internet, but by that logic, anything 
else in telecommunications that was not explicitly forbidden by the ITRs at that
time must also be considered an ITU-led success, and similarly that would mean 
that every other treaty organization that did not accidentally interfere with 
the success of the Internet gets to claim that that it too is another proud 
parent of "The Internet"...  

/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  This post is not meant to slight any other
powerful international organizations that apparently 'led' the Internet's 
success by not accidentally stepping on it; you too may apparently claim 
parenthood...





-------------- 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