ITU (was: Re: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign)

[John Curran]

On Dec 6, 2012, at 4:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> ...
> 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...


FYI - To be clear, I am not advocating for or against any particular 
role for the ITU with respect to the Internet (e.g. it seems to be in 
vogue to call for dismantling the ITU, and I do not want my correction 
to the errant assertions in the Forbes article to be viewed as such...)  
There are radio spectrum & satellites orbits issues that will always
need to be globally coordinated, and that's been a significant role for 
the ITU.  There is also the significant support and outreach that the 
ITU provides to developing economies with respect to telecommunication 
matters.  

With respect to  being _the_ organization for governments to make global 
obligations regarding all of the possible technological ways in which 
people communicate with one another, that's a pretty big task once when 
considers the now pervasive nature of the Internet and communications...  
If you were to consider that mission literally, then it could easily 
subsume 90% of the tasks presently in almost other treaty organization 
(intellectual property is about who can _communicate_ what information 
to whom, human rights has a large component in association expression 
of who can _communicate_ with whom, etc.)  About the only area of inter-
governmental coordination which I would have excluded is climate change 
(but apparently even that is germane to the ITU mission if one scopes 
'communications' large enough to include the ICT technology industry...)

Governments deal very well with legally-clear entities like people,
organizations, and jurisdiction, whereas our global communications
systems have always been very weak in supporting these same concepts, 
instead dealing with things like circuits & calling parties in the 
telecommunications age, and items like servers, IP addresses, and 
domain names in the Internet age.  Understanding what governments 
actually need (and can agree to) with respect to bridging this gap 
is indeed an important topic that must eventually be dealt with;
whether that occurs at an organization such as the ITU or in forums 
with the opportunity for more equitable multistakeholder participation 
remains to be seen.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone. These views are most certainly not
supported by any particular organization (and may even result in 
me receiving a lump of coal for the holidays from some ;-)






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