[governance] ITRs: What if...

Fri Dec 14 01:08:50 EST 2012

In industry associations that focus on best practices (like MAAWG for ISP security and spam) there are codes of best practice that you agree to.  While they are not binding in that you are required to adopt them entirely, gross violations of that code of practice would render your organization ineligible to be a member of MAAWG, for example.

This is consensus based and rather different from binding treaties, but it is the best that the industry can come up with.

--srs (iPad)

On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:28, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh I'm sure they talk to each others, passing contracts, forming
> joint-ventures and even partnerships, etc. I guess it's another
> business altogether to have to set or agree on rules with peers you
> don't get to chose (as you would with, say, a contract). I quickly
> have to add, though, that the case of industry associations you
> rightly mention is interesting. The exemplar that comes to mind is
> IETF --as a "private" standard-setting entity (and by private, I mean
> non-governmental as well as non-corporational but based on individual
> capacity, ideally). So the question is this: is there still any
> legitimate role for treaty organizations, and for treaties, in any
> technology-driven field? Or suffices to set technical standards the
> IETF way (note that even within ITU technical standards are highly
> shaped by industry participants but the process is certainly
> different) and send the old sovereigns to their backyard for
> policy-making and whatever else they want to do at home with those
> technical standards? Will we (all stakeholders) be able to agree on a
> clear mechanism or set of principles to determine what may/should
> belong in a treaty and what may/should be left to business and other
> private actors? Or maybe none of that is needed, and we'll just have
> to gauge support and opposition on case by case basis, which will not
> necessarily spare us more debacles such as this WCIT12. Just asking...
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> But they do talk to each other and subject to the usual wrangling between
>> competitors there is usually consensus at least within a country, not to
>> mention shared membership in industry associations
>> 
>> --srs (htc one x)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Reply message -----
>> From: "Mawaki Chango" <kichango at gmail.com>
>> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro"
>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
>> Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if...
>> Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 8:13 AM
>> 
>> 
>> As we have witnessed during this WCIT process, the crux of the issue
>> is about the boundaries between telecoms and internet. Behind my
>> question lies a challenge as to whether the actual technical and
>> business actors (I didn't previously mean to assign 'operators' to one
>> sector and 'providers' to the other, at their reciprocal exclusion)
>> would be more capable of/ successful at defining and recognizing those
>> boundaries (regardless of some of them operating in both fields,
>> public and private alike), if they were to talk directly to each other
>> to that effect, instead of having governments do this on their behalf
>> -- a bit as their agents. (Some people may think there would be less
>> politics, therefore higher likelihood of success... to simplify.)
>> 
>> mawaki
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I am suddenly curious to hear others' views about the following scenario:
>>>> 
>>>> Is there any one here who thinks it would be a better process or that
>>>> a better outcome could be reached if the world's telecom operators
>>>> meet directly with internet connectivity and large service providers
>>>> to try and define what the operating relationship of the two sectors
>>>> should be (while recognizing each other as two separate business
>>>> sectors) and maybe spell out what they would need governments to
>>>> assist with, if anything, in order to foster affordable access and
>>>> economic growth across the world?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Many would argue that the World Telecom operators are also large service
>>> providers - most Telcos and ISPs have evolved from their traditional
>>> business models. Whilst there will always be a need for "carriage" - there
>>> is an increasing strategic business models that looks at "Content".  It
>>> might be worthwhile noting that there are countries in Europe, Africa and
>>> the Pacific where Government still controls some of the Telecommunications
>>> Entities which means that they have not been privatised.
>>> 
>>> Aside from Telecommunications Infrastructure, there is a trend where
>>> countries are now moving to control the ccTLDs and you see that from some
>>> of
>>> the redelegations that has been happening where laws are passed to see
>>> Governments sieze control of what they perceive as a national resource.
>>> 
>>> Should we worry about it? I don't think there is cause for worry, there is
>>> so many more important things that they need to worry about such as what
>>> David Conrad earlier this year pointed out to the list such as rolling out
>>> energy grids etc for the developing world. However, for countries who have
>>> national deficits and struggle with resources for capital expenditure for
>>> massive infrastructure rollout, they will always be on the lookout for
>>> sources of revenue and diverse sources of revenue.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Is that in the realm of "practical possibility" at all? (It may be
>>>> hard to see companies put resources in possibly lengthy negotiation
>>>> process if they don't need to do that to improve their bottom line or
>>>> at least retain their market.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If that were to be possible, IGF could be the place for other
>>>> stakeholders to help define the qualitative benchmarks (some sort of
>>>> Digital Development Goals) to guide the conference of Operators and
>>>> Providers on their economic growth and social development agenda.
>>>> 
>>>> Or do you think, I would make more sense after a good night sleep?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Mawaki
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>> 
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>> 

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