[governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184CE9 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 
15:45:05 on Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> writes
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> And what's your view on UN-DESA's EC report put in front of CSTD a
>> couple of years ago, full of feedback from various organisations on how
>> they are getting on with it? None of them seemed to be in much doubt
>> what it meant, or whether it was happening.
>
>First, I have too much respect for the value of my time to read those 
>documents.

It's only one document (although it has several appendices from the 
various players). I find it difficult to understand how it's possible to 
discuss EC without having read it, it's that much of an important 
milestone. Far from struggling to find 10 minutes to read it, I went all 
the way to Geneva to hear the CSTD discuss it...

> But having seen and heard the ideas of various players, I am sure that 
>the organizations' submissions followed very predictable patterns. 
>Those who support the IG status quo provided examples of how EC is 
>going swimmingly (I hoisted a beer with Toure in Angola!) those who 
>don't, provided evidence of how the IGF in their opinion has failed to 
>advance it.

Less than half the contributors mentioned the IGF, and all who did were 
positive about it.

>> In the ITU world they rely *very* heavily on previously agreed wording
>> to advance whatever agenda/programme they are currently discussing. The
>> trail today often leads back a decade, when it comes to "you asked to do
>> this, and here we are, still trying to do it".
>
>True, but in a trivial sense. So yes, if you pass a resolution that 
>says "UN agencies will follow up on WSIS-related activities every 5 
>years, then UN agencies will do that. But that will have no effect on 
>how the Internet runs and works, and that is what I was talking about.

They are much more specific than that. Things like "we need to have a 
reserved supply of IPv6 available to hand out when it becomes exhausted, 
just like IPv4 did". It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the 
proposition[1], it (and others like that) get hold and slowly but surely 
gather momentum.

[1] Some people even say "give them some spare IPv6 to shut them up, we 
are sure it won't ever be needed, and in the mean time they'll stop 
banging on about it".
-- 
Roland Perry

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