[governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website

Sun Nov 25 00:32:38 EST 2012

Suresh,

I will test the links by dotnxtcon and am happy to stand corrected on their being free - good news.

On ITU and cybersecurity, I know you've had some bad experience in that field, and guess you will agree that the IMPACT center is waaaaay away from useful. (Again am ready to stand corrected though I think I'll fight this one if evidence is not convincing.)

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

! !! !!! !!!!
NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO

SMS +525541444475
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net]
Enviado el: sábado, 24 de noviembre de 2012 23:26
Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim
Asunto: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website

I will just point out that - from personal experience - registration to view the ITU documents in Kieren's dotnxt website is free.

Beyond that, some parts of the leaflet seem to suffer from a rather major disconnect with ground realities.  In particular the section on cybersecurity and cybersecurity partnerships.

The other part is - "Most OECD countries" listed as the opposition for any change in the ITRs.  If we see a situation where even 40/140 = about 35% of the countries in the world opt out of the ITRs, that is an essential split in the internet that would have catastrophic results.

Also note the "countries for", "countries against" mathematic - which makes little or no mention of the lack of multistakeholderism inherent in this process, apart from a token protest against such mentions by various opponents [cast as "vicious criticism" among other colorful adjectives].

--srs (iPad)

On 25-Nov-2012, at 10:44, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan at unam.mx<mailto:apisan at unam.mx>> wrote:

Tim,

maybe the document you are pointing at is http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Retreat2012.pdf which is the leaflet distributed to participants in a meeting earlier this year. It describes in detail what the ITU perceives as the battle around the ITRs as "US vs. us."

Much of the ITU's media thrust can be found in the Twitter stream of Sarah Parkes, the ITU's media person, http://twitter.com/sarahparkesitu, which has pointers to the press articles they like. They are pitching things as a business catfight between Google and similar US companies vs. the "Internet ecosystem" as understood for example in the South Korean submission at http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-11/msg00012.html well described in http://www.key4biz.it/News/2012/11/20/Policy/wcit12_itrs_korea_telecom_213952.html (in Italian), which uses even more colorful language than the ETNO's "sending party network pays", "beneficiary traffic generator pays."

More press from the ITU tends to point to resources of the ITU itself on education, cybersecurity, health, etc. which quickly come to dead ends such as a big fuss, documents, and meetings which in the end fizzle down to "helping countries cooperate with other entities", i.e. hand-holding adults to meet the IETF, ICANN, CERTs, RIRs, APWG, and so many others.

I think many of us have studied the WCIT documents, press releases, etc. seriously, to the best of our knowledge and in consultation with both ISOC, ICANN, etc. experts and with ITU old hands (that is my case at least; one of them chairs an ITU group to rewrite the Constitution) and have reached our own, independent conclusions.

Mine is that we can peel off the commercial disputes and still find enough reasons for concern in the proposals before WCIT that can throw sand in the gearbox or even try to hijack the ongoing Internet revolution, and that we must oppose them decisively.

The views expressed by the ITU spokespeople re transparency and access to the documents, as well as multistakeholder participation, are constantly denied by themselves. A stellar piece is one in which a pro-ITU writer sends you to read all WCIT documents... in Kieren McCarthy's dotnxtcon, which by the way is also available for paid subscribers only!

We will always have WCITLeaks.

Let me also underline that I do not subscribe the notion that "the UN is out to..." or opposing the UN as a whole in this process. That mantra is a great mobilizer in some countries, like the US, but I find it unfair and misguided, and also think that it causes unnecessary and unwarranted irritation among many who are both in favor of the UN in many ways and unfavorable to the proposed modifications of the ITRs. Vilifying the UN is not the way to go.

This in my view should find agreement from Louis Pouzin and Jean-Louis Fullsack, despite other important - philosophical and practical - differences.

A nuanced, objective, focussed analysis and strategy among dedicated people with more specialized knowledge may be at least as important as a simpler, massive campaign among a broader audience. That's where most of us should be.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

! !! !!! !!!!
NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO

SMS +525541444475
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] en nombre de McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com<mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>]
Enviado el: sábado, 24 de noviembre de 2012 22:41
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Suresh Ramasubramanian
Asunto: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
ITU view of Google's campaign

http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/

and the thinking behind that statement:

https://www.google.nl/search?q=itu+retreat+wcit&oq=itu+retreat+wcit

click on the 2nd link and then "Quick View" in order to see the document.

All ironies recognised!

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121125/1311021f/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