Parallell with the RIPE Meeting in Dublin is the WTPF meeting in Geneva. We will on the Thursday get a report from RIPE NCC on what they have done and many of us do follow remotely very close what is happening. I encourage everyone to, for example, have a look at this document and others that describe one view of the Internet that for example does not match my personal view. You can find other documents, all public, here: <http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-INF/en> Patrik
On 6 May 2013, at 08:42, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I encourage everyone to, for example, have a look at this document and others that describe one view of the Internet that for example does not match my personal view.
Thanks for this Patrik. It's all very well to look at these documents and perhaps comment on them here. But what should people do if they want to have their views heard where it would have the most impact? Should they make a trip to Geneva? Is the WTPF meeting open to non members? If not, how do non-ITU members get someone (who?) to make representations on their behalf? Would the NCC do this? How? Will the NCC even be at WTPF? What are the likely consequences of this WTPF meeting? Can it decide anything which influences or determines ITU policy, eg create a resolution that becomes a binding agenda item for the next plenipot or requires the ITU to set up a new study group? So many questions... I wonder too why ITU is continuing to discuss Internet governance when that issue is supposed to be something they've to leave alone.
On 6 maj 2013, at 10:20, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2013, at 08:42, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I encourage everyone to, for example, have a look at this document and others that describe one view of the Internet that for example does not match my personal view.
Thanks for this Patrik. It's all very well to look at these documents and perhaps comment on them here. But what should people do if they want to have their views heard where it would have the most impact? Should they make a trip to Geneva? Is the WTPF meeting open to non members? If not, how do non-ITU members get someone (who?) to make representations on their behalf? Would the NCC do this? How? Will the NCC even be at WTPF?
They should write for example comments on this document and pass to whoever from their Government is going to Geneva.
What are the likely consequences of this WTPF meeting? Can it decide anything which influences or determines ITU policy, eg create a resolution that becomes a binding agenda item for the next plenipot or requires the ITU to set up a new study group?
They can accept statements that then will be referenced in for example PP-14.
So many questions...
I wonder too why ITU is continuing to discuss Internet governance when that issue is supposed to be something they've to leave alone.
Because governments do want to control for example IP address allocation, tie that to licensing, and use that in turn to control "what is information" and how that is allowed to flow within their state. Patrik
Dear all, Sorry to intervene but I'm confused by a statement by Jim and I need to ask...
-----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg- bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:21 AM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva
Jim Reid: I wonder too why ITU is continuing to discuss Internet governance when that issue is supposed to be something they've to leave alone.
Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave alone"? And when / where was it decided so? Ciao, Andrea
On 6 maj 2013, at 10:32, <Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
Jim Reid: I wonder too why ITU is continuing to discuss Internet governance when that issue is supposed to be something they've to leave alone.
Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave alone"? And when / where was it decided so?
My view is that any organisation that is to discuss Internet Governance is to follow the conclusion of WSIS in the form of the Tunis Agenda. Para 55 of the Tunis Agenda states:
55. We recognize that the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges.
As long as an organisation is not recognizing this paragraph, i.e. does not recognize existing arrangements, private sector lead etc, there are problems. And I claim *that* is the problem with ITU. Not that ITU discuss IG issues. Of course they can. Just like anyone else. So to me, to answer your question, the decision was taken when the Tunis Agenda was agreed on. Patrik
Dear Patrik,
-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:38 AM To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) Cc: jim@rfc1035.com; cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva
My view is that any organisation that is to discuss Internet Governance is to follow the conclusion of WSIS in the form of the Tunis Agenda. Para 55 of the Tunis Agenda states:
55. We recognize that the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges.
As long as an organisation is not recognizing this paragraph, i.e. does not recognize existing arrangements, private sector lead etc, there are problems.
And I claim *that* is the problem with ITU. Not that ITU discuss IG issues. Of course they can. Just like anyone else.
So to me, to answer your question, the decision was taken when the Tunis Agenda was agreed on.
Not that I like too much engaging in the hermeneutics of the Tunis Agenda, but if we quote Paragraph 55, then we should also quote other paragraphs, such as: • 35: "We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that […] Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues […]International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies" • 58: "We recognize that Internet governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet." • 60: "We further recognize that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" Before anyone asks: no, this does not mean that whatever the ITU claims to have as a role is what it should have. The European Commission, among others, made its position on the issue very clear, most recently in Dubai at the WCIT-12 Conference. But a statement such as "the ITU is supposed to leave Internet Governance alone" is perhaps a bit exaggerated. We (meaning Patrik and I) seem to agree on this particular point. Ciao, Andrea
On 6 May 2013, at 09:48, Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu wrote:
But a statement such as "the ITU is supposed to leave Internet Governance alone" is perhaps a bit exaggerated.
Andrea, you're reading into what I said something I did not write. So from that perspective, yes, it is a bit exaggerated. I should have said ITU is supposed to keep away from an operational role in Internet governance: for instance by issuing IP addresses or making policy on domain names or defining requirements for key Internet infrastructure such as root and TLD name servers. To pick a few examples at random.... It takes a lot longer to type all of that. So my original remark was somewhat offhand and terse. Just like me...
Dear Jim, Sorry, I saw this email after I reacted to your previous one.
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:02 AM To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) Cc: paf@frobbit.se; cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva
On 6 May 2013, at 09:48, Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu wrote:
But a statement such as "the ITU is supposed to leave Internet Governance alone" is perhaps a bit exaggerated.
Andrea, you're reading into what I said something I did not write. So from that perspective, yes, it is a bit exaggerated. I should have said ITU is supposed to keep away from an operational role in Internet governance: for instance by issuing IP addresses or making policy on domain names or defining requirements for key Internet infrastructure such as root and TLD name servers. To pick a few examples at random....
Thanks for the clarification. It is also the position of the European Commission that the operational aspects of Internet governance would not be well served by a top-down, purely inter-governmental system (see COM(2009) 277, which I mentioned in another email). (Let me however say that I do not believe I "read into what you said something you did not write". You made a clear statement that the ITU is supposed to "leave Internet governance alone". As Internet governance is a very broad notion that encompasses both operational and public policy aspects, this seemed to be rather exaggerated - independently of what my personal opinion on the role of ITU is, the fact remains that both the conclusions of the WSIS and of the Guadalajara Plenipotentiary conference, to mention just two well-known examples, give ITU a mandate to work on "Internet governance".)
It takes a lot longer to type all of that. So my original remark was somewhat offhand and terse. Just like me...
I appreciate that all statements - yours, mine, everyone else's - can be misinterpreted. This is why I asked for clarifications. Thanks for providing them! Ciao, Andrea
On 6 maj 2013, at 10:48, <Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
Not that I like too much engaging in the hermeneutics of the Tunis Agenda, but if we quote Paragraph 55, then we should also quote other paragraphs, such as:
This is why Tunis Agenda is not to be quoted in part, but as a whole (which was the Swedish opposition against Resolution 3 at WCIT). Patrik
Dear Patrik,
-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:03 AM To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) Cc: jim@rfc1035.com; cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva
On 6 maj 2013, at 10:48, <Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
Not that I like too much engaging in the hermeneutics of the Tunis Agenda, but if we quote Paragraph 55, then we should also quote other paragraphs, such as:
This is why Tunis Agenda is not to be quoted in part, but as a whole (which was the Swedish opposition against Resolution 3 at WCIT).
We are in violent agreement that the Tunis Agenda should preferably not be quoted in part, although from time to time we might need to try and quote at least all parts of it which are relevant to a discussion (unless we want every time to write pages and pages of emails :) Ciao, Andrea
On 6 May 2013, at 09:32, <Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave alone"? And when / where was it decided so?
The WSIS meeting in Tunis. Various ITU meetings and workshops. I'm fairly sure the last plenipot resolved to stop ITU mission creep on Internet governance too. IIUC, most Western governments have the view that Internet governance is best served by an open, multistakeholder institution. [ie Not the ITU.] So whenever the ITU tries to push for a more active role in this area, there's no consensus for it. Witness the recent discussion paper on how ITU-T could become an RIR or the proposals that were put forward at WCIT in Dubai last year. The latter provokes US Congress to unanimously pass a resolution that now appears to be a bill: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Text.... ITU is of course free to discuss Internet governance. Just as RIPE could discuss telephone numbering and tariffs. There doesn't seem to be much point to either of these things IMO.
Dear Jim,
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:57 AM To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) Cc: paf@frobbit.se; cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva
On 6 May 2013, at 09:32, <Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave alone"? And when / where was it decided so?
The WSIS meeting in Tunis. Various ITU meetings and workshops. I'm fairly sure the last plenipot resolved to stop ITU mission creep on Internet governance too.
Stopping "ITU mission creep" is not the same thing as the ITU "leaving alone" Internet governance. I already replied to Patrik for what concerns the WSIS conclusions. On WCIT-12, the positions are quite clear, so I won't repeat them here. Concerning the last ITU Plenipotentiary (Guadalajara, 2010) the Final Acts, and specifically Resolution 102, state that: "The Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union [...] resolves to explore ways and means for greater collaboration and coordination between ITU and relevant organizations involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future internet, through cooperation agreements, as appropriate, in order to increase the role of ITU in Internet governance so as to ensure maximum benefits to the global community" So, at least the Guadalajara ITU plenipotentiary does not seem to express a consensus that the ITU should cease to be involved in Internet governance - quite the contrary.
IIUC, most Western governments have the view that Internet governance is best served by an open, multistakeholder institution. [ie Not the ITU.] So whenever the ITU tries to push for a more active role in this area, there's no consensus for it. Witness the recent discussion paper on how ITU-T could become an RIR or the proposals that were put forward at WCIT in Dubai last year. The latter provokes US Congress to unanimously pass a resolution that now appears to be a bill: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/document<http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Text-HR-Affirm-US-Internet-Governance-2013-4-10.pdf> s/Text-HR-Affirm-US-Internet-Governance-2013-4-10.pdf. ITU is of course free to discuss Internet governance. Just as RIPE could discuss telephone numbering and tariffs. There doesn't seem to be much point to either of these things IMO.
Before the US started to discuss this Bill, and even before the ITU Plenipotentiary in Guadalajara took place, the European Commission adopted a Communication (a sort of "policy statement") in which it clearly stated its position on the preferred approach to Internet governance. It's COM(2009)277, "Internet governance: the next steps" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0277:FIN:EN:P...). If you read that document, it will be clear that the European Commission certainly does not support a purely inter-governmental model to handle the many issues which you can put under the umbrella of "Internet governance". Perhaps unnecessary to state, but since I have had experiences of my words being twisted, I prefer to be redundant. However, it seems to me that the fact that the ITU might not have a mandate to deal with certain issues (e.g. allocation of Internet naming and numbering resources) does not mean that the ITU does not have a mandate to deal with other issues, whether in a coordinating role or otherwise, which can be classified as "Internet governance". Again and for the sake of clarity, the fact that the ITU claims that it does have a mandate on certain topics does not automatically mean that everyone, including the European Commission, should or will agree with it. Ciao, Andrea
Dear all, Sorry for the extra email – the last one I hope for today – but I need to make an important clarification. _____________________________________________ From: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:15 AM To: 'Jim Reid' Cc: paf@frobbit.se; cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva Before the US started to discuss this Bill, and even before the ITU Plenipotentiary in Guadalajara took place, the European Commission adopted a Communication (a sort of "policy statement") in which it clearly stated its position on the preferred approach to Internet governance. It's COM(2009)277, "Internet governance: the next steps" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0277:FIN:EN:P...). If you read that document, it will be clear that the European Commission certainly does not support a purely inter-governmental model to handle the many issues which you can put under the umbrella of "Internet governance". Perhaps unnecessary to state, but since I have had experiences of my words being twisted, I prefer to be redundant. I did not mean to imply that anyone on this list has ever twisted my words. This is an experience I unfortunately had in other contexts, which has made me rather prudent and prone to quoting the official positions of the European Commission even when it results in longer emails… Ciao, Andrea
participants (3)
-
Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu -
Jim Reid -
Patrik Fältström