ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" · Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting spam. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to effectively countering and combatting spam. · Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. · Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to developmental aspects of the Internet. http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of the meeting:
Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico
The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried out, in other organizations.
The member states note the extensive work on policy development and procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to provide information to the CWG before conducting public consultation in order to avoid duplication of work.
The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in existing multi-stakeholder fora.
Patrik Fältström
Thanks, Patrik for the FYI. And thanks to Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, and Mexico for the well-worded statement. However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function? Thanks and best, Carsten On 12.02.2013 23:02, Patrik Fältström wrote:
ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues have an "Open consultation"
· Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting spam.
The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to effectively countering and combatting spam.
· Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses.
The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses.
· Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet.
The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to developmental aspects of the Internet.
http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx
Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of the meeting:
Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico
The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried out, in other organizations.
The member states note the extensive work on policy development and procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to provide information to the CWG before conducting public consultation in order to avoid duplication of work.
The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in existing multi-stakeholder fora.
Patrik Fältström
On 12 feb 2013, at 18:01, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function?
The ITU Council is a subset of the members of ITU where for example directions of ITU work, budget etc is discussed. You can see the members of the ITU Council here: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx Now, compare that list with the list of countries that (so far) co-signed the text I just sent. Then ask yourself why some has not signed (yet) and what you can do to understand why they did not and then in the next step, get them to understand how important that and similar messages are. Do you think a country missing should have signed? For example, Germany, where you live, did not sign. If you think signing would have been a good thing, what can you do to fix that? Should you be worried? What are the implications that Germany did not sign? Was it just a mistake, and in reality Germany should have signed (lack of time, lack of the right person available)? The working groups they have are the ones mentioned on this page: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/index.html Patrik
participants (2)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
Patrik Fältström