[cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues

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