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

In your case I understand your largest frustration is that Ireland is so passive in general. So maybe your "what can I do" is different than people from countries that are active.

I think personally that the Tunis Agenda is clear. Existing processes must be recognized, by ITU as well as by RIPE and IETF etc. So a text like the one I forwarded should already be "ok" for everyone. And that it is not is to me problematic.

   Patrik

On 12 feb 2013, at 18:52, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> And more importantly, what should we be doing?
> 
> 
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://mneylon.tel/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Carsten Schiefner [ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de]
> Sent: 12 February 2013 23:01
> To: Patrik Fältström
> Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [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
> 
>