[cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva

Dear Jim,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:57 AM
>To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT)
>Cc: paf at frobbit.se; cooperation-wg at ripe.net
>Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva
>
>On 6 May 2013, at 09:32, <Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Andrea.GLORIOSO at 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:PDF). 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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20130506/d2545445/attachment.html>