<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">  <style></style> </head> <body> <font face="Calibri" size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> <div>Dear Patrik,</div> <div> </div> <div>>-----Original Message-----</div> <div>>From: Patrik Fältström [<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se">mailto:paf@frobbit.se</a>]</div> <div>>Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:38 AM</div> <div>>To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT)</div> <div>>Cc: jim@rfc1035.com; cooperation-wg@ripe.net</div> <div>>Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva</div> <div> </div> <div>>My view is that any organisation that is to discuss Internet Governance is to</div> <div>>follow the conclusion of WSIS in the form of the Tunis Agenda. Para 55 of the</div> <div>>Tunis Agenda states:</div> <div>></div> <div>>> 55. We recognize that the existing arrangements for Internet governance</div> <div>>have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and</div> <div>>geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking</div> <div>>the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at</div> <div>>the edges.</div> <div>></div> <div>>As long as an organisation is not recognizing this paragraph, i.e. does not</div> <div>>recognize existing arrangements, private sector lead etc, there are problems.</div> <div>></div> <div>>And I claim *that* is the problem with ITU. Not that ITU discuss IG issues. Of</div> <div>>course they can. Just like anyone else.</div> <div>></div> <div>>So to me, to answer your question, the decision was taken when the Tunis</div> <div>>Agenda was agreed on.</div> <div> </div> <div>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:</div> <div> </div> <ul style="margin:0;padding-left:38.25pt;"> <li>35: "<i>We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and</i><i> </i><i>public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and</i><i> </i><i>international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that</i><i> […] </i><b><i>Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating</i></b><b><i> </i></b><b><i>role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues</i></b><i> […]</i><b><i>International organizations</i></b><i> have also had and should continue to have an important</i><i> </i><i>role in the </i><b><i>development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies</i></b>"</li><li>58: "<i>We recognize that Internet governance includes more than Internet naming and</i><i> </i><i>addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical</i><i> </i><i>Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and</i><i> </i><i>issues pertaining to the use of the Internet.</i>"</li><li>60: "<i>We further recognize that there are </i><b><i>many cross-cutting international public policy</i></b><b><i> </i></b><b><i>issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms</i></b>"</li></ul> <div style="padding-left:38.25pt;"> </div> <div>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. </div> <div> </div> <div>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.</div> <div> </div> <div>Ciao,</div> <div> </div> <div>Andrea</div> <div> </div> </span></font> </body> </html>