<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 Jim,</div> <div> </div> <div>>-----Original Message-----</div> <div>>From: Jim Reid [<a href="mailto:jim@rfc1035.com">mailto:jim@rfc1035.com</a>]</div> <div>>Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:57 AM</div> <div>>To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT)</div> <div>>Cc: paf@frobbit.se; cooperation-wg@ripe.net</div> <div>>Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva</div> <div>></div> <div>>On 6 May 2013, at 09:32, <<a href="mailto:Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu">Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu</a>> wrote:</div> <div>></div> <div>>> Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave</div> <div>>alone"? And when / where was it decided so?</div> <div>></div> <div>>The WSIS meeting in Tunis. Various ITU meetings and workshops. I'm fairly</div> <div>>sure the last plenipot resolved to stop ITU mission creep on Internet</div> <div>>governance too.</div> <div> </div> <div>Stopping "ITU mission creep" is not the same thing as the ITU "leaving alone" Internet governance. </div> <div> </div> <div>I already replied to Patrik for what concerns the WSIS conclusions.</div> <div> </div> <div>On WCIT-12, the positions are quite clear, so I won't repeat them here.</div> <div> </div> <div>Concerning the last ITU Plenipotentiary (Guadalajara, 2010) the Final Acts, and specifically Resolution 102, state that:</div> <div> </div> <div>"<i>The Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union</i><i> </i><i>[...] </i><i>resolves</i><i> </i><i>to explore ways and means for greater collaboration and coordination between</i><i> </i><i>ITU and relevant organizations involved in the development of IP-based</i><i> </i><i>networks and the future internet, through cooperation agreements, as</i><i> </i><i>appropriate, </i><b><i>in order to increase the role of ITU in Internet governance so as to</i></b><b><i> </i></b><b><i>ensure maximum benefits to the global community</i></b>"</div> <div> </div> <div>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. </div> <div> </div> <div>>IIUC, most Western governments have the view that Internet governance is </div> <div>>best served by an open, multistakeholder institution. [ie Not the ITU.] So</div> <div>>whenever the ITU tries to push for a more active role in this area, there's no</div> <div>>consensus for it. Witness the recent discussion paper on how ITU-T could</div> <div>>become an RIR or the proposals that were put forward at WCIT in Dubai last</div> <div>>year. The latter provokes US Congress to unanimously pass a resolution that</div> <div>>now appears to be a bill:</div> <div>><a href="http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Text-HR-Affirm-US-Internet-Governance-2013-4-10.pdf">http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/document</a></div> <div>>s/Text-HR-Affirm-US-Internet-Governance-2013-4-10.pdf.</div> <div>>ITU is of course free to discuss Internet governance. Just as RIPE could discuss</div> <div>>telephone numbering and tariffs. There doesn't seem to be much point to</div> <div>>either of these things IMO.</div> <div> </div> <div>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, "<i>Internet governance: the next steps</i>" (<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0277:FIN:EN:PDF"><font color="blue"><u>http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0277:FIN:EN:PDF</u></font></a>). 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.</div> <div> </div> <div>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".</div> <div> </div> <div>Again and for the sake of clarity, the fact that the ITU <u>claims</u> that it does have a mandate on certain topics does not <u>automatically</u> mean that everyone, including the European Commission, should or will agree with it. </div> <div> </div> <div>Ciao,</div> <div> </div> <div>Andrea</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> </span></font> </body> </html>