[discuss] Interesting article
veni at veni.com
Tue Jan 14 13:38:55 UTC 2014
As someone, who has lived through two (May be even three) different
economic and political systems, I cannot agree with you on the lack of
credibility. There's no perfect country, but there are countries that learn
from their (bad/good) experience. And countries that don't. Same with
people. The way the Internet is coordinated has nothing to do with what Mr.
Snowden has revealed. I still ask people to go and read at
www.president.eethe speech the Estonian president gave on June 8, 2012
at a cyber
conference in Estonia (on iPhone too difficult to find it but perhaps
someone can publish the URL?).
Let us now try to take a blame - we, who have been developing the
multistakeholder model, and have managed to keep governments engaged to a
degree that helped our people (in my case - Bulgaria) get affordable and
fast Internet - we are not into the NSA/any-other-agency business.
Yes, this is being used by some to claim there's a need for an oversight
function of the ITU or another UN body over the Internet. But, besides the
rhetoric, I have not seen any evidence or fact how this will improve the
speed, accessibility to services, quality or price of Internet access. With
7 million population and about 2000 Internet service providers in Bulgaria,
I think we, at ISOC-Bulgaria, who made that possible through legislation
changes, do not feel guilty and cannot take any blame for something some
agency has or hasn't done in the USA.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> I would actually dissent from the conclusion of this article, that the US
> and close allies should be exerting leadership. They can't - not after
> Snowden, unless they aren't members of the 5-Eyes system.
> Other countries, not a part of that system, need to be leading on these
> issues. The 5-eyes simply don't have credibility anymore to talk about the
> open Internet, and it actually irritates many countries when they try to
> use the same, pre-Snowden messages. It is counterproductive; they should
> take a back-seat and let / encourage others to do the leading.
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Geneva Representative
> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA)
> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
> 'nashton at ccianet.org');>
> Skype: nashtonhart
> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and
> date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton
> On 13 January 2014 21:52, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I've extracted the following passages:
> What Lies Ahead – So, what’s next in this domain? As I just noted, the
> ITU’s next plenipotentiary meeting will be in South Korea from late October
> to early November 2014. Two events are on the horizon for that meeting.
> First, some are talking about amending the Constitution of the ITU. Doing
> so requires a two-thirds majority<http://www.itu.int/net/about/basic-texts/constitution/chapterix.aspx>.
> The current proposals range from an ITU “oversight” council to replacement
> of ICANN with ITU governing structures. The later prospect, in particular,
> would be chilling and could result, in the end, on the amendment of
> technical Internet Protocols and naming rules to foster sovereign control
> of the network. No drafts have yet been produced – and the Constitution
> requires that they be published by April. At that point we may see exactly
> what steps might be proposed.
> Bottom line: The decision of some countries to not accede to the Dubai
> ITRs has already raised the possibility of degrading the interoperability
> of the network globally. Revisions to the IP creation process or the DNS
> naming system might accelerate that degradation (since Western nations are
> also unlikely to follow authoritarian IPs) and accelerate the move toward
> the possibility of a “splinternet.”
> Still, amending the Constitution would be hard. If we take the 89-55 vote
> in Dubai as a baseline then those who would change the ITU’s Constitution
> to mandate internet governance were short of the necessary majority in 2012
> – but perhaps not any longer. For one thing, there were many members who
> did not cast a ballot in Dubai – total ITU membership is 193 countries, so
> 55 is already fewer than the 1/3 blocking minority necessary. More to the
> point, however, those 55 votes have likely eroded since Dubai – thanks to
> Edward Snowden.
> The second development is even more of a sleeper. At the Busan meeting,
> the ITU will elect a new Secretary-General. The incumbent, Dr. Hamdan
> Toure of Mali, is term-limited. As of today, there is only one announced
> candidate for the position. He brings to his candidacy a great deal of
> experience, including, most recently as Deputy to Dr. Toure in the ITU.
> While such internal promotion is laudable, I will be forgiven if I express
> a small amount of concern – the candidate is Dr. Houlin Zhao of China.
> Thus, one plausible scenario would be for 2015 to see a newly empowered
> ITU dealing with international internet public policy issues, and perhaps
> even asserting authority to create internet technical standards, under the
> direction of Dr. Zhao.
> One final note: The US is not really paying attention. Again, as of
> today we have yet to name an ambassadorial rank leader for the US
> delegation. And, frankly, I don’t think that the Executive Branch has as
> great a concern about these events as I do. There is a crying need,
> however, for greater US engagement – notwithstanding the Snowden fall out.
> More importantly, the US private sector needs to recognize that the lack
> of a strong US gov
The opinions expressed above are those of
the author, not of any organizations,
associated with or related to him in
any given way.
== Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss