[discuss] CSTD report/survey on the hundreds of places Internet policy is being worked on

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Thu Jan 1 05:04:45 UTC 2015

Hi Nick, thanks for this heads up, just posted comments with a minute to spare.

One rather odd observation, if I may: this report of policy areas
doesn't actually address policy for fostering infrastructure
development. It refers to governance of infrastructure under 2.1
Telecommunication infrastructure, but doesn't address it in terms of
how development is fostered. It comes closest to it under 7.1 Access,
and vaguely approaches it under 7.2 Digital Divide and even 7.3
Capacity development, but the enabling environment and/or promoting of
infrastructure development is one of the key issues pressed by the
Information Society project.

Infrastructure development is basic to understanding not only the
theory for driving infrastructure development, but also to
understanding the type of network environment that results from the
type of policy assumed, with implications for how numerous areas of
internet-related policy would be approached.

In terms of fundamentals, this issue is probably the most important
issue for stakeholders seeking to establish a credible context for
Internet governance, to be sure is on the table.

So that was one thing I said.  Kind of interesting that that would be
left out of this report.  I expect it's in the database, though I
haven't gone into it too deeply.  I looked at the WGEC's output some
time back.


On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
<nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
> FYI, comments on the draft report, and any submissions or amendments to the
> database below referenced will be taken by the CSTD for another week or so
> at cstd-wsis10 at unctad.org
> On 25 Nov 2014, at 13:37, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org>
> wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
> Orphans certainly do exist at the local level, which is an argument for an
> Agenda 21-type approach to development at the local, national, and regional
> level.
> I’ll have to leave comment and work on those things to others: I only deal
> with things happening in the international system and in particular those
> being actively worked on in Geneva. :)
> On 25 Nov 2014, at 07:33, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Ashton-Hart!
> Thank you very much for this extensive "gap"analysis, but please keep us
> posted on any list of DOMESTIC internet policy issues you may come across as
> well. Global internet policy lives an interesting life between Los Angeles
> and Geneva. After 10 year of UN involvement in the Internet sphere, many
> orphans remain and happen to be very local indeed, as the many "GAPS" of the
> document  "appears to indicate", without even speaking of access pricing,
> last mile competition or lack thereof, monopolies, duopolies, bottlenecks
> and private or public network investment so necessary to prodie universal
> access.
> Best regards
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
> skype carlos.raulg
> +506 8335 2487
> ________
> Apartado 1571-1000
> 2014-11-25 5:54 GMT-06:00 Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org>:
>> Dear all,
>> I know we all get overloaded with reports to read, but I thought I’d
>> highlight one that is really worth the time.
>> The CSTD WGEC started the effort to map the many institutions,
>> organisations and processes were policy with an Internet dimension is being
>> addressed; the CSTD Secretariat has taken that effort and built upon it,
>> releasing a report that will get discussed at the CSTD this Thursday.
>> The report - "The mapping of international Internet public policy issues
>> [Advanced Version]” is here:
>> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_Mapping_Internet_en.pdf
>> The database is here:
>> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_Mapping_InternetDatabase_en.pdf
>> This makes clear that there really are no ‘orphan issues’ but there is
>> clearly a coordination problem; I know there are quite a few on this list
>> who have seen this for a long time and as a Geneva-based policy person I’ve
>> been a victim of it myself for the last 8 years ;)
>> Regards, Nick
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list