Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1625
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 9 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1625

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:07:47 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

The trouble is, Marilyn, that ICANN is accountable to neither Governments
nor individuals, but only to the US Government. This is not an adequate
basis for the future development of an Internet for the whole world.

Particularly not, in a world where the United States has a
take-it-or-leave-it attitude to the United Nations.

Particularly not, in a world where the United States exercises economic
supremacy for its own interests.

The ITU may or may not have more to offer than this Californian quango, but
in the end the sovereign governments of the world may legitimately accuse
ICANN and USG of lack of accountability, and seek alternatives where all
participating nations have as much influence as the US.

You refer to lack of democratic voting mechanisms within the ITU - but make
no reference to ICANN's rejection of democratic voting mechanisms for the At
Large. Just about everything to do with ICANN is autocratic, top-down, and
controlled - paying lip-service to participation but in effect affording DoC
and USG continued oversight of DNS administration.

Until a truly multi-national model is adopted, with ICANN accountable to a
body *other* than DoC / USG, the control of the DNS is "captured" and the
impression of imperialism / supremacy is re-inforced.

Alternatively a User-democracy model needs to be developed, with or without
the help of bodies with more international status than ICANN.

What is *not* acceptable or satisfactory is the present ICANN model, where
ICANN Directors owe no accountability to the international community or
international users, and can retain their control as long as they carry out
their primary function, which is to provide USG with continued oversight and
control of the DNS.

Key Questions: "Why should it have such oversight and control? Why shouldn't
oversight and control (and accountability) be transferred to another body
which more fully represents the interests of other nations and their
individual users?"

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments
on proposed Bylaws modifications)

> Richard, I read your response to Marc Scheiders, which seems to be an
explanation of the ITU's operations
> and functional responsibilities, and suggest that there is a need for
clarification in a few areas.  You are undoubtedly describing part of the
activities of the ITU, but for those who are not fully informed of its core
mission and responsibilities, it may not be actually factually helpful since
it omits so much in your undoubtedly very well intentioned effort to be
brief.
>
> I suggest, for instance: the use of the word "no cost" in regard to
services available...
>
> First, for the record, AT&T is a sector member of the ITU, and greatly
values its role in telephony and related convergence issues and areas. I've
said this publicly many times, and do want it clear that we are strong
supporters of the role of the ITU in its areas of core competency. However,
we are also involved in other organizations mentioned in your email, and I
suggest that it is possible that some may misunderstand some of the comments
you made.
>
> First, you seem to be saying that there is "no charge" for some of the
services of the ITU :-) This could imply "free".  I think you mean that the
particular service is subsidized by member fees and that there is not a
specific charge for it. BUT, your comment could imply that the service is
"free" and indeed that the workshops are "free".  Your careful use of the
words "no charge" are factual. All services of the ITU, like services of any
organization, are paid for by someone.
>
> It's important to be clear.  All who read your response should understand
that "no charge" does not mean "free" but that the core budget of the ITU
bears the subsidy.  And that of course, with the financial status of the ITU
and indeed all organizations and even corporations these days, changes may
occur in the ability to provide such subsidies.  Some may not be familiar
with the ITU's financing, nor its reliance on unit contributions by
countries, and sector member fees, etc. Nor, perhaps fully informed of the
rather substantial budget shortfall faced by the ITU, as described at the
ITU Plenipot '02.  The Council of ITU is charged with addressing this
substantial -- as I recall, somewhere around $23m sf -- budget shortfall and
determining how to address this.  The financial stability of the ITU was a
significant focus of the ITU Plenipot '02, as all know who kept up to date
by reading the excellent announcements by the ITU staff on the ITU site
which described the work of the!
>  Plenipot '02.
>
> Secondly, while you are describing some of the ways in which the ITU
interacts with interested parties, via workshops, forums, etc., you made no
mention of the way that voting takes place in the governing bodies of the
ITU. The description below didn't include a factual portrayal of how
decisions are actually taken in the policy bodies and treaty conferences by
the member states of the ITU, where, of course, only member nations vote and
where the sector members or observers have no to extremely limited presence
or voice. And, again, at Plenipot '02 significant discussion did take place
by member nations regarding whether there should be any change in the
ability of sector members to participate more directly.
>
> Perhaps it is more helpful to be clear that your response below seems to
focus primarily if not solely on the workshops
> and forums which the ITU hosts, and does such a good job of providing in a
variety of areas related to telephony and
> convergence, and international standards in those areas.  Again, as you
state, the costs for sponsoring these are borne by the ITU core budget
[supported by unit fees to member nations and sector member fees], and  no
registration fees for attendance are charged.
>
> Folks on this list have a wide range of familiarity with the ITU, and its
core purposes.  You and I have discussed this many times, and you and I are
in agreement that the concerned parties related to the coordination of the
technical aspects of the global Internet do not work at the ITU on these
issues. There are many reasons for that, of course.
>
> And, of course, there are working relationships between some of the groups
where this work is underway and various entities of the ITU, where there may
be convergence issues or the need for coordination.
>
> Of important acknowledgement, with the support of the GAC, and the wide
set of global private sector parties, many do work at ICANN.  I think it
very important to note to all that the ITU is a member of the GAC at ICANN
and has a significant influence and voice in the role of governments and
itself through that participation.
>
> Perhaps it is useful to note for the GA list that the GNSO council in fact
recently voted strong support for a resolution, which restated the Council's
support for the role of governments, and multi-lateral inter-governmental
organizations, such as the ITU, WIPO, and others, to work effectively and
supportively of ICANN via the GAC. This resolution was forwarded by Council
to the ITU workshop just held as a contribution and is available both on the
GNSO council site, and on the ITU's site as a workshop contribution. As a
member of Council, I was pleased to support that resolution and its
contributing to the Workshop.
>
> However, Richard, I do wish to call your attention to a concern I have
with your email below. You rely on telephony examples in how you explain the
role of the ITU via telephony and related convenience examples. This is
quite appropriate, because the ITU is and has been such a significant
contributor in the international standards areas of telephony and in working
to bring teledensity to developing economies, through the important work of
the D sector.  And, of course, the important work of the R Sector is well
known and well respected, as is the T Sector's role in international
telecommunications standards. However, you seem to imply [perhaps I
misunderstand] that this extrapolates to the Internet.
>
> I am not sure that your efforts to extrapolate from telephony into the
Internet are quite a "fit". I know that it is often done for expediency sake
particularly by those more comfortable with the telephony world or even as a
means to try to bridge the two worlds.  I fear that relying on explaining
the Internet from a telephony perspective does in fact a disservice to not
only users, but policy makers. All of us should strive for new and better
analogies, while respecting the concerns and experiences of others. And
since I trust that you truly want to be helpful in "decoding" some of these
issues, I suggest that this is a mutual challenge, and that we should all
strive for better analogies, rather than relying on extrapolations from
telephony.
>
> A better approach for all would be to continue to talk about the Internet
technical coordination, where the private sector has been the lead, not
governments, and not governmental entities. And, to start from and continue
from that perspective, and to discuss the important, even critically
important, supportive role of governments and intergovernmental
organizations in advisory and supportive activities.
>
> I continue to hope that the ITU will participate in a supportive manner in
support of ICANN, through the
> GAC. Certainly the resolution passed by GNSO Council and forwarded to the
just past ITU Workshop endorsed strong
> support for that participation by the ITU in the GAC, and in support of
ICANN. Accordingly, I trust that you will attend the ICANN meeting at Rio
and look forward to seeing you there.
>
> Finally, I offer one point, which others more expert than I must validate.
My understanding is that at the IETF, that one participates as an
individual, and that in fact, all documents are publicly available. Of
course, at the ITU, there are both public documents, and then, there are the
documents which are available under subscription as a member. And, of
course, during the course of treaty conferences, many documents are not
available at all until they are finalized.... One simply shouldn't confuse
the ITU, a treaty organization, with the responsibilities of such an
organization and the realities of its treaty responsibilities, with any
other kind of organization. Probably in your interest of being brief and
concise in your communication below, some of that wasn't clear. But I trust
that it was an effort by you to support the ITU's work at the GAC in support
of ICANN.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marilyn Cade

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 11:38:24 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

- --=======1CB11D15=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2FC23214; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Karl,
beware. The use of "Gov" is misleading as the Gov is the one which conducts 
the nations policy on behalf of the State. We have two different issues.
- - the digital sovereignty of the States and the rights of the nations 
(people) protected by the rights of the States (digital sovereignty)
- - the policy of their Governments using the law, international agreement, 
technical delegations etc.

The current ICANN drift (cf. Vittorio's use in ITU document) towards 
"national digital sovereignty" is extremely clever. Let compare:

- - State digital sovereignty. This concerns the States as super users 
protecting their rights and therefore through them those of their citizen, 
of their economy, of their culture the way they want. There are established 
fora for them to concert (ITU, UN, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO, etc.)

- - national digital sovereignty. This is a confuse concept (except when 
speaking of the USA at large as a sovereign nation over the other nations - 
one has to be a sovereign over something). Confuse because nations have no 
other existing system to globally interoperate and to see their rights 
protected but the States. So if there are sovereign rights of nations, and 
States are not those to unilaterally protect them,

- - someone has to provide that protection though its unique authoritative 
power (ICANN? ITU?)
- - it must equally enforce its jurisdiction and therefore rule on (or 
contract) everyone.

So, you are absolutely right that ITU is better protection, beause if ICANN 
wants to rule the world, long ITU practice shows that it wants to serve the 
world as an international arena (you may not be pleased with the results, 
but everyone accepts).

But this must not lead to a confusion of what are the sovereignty rights 
involved or delegated and how they are defined and protected. We do not 
want ICANN to use ITU as a way to de facto sign a global ccTLD contract in:
- - being acknowledge as the unique technical interlocutor (including 
IETF/IAB reps)
- - seeing some TLDs trying to find in the ITU a way to locally or globally 
obtain a de facto monopoly and to lead States to believe that things like 
standards, naming, access control, root management are "technical" issues 
delegated to ITU and then to ICANN (nor to see others to use it against 
States as being supported by an international rule).

We also do not want that many mission creep matters are this way decided as 
pure industry matters delegated to ITU. It would most probably enforce for 
ever the current money losing and commercially sterile naming economical 
model invented by ICANN. And make innovative modes more complex.

States must stay sovereign. Internet must be a place of liberty. That does 
not means a revolutionary tool creating a conflict between nations and 
their States, towards a worldwide Gov. This would lead to an over reaction 
of the States (which are not well informed on the matter by lack of 
modelization and technical, societal and governance experimentation).

An over reaction we start seeing like in the current French law 
proposition. From the Good Samaritan right to stop an illegal site, now the 
provider should stop it under his own responsibility. From the cooperation 
agreement with Verisign, a national public service of naming is created 
(the same in the USA: cf. kid.us act). Progressively a de facto monopoly 
concept develops.

Is that a bad move? Would ICANN's people be God's Angels, I would say no, 
since it permits to insure a good consistency of the whole system.
jfc

On 00:43 09/03/03, Karl Auerbach said:

>Let's compare the who has power in ICANN against who has power in the ITU
>and see which gives the internet user community a better chance at having
>an impact:
>
>     ICANN Participants who have actual roles in the making of policy:
>       - Governments (frequently through self-appointed representatives 
> without
>                      actual credentials to represent their countries)
>       - Selected industries (ISPs, intellectual property owners,
>                              DNS registrars/registries)
>       - Educational institutions (not educators, but the institutions)
>       - Non commercial organizations
>       - Regional IP address registries
>
>     ITU Participants who have actual roles in the making of policy:
>       - Governments (through formally appointed representatives)
>       - Selected industries
>
>What is interesting is that the internet user community is present in
>neither of these.  (ICANN's nominating-committee/ALAC/ROLO/structure can
>be dismissed - it is no more a meaninful vehicle for public participation
>than were the village soviets in the USSR, the system upon which ICANN has
>seemingly modeled its structure for public participation.)
>
>Now, ICANN itself has made the claim that governments adequately represent
>the interests of their citizens.  If one believes this, than the internet
>user community would naturally prefer the ITU over ICANN because:
>
>    a) The government role (and thus the representation of the internet 
> users) is
>       less diluted by other interests in the ITU than it is in ICANN.
>
>    b) The governmental role in ITU is more formalized in the sense that
>       the representatives are clearly credentialed rather than ad hoc
>       self appointees.  This means that there is a greater chance for
>       the national citizens to exert organized influence on their
>       representative.
>
>                 --karl--
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======1CB11D15=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2FC23214
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======1CB11D15=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 12:33:18 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

- --=======3B872CC3=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2FC23214; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Marilyn,
Your remarks on the R and T Sectors vs the "I Sector" are well made. The 
response to that problem should be a very simple modelization showing 
fthese three sectors as both R and T blocks covered by the I block. I is 
value-added over R and T which participate into the interests of I.

Now, the difficulty Karl pointed out is that there is a missing U Sector 
(Users).

Let understand this, as I do not probably see it exactly the way Karl sees 
it. When I mean Users I do not mean the senders or receivers of bytes : 
they are the same as the telephone users, TV watchers or Media producers. I 
mean the actual owners, developers and managers of the added-value layers. 
The same way Nokia, Thomson, etc. are for equipment, the same way IETF is 
for standard.

So the real model is probably R and T as first layer. I as a second layer 
and U as a third layer (U being quite diverse).

R and T are providing the Internet bandwidth.
I is to manage that bandwidth - basically the IANA functions.
U is to coordinate among the users of that bandwidth - the mission creep 
and @large.

Today, ICANN tries to curb the U Sector and to look like an acceptable I 
Sector manager. That cannot work. It has to clarify about the I Sector 
manager (the lean model) and one of the U sector partners.

IMHO, it can be both, if it differentiates well the issues, does not want 
to be autocratic in I Sector and monopolistic in U Sector. This is what ERC 
could have lead to (intermediary report).

Let take the ITU-T example. It manages Telephone (basic service). But it is 
also as such the largest TLD Manager as managing the telephone naming plan; 
so a participant into the I sector.

Many telephone companies as well as start-up, VCs, Media or TV groups are 
active in the U Sector. Katho is an as good rep of @large as Karl. And Karl 
would not be a good @large rep without a technical understanding far 
superior to the average icannatlarge.com Members.

So there is no dispute, but a simple need for a correct modelization with 
its resulting economical model. This means only the ICANN to get real: 
investigating what could be done, testing it until everyone agrees on how 
to make it, and transform the test into reality (that scenario is fully 
described in ICP-3; except that the testing is to be technical, societal 
and governance oriented, what the document does not make fully clear, but 
the daily life of the mission creep shows a necessity).

If ICANN BoD can quickly elect knowledgeable people with no other agenda 
than the global service of the network, however biased the ERC will have 
been good and we will probably reach that target. Otherwise ITU will have 
to take over, hopefully reaching that model too. But it will probably have 
to be helped through a real @large organization (not the ALAC confusing alibi).

jfc

On 21:29 08/03/03, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP said:

>Richard, I read your response to Marc Scheiders, which seems to be an 
>explanation of the ITU's operations
>and functional responsibilities, and suggest that there is a need for 
>clarification in a few areas.  You are undoubtedly describing part of the 
>activities of the ITU, but for those who are not fully informed of its 
>core mission and responsibilities, it may not be actually factually 
>helpful since it omits so much in your undoubtedly very well intentioned 
>effort to be brief.
>
>I suggest, for instance: the use of the word "no cost" in regard to 
>services available...
>
>First, for the record, AT&T is a sector member of the ITU, and greatly 
>values its role in telephony and related convergence issues and areas. 
>I've said this publicly many times, and do want it clear that we are 
>strong supporters of the role of the ITU in its areas of core competency. 
>However, we are also involved in other organizations mentioned in your 
>email, and I suggest that it is possible that some may misunderstand some 
>of the comments you made.
>
>First, you seem to be saying that there is "no charge" for some of the 
>services of the ITU :-) This could imply "free".  I think you mean that 
>the particular service is subsidized by member fees and that there is not 
>a specific charge for it. BUT, your comment could imply that the service 
>is "free" and indeed that the workshops are "free".  Your careful use of 
>the words "no charge" are factual. All services of the ITU, like services 
>of any organization, are paid for by someone.
>
>It's important to be clear.  All who read your response should understand 
>that "no charge" does not mean "free" but that the core budget of the ITU 
>bears the subsidy.  And that of course, with the financial status of the 
>ITU and indeed all organizations and even corporations these days, changes 
>may occur in the ability to provide such subsidies.  Some may not be 
>familiar with the ITU's financing, nor its reliance on unit contributions 
>by countries, and sector member fees, etc. Nor, perhaps fully informed of 
>the rather substantial budget shortfall faced by the ITU, as described at 
>the ITU Plenipot '02.  The Council of ITU is charged with addressing this 
>substantial -- as I recall, somewhere around $23m sf -- budget shortfall 
>and determining how to address this.  The financial stability of the ITU 
>was a significant focus of the ITU Plenipot '02, as all know who kept up 
>to date by reading the excellent announcements by the ITU staff on the ITU 
>site which described the work of the!
>  Plenipot '02.
>
>Secondly, while you are describing some of the ways in which the ITU 
>interacts with interested parties, via workshops, forums, etc., you made 
>no mention of the way that voting takes place in the governing bodies of 
>the ITU. The description below didn't include a factual portrayal of how 
>decisions are actually taken in the policy bodies and treaty conferences 
>by the member states of the ITU, where, of course, only member nations 
>vote and where the sector members or observers have no to extremely 
>limited presence or voice. And, again, at Plenipot '02 significant 
>discussion did take place by member nations regarding whether there should 
>be any change in the ability of sector members to participate more directly.
>
>Perhaps it is more helpful to be clear that your response below seems to 
>focus primarily if not solely on the workshops
>and forums which the ITU hosts, and does such a good job of providing in a 
>variety of areas related to telephony and
>convergence, and international standards in those areas.  Again, as you 
>state, the costs for sponsoring these are borne by the ITU core budget 
>[supported by unit fees to member nations and sector member fees], and  no 
>registration fees for attendance are charged.
>
>Folks on this list have a wide range of familiarity with the ITU, and its 
>core purposes.  You and I have discussed this many times, and you and I 
>are in agreement that the concerned parties related to the coordination of 
>the technical aspects of the global Internet do not work at the ITU on 
>these issues. There are many reasons for that, of course.
>
>And, of course, there are working relationships between some of the groups 
>where this work is underway and various entities of the ITU, where there 
>may be convergence issues or the need for coordination.
>
>Of important acknowledgement, with the support of the GAC, and the wide 
>set of global private sector parties, many do work at ICANN.  I think it 
>very important to note to all that the ITU is a member of the GAC at ICANN 
>and has a significant influence and voice in the role of governments and 
>itself through that participation.
>
>Perhaps it is useful to note for the GA list that the GNSO council in fact 
>recently voted strong support for a resolution, which restated the 
>Council's support for the role of governments, and multi-lateral 
>inter-governmental organizations, such as the ITU, WIPO, and others, to 
>work effectively and supportively of ICANN via the GAC. This resolution 
>was forwarded by Council to the ITU workshop just held as a contribution 
>and is available both on the GNSO council site, and on the ITU's site as a 
>workshop contribution. As a member of Council, I was pleased to support 
>that resolution and its contributing to the Workshop.
>
>However, Richard, I do wish to call your attention to a concern I have 
>with your email below. You rely on telephony examples in how you explain 
>the role of the ITU via telephony and related convenience examples. This 
>is quite appropriate, because the ITU is and has been such a significant 
>contributor in the international standards areas of telephony and in 
>working to bring teledensity to developing economies, through the 
>important work of the D sector.  And, of course, the important work of the 
>R Sector is well known and well respected, as is the T Sector's role in 
>international telecommunications standards. However, you seem to imply 
>[perhaps I misunderstand] that this extrapolates to the Internet.
>
>I am not sure that your efforts to extrapolate from telephony into the 
>Internet are quite a "fit". I know that it is often done for expediency 
>sake particularly by those more comfortable with the telephony world or 
>even as a means to try to bridge the two worlds.  I fear that relying on 
>explaining the Internet from a telephony perspective does in fact a 
>disservice to not only users, but policy makers. All of us should strive 
>for new and better analogies, while respecting the concerns and 
>experiences of others. And since I trust that you truly want to be helpful 
>in "decoding" some of these issues, I suggest that this is a mutual 
>challenge, and that we should all strive for better analogies, rather than 
>relying on extrapolations from telephony.
>
>A better approach for all would be to continue to talk about the Internet 
>technical coordination, where the private sector has been the lead, not 
>governments, and not governmental entities. And, to start from and 
>continue from that perspective, and to discuss the important, even 
>critically important, supportive role of governments and intergovernmental 
>organizations in advisory and supportive activities.
>
>I continue to hope that the ITU will participate in a supportive manner in 
>support of ICANN, through the
>GAC. Certainly the resolution passed by GNSO Council and forwarded to the 
>just past ITU Workshop endorsed strong support for that participation by 
>the ITU in the GAC, and in support of ICANN. Accordingly, I trust that you 
>will attend the ICANN meeting at Rio and look forward to seeing you there.
>
>Finally, I offer one point, which others more expert than I must validate. 
>My understanding is that at the IETF, that one participates as an 
>individual, and that in fact, all documents are publicly available. Of 
>course, at the ITU, there are both public documents, and then, there are 
>the documents which are available under subscription as a member. And, of 
>course, during the course of treaty conferences, many documents are not 
>available at all until they are finalized.... One simply shouldn't confuse 
>the ITU, a treaty organization, with the responsibilities of such an 
>organization and the realities of its treaty responsibilities, with any 
>other kind of organization. Probably in your interest of being brief and 
>concise in your communication below, some of that wasn't clear. But I 
>trust  that it was an effort by you to support the ITU's work at the GAC 
>in support of ICANN.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marilyn Cade
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:55 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
>comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, 06 March 2003 19:44
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga]
> > ALAC comments
> > on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, at 09:46 [=GMT+0100], [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> >>The above
> > brought up one question to which I have no answer. How would
> > the ITU be
> > able to deal with a network that is designed in a totally
> > different way
> > than the one it already knows so well for a hundred (?)
> > years, vid. the
> > telephone?
>
>Actually today's telephone network is switched by computers, using protocols
>(SS7) developed within ITU that have absolutely no relation to the
>mechanical switching that was used 100 years ago, so the today's telephone
>networks, and the issues that ITU handles, are quite different from those of
>100 years ago.
>
>ITU as an institution deals with issues in much the same was as IETF, or
>ISO, or IEEE, or any other standards-making body.  It organizes forums for
>discussion, in which experts meet to exchange views and to agree on
>solutions.  The agreed solutions are published.  The forums can be
>face-to-face meetings, electronic meetings, e-mail discussion lists, etc.
>
>So the way that ITU would deal with any issues that its members would like
>it to deal with is to invite members to express their views, and then
>facilitate the formation of a consensus for how to proceed.
>
>The issues that are being discussed in ITU today obviously are very
>different from those that were being discussed 10 years ago, and even more
>different from those that were discussed 100 years ago.
>
> >
> > The variety of devices and the relative dumbness of the network they
> > connect to are two sides of the one coin we call the internet. Is an
> > organization like the ITU suitable to take over (some of)
> > ICANN's roles,
> > since it has such a venerable tradition in coordinating a
> > very different
> > sort of network, where the intelligence is in the network and
> > not in the
> > machines, and open standards are _less_ important, or cannot
> > be allowed
> > even for they will ruin the network?
>
>As I've stated elsewhere, in my opinion discussions are only productive when
>they involve  all concerned parties, and people with expertise in the
>subject matter.  I would hope that any discussions in ITU would meet those
>criteria.  In some cases, that would imply greater participation in ITU by
>people who currently don't participate that much.
>
>In my opinion, if you get the concerned parties and the experts together,
>you can find solutions.
>
>
> >
> > I would hope that if ICANN is ever replaced, completely or in
> > part, that
> > it will be by a better organization. In my view that means _less_
> > regulation, a more open DNS. (Minimal requierements for new
> > TLDs, and only
> > of a technical nature. No business plans and 13 appendices.)
> > Would this be
> > possible 'under' the ITU?
>
>ITU only does what its members ask it to do.  The ITU staff (such as me)
>don't write any Recommendations.  We just facilitate the process.  The
>Recommendations are written by our membership, mostly by people from
>industry (Sector Members).
>
>If you will allow an analogy to telephony, no telephone operator sends its
>business plans to ITU and we have no mandate to look at how they operate.
>National regulators may have such mandates, that depends on national laws.
>
>ITU does not have contracts with telephone operators (except of course for
>the contracts we need to get telephone service for our premises).  What ITU
>does (for example, my administration of the telephone country codes) is
>specified in detail in a Recommendation (E.164.1 for the telephone codes).
>I follow the instructions in the Recommendation.  That service is provided
>at no cost.
>
>ITU-T Recommendations are of two types.  Most are technical standards, such
>as modems, xDSL, X.509 (used in PKI), etc.
>
>Some tell the ITU staff (like me) what they are supposed to do to support
>global interoperability.  Those services are provided free of charge.  No
>contracts are required between the ITU and the users of the services.
>
>Most people don't know about it, but there are actually non-national
>telephone country codes.  These are assigned (by me, in accordance with
>Recommendation E.164.1), on the basis of what I would call minimal technical
>requirements.  No business plans are required for an assignment.
>
>Best,
>Richard
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======3B872CC3=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2FC23214
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======3B872CC3=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:03:37 -0500
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Karl's latest posting

Karl's latest posting contains his usual careless reasoning.

He says that the Internet user community is not present in either ICANN or
the ITU.  Of course, he means by "internet user community" only that
portion that does not include those segments of the community that he
constantly ignores -- providers, industry, education, non-commercial orgs.
In other words, the portion that is not present, according to Karl, is
individuals acting as individuals.  This may or may not be correct -- it
depends on whether you accept his nonsensical comparison of the various
ways for individuals to express their views in ICANN to village soviets --
but it certainly is not the case that the "internet user community" is not
present in both organizations.  It certainly is present in both, although
more visibly and with more authority in ICANN.

Then he asserts that, since the government role is larger in the ITU than
in ICANN, the ITU would be the preferred forum for the "internet user
community" as he defines it because the governmental role is (1) less
diluted and (2) more formalized in the ITU than in ICANN.  The first point
is probably correct; governments absolutely control ITU decisions and only
exercise significant influence on ICANN decisions.  However, many people
(including large portions of the actual "internet user community," in
contrast to the one Karl sees) think this is a comparative advantage of
ICANN.  The second point is utter nonsense, and demonstrates a pretty
critical lack of understanding of how governments work.  Does Karl actually
believe that Nancy Victory is not "clearly credentialed" by the US
government when she sits at the GAC?  Or that Sharil Tarmizi, the current
Chair of the GAC, is not a legitimate government representative?  How does
Karl think that governmental delegates to the ITU get selected, and exactly
how does he think that differs from the selection process for GAC
representatives?  Does Karl believe that he can exercise more influence
over Nancy Victory in her activities at the ITU, or of the representative
from the State Department who is the US delegate to certain ITU fora, than
he can with respect to the US's activities at ICANN?   I suspect that
Karl's real problem is that he does not seem to be able to influence
anyone, including governmental representatives, but I do not think that is
a function of the forum.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 13:10:52 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest posting

If I am not mistaken, Karl's post was a bit sarcastic in that neither 
ICANN nor the ITU represent the entire user community, but only special 
interests and government respectively.  The users  have no voice in either 
organization.  At least the ITU is obvious, while ICANN continues the sham 
that users are represented by a hand picked committee.  Karl simply 
pointed out that if there were a choice, perhaps the more obvious 
organization would be the choice.  I would be willing to bet he would 
choose neither and still opt for an entity that truly included all of us 
with a direct voice in policy making.

I think you took the bait, Joe.

Leah

On 9 Mar 2003 at 12:03, Joe Sims wrote:

> Karl's latest posting contains his usual careless reasoning.
> 
> He says that the Internet user community is not present in either ICANN or
> the ITU.  Of course, he means by "internet user community" only that
> portion that does not include those segments of the community that he
> constantly ignores -- providers, industry, education, non-commercial orgs.
> In other words, the portion that is not present, according to Karl, is
> individuals acting as individuals.  This may or may not be correct -- it
> depends on whether you accept his nonsensical comparison of the various
> ways for individuals to express their views in ICANN to village soviets --
> but it certainly is not the case that the "internet user community" is not
> present in both organizations.  It certainly is present in both, although
> more visibly and with more authority in ICANN.
> 
> Then he asserts that, since the government role is larger in the ITU than
> in ICANN, the ITU would be the preferred forum for the "internet user
> community" as he defines it because the governmental role is (1) less
> diluted and (2) more formalized in the ITU than in ICANN.  The first point
> is probably correct; governments absolutely control ITU decisions and only
> exercise significant influence on ICANN decisions.  However, many people
> (including large portions of the actual "internet user community," in
> contrast to the one Karl sees) think this is a comparative advantage of
> ICANN.  The second point is utter nonsense, and demonstrates a pretty
> critical lack of understanding of how governments work.  Does Karl actually
> believe that Nancy Victory is not "clearly credentialed" by the US
> government when she sits at the GAC?  Or that Sharil Tarmizi, the current
> Chair of the GAC, is not a legitimate government representative?  How does
> Karl think that governmental delegates to the ITU get selected, and exactly
> how does he think that differs from the selection process for GAC
> representatives?  Does Karl believe that he can exercise more influence
> over Nancy Victory in her activities at the ITU, or of the representative
> from the State Department who is the US delegate to certain ITU fora, than
> he can with respect to the US's activities at ICANN?   I suspect that
> Karl's real problem is that he does not seem to be able to influence
> anyone, including governmental representatives, but I do not think that is
> a function of the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1625
*************************