a take on the ITU-ITR controversy
Hi All I did a lead oped on the ITU-ITRs controversy in the Indian daily 'The Hindu' http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/artic... Thought it may interest some of you. parminder
Parminder: Read the oped a couple days ago and yes, a very thoughtful analysis. I agree with you: much of the ITU/WCIT conversation is trash talk, designed for more heat than light. I do not believe the ITRs were contemplated as the end game here; there is a larger strategic framework at play. Because any rational analysis will show that proposals that would exact profound change are coming from well, shall we say some unexpected places, notwithstanding the constant mention of the usual bogeymen. However, while I share some of your concerns, some of the stark differences you appear to outline are, in my opinion, much more nuanced. A couple of few things. If we think the commercial interests will dominate, then the needs/aspirations/cultural affinities of Internet users will become central to all propositions. They will follow the money....and act on fact. The locus for Internet growth is the Asia/Pacific and African regions. Ditto the prospects for further development, if only to address the opportunities presented by this fact. So surely the moves of commercial operators mindful of their prospects are going to be heavily mediated by the presence in the space of 2+ billion Chinese and Indians. Trading on these facts alone, for me, the principal traction in the latest round of gTLDs is the improved prospects for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) it brings to fore. I am convinced that continued growth and development demand collaborations between the interests, North & South, East, West and all points between. All of the old ideas of a uni-polar world goes with it. The very nature, the very idea of the Internet is hostile to hegemony and exceptionalism. I am unanimous that a balanced multistakeholder approach and process to matters Internet is best positioned for successful stewardship. You mentioned two major actions - unbundling software from hardware and common carriage concepts for telecommunications - as major actions that inured to the global public interest. Further examination will show one was initiated by a state actor in a metropolitan country, the other by commercial actors. So on the balance of the facts, I am not yet persuaded that state actors are the best if not the only guarantors of the global public interest. I have a difficulty with the supposition of the public interest as alien and mutually exclusive turf to commercial and civil interests. Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>wrote:
Hi All
I did a lead oped on the ITU-ITRs controversy in the Indian daily 'The Hindu'
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/artic...
Thought it may interest some of you.
parminder _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi, On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Parminder: <snip>
I am unanimous that a balanced multistakeholder approach and process to matters Internet is best positioned for successful stewardship.
You mentioned two major actions - unbundling software from hardware and common carriage concepts for telecommunications - as major actions that inured to the global public interest. Further examination will show one was initiated by a state actor in a metropolitan country, the other by commercial actors. So on the balance of the facts, I am not yet persuaded that state actors are the best if not the only guarantors of the global public interest.
+1
I have a difficulty with the supposition of the public interest as alien and mutually exclusive turf to commercial and civil interests.
Very well said Carlton!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Another, post WCIT, take on the controversy http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-false-consensus-is-broken/article4222... parminder On Saturday 01 December 2012 11:17 PM, McTim wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Parminder: <snip> I am unanimous that a balanced multistakeholder approach and process to matters Internet is best positioned for successful stewardship.
You mentioned two major actions - unbundling software from hardware and common carriage concepts for telecommunications - as major actions that inured to the global public interest. Further examination will show one was initiated by a state actor in a metropolitan country, the other by commercial actors. So on the balance of the facts, I am not yet persuaded that state actors are the best if not the only guarantors of the global public interest. +1
I have a difficulty with the supposition of the public interest as alien and mutually exclusive turf to commercial and civil interests. Very well said Carlton!!
Hi Parminder: I can agree with the major premise of your op-ed; the devil lies in the details of the goings-on at WCIT 2012. We know a few things for certain. Telecommunications systems, the wires and the spectrum, overhead and under the seas, landing places and connectors, optical and copper, the switches and interfaces, protocols and processes, known and largely unknown, form part of what we loosely refer as the Internet infrastructure that undergirds the Internet as we know it. Some of all this is regulated. And, thusly, subject to statist controls. The ITU as an inter-governmental entity is quite peculiar in it manifestation; not just governments but also non-governmental interests, including private interests, are close to its heart. Every single protagonist at WCIT 2012 purports to speak for and negotiate in favour of the 'public interest'. And when the details surrounding the failures of WCIT 2012 are examined, the playbook so assiduously advanced by a significant section of the chattering classes just don't add up. Maybe the human rights clause was advanced purely for the 'thumb in the eye' effect on the 'other side', the set piece defense against what the 'usual suspects' had to know was the red line laid down by the stout U.S. position against 'content regulation' and for 'freedom of expression'. Everybody knows that statecraft is often advanced by 'other necessary means', some would say even to kill and murder. Maybe the U.S. 'took the bait', in full knowledge that for them, there are no permanent principles in the practice; fungible ones for sure, prorated purely by permanent interests. Watching this 'pas de deux' from afar, I'm convinced that consensus on ITRs was never the end game for both 'sides' at Dubai. Seems a few notable commentators, yourself included, have laboured to advance the - IMO - more rational as opposed the more emotional view. You should read Milton Muellar - a sometime sparring partner and fellow polemicist - on this as well. Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:01 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>wrote:
Another, post WCIT, take on the controversy
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-false-consensus-is-broken/article4222...
parminder
On Saturday 01 December 2012 11:17 PM, McTim wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Parminder: <snip> I am unanimous that a balanced multistakeholder approach and process to matters Internet is best positioned for successful stewardship.
You mentioned two major actions - unbundling software from hardware and common carriage concepts for telecommunications - as major actions that inured to the global public interest. Further examination will show one was initiated by a state actor in a metropolitan country, the other by commercial actors. So on the balance of the facts, I am not yet persuaded that state actors are the best if not the only guarantors of the global public interest. +1
I have a difficulty with the supposition of the public interest as alien and mutually exclusive turf to commercial and civil interests. Very well said Carlton!!
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Good one. Thanks for sharing. -J On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Yet Another Comment Yet Another Take
http://avri.doria.org/post/38641776703/wcit _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Very interesting analysis. For sure "The tussle will continue"! Thank you very much Avri. Happy and prosperous New Year 2013. Victor. On 29/12/2012 21:23, Avri Doria wrote:
Yet Another Comment Yet Another Take
http://avri.doria.org/post/38641776703/wcit _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
...and excellent one indeed! Thanks Avri! Olivier On 29/12/2012 21:23, Avri Doria wrote:
Yet Another Comment Yet Another Take
http://avri.doria.org/post/38641776703/wcit _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Yet Another Comment Yet Another Take
"*I am unabashedly on the side of the borderless freedom of the global Internet and strongly support the variety of multistakeholder governance arrangements and experiments. On the epistemological issue of **Telecommunications and the Internet**, I remain philosophically ambivalent, though I think I understand the real-politic of the issue.*" +1. A very probing - and IMO - finely balanced analysis that demonstrates a thorough awareness of the 'nuances' of what was WCIT 2012. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Jorge Amodio -
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
parminder -
Victor Ndonnang