[ga] ITU-I and Joe Sims
Dear all, Many think Joe Sims has been kind enough to come on this GA to deflate the impact of the vote. To tell Brett how great he was and how poor Michael is. Divide to reign. Also to create hopes: promises only commit those who receive them. etc... I do not think so. Others could have done that. 1. Stuart has called upon the Govs 2. the Govs have a program (I quote it in PS) which is the WSIS. Obviously it is not a GAC response, but it cannot be inconsistent with it. It makes the response to Stuart simple and already worded and settled. Its name is "ITU-I". The problem is only when, how, with who. Joe and Jamie know it. The vote of the GA will be used as much by Joe than by Jamie (he was the one to contradict Thomas in telling the vote was acceptable, ... but worthless). He does not want a revolution by James Love, he wants an evolution by Joe Sims Joe's response to Govs is most probably: "anything, but with me". This is a good response because there are not many people who had/have/will have key knowledge and influence on the international data network development process and on the evolution of the network society. Joe is one of them, so we need him in. But as far as I know JDRP is not an ITU Member. Yet. Joe has one cover today: the ICANN. Here he came to get a feeling about the support/ideas he could get/use for his plans. When he tells Brett that he has good ideas, these ideas are good to buy Joe some time. What to give the @large and the GA to keep them quiet, what to tell the BoD and the DoC about the GA and @large dissatisfaction to support the evolution he wants. This is complex game. But he is good. Now the questions are: - is Joe a good champion for the Internet, of for which part of the Internet? Who are the others? - is the ICANN the best position Joe can obtain? where to best contribute? - what is the ITU-I best architecture? and the best way to set-it up? - what can do the ICANN and the BoD to put that architecture together? Are they only a bootstrap? - what can the GA do to help it to be deployed? - how the ICANN, the GAC, the USG, the ITU, the EEC, the NGOs, the users promote a concerted solution to be endorsed by the WSIS final declaration, giving the gouvernance the legitimacy it needs? My reading is that Joe has a far better understanding of the relation of Internet related businesses (Registers, Registrars, VRSN and gTLDs, TMs and IP, UDRP, US laws even in international context, etc. he is a lawyer) than pure ICANN issues (Louis' area?). So, I feel Joe's best field is the "mission creep". My reading is that ITU does not want to get trapped in a complex and Internet strangling ITU-I, that the USG does not want it to be a decision place, that the Internet community would like to call it ICANN for continuity an stability, that Telcos are split between status-quo (large IP blocks owners) and new developments and better understanding of the Internet opportunities and threats. As, Brett noted it, without Stuart's management by surprise (ICP-3, MdR Security oriented meeting, call to Govs and proposed take over of the root server system, what next?) ICANN was settling. Would Stuart's resignation be the solution? May be a part of it (not for being the messenger of the bad news, but because they are to be addressed and he said he couldn't). But it is more complex. 1. Govs will not come and pay. So BoD wants to withdraw the call. I think it is to late and not opportune. Just take a note of it and take advantage of it as an alibi to patch a lean organization. 2. a rebid is necessary. It will come or has already come but it will not be public. It will probably be progressive, as GAC concerts. In any case Joe is to explain it this WE. He then will tour explaining the response he will have made endorsed by the BoD. May be will we meet in Brussels next week? 3. the only solution is to have an architecture that matches the demands from Joe, from the Stakeholders, from the DoC, from EEC, Japan, China, from the ITU-T that the real concerned parties users (GA, @large, ccTLDs, alt(sic)roots, Telcos, content providers, business) will not circumvent. The consensus I called upon when creating the http://wecann.com site. I have described its architecture http://wecann.com/report.pdf .It leaves a lean ICANN at the core of the system and gives Joe a golden position, by his own, as a legal catalyst and advisor of the "mission creep" society. Most of all, it does not submit the USG to the ITU, while most probably satisfying both the ITU and the Govs. Question is to know if Joe is smart enough to understand it and good enough to adapt the ICANN to it. If he tries, I think he should get our support. The ball is in his field. Have a good and fruitful WE, Joe! Again, just don't touch the DNS, it worked before the ICANN. It should still work after it. jfc THE GOVERNMENTS BASIS Building the infrastructure The role of telecommunications, investment and technology in creating the Information Society infrastructure and bridging the Digital Divide Opening the gates Achieving universal and equitable access to the Information Society Meeting the needs of the developing world Information as a common public good Services and applications The implications of the Information Society for economic, social and cultural development The implications of the Information Society for science The needs of users Consumer protection, privacy and security Relevant content, reflecting cultural diversity and the right to communicate Ethics of the Information Society User training Worker protection and workplace privacy Developing a framework The roles of government, the private sector and civil society in shaping the Information Society Information as a common public good (public domain information) Intellectual property rights and legal exceptions Freedom of expression Telecommunication and Internet access tariff policies ICTs and Education ICTs as a lever for educational change The learning environment: ICTs, teachers, learners and content The needs of currently employed workers --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02 |