Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> >If I were more adept at reading government-speak,
> >I'm sure I'd see the deeper meaning, but on its face, I don't read this
as a
> >change over the status quo. Did I miss something?
>
> I have prepared a red-lined document comparing the old and
> new version of Resolution 102:

Someone more versed in the matter might want to correct me, but a layperson
could simply read the resolution thusly;

----- Original Message -----
From: "Local Telco Monopoly & ITU Member" <telco@country.code>
To: "Local Goverment" <regulator@country.gov.code>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:20 AM amongst other times
Subject: Regulatory Oversight

> Dear Local Government;
>
> We wish to bring a potential oversight to your attention. The Internet is
> important. Too important to be left to the decentralized control of the
> common Internet user and certainly too important to continue to be
> controlled by the DOC, ICANN and the IETF. Regulation of other forms of
> communication are regulated by local governments, why should the Internet
> be any different. Please fulfill your mandate and take a stronger role in
> Regulating the Internet. The ITU would love to help you do this. Someone
> from the ITU will be in touch with you shortly.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Local Telco Monopoly & ITU Member



If you're interested in getting a better read on where the ITU is coming
from, spend a few minutes at http://www.itu.int

Their interest in "the matter of ICANN' becomes painfully clear very
quickly. For instance, the secretary-general of the ITU has this to say:

"Over the last 135 years, the Union's mandate has expanded to cover the
invention of voice telephony, the development of radiocommunications, the
launch of the first communications satellites, and, most recently, the
technological convergence that heralds the dawn of a new,
telecommunications-based information age.

With a membership which includes almost all the world's countries and over
500 private members from the telecommunication, broadcasting and information
technology sectors, ITU can boast a long and highly successful track record
in developing and managing our telecommunication resources. An international
organization which is, at heart, a community of its members, today's ITU
remains unsurpassed in its ability to combine an impartial, global
perspective and cooperative approach with a solid technical foundation built
on the expertise of hundreds of leading manufacturers, carriers and service
providers. "

See the problem here? Over the last 20 years, the telco's of the world were
too focused on the problems that the roll-out of the "Information
Superhighway" and the "5000 channel universe" presented. They were
blindsided by the Internet. The organization that is responsible for
overseeing "the planet's largest man-made artifact" has negligble influence
over the planet's most important technical infrastructure. There's no easy
money in the Internet for them - the e2e principle almost ensures this.
These monopolists and their industry attendants need an easy way to get
their hooks into the new markets created by this "new" technology and urging
their local government to regulate the heck out of it is the most convenient
way to achieve this.

Take another read of 102 and in each case where it says "private industry"
or "private sector" insert "Local Telco Monopoly". Where it says
"appropriate interests" or "appropriate entities" or similar insert "Local
Telco Monopoly" or "Well-connected Telco Industry Player" and where it says
"management" simply insert "regulation".

Someone please tell me that I'm wrong - I really don't want to be "right" on
this one.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow



----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later


>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Bret Faussett asked:
> >If I were more adept at reading government-speak,
> >I'm sure I'd see the deeper meaning, but on its face, I don't read this
as a
> >change over the status quo. Did I miss something?
>
> I have prepared a red-lined document comparing the old and
> new version of Resolution 102:
>
>     http://www.icannchannel.de/res102-comp.pdf (54 kB PDF)
>  or http://www.icannchannel.de/res102-comp.htm (13 kB HTML/CSS)
>
> The differences between the ITU Resolution 102 from the Minneapolis
> Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 and the Marrakesh 2002 version
> which Elisabeth Porteneuve forwarded are sometimes subtle, and
> sometimes not so subtle.
>
> E.g. in the last sentence, when the Plenipotentiary now encourages
> member states' participation "in the management of Internet domain
> names and addresses" instead of participation "in the entities
> managing" them.
>
> E.g. in the "emphasizing" section, the differentiation between
> "technical and coordination tasks, for which technical private
> bodies can be responsible" and "public interest matters" -- and
> the latter include stability and security.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html