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

[richard.hill@itu.int]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on Ross' comments,
but I will make one point.  In most developed countries and many developing
countries, traditional telephony services are no longer monopolies.  There
is a strong trend to privatization and liberalization, including the "local
loop".  For an overview, take a look at:

  http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/competition/index.html

Speaking personally, I don't think that it is correct to characterize the
industry members of ITU as "local telco monopolies".  If you look at the
list of industry members at:

 
http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=SEC&_languageid=1

you will see that it includes many manufacturers and even computer
companies.

Best,
Richard


-----------------------------------------
Richard Hill
Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
tel: +41 22 730 5887
FAX: +41 22 730 5853
Email: richard.hill@itu.int
Study Group 2 email: tsbsg2@itu.int
 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 October 2002 19:52
> To: DNSO General Assembly; Alexander Svensson
> Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later
> 
> 
> > >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
> 
--
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