Well done, Bill. I had not seen your message before writing my previous message on this topic. I was under the impression that the appointee was from the Australian TUG, not INTUG, but now you say it is both, so I assume you are correct. Again, no animosity toward Sinclair, and in fact I blieve that INTUG often played a very progressive role in the 80s telecom liberalization debates, but this is NOT a representative of noncommercial interests. > In the event anyone's not familiar, a wee bit of background on the > group of which she is the Chair of the Board, the International > Telecommunications Users Group. INTUG was established by a bunch of > large transnational corporations back in 1974 to advocate the > liberalization of global telecom markets. They were, in effect, a > sort of issue-specific International Chamber of Commerce. In > parallel > with other big business associations, they lobbied > governments at both > the national and multilateral level; I dealt with some of > their folks > in the 80s to mid-90s in the ITU context, and still have some of the > docs they submitted to ITU and OECD from those days. They were > especially active in advocating the loosening of regulations on the > international private leased circuits used by financial and other > corporate users to construct closed private networks > bypassing public > switched networks for global voice and data transmission (pre- > commercial Internet), but also pushed for the reduction of > international calling rates (fixed and mobile) under the accounting > and settlements system. Thereafter, if I recall correctly, > a lot of > their early members bled off into other industry lobbying > groups; the > current membership http://intug.org/members/our-members/ seems to > comprise national associations, some of which are not entirely big > business, e.g. the membership of ATUG (which she also heads) > "consists of 1/3 from the Top 1000 trading companies in > Australia, 1/3 > from the Small to Medium Enterprise sector and 1/3 coming from small > business, consultants, educational organisations such as TAFE and > local government." > > In the Internet era INTUG's been less visible (at least to me) > relative to other industry lobbying groups so I'm not aware of its > positions on most ICANN issues, but it's a founding member of the > Alliance for Global Business, which has taken stands on some > relevant > topics. For example, you can read the AGB's Global Action Plan for > Electronic Business here > http://www.witsa.org/papers/3rdEd-GlobalActionPlan.pdf > . Some quotes of interest: > > *WTO members should recognize that specific WTO agreements governing > trade in goods, trade in services, or trade-related intellectual > property apply to electronic transmissions...Business will work to > encourage all countries to implement effectively the TRIPS > agreement. > Business will also continue to develop and deploy technologies that > prevent IP infringements in the online environment. > > *Business should have a significant role in the formation of policy > for technical management of the domain name system and the > development > of policy. Through the various Supporting Organizations of the > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and in > particular the Business Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting > Organization (DNSO), business will continue to work to ensure > continued stability and security of the Internet, as well as > appropriate protection of intellectual property. The protection of > intellectual property (especially famous names) and efficient > ways of > dealing with cybersquatting remain priority issues for business. > > *Governments should recognize that the Internet is a new medium > providing new opportunities and challenges. Existing regulatory > systems must provide consumers with useful protection of their > personal data and at the same time guarantee the free flow of > information needed for the information society to produce the > anticipated benefits. Governments should also recognize that self > regulation may be a more flexible method of achieving data > protection > than government regulation. To that end, governments should: * work > with the private sector to adopt interpretation of existing > regulatory > solutions based on the criteria in the paragraph above; * recognize > the validity and adequacy of effective selfregulation > augmented by the > use of privacy-enhancing technologies; and * educate the > public to use > such privacy-enhancing technologies properly. > > And so on... > > I look forward to working on issues of common concern with the INTUG > Chair and the other board appointees in the new SG for noncommercial > users. > > Best, > > Bill >