On 23/10/2014 3:09 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Enrique
>
>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Enrique Chaparro <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Bill, for keeping us in the loop and all others for their
>> contributions.
>>
>> While I agree on Avri's characterization of NCSG, i.e., that
>> NCSG does not need to be a (whatever)state-sanctioned body
>> to have a role and its own word on Internet-related policies,
>> I have several strong objections to the wording of the document
>> and would _not_support NCSG endorsing it.
> The NCSG PC (on which I do not have a vote) presumably would make a decision if able based on the thrust of member inputs and its own assessment.  Re: the former, it’d be helpful to know to what bits of text you have strong objections and why….
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill

 From the text:*

*
> *"ITU role in internet governance*. The ITU should work with other 
> actors to contribute to furthering multistakeholder internet 
> governance, rather than attempting to take on new responsibilities for 
> the development of international internet public policy. The ITU 
> should not seek a role in the development of policies on core Internet 
> resources such as domain name and addresses. /The ITU should continue 
> to focus on ever more important core issues such as access, 
> infrastructure and related capacity building. /(/My emphasis/)"
>
> and
>
> "*Capacity-building*. The ITU should enhance the provision of 
> capacity-building support to developing countries through ITU-D, ITU-T 
> and ITU-R, in their respective roles and through collaboration, whilst 
> also ensuring that these efforts are coordinated with those of 
> standard-setting and other bodies that do similar or associated work."

Made me want to say that the last time the ITU (ITRs) tried to meddle 
with access (and indirectly, in its own [faulty] justification, with 
infrastructure and capacity building) I wasn't impress (see 
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-04/itrs.html for a great introduction 
to parts of what was going on).

I was gonna say that I'm not eager to have our name next to a "yeah, why 
don't you guys ― an international treaty org, mind you, with great 
democratic lacunas and many more possibilities for undemocratically 
enforcing bad schemes ― focus less on our turf and more on ... say ... 
access and IP interconnection termination billing scheme ... and stuff 
.... "

But then I read more:

> *
> "International interconnection and net neutrality*. The ITU should not 
> attempt to address access and infrastructure issues in developing 
> countries through policy and regulatory changes to global peering and 
> interconnection, but encourage IXPs, infrastructure build-out, local 
> content development and enabling environments that promote investment 
> and competition." (...)
>
> (...) We share the concerns expressed by many Member States about 
> infrastructure investment and buildout around the world — particularly 
> in developing countries. The high cost of international connectivity 
> is being dealt with through a range of measures, including 
> competition, enabling environments and investment, increased traffic 
> demand and reduced costs, Internet Exchange Points and local and 
> regional traffic exchange, increased access to undersea cables, work 
> in ITU SG 3, and work in ITU-D to incentivize Internet investment in 
> previously underserved and unserved parts of the world.
>
> Evolution of interconnection for IP traffic and IP enabled services 
> remains an unsettled issue with no broadly accepted set of standards 
> to govern international settlement. Currently, individual countries 
> have the authority to regulate IP interconnection rates as needed, and 
> this remains the optimal approach in such a dynamic and evolving market.
>

And my reservations were mostly put to bed. In the time I took this 
morning to make up my mind, I do not see why we shouldn't sign this.

Nicolas