[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Hi EnriqueOn 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
"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."
"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.