jcurran at arin.net
Sat Feb 27 07:39:29 EST 2010
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Stop fretting, John. I am not part of a vast ITU conspiracy. We have two docs on the table: one is the study proposal for CIRs prepared by prof. Ramadass, the other is the Terms of Reference McKay cites which clearly indicates that this is the direction some in Geneva would like to go. Ok, if you want to be picky we cannot say there is an "ITU proposal" yet, but its pretty clear what direction certain people there would like to move. I am suggesting that we engage in that discussion seriously.
> My study said that the ITU "could play a constructive role" by helping to work out a legal framework for TABLs. Aside from the fact that that does not seem to be the direction they want to move in, is it your implication that ITU has _no_ constructive role to play in this space?
Given that there are already existing forums in each region which enjoy
participation from organizations of all types (including governments,
businesses, and civil society) one could certainly imagine that the ITU
could play a constructive role by participating in these open forums.
That would allow us to conduct global dialogue on the actual issues,
rather than forcing much of the community having to guess about "who"
would like to move in "what" direction and "why"... Was having the
ITU participate in open, multi-stakeholder policy dialogue the type
of constructive role you were advocating for in the study, or were
you suggesting that their existing model for global dialogue (e.g.
the closed, invite-only IT IPv6 meeting in Geneva) be the appropriate
forum? As you've advocated for their involvement, it would be good
for the community to understand why and in what form you feel this
involvement should take place.
More information about the ARIN-PPML