[cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Fwd: ITU-T SG 2 meetings - summary
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Patrik Fältström
paf at frobbit.se
Wed Feb 13 12:58:23 CET 2013
In your case I understand your largest frustration is that Ireland is so passive in general. So maybe your "what can I do" is different than people from countries that are active. I think personally that the Tunis Agenda is clear. Existing processes must be recognized, by ITU as well as by RIPE and IETF etc. So a text like the one I forwarded should already be "ok" for everyone. And that it is not is to me problematic. Patrik On 12 feb 2013, at 18:52, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote: > And more importantly, what should we be doing? > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://mneylon.tel/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > ________________________________________ > From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Carsten Schiefner [ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de] > Sent: 12 February 2013 23:01 > To: Patrik Fältström > Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues > > Thanks, Patrik for the FYI. > > And thanks to Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United > Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, and Mexico for the > well-worded statement. > > However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's > website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function? > > Thanks and best, > > Carsten > > On 12.02.2013 23:02, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public >> Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" >> >> · Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting >> spam. >> >> The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public >> Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on >> international public policy issues related to effectively countering >> and combatting spam. >> >> · Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues >> concerning IPv4 addresses. >> >> The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public >> Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on >> international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 >> addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. >> >> · Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. >> >> The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public >> Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on >> international public policy issues related to developmental aspects >> of the Internet. >> >> http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx >> >> Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting >> with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of >> the meeting: >> >>> Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, >>> United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico >>> >>> The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU >>> conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to >>> take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried >>> out, in other organizations. >>> >>> The member states note the extensive work on policy development and >>> procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder >>> forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As >>> proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to >>> provide information to the CWG before conducting public >>> consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. >>> >>> The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, >>> including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in >>> existing multi-stakeholder fora. >> >> Patrik Fältström > >
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Fwd: ITU-T SG 2 meetings - summary
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]