[ccwg-internet-governance] Open consultation for ITU CWG-I

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 3 20:42:51 UTC 2017


Nigel, thanks for calling this to the attention of the CCWG-IG, but I am thinking that you are actually calling it out as a broader activity to be aware of?


We have consistently agreed that at least for info purposes, activities that are "risky" to ICANN will be shared with the CCWG-IG list and I fully support that this is one of those "risky" events.


I wonder if perhaps I can offer some background.


First, The ITU CWG-I is a rather strange invention -- growing out of the WSIS WG at ITU, where this was a subcommittee but then... well politics at the ITU membership led to elevating this to a full WG.


At least those who follow ITU Council [with the strong support of many of the governments engaged in the GAC/ICANN] gained agreement that there is at least an open consultation. We could not prevail that the actual meeting of the WG  be open.


Submissions into the Open Consultation are at least taken fairly seriously, nd during the Open Consultation meeting, the submitters have the right and opportunity to make statements. In my view, it is absolutely essential that ICANN [and other groups who actually understand the Internet's architecture] submit comments], such as the RIRs, ISOC, ccTLD operators, and given this topic -- I hope those who are being labeled as OTT providers.


After all, the average mission to Geneva has 3 full time staff, which includes the Ambassador -- and they have 20-35 UN agencies to follow.  We should be very aware that factual information is very [and VERY] helpful to all who join this ITU WG.


In my view, discussions about new technologies may belong at UNESCO, in some cases, at CSTD, in others.


For ICANN, I think that Nigel is proposing a narrowly crafted, but quite useful statement from ICANN.


I hope that ICANN itself will comment.


As to whether CCWG-IG comments -- sometimes we just need to think about being a cheer leader: so, let me cheer lead: Yes, ICANN should comment, and yes, we should be aware and follow this


OTT companies will undoubtedly provide separate comments, and if so, we might learn from their submissions.


In my view, we would not benefit from ITU regulations in these areas, as we do not benefit from regulations of IP addresses, gTLD policy, ccTLD policy, etc. That is in ICANN's purview.


I am  not saying that OTT regulations [or non regulations] are, but over extension of ITU into "above the standards" areas is very negative and so.. I think that we should all continue to be very cautious about ideas from some countries to move new work to the ITU.


1) I support ICANN submitting a statement

2) CCWG-IG should watch this closely

3) and look forward to whatever the "OTT" companies post on their own behalf for informational purposes.


I am unable to travel to the ITU in person, due to lack of funding, but I can try to be online.


BUT, I think that we need to be thinking more clearly about how we engage with some of the Govts at the GAC about what

belongs where discussions, especially as we come to the ITU WTDC, etc.


I am not suggesting that ICANN change its role but I am also not suggesting that we should support ITU changing its purpose and functions.


M

From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Hickson
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:05 AM
To: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] Open consultation for ITU CWG-I


Colleagues

Good afternoon.  At the ITU Council in June there was an agreement to go ahead with the two consultations (which the Working Group had been unable to agree on).

Thus, the next open consultation for the ITU Council Working Group on Internet (CWG-I) is now open.   The deadline for submitting a contribution is August 19 and the open consultation will be in Geneva on September 18.

The next open consultation, which will be held late January/early February will be “bridging the gender divide.

http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx[itu.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.itu.int_en_council_cwg-2Dinternet_Pages_default.aspx&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=pi5aPT-kWx2N3UwIhRFRHoPtEAMMDR75M0WuJN8E0yE&s=zuIob8FtthYZU3XO0UIRPX85GZJlRrXBVKc_Uuxu9as&e=>

The questions asked for the OTT Topic are:

Public Policy considerations for OTTs

"Considering the rapid development of information and communications technology (ICT) which led to the advent of Internet-based services commonly known as "over-the-top" (hereafter: OTT), all stakeholders are invited to submit their inputs on the following key aspects from policy perspective:

1. What are the opportunities and implications associated with OTT?
2. What are the policy and regulatory matters associated with OTT?
3. How do the OTT players and other stakeholders offering app services contribute in aspects related to security, safety and privacy of the consumer?
4. What approaches might be considered regarding OTT to help the creation of environment in which all stakeholders are able to prosper and thrive?
5. How can OTT players and operators best cooperate at local and international level? Are there model partnership agreements that could be developed?"


Given the breadth of what are considered (in this context) to be “Internet based Services” we are minded to briefly contribute to this consultation noting the importance of ensuring that any policy, or even regulatory approaches, maintain the openness and singularity of the Internet.

Would, as ever, be grateful for any inputs to any (or all) of these questions by 16th August.

Best

Nigel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170803/c0f44091/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list