Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Tue Jan 3 11:45:57 UTC 2017

Dear Nigel,

I agree with Patrik. In fact, should we mention that should any of the
ITRs touch on aspect of running the Internet including the coordination
of the Internet identifiers, that's crossing a red line which makes any
work, discussion, preparation and funding of such a conference
absolutely futile? Should we be clear on this from the outset, so as to
avoid an abominable waste of money and time for all concerned?

Kindest regards,

Olivier -- member of the UK delegation at the 2012 WCIT

On 03/01/2017 12:31, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Dear Nigel,
> Thank you for this information.
> I think it would be also good to explicitly look at the reasons why so many did choose to not sign the 2012 ITRs, as I think ITU should have as a goal to get a higher number of signatories in the next round and not lower.
>    Patrik -- member of the Swedish delegation at the 2012 WCIT
> On 3 Jan 2017, at 12:08, Nigel Hickson wrote:
>> Colleagues
>> Good morning.  As I think was briefly mentioned on last Call, the ITU (pursuant to a decision of the 2014 Plenipotentiary) has established an Expert Group to look at a potential revision to the ITRs adopted in 2012.
>> An overview is at following link.
>> http://www.itu.int/en/council/eg-itrs/Pages/default.aspx
>> The​​ Review (on which contributions are called for) will include, among others:
>> 1. ​​​​an examination of the 2012 ITRs to determine its applicability in a rapidly evolving international telecommunication environment, taking into account technology, services and existing multilateral and international legal obligations as well as changes in the scope of domestic regulatory regimes;
>> 2. Legal analyses of the 2012 ITRs;​​
>> 3.
>> 4. Analyses of any potential conflicts between the obligations of signatories to the 2012 ITRs and​ signatories to the 1988 ITRs with respect to implementation of the provisions of the 1988 and the 2012 ITRs.
>> ICANN is planning to attend the initial meeting which takes place in Geneva on 9/10th February.  Any views ahead of that on the three questions above would be most welcome.  Perhaps we might discuss on a Call in advance.
>> Best
>> Nigel

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170103/76e0ffd2/signature.asc>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list