[ccwg-internet-governance] ITU - EXPERT GROUP ON THE REVISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS (EG-ITRs)
wjdrake at gmail.com
Tue Jan 3 17:04:45 UTC 2017
> On Jan 3, 2017, at 15:56, Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com> wrote:
> HI Bill,
> As a result of a decision made in the Busan Plenipotentiary, all documents are now open to the public.
Uh, not quite. Decision 12 of the Final Acts provided for free online access to certain docs, e.g. sector recommendations and reports, main outcome texts of diplomatic conferences etc, but didn't address access to e.g. working documents and ad hoc meetings, study group inputs, etc. So people could see the sausage but not how the sausage was made.
The 2016 Council went further and there’s a new policy effective 1 January that includes input docs. But it some notable limitations, e.g. it allows participants in ITU processes to designate materials they are submitting to meetings as sensitive and not for public consumption, in which case they are ‘encouraged’ to provide redacted versions for the public. So governments that want to limit things to club members still can.
I’m not clear on whether the new policy is supposed to be retroactive or only forward looking. In any event, I just spent 15 minutes poking around itu.int and presently most study group inputs etc. still require a TIES account, as does the invitation letter for the ITR expert group meeting in February.
So yes, things are certainly better than they were in the first 150 years, but not wildly so.
> Additionally since this group is open to all, at least all sector members and Government members
That’s a pretty big “at least,” no? And the process of being ‘validated' through a Designated Focal Point is probably one that a lot of people won’t even try to deal with.
> it should be a more open process than before. The expert group is open to all sector members, which is why ICANN and also ISOC can participate.
Right…but many of us are not staff at either org.
Having an open consultation 3 February prior to a largely closed CCW-Internet meeting is similarly a kind of progress but not a real possibility for meaningful engagement by interested stakeholders. So in the case of the ITR expert group, my view remains that it’d be good for those who are able to advocate that public should have access to all the docs and the meetings should at least be webcast.
> I too support a call on this. I agree with Patrick that we should look at the reasons why so many did choose to not sign the 2012 ITRs. I also agree with Olivier, we should decide what our redlines are in advance so that we can figure out how best to provide our advise.
> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
> Hellerstein & Associates
> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com <mailto:Judith at jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com <http://www.jhellerstein.com/>
> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/>
> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
> On 1/3/2017 9:44 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:51, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>>> Support a call on this. Perhaps given the interest by so many stakeholders in 2012, the ITU can be encouraged to open the process of review a little - perhaps be open to comments from other stakeholders…
>> A lot, not a little. Preparing the WCIT included a 1999-2000 Expert Group, a 2005-2007 Council Working Group, a 2007-2009 Expert Group, and a 2010-2012 Council Working Group, plus many regional meetings. None of those preparatory processes made their docs available to the public or were webcast, and this contributed to the subsequent politicization of the process and eventual train wreck. It’d be nice if the need for change was widely recognized by Members who’ve been through the biggest disaster in the history of multilateral communications diplomacy, but there’s ample reasons to expect otherwise, so the case really needs to be made that this would be in their self-interest. Perhaps some conclusions drawn from the experiences of more open processes would be useful…
>> It would be really good if ICANN and other multistakeholder types that are allowed to participate in February would strongly raise the procedural concerns.
>>> Matthew - - a part of the CS stakeholder grouping that participated at the 2012 WCIT
>>> On 03/01/2017 11:45, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>>> Dear Nigel,
>>>> I agree with Patrik. In fact, should we mention that should any of the
>>>> ITRs touch on aspect of running the Internet
>> That’d be a rather tough sell as an opening position, given that a great many governments (including in the OECD region) still believe that the Internet falls under the ITU's definition of telecom, and since the ITU’s already doing a lot of stuff that does “touch on."
>>>> including the coordination
>>>> of the Internet identifiers, that's crossing a red line
>> Drop ‘including’
>>>> 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
>> Bill (for consistency should I say, member of the US WCIT del? :-)
>>>> 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:
>>>>>> 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 <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;
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance