Carlos Raul carlosraulg at gmail.com
Tue Jan 3 20:06:51 UTC 2017

Dear Patrik,

as a member of the Costa Rica Government at the time, I can tell you why
the Regulator recommended to our Government NOT to sign as a short story:
the 1988 instrument did reflect the fact that most countries had or where
in the process of privatizing the state-owned monopolies, which had a clear
interconnection (and payment clearing) system, so the new private players
had a chance to set up  their own new private arrangements. The 2012
proposal did not reflect the developments since 1988, in particular the
fact that the BGP between networks did neither reflect national borders nor
the interconnection and payment clearing between the different Tier
operators. The Head of our delegation (Ministry) had made some point on the
Human rights agenda and was tempted to sign, but in the end the Costa Rica
Government took the decision (in real time) NOT to sign the 2012 changes
because they where inconsistent with our national telecom&internet
policies. Guess they still are and my personal impression at the time is
that some Telcos (particularly European ones), saw the opportunity to fight
against some international ISPs, and less the political noise everybody
wants to make out of it. I guess today's telcos are getting closer and
closer to the Internet business and interconnection model (or have acquired
and integrated more internet companies into their conglomerates), and we
have more of the politics part left (human rights, etc.)............


*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez*
+506 8837 7176
Skype carlos.raulg
Apartado 1571-1000

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at netnod.se> 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> > ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170103/545972da/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list