Patrik Fältström paf at netnod.se
Wed Jan 4 10:47:09 UTC 2017

Dear Carlos,

Thanks for the explanation and also thanks for others that explained various outcomes and reasons for the outcomes at the WCIT.

Let me just be clear that I was not after here on this list once again discuss what happened (and not), although that is a good exercise now and then so that we do not forget, but more that I see it as being extremely important that ITU do investigate not only the new revision of the ITRs from the perspective of the ones that did sign, but also from the perspective of the ones that did not.

The fact people did not sign is a reason something was...hmm...not optimal in 2012 version. And what those reasons where I think should be an explicit action point and investigation just like the bullets listed in the list Nigel presented.


On 3 Jan 2017, at 21:06, Carlos Raul wrote:

> 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.)............
> Cheers
> *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

  Patrik Fältström
  Head of Engineering, Research and Development
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170104/6f8a1474/signature.asc>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list