Mary Uduma mnuduma at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 4 16:36:12 UTC 2017

All, I am in agreement with Marilyn's analysis.  I was part Nigeria's Delegation at 2012 ITR with a Head of Delegation who had little understanding of tthe IG ecosystem. Nigeria led African countries  to signing the outcome, save for one or two countries. The focus should not be only on the countries  that did not sign but more work on those that signed.
For the African Region, the ATU (African Telecommunications Union) and its leadership should be educated on IG issues. ISOC in the African countries need to be strengthen to engage more with the governments. The ccTLDs should be part of the official delegations to the Preparatory Meetings. 
It would be helpful to share  information on the ITR preparatory meetings (if we have the schedule) with the ICANN community and encourage members from GAC, ccNSO, Registry Stakeholder Group as well as ISOC to actively take part at ITU preparatory meetings holding in their Regions. It may also be benefitial if members in  this group collaborate with their ITU Regional offices to propose educational sessions during the preparatory meetings.
Just my thoughts.Mary Uduma


    On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 7:07 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

 #yiv4512168350 #yiv4512168350 -- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv4512168350 along with several others on this list, I was a member of a country delegation and spent a lot of time on the preparatory processes. 
Engaging in the regionally distributed preparatory processes is important, and I hope that both companies that are on this list, and countries will understand that while this can be a silo'ed experience, still there is important work to be done to educate, educate, and educate. Most of the government experts who attend the preparatory processes are not necessarily experts in what is happening outside of a small world -- and I do not mean this negatively -- but if you are an ITR expert, you may not even be aware that your country, for instance, is chairing UNESCO.  Or are a member of the CSTD WG EC.  Some are working horizonitally. Many are  not able to do that.
And, the same government might send an expert in legal matters re telecom,that is not engaged at ICANN or CSTD.  In fact, that is often likely. 
It will be important for ICANN at all levels to be well engaged and attending all regional preparatory events, as well. And to have the RIRs, and the ccTLDs also actively engaging. 
ISOC is a major voice as well, due to their distribution of presence, but we should be also thinking beyond that and asking how to further the interest and awareness even within the ICANN "family". I would assume that any gTLD registry operator would want to be very aware of the risks to their business opportunities in a new ITR world. I know that the earlier players -- Verisign, Afilias, Neustar, of course, "got it", but I see a lot of the new players ignoring the risks to their business models.  Or perhaps assuming that this is someone else's job.  
Perhaps this is an opportunity to create more awareness, which might also help to deepen the support at the GNSO for the CCWG-IG itself and its purpose. 
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 6:08 AM
To: ccwg
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.  
| Expert Group on ITRs - itu.intwww.itu.intOn the basis of contributions submitted by Member States, Sector Members and inputs from the Directors of the Bureaux if necessary, the EG-ITRs shall undertake a ... |

The Review (on which contributions are called for) will include, among others:

   - 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;
   - Legal analyses of the 2012 ITRs;   

   - 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170104/5b11ec5a/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list