[ccwg-internet-governance] ITU EXPERT GROUP ON ITRS; 12/13th APRIL 2018 - FINAL REPORT TO ITU COUNCIL

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 17 12:35:45 UTC 2018

Many thanks to Nigel for this report.

Having attended many Plenipots [thankfully, not this upcoming one], I think it is very important for the ICANN community to understand that ICANN and other parties active engagement with numerous country delegations is very important to ensure factual understanding.

Many of the countries prepare for engagement in the ITU PP with limited to restricted input from business, technical community, civil society. The Prep process simply is not sufficiently open, and often preparatory processes are 'regionalized', so engagement is even more challenging.  And, many of the governments attending are sending only "experts" from their regulatory or Comms Ministry, often due to costs.

Positions are developed in regional preparatory events over several meetings, well staffed by ITU regional staff and ITU itself, and poorly attended by even sector members, let alone others who are not "accredited".

In my view, ICANN's continued engagement, working closely with its communities, such as the RIRS, and the regional ccTLD communities, ISOC, and also businesses who are sector members but also engaged at ICANN is an essential activity.

The last WCIT taught all of us a lesson. While the side I was on more or less won a "split decision", we need to remember that it was really a split decision.

We do not want to see a repeat where half the world's countries think that cyber security, Internet policy; oversight of IP addressing or relegation of country code names; or intervention in policy on new gTLDs becomes the topic du jour for a new WCIT.

While it is consider 'non politic' to name countries, I will be bold and note that we must continue to encourage the active engagement with the LATAM, Asia-Pacific, and African countries.

Perhaps we should consider recommending that ICANN  could develop/conduct a special workshop for any National IGF that will invite them, to collaborate with the country ccTLD, with ISOC, FIRST and IEEE.

More than one NRI successfully joined their country delegation -- even when being invited quite late -- and in several cases, affected the position of the government, on site.

It isn't easy, and yet, it can be done.

Again, Nigel, special thanks for this.

Marilyn Cade

From: ccwg-internet-governance <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:52 AM
To: ccwg
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] ITU EXPERT GROUP ON ITRS; 12/13th APRIL 2018 - FINAL REPORT TO ITU COUNCIL


Good afternoon.

As many of you will be aware, from previous dialogue, the ITU has hosted an Expert Group on the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) over the last 18 months or so ( https://www.itu.int/en/council/eg-itrs/Pages/default.aspx<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.itu.int%2Fen%2Fcouncil%2Feg-itrs%2FPages%2Fdefault.aspx&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4b77f6fd20d3448929a008d5a4514b74%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636595592223600940&sdata=ERZi2tN3vA%2B7gmHE%2FrO%2FxdzaM%2By2AZx5yAwywMFy8iA%3D&reserved=0> ).

The fourth and final meeting concluded on Friday evening with a Report agreed for the ITU Council (now meeting in Geneva).    It is attached.  ICANN (myself) took part in this meeting with the kind permission of ISOC.

While the Report generally concluded that having two sets of ITRs (1988 and 2012) in existence was not a problem, it does explicitly mention the desire of several countries to have a new WCIT.

Usefully, the Report also notes, again with some caveats, that the introduction of competition in the telecoms sector, and in particular the almost total absence of state monopolies, has, in general, made the original rational for the ITRs redundant. The latter being one reason why several member States now want the ITRs, instead, to focus on Internet policy issues, such as cybersecuirty etc.

The main debate in the Report itself, especially during this final meeting, was on how to fairly reflect the different points of views so each side felt comfortable with the outcome.

Next Steps

1. The Report will go to Council (on agenda for Wednesday) where it will be considered / debated.  No further action on The Report (or in Expert Group) is anticipated, though some Members may argue for a further review of ITRs, say, in 5 years;

2. At Council some Members may indicate their wish for there to be a further WCIT (say in 2020 or 2024) to draw up a new slate of ITRs, and their intention to seek such at PP-18 later in year, through an amendment to RES 146 with respect to the establishment of a preparatory group (as in PP-10).



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20180417/310a212f/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list