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

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue Apr 17 14:13:08 UTC 2018


Thank you Nigel and well said, Marilyn.  I can attest to all the issues
raised within the 'regionalisation' context.

-Carlton


==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 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-boun
> ces 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
>
>
> Colleagues
>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
>
>
>
> best
>
>
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180417/e3035fb6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list