[ccwg-internet-governance] UPDATE ON ITU PP-18; 29TH OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 4TH

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Sun Nov 11 17:19:49 UTC 2018


Dear Nigel,

thank you very much for this excellent update. This all sounds like
another exhausting ITU Plenipot!
I wonder if anyone else in our group, currently attending PP-18, could
add any further perspectives?
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 11/11/2018 16:18, Nigel Hickson wrote:
>
> Colleagues
>
>  
>
> Good afternoon.  Am aware that many of you will be following
> proceedings as closely as we are in Dubai.  The below, however, may be
> useful to some in terms of developments in Dubai during the first half
> of PP-18. Discussions continue until Friday 16^th November.
>
>  
>
> The overall site for PP-18 is at
> https://www.itu.int/web/pp-18/en/page/1-about while the proposals made
> to the Conference, for modifying Resolutions, as well as adding new
> ones, is at https://www.itu.int/web/pp-18/en/page/61-documents.
>
>  
>
> There is no coordinated record of proceedings as such; with one of the
> best ways to follow developments being to follow the twitter feed at
> #Plenipot and in particular @sgdickinson
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *Summary *
>
> * *
>
> The first week of a Plenipotentiary Conference is traditionally good
> natured and constructive; and that is how it was.  The main focus was
> on Council and ITU elected positions, so added incentive for no one to
> upset anyone.  This time, however, serious work went hand in hand with
> the numerous receptions; with the vast majority of proposals for new,
> or amended, Resolutions having been introduced by last Friday. 
> Indeed, by then we had already started discussing the Internet related
> Resolutions (RES 101, 102, 133 and 180), Cybersecurity (RES 130) and
> new Resolutions on OTTs and Artificial Intelligence.
>
>  
>
> The elections for appointed positions took place on Tuesday and
> Wednesday, where we witnessed history in the election of a women to a
> Director post, with Doreen Bogden (US) being appointed as director of
> ITU-D; Malcolm Johnson (UK) was re-elected as Deputy SG (for his
> second four-year term) and Mario Maniewicz (Hungary) to Director of
> ITU-R.  See https://www.itu.int/web/pp-18/en/home/electionResult for
> the full listing, which also enumerates the Countries elected or
> appointed to the ITU Council for the next four years.  
>
>  
>
> The second week has been much more difficult. The number of different
> ad-hoc groups (these being typically established where there are two
> or more contrasting proposals for the same Resolution) has ballooned
> and they (in our areas of interest) have proved complex and
> challenging.  The main reason for the latter is that several
> countries, rather than seeking compromise insist that their texts
> remain in the document, irrespective of the quality of the proposal or
> that it attracts no support.  A few examples of difficulties include
> proposals on the Internet Resolutions, Cybersecurity, ITRs and OTTs.
>
>  
>
> The sheer amount of work has necessitated parallel discussions and
> longer hours; with 08.00 starts and 22.00hrs finishes typical from
> Tuesday onwards. The weekend will be worse. In order to conclude some
> of these work streams the Chair has asked that regions prioritize out
> of the Conference. While the DNS/Internet / ICT issues are, naturally,
> those that worry us, there are others of significance that are,
> perhaps, equally controversial, such as financing the replacement
> building, the Strategic Plan and Budget and the details of the
> election process.    
>
>  
>
> The Summaries below (which are edited from the daily Reports being
> written for colleagues) detail some of the key points of the
> discussion; but on the “_Internet” Resolution_, perhaps a clearer
> dialogue is appropriate:
>
>  
>
>   * The Initial Arab Group proposals (see attached) had a number of
>     implications for ICANN, including the handling of gTLD and ccTLD
>     issues by the ITU, a challenge to the governance of the GAC, the
>     continuation of “enhanced cooperation” dialogue at the ITU and
>     giving the ITU Council /decision making /powers on all Internet
>     Governance issues (including those pertaining to public policy
>     issues within the DNS);
>   * They were introduced, along with many other proposals, in the
>     normal Plenary Session and then further discussed (as expected) in
>     an ad-hoc WG, as noted above, which is on-going;
>   * In addition to discussions on all of the proposals (on the four
>     Resolutions) in the ad-hoc group certain detailed parts of them
>     have been devolved into smaller drafting groups (with varied
>     success); in one particular one ICANN spoke, outlining role of GAC
>     and how governments /do /have ability to work on public policy
>     issues (such as on GDPR and new gTLDs); others are looking at such
>     issues as the role and membership of the ITU Council WG on
>     Internet issues; and how the Technical Community should work with
>     the ITU;
>   * All the different strands, for all four of the Resolutions, will
>     have to come together in the next couple of days and then be
>     reported upwards to the WG of Plenary.  Theoretically, this has
>     last meeting on Tuesday, after which all remaining disagreements
>     have to be dealt with in Plenary.  In reality, though, we expect
>     late nights on both Wednesday and Thursday as the Plenary devolves
>     “problems” back to ad-hoc groups.
>
>  
>
> Worth noting; briefly, the latest developments on the ITRs / WCIT
> issue.  As noted prior to PP-18, this was always going to be a
> defining issue, with some Regions (notably Arab Groups and RCC)
> wanting a new WCIT confirmed (for 2020) and others (CEPT) wanting
> nothing at all to be agreed.  It looks, after several long but
> fruitful discussions, that the compromise may be to establish an
> Expert Group (hopefully of MS and Sector members) to have in depth
> discussions on the rational for another set of ITRs, ahead of further
> deliberation at PP-20.  This may be an example of a can being kicked
> down a road, but is better than a breakdown or a vote.
>
>  
>
> Will update List after Friday, if not before.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *Detail *
>
> * *
>
> _Day 1; 29^th October _
>
> * *
>
> Nothing too substantive in this first day of the PP-18.  It was
> though, a good day for ICANN, with Goran Marby making a speech in the
> afternoon plenary session as a guest, the only one, of the ITU
> Secretary General.  Was a significant moment for ICANN, the first time
> a CEO has spoken at an ITU Plenipotentiary and a recognition of the
> maturity of our relationship. We also had our own ICANN flag and seats
> in the second row....
>
>  
>
> The formal part of the Day (did not start until midday) saw speeches
> from the UAE (in the presence of the Prime Minister who did not
> speak), the Secretary General, the Prime Minister of Vanuatu and the
> CEO of Afghanistan. The overall theme of the needs to address
> connectivity through innovative technologies, investment and pragmatic
> ICT policies came through. though not sure the bulk of the Resolutions
> do this.   The UAE were clearly, and rightly, proud of their
> achievements (so why block Facetime……) and strides they are making in
> innovation.  
>
>  
>
> We only had a handful of policy statements, and northing that
> significant in them.  This tends to be case prior to elections
> (Thursday). 
>
>  
>
> With Goran, we had a number of informal bilaterals (such as with US,
> Turkey and Sweden) as well as several other courtesy conversations
>
>  
>
>  
>
> _Day 2, 30^th October _
>
>  
>
> Some more substantive discussions begin including, the holding of the
> first ad-hoc meeting; this one on Cybersecurity (primarily RES 130). 
> The approach, exemplified in the first Session of the Working Group of
> the Plenary (WGPL) , was one of business like efficiency. Both
> Committee 5 (which will take the ITRs) and the WGPL (which tales all
> the Internet Resolutions, Cybersecurity and OTTs) will meet again
> tomorrow (Wednesday) with the aim of introducing all proposals, and
> thus setting up the ad-hocs, before the weekend. 
>
>  
>
> While the process is more efficient than before, especially compared
> to WTDC last year, this does not mean the task will be any easier. 
> Even in a two-hour discussion on Cybersecuirty (see attached composite
> document of 56 pages) yesterday there was no “give” at all by any
> delegation.  The Arab Group Call for a Cybersecurity treaty (backed by
> Russia and probably most of Africa but opposed by US/Europe) will be a
> major issue, as it was in Busan. This time, though, there is so much
> more evidence of harm. Added to this cluster is the Indian proposal on
> Data Protection; which also gained some traction (see attached).   
>
>  
>
> The “Internet” Group will be introduced on Wednesday with the
> associated ad-hoc probably running during the elections on Thursday.
> On the latter, we had a I* coordination yesterday. While there was a
> good spirit of cooperation.  For ICANN, there was agreement that
> Resolutions should not criticise or pass judgement on the governance
> models of other bodies. 
>
>   
>
> Outside of the business Sessions the receptions and election lobbying
> continues.  The US promoting Doreen Bogden (for ITU-D) and the UK
> promoting Malcolm Johnson.  The elections, for the elected posts,
> Council and the RRB, are on Thursday after which normal service will
> be resumed.    
>
>  
>
> Goran (with Theresa and team) had another busy day, with bilaterals
> and corridor talking with governments. We had a formal meeting with
> Minister Chen (China); a meeting with the acting SG of the CTO, a
> brief meeting with the Egyptian Minister and an excellent dialogue
> with the Chair of the Conference (Mr Majid Al Mesmar).  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> _Day 3, 31^st October _
>
>  
>
> The day when the rubber hit the road.  While only the third day, the
> afternoon was dominated by the ad-hoc group on Internet issues; and
> the immediate focus (in Resolution 102) on the governance of ccTLDs
> and gTLDs.  Over three hours of debate on this issue yielded no real
> common ground with Africa joining the Arab Group in calling for ITU
> management of domain names. ICANN and the role of the GAC (as an
> advisory Committee) was also debated at length. The debate in the
> ad-hoc will resume on Friday. 
>
>  
>
> Away from the Internet issues some progress was made in the
> introduction of other proposals (such as on gender issues and role of
> youth in the ITU) while the delivery of policy statements continued.
> The minds of many, however, were on the elections with feverish
> campaigning taking place all day. The UK hosted a lavish (by their
> standards) lunch hosted by two Ministers, to promote the candidature
> of Malcolm Johnson while there were receptions tonight form Nigeria
> (candidate opposing Doreen for ITU-D), Russia, Kuwait and Mexico.  
>
>  
>
> The ad-hoc Group on the Internet Resolutions (101, 102, 133, 180 and
> 197) was established this morning after the myriad of proposals on the
> same Resolutions had been introduced.  Fabio Bigi (Italy) was
> appointed Chair, as he had been in Busan in 2014.  The first session
> in the afternoon made almost no progress, and contrary to advice of
> Secretariat, established two further (informal) ad-hoc groups to look
> at the disputed /Resolve /clauses. The first of these is essentially
> on the relationship between the ITU and the likes of ICANN, ISOC etc
> (the footnoted entities) and will consider the range of proposals from
> the expansion of the footnote to include DONA, to the extent to which
> likes of ICANN have rights under Tunis agenda to discuss public policy
> issues. This followed a long discussion (see below) during which there
> was criticism (a lot of dis-information) on the GAC.  
>
>  
>
> Even more focus on ICANN took place when the discussion turned
> to /Resolves 4 /and the Arab Group proposal on asking the ITU to help
> member States with their management on ccTLDs and gTLDs (the latter
> being added to their proposal during discussion). Saudi said that the
> ITU having a role in management of particular gTLD names (/essentially
> those disputed) /was consistent with the earlier clause urging
> collaboration between ITU and ICANN.  This approach (and rather badly
> written proposal) was opposed by Europe, US, CAN, NZ, AUS and Brazil
> but backed by other Arab countries and some African states. The Chair
> seemed to be heading towards the logical conclusion that
> this /Resolves /had insufficient support, but instead set up a second
> (informal) ad-hoc group.  During the latter session Veni (for
> Bulgaria) pointed out – in a very confused dialogue – the genesis of
> ccTLDs.    
>
>  
>
>  
>
> _Day 4; 1^st November; _
>
>  
>
> Election day, and not a lot else.  The morning saw the re-election of
> the ITU SG (Houlin Zhao) who was unopposed for a second term of four
> years, and the Deputy SG (Malcolm Johnson) who soundly beat Mr Brahima
> Sanou.  In the afternoon, we saw the historic election of the first
> women to be elected to the ITU leadership, with Doreen Bogden (US)
> beating her two African opponents to become director of ITU-D.  The
> election to directorship of the Radio sector will be determined
> tomorrow as neither of the three candidates secured enough votes to
> win in the first Round, with Mario Maniewicz (staff) the favourite. Dr
> Cheasub Lee, ITU-T director, was elected unopposed.  The elections to
> the ITU Council and the Radio Regulations Board (RRB) will take place
> on Monday  
>
>  
>
> Away from the elections, the WG of the Plenary (WGPL) witnessed the
> introduction of further proposals on IOT Resolution, on changes to the
> Resolution 179 (on Child on-line Protection) and new proposals on
> Artificial Intelligence and OTT Services. On both issues, the Chair
> decided to have ad-hoc Working Groups.  Already the slate is filling
> up and we have not yet reached the Resolutions on WSIS and ITRs.  
>
>  
>
> Expected ad-hoc Committee work on Cybersecurity (RES 130) did not take
> place because of the elections.  A near normal service will be
> restored tomorrow. 
>
>  
>
> The Elections are always a high point (at least for the human drama)
> of the PP-18 schedule; and those for Deputy SG and Director of ITU-D
> (Development) did not disappoint.  Malcolm Johnson’s re-appointment
> should not have been a great surprise, as challenges to an incumbent
> (who has four more years) are rare; but the scale was.  He saw off the
> challenge from Brahima Sanou by 113 votes to 65 but was typically
> magnanimous and courteous in victory (not mentioning the tweet of
> congratulation from the UK Prime minister.
>
>  
>
> The highlight of the day, even for neutral observers, was though the
> election of Doreen Bogden as director to ITU-D and the first elected
> women in ITU history.  She secured a majority of the votes and thus
> won on the first ballot, thus avoiding a further round. Her two
> African opponents did not secure enough votes to force a second round.
> There was widespread applause when the result was announced and even
> some tears during an eloquent and emotional acceptance address by
> Doreen.  She spoke about breaking through the glass ceiling and hoped
> her father, who died earlier in the year, would be proud of her.  The
> Chair seemed somewhat taken aback by the real emotion of the moment,
> and even Mr Zhao was initially lost for words.  No doubt there will
> still be celebrating in the UK and US camps at their respective
> victories. 
>
>  
>
> _Day 5;  2^nd November _
>
>  
>
> The end of the first week, and not a lot of optimism. Whether on
> Cybersecurity, Internet, or OTT, there is not a lot of meeting of
> minds.  We may have had eloquent speeches from the elected officials
> about how we should all work together, but this cuts very little ice
> in the ad-hoc groups where the agreements have to be reached.  A truly
> awful session on the Internet Resolutions earlier this evening with
> two hours spent debating whether sector members should be allowed to
> debate Internet policy in the Council Working group.  As in WTDC last
> year we are witnessing poor chairing of meetings with an inability to
> cope with intelligent but destructive Saudi Arabia proposals.  Several
> hours were spent today, by the ICANN team, explaining (bilaterally)
> how the GAC works and gTLDs are considered. In retrospect was
> fortunate that over an hour was wasted in plenary this morning
> debating whether the second round of the election of the director of
> the Radio Bureau should proceed given that the Dubai Metro did not
> start until 10.00hrs (was a public holiday).  
>
>  
>
> In the election, the front runner from yesterday, Mario Maniewicz,
> from Uruguay, was elected after the Lithuanian candidate withdrew.
> This marks the end of the eight-year tenure of Francois Rancy, who
> made a short but eloquent address to the Plenary.   
>
>  
>
> In the Internet Ad-hoc the Chairs of the two informal discussions
> (looking at the “/ICANN/” resolves) said they needed more
> time.  Little progress was also made in the ad-hoc working session on
> Cybersecurity, with a failure to agree on the “/resolves/” parts of
> Resolution 130.  Consideration on the Indian proposal on Data
> Protection, bizarrely being looked at in same group, was again
> delayed.  Meanwhile, in the Plenary, policy statements (/increasingly
> little listened to) /continued.  
>
>  
>
> Today also saw the first ad-hoc sessions on the proposed new
> Resolution on Artificial Intelligence and OTTs.  While the former was
> good natured and constructive (though with differences on whether
> there was a need for a Resolution) the latter was rancorous and
> unproductive with many saying that references to “OTT Services” were
> inappropriate, though for Europe this was not an issue (and indeed in
> title of proposal).   
>
>  
>
> _Day 6, 3^rd November  _
>
>  
>
> The first Saturday of a PP is typically when the initial slew of
> ad-hoc working Groups meet and today was no different.  The difference
> was that for the Groups on Artificial Intelligence, OTTs,
> Cybersecurity (RES 130) and the Internet Resolutions these were not
> the first sessions.  Indeed, the Internet Group completed the first
> read-through of Resolution 102, albeit with lots of square brackets
> and probably over 50% of new content devolved to three different
> drafting groups.  In contrast, glacial progress was made on Resolution
> 130 (Cybersecurity) with all the controversial parts sent to a
> drafting group that will openly meet on Monday or Tuesday. In these
> discussions, it was (at least informally) agreed that the Indian
> proposal on Data Protection would not be discussed.  
>
>  
>
> Rather better progress was made on the new Resolution on Artificial
> Intelligence, though is clear that if we agree a text it will be
> largely factual rather than operative. Sweden noted that essentially
> AI was out of scope as was not a telecoms platform or service but an
> emerging technology that /relied /on Platforms. On OTTs, little
> progress, despite the best efforts of Brazil, was made.  
>
>  
>
> The Internet ad-hoc group met for nearly four hours (without a break),
> completing a read through of the consolidated text on Resolution 102. 
> ICANN was again in the spotlight in consideration of the Saud
> proposals for ITU to be involved (in some undefined way) in
> considering release of gTLDs as well as secondary names (of a
> territorial or geographic nature).  Again, there was some confusion in
> the room in whether the AG were addressing ccTLDs or gTLDs (was the
> latter) and what the role of the GAC was.   None of these matters were
> resolved and will be considered in a drafting group led by Brazil
> (meeting on Monday). Another drafting group (led by Saudi) will
> consider the myriad of clauses addressing the scope, membership and
> governance of the Council Working Group.  
>
>  
>
> At this stage, it is difficult to tell where discussions may lead to.
> The WGPL Chair (Malaysia) has let it be known that she wants an agreed
> text on the Internet RES by this time next week or she will put
> existing texts to Plenary.  A lot may rest, on all of the above
> Resolutions, on her determination and skill. She is not well served by
> all her ad-hoc chairs.  
>
>  
>
> _ _
>
> _Day 7, 5^th November _
>
>  
>
> A long and difficult day.  Starting with discussions on Cybersecurity
> at 08.00hrs and finishing with ITRs and Counterfeit devices (where DOA
> comes in) at 21.00hrs.  During the day, we also followed the ad-hoc
> drafting sessions on OTTs and the Internet Resolutions; as well as
> having CEPT Coordination and the elections for the ITU Council and the
> Radio Regulations Board (RRB). 
>
>  
>
> Overall the day was disappointing on two counts (which may bode ill
> for progress during the next 10 days or so).   Firstly, the ad-hoc
> sessions are drifting (especially on the Internet) and the Chair of
> the WGPL (who is extremely competent and pleasant) was rather lenient
> when they reported back today.  She has indicated that the ad-hoc
> sessions are supposed to complete their work this Thursday but all
> know that that will not happen.  The situation was made worse with
> further ad-hoc sessions set up on WSIS and Broadband Connectivity.
> Secondly, as expected, there was a fundamental difference of Opinion
> across the ITU membership on the ITRs when the regional proposals were
> introduced this afternoon in Committee 5.  In an articulate and
> serious discussion for over an hour, perhaps with up to 30 or so
> speakers, was clear that while CEPT/CITEL/APT are not going to be tied
> to a WCIT in 2020 or beyond, the African Group/ the Arab Group and RCC
> are not going to accept the status quo.  Thus, to avoid a vote (which
> would be close) there will have to be a compromise, possibly in the
> form of another Expert Group. 
>
>  
>
> The Cybersecurity discussions continued this morning and made glacial
> progress. The Chair (bot at all competent) asked for sessions every
> day this week; but it seems unlikely, at this point, that any radical
> changes to the current text will be agreed. This will not please many
> in African and in parts of Asia / Latin America who look to the ITU
> for guidance on these issues.  
>
>  
>
> The ad-hoc on OTTs had a similar feeling to it; while progress had
> been made on Saturday, and Brazil had worked tirelessly to produce
> text, today we went backward, mainly because of Africa, not there at
> weekend and thus impervious to building any form of consensus. Quite
> possibly there will not be a Resolution as they, and Saudi seem intent
> on talking it out rather than working to secure an outcome.  
>
>  
>
> The Internet ad-hoc was also not that productive.  We have only
> completed Resolution 102 (with RES 101, 180 and 133 still to do) and
> on 102 the only drafting group to report was Brazil on the “ICANN”
> texts (see below); here it looks as if some compromise could be
> possible; though Saudi continues to insist on their own texts, which
> go beyond the ITU /assisting /member States and oblige ITU to assess
> certain types of gTLDs.  
>
>  
>
> The Council and RRB elections proceeded; with the full results given
> at https://news.itu.int/council-rrb-elecs/; the breakdown is also
> given in the text below. The APT and CITEL Regions did not have
> competition; in contrast to Africa who had 13 candidates for 8 places. 
>
>  
>
> The WGPL (see attached Agenda) completed introduction of proposals in
> addition to hearing about status on ad-hoc groups.  Apart from WSIS
> the other main interest (and one to watch) is Resolution 64
> (Non-Discriminatory Access) where RCC and Africa Group want to amend
> so that would cover Internet Services. You will recall it was this
> discussion that caused the vote at WCIT.  
>
>  
>
> _ _
>
> _Day 8; 6^th November _
>
>  
>
> A day of ad-hoc negotiating sessions with little progress on the key
> dossiers. Was noticeable that the various ad-hoc chairs were becoming
> more assertive in seeking agreements and less willing to put up with
> pointless suggestions for text. The meeting of the WG of Plenary
> tomorrow will be crucial in determining where some of the dossiers
> go.  There seems little point in progressing with the new Resolution
> on OTTs (where unrealistic expectations from Africa and Saudi are
> likely to kill what could be a useful Resolution) or the changes to
> Resolution 130 (Cybersecurity) where realistic changes from Africa and
> elsewhere simply meet with blunt opposition from Europe and North
> America.  
>
>  
>
> With little progress here, coupled with the real difficulty and
> complexity of the Internet Regulations the talk at the water cooler is
> now on ITRs / WCIT and whether the expected showdown in Plenary next
> week will lead to a vote or a deal. The smart money is on a deal
> (perhaps with the continuation of the Expert Group) but there is still
> a long way to go, and the Internet Resolutions (and thus ICANN
> interests) could be caught up in this power play.  The dynamic today
> was well summed up by a newcomer to ITU who asked me, at close, why in
> the four, different ad-hoc groups she had been in, there were always
> the same sides lined up against each other. 
>
>  
>
> What little progress there was today, in our area, was actually on the
> Internet Resolution 102. In a drafting group, on the ITU/ICANN axis,
> where at last ICANN could speak, Saudi back pedalled on their proposal
> to effectively /remove /the GAC and instead tried to agree text under
> which ITU would represent the interests of countries, who so requested
> such help, on it. This was not acceptable but looks like a compromise
> (see attached) may be in site. Other issues (Council WG and gTLDs)
> remain, however, and we have to get to RES 180 (Ipv6) or RES 133
> (IDNs) yet.   
>
>  
>
> The day started with a negative and pretty hopeless session on the
> new Resolution for OTTs. This affects us as a definition for such
> includes DNS players, thus if the Resolution invited policy
> development this could effectively undermine our own processes.  This,
> though will not be case as on present form we are unlikely event to
> have a Resolution. 
>
>  
>
> The Ad-Hoc on Artificial Intelligence also risks talking itself out
> unless compromises are made.  Again the “regulatory” word is the main
> sticking point, with the usual parties slugging it out.  Somewhat
> ironic that after CEPT/CITEL had argued that any form of mandate on
> standard setting was premature, that the ITU Secretariat confirmed
> that such activities were /already /being taken forward in a number of
> different Study Groups.    
>
>  
>
> On Cybersecurity, there was glacial progress with the contentious
> parts of the dossier (the Arab Group Call for the SG to initiate talks
> on a cyber Convention) untouched.  Instead we argued for an hour on
> whether the Global Cybersecuirty Index should be updated or not.  Was
> here where the alliance of CITEL and CEPT seemed to be most negative;
> relying on grounds of */cost /*to deny the updating of guidance that
> already exists and which many on developing world said was useful.
> This disagreement has been shifted back to Plenary. 
>
>  
>
> On the Internet Resolutions, apart from the useful exchanges in the
> drafting Group (re ICANN) the read through on RES 101 was not that
> fruitful with several issues shunted into now or existing drafting
> groups or put in square brackets. The Saudi proposal for adding DONA
> (here on a IP Resolution) was effectively shot down by Veni
> (Bulgaria).  No decision on whether to have a WTPF in 2020, this
> likely will be part of any grand bargain at end.    
>
>  
>
> Finally, we saw the first ad-hoc on Res 140 (WSIS) which was both good
> natures and reasonably productive.  There are differences in approach
> on the degree to which the CWG should be focusing on the SDGs (and
> indeed whether the focus should be solely now on SDGs. 
>
> _ _
>
> _Day 9; 7^th November  _
>
>  
>
> Another long day (though they will get longer). We started early this
> morning with a reasonably articulate, well chaired and polite
> discourse in an ad-hoc group on ITRs, and ended day with badly,
> chaired, angry and inarticulate discussion on Cybersecuirty.  Things
> can only get better.  
>
>  
>
> The optimism of the first week has all but disappeared.  The myriad
> number of ad-hoc sessions is already causing scheduling issues, and in
> a meeting between the Conference Chair and Regional heads, it was made
> clear that not enough flexibility is being shown as regards finding a
> compromise position. Regions were asked to identify their “red lines”.
>  In the WGPL the Chair has insisted that she wants all ad-hoc to
> conclude by Sunday, but then she said Thursday (tomorrow) only a
> couple of days ago.  
>
>  
>
> On the various ad-hocs, some progress was made towards an outcome
> on Artificial Intelligence, with a growing realisation in Group that
> for a Resolution to be agreed, the thrust would need to be on
> collaboration rather than Standard setting (which became clear that
> ITU were already doing in Study Groups).  On WSIS the second ad-hoc
> on Res 140 (WSIS) was again reasonably productive.  The ad hoc managed
> to go through considerable part of the resolves with issues such as
> whether the report (supported by US) or the output (supported by
> Saudi) of the CWG-WSIS will be referenced for further consideration.
> The ad hoc is scheduled to resume tomorrow for two more hours.  
>
>  
>
> In contrast, the ad-hoc on OTTs made little progress due to continued
> Saudi insistence that substantive policy should be debated. Now seems
> likely there will not be a Resolution.  Cybersecuirty had three hours
> this evening but made little progress. Two significant developments,
> the first being an outright rejection of the Arab Group proposal for
> the ITU to work on a Convention (with RCC not giving support) and a
> wasted hour discussing the Indian proposal on Data Protection.  Here
> CEPT, CITEL and several other countries argued this was out of scope
> for ITU.
>
>  
>
> We also had a brief discussion on Internet Resolutions with completion
> of a read-through of RES 101.  Was here that one government launched a
> vitriol on US sanctions, accusing ICANN (as a US organisation) of
> denying Cuba GAC membership as well as ISOC Chapter membership. Much
> work will be needed to rescue anything from this ad-hoc.  
>
>  
>
> Away from technical issues, we had the first ad-hoc on the ITRs; which
> saw a fascinating dialogue (see below) addressing the fundamental of
> the ITRs and whether there was a case to amend them at all. CITEL was
> the most articulate, arguing the pointlessness of having an Expert
> Group (given the known divisions) and urging delegates to have a pause
> until the next PP in 2022.  This was unacceptable to several in Africa
> and in the Arab Group, but will they have the courage to press for a
> (damaging) vote?   RES 64 (non-discriminatory access) was discussed
> for the first time (see below). This is potentially significant as if
> expanded (like Arab Group would like) would extend the concept of
> non-discriminatory access from telecoms networks to all Internet /DNS
> players; a sort of “Net Neutrality” plus. It took some persuading
> before I* folks saw significance.  
>
>  
>
> Finally, there was also the WG of Plenary.  Here the Chair urged
> enhanced progress in ad-hocs, noting she had her last meeting next
> Tuesday to pass through dossiers to Plenary. 
>
>  
>
> _Day 10, 8^th November _
>
>  
>
> The two ad-hoc group (and accompanying informal) meetings, which were
> relevant to ICANN, were the ones on the Internet-related resolutions
> and on cybersecurity. On Cybersecurity (res. 130) there was not much
> progress since the days before, with most of the issues moved to be
> coordinated by regional leaders like Brazil, Europe, US, etc.
>
>
> The Internet resolutions (101 – IP-based networks, 102 – ITU’s role
> and management of Internet resources, 133 - IDNs, 180 – IPv4 to IPv6
> transition) were discussed in an ad-hoc session chaired by Italian
> representative Faboi Biggi. 
>
>
> These are the resolutions, which in 2010 at the ITU-PP in Guadalajara
> recognized for the first time ICANN (and other i* organizations), in a
> footnote, This time around the proposals, as explained in previous
> days, are focusing, among other general items, more narrowly on ICANN.
>
>  
>
> The big discussion on Day 10 was around Res. 133 – IDNs. And ICANN was
> the most mentioned name during the /ad hoc/ meeting.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> _Day 11, 9^th November _
>
> _ _
>
> _ _
>
> The Internet resolutions discussed today made slight progress – by
> moving around the most difficult parts, which are traditionally
> designated for informal discussions.
>
> The informal meeting on resolution 102, a few paragraphs of which
> should serve as founding principle for all the Internet-related
> resolutions, was not productive, with many heated arguments.
> Participants and speakers included Russia (chair), USA, Bulgaria, UK,
> Saudi Arabia, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, Israel and Uruguay.
> Arguments were very heated, especially around the desire of Arab Group
> to include DONA at the same level as the RIRs, ICANN, IETF, W3C.. All
> Internet-related resolutions will be discussed again tomorrow afternoon.
>
>  
>
> Resolution 64 (Non-discriminatory access) also made little progress,
> the ITRs were not discussed, and the OTT discussion might go on all
> night (or until the chair decides).
>
>  
>
> The day marked conclusion of the discussions around resolution 140
> (WSIS). It is now a temporary document, waiting to be approved by the
> plenary session tomorrow. An item of consideration for ICANN is that
> there will be another WSIS High Level event, where we traditionally
> participate.
>
>  
>
> Resolution 180 (IPv4 transition to IPv6) has made strides and has
> almost reached a conclusion. Some contentious issues remain such as
> differentiating between /transition/ vs /adoption and deployment of
> IPv6/. The inclusion of references to the DONA Foundation (again!) was
> suggested to be removed from this resolution, given that its scope is
> IPv4 to IPv6 transition.
>
>  
>
> Resolution 130 has also been making a little progress. Consensus has
> been reached about SMEs need for more support in their cybersecurity
> approach, and about including an iterative risk-based approach in
> defending against cyber threats and vulnerabilities. The rest of the
> contentious issues have been delegated to informal meetings led by
> member States. Discussions will continue tomorrow morning.
>
>  
>
> Resolution 64 has made a little progress concerning some of the
> proposed changes by RCC. The main contentious point, taking out
> references to “recommendations of ITU-T and ITU-R” throughout the
> document, has not been discussed. The Inter-American region has
> introduced a new proposal to not make any changes to the resolution,
> although they might agree to update the references.
>
>  
>
> The newly proposed OTT resolution is about to reach a conclusion
> tonight, as the chair is flying home. The question remains whether
> there should be a resolution at all, but opponents have agreed to
> discuss it in good faith for the sake of consensus. Chairwoman of the
> WG Plenary Sulyna Abdullah is in the room lending a helping hand.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> 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/20181111/3e7c3478/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list