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

William Drake wjdrake at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 07:53:21 UTC 2018


Hi Nigel

Thanks, this is really helpful and informative.  Glad you are there to shed light on the realities of our 'footnoted entity’.  One does wonder though about the dynamics of the dialogues that take place intra-regionally and between representatives to ITU and representatives to GAC (presumably sometimes the same folks) from the relevant regions...

Cheers

Bill

> On Nov 11, 2018, at 16:18, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org> 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 16th November. 
>  
> The overall site for PP-18 is at https://www.itu.int/web/pp-18/en/page/1-about <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 <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 <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; 29th 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, 30th 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, 31st 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; 1st 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;  2nd 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, 3rd 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, 5th 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/ <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; 6th 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; 7th 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, 8th 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, 9th 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 <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Department of Communication and Media Research
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists)
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20181112/1867b57b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list