Proposals for Modifications to WTDC Resolutions
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson
Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ITAC-D] Proposals for MODS to Hyderabad Resolutions
To: “Minard, Julian E”
Cc: Julian Minard
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Seth Johnson
> Hi Julian: keep in mind my input. I have had to prioritize
> resolutions to address the WTDC, and the US Delegation’s approach to
> it, in a systematic way.
> Among WTDC resolutions I have mentioned, following WTDC 47 and 23
> (conformance and interoperability and international internet
> connectivity) I would place the following, which require important
> clarifications in important contexts:
> WTDC 13 and 30, maybe edits to 52 and 71 in line with those as well
> (to clarify regarding vertical integration), followed by WTDC 64
> (consumer protection) and WTDC 20 (non-discrimination).
> (WTDC 43, on IMT, does not require mods because it does not use the
> general term broadband, but I naturally rank it High along with
> Conformance and Interoperability, just as the US does, because of the
> IAP study question on broadband associated with it).
> At the last meeting I also mentioned a set of WTDC resolutions
> important for their treatment of identifiers: These are WTDC 22, which
> only refers to NGNs in that connection, and WTDC 63, which only refers
> to IP-based networks in that connection. WTDC 45 also refers to
> cryptographic research that connects with the identifiers concern.
> The rest of the WTDC Resolutions have mostly trivial issues with
> terminology, such as a weird reference to an ICT device in WTDC 37
> (digital divide) and WTDC 58 and 70 (persons with disabilities), which
> are not misleading though they refer to the Internet extensively.
> WTDC 45 has a similar trivial terminology issue, and I had set it
> aside, but I consider revisions to it important because of the
> identifiers issue.
> Almost all the WTDC resolutions are framed in terms of the indefinite
> terms ICTs or telecommunications/ICTs. This use of language is only
> misleading when considered in the overall context. I do have an
> entirely new concern regarding WTDC 15, which I will raise separately.
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Minard, Julian E
>> Apparently I neglected to send this out. Please take a look at this list of
>> Resolutions from the perspective of (a) identifying those that you consider
>> to be of high priority (some, but maybe not all, have been already
>> identified), and (b) identifying the MODs you consider important to you
>> (giving due consideration to those that are high priority). The leads have
>> been identified, some by name, others by organization. Leads are only
>> expected to lead the work, and need not do everything on their own.
>> The list also reminds that we had agreed that there would be talking points
>> on the DIAPs; we have not seen much activity on this part of the project.
>> At the next TDAG/WTDC prep meeting (this Tuesday), we will be replacing
>> organizational identities with real names, and then we can do the real work
>> of proposing MODs.
>> Julian Minard