The Internet Distinction

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:43 PM
Subject: Important Followup on the Broadcasters Treaty — Fwd: Question for today’s debrief on the SCCR
To: “Johns, Richard B (Geneva)” <JohnsRB@state.gov>, “Perlmutter, Shira” <shira.perlmutter@uspto.gov>, “Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva)” <SchlegK@state.gov>, “Zoller, Julie N” <zollerjn@state.gov>
Cc: Manon Anne Ress <manon.ress@keionline.org>, Jamie Love <james.love@keionline.org>, “Reves, Todd” <Todd.Reves@uspto.gov>, “Shapiro, Michael” <Michael.Shapiro@uspto.gov>, “Gordon, Marian R” <gordonmr@state.gov>, “Holiday, Cecily C” <holidaycc@state.gov>, Doreen McGirr <mcgirrdf@state.gov>, Justin Hughes <hughes@yu.edu>

 

Hello Richard,

I am forwarding your note to me with the following reply to Shira Perlmutter and others who were originally included in this query, now adding Julie Zoller and other contacts at the State Department.  I am also cc’ing Justin Hughes, who coordinated an informal Round Table discussion on the broadcasters treaty at the US PTO some time back.

I apologize for the duration of time you will need to read this.  As I state below, I have tried to be succinct.  I am drawing some very important connections among several elements that are presently moving into place at the same time.

Your comments are stated in general terms regarding the CSTD/ECOSOC WSIS+10 and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) proceedings, and they are not responsive to the concerns I raised with Shira, which have to do specifically with the broadcasters treaty, and international copyright-related policymaking as it affects the Internet in general, particularly in relation to the WSIS+10 Review and the intergovernmental framework for the Information Society being deliberated at the United Nations this year.

Will we have the opportunity to engage on the topic of the broadcasters treaty and retransmission consent, by an open and participatory process, before the UN General Assembly’s intergovernmental negotiations addressing the status and future of the Information Society project in the latter half of this year?

To my recollection, Shira’s note to me of December 10 is the first mention I have seen of the US using retransmission consent as a regulatory “national implementing legislation” basis for the broadcaster’s treaty.  Has this specific notion, of applying retransmission consent under the Communications Act to the Internet and using that as the implementing legislation for the broadcaster’s treaty, been subject to any kind of appropriate public disclosure and discussion?  I believe there would have been far more concern expressed if this had been the case, and the connection had been explicitly understood.

When we see the connection between retransmission consent, applied to the Internet domestically, and the broadcaster’s treaty, to be established internationally, we see that this arrangement reflects a separation between content creation and telecommunications that is built into the Information Society project’s foundations. This separates copyright established by international processes from aspects of domestic telecommunications policy that have assured that online innovation would not be impaired by liability for copyright.

This is a very different relationship to copyright than we have long had on the Internet, hooked to an international framework that may more readily support the types of processes we have already long seen pursuing the enactment of excessive modes of copyright policy in numerous international fora.

As you know, under the DMCA in the United States, anybody can become a peer on the network of networks, without liability for transmitting packets that happen to make up copyrighted works, so long as they comply with the DMCA’s notice and takedown provisions.

The broadcasters treaty proposes to establish a limited right related only to signals retransmission (Shira calls this a “single-right approach” in her email below), and retransmission consent establishes liability only for retransmitting broadcasts.  Each of these is hard to address on its own, and indeed they are hard to fully understand when they are taken in isolation.

However, we see the overall schema clearly when we examine the framework being set up by the Information Society project, and the approach the US is presently promoting in relation to the network.

Among the rationales we have regularly heard voiced in the policy discussions surrounding the Information Society project is a stance opposing regulation of content — typically phrased to identify this stance with an opposition to regulating the Internet.  However, the Internet is already separated from content creation in the foundational elements of the Information Society project.  The Internet is a subcategory of telecom and explicitly separated from content creation in the performance measures the project uses to measure its progress, and in the industry categories that underly the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the international instrument that is to serve as the basis for the conformance and interoperability assessment regime being set up as a key function within the Information Society.  These definitions are foundational, underlying all aspects of the project.

This separation means that within the framework for the Information Society, international processes for copyright policy are freed up to be pursued independently of telecom and the Internet.

This framework is also consistent with the approach the US is taking to domestic policy, set to be revealed by the FCC tomorrow morning — which is to all accounts focused on interconnection policy, particularly with edge providers such as Netflix, and not on reestablishing under Title II the permissionless and flexible platform for innovation that originally arose within a context enabling anybody to become a peer in the network of networks and interoperate freely among themselves based on an open physical layer — and protection from liability for copyright under the DMCA.

What this separation means in practical terms is that despite the Information Society’s frequent appeals to convergence as the dynamic that drives our need to engage in international policy processes for the Internet, it is not a dynamic that will apply to copyright.  At a time when many have been struggling for years to get policymakers to adapt copyright to the Internet, the broadcaster’s treaty, when considered in light of the Information Society project and the present approach to the network being promoted by the United States, is apparently about adapting the Internet to international copyright in all of the outlandish forms it has taken on.

The United States’ legal tradition has long been founded on a basic understanding that post-Enlightenment, democratic society is an expression of the power of published information.   Thomas Jefferson described this perfectly in his famous letter to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813, which applies just as much to copyright as it does to the patent policy he discusses: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

The US telecommunications tradition understands that the airwaves are free.  The US tradition understands that factual elements of published, copyrighted works are free for the taking. There’s a reason why the US understood the need to empower independent providers and end users to take part in the new online medium of the Internet with the protections of the DMCA, and it has to do with how the US tradition understands how shared information promotes the advancement of humankind, by its very nature.

This is why Aereo thought its model made sense.  This is why Grokster (and many others) thought that the long-honored Betamax ruling would empower us to innovate online and create new decentralized, collaborative and interconnected modes of using and sharing information, that we would adapt copyright to the Internet and not the
other way around.  Instead of adapting copyright to the new capacities brought by the Internet, instead of working to making Aereo possible, and instead of correcting the corrosive force of new conceptions, including new theories of secondary liability or of the supposed necessity for ridiculous copyright terms, or the instituting of anti-circumvention policies that allow others to assert a kind of private right of prior restraint on our own devices, and many others that have arisen in response to the profoundly dynamic platform the Internet has brought to all of us — and which actively dishonor the greatest traditions of enlightened copyright policy — we appear to be recalibrating our tradition to render it subject to a new international framework that empowers the very types of processes we have already seen repeatedly attempting to exploit the unique nature of the international policymaking arena to empower the enactment of misguided conceptions of copyright.

Aside from that last bit on the US tradition, I have tried to draw these concerns somewhat briefly to focus the commentary properly, and have provided no clarifying citations.  I trust that I will be able to clarify and support these points in follow-up.

I ask that you please address my concerns so that we can take up the implications of the broadcaster’s treaty prior to the fulfillment of the WSIS+10 Review, in light of the Information Society framework, and in light of the redefinition of the network and of how copyright applies there as well as in the approach to the network that the US is promoting both domestically and abroad.  The broadcaster’s treaty should be taken up fully and frankly, with all the pieces before us, especially at this stage of international processes related to the Internet.

These matters should be taken up preferably before ECOSOC’s mid-year meeting, at which it will hand off their final WSIS+10 Review outputs for the UN General Assembly’s intergovernmental negotiations in the latter half of the year.

If you are willing to take up these concerns at the Internet Governance Forum in September, that would imply that the implementation of the broadcaster’s treaty on the basis of retransmission consent will not be a conclusion already built into the framework for the Information Society prior to that point, and so that would certainly be deeply appreciated.  However, if we address it “in form,” based on what the WSIS+10 Review supposedly represents in a process of which the US is apparently in support, then the appropriate period for the question in relation to the Information Society would be prior to ECOSOC’s final contributions from the WSIS+10 Review in July.

 

Regards,

Seth Johnson

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “Johns, Richard B (Geneva)” <JohnsRB@state.gov>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM
Subject: RE: Question for today’s debrief on the SCCR
To: “seth.p.johnson@gmail.com” <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
Cc: “Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva)” <SchlegK@state.gov>

Hi Mr. Johnson,

Kristine Schlegelmilch forwarded your email to me, as I am responsible
for the U.S. Mission’s participation at IGF and CSTD, and general
Internet governance engagement.  I wanted to provide a response to
your question about whether the U.S. Government will “be taking part
in these forums to provide the opportunity for broader
multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US’s
activities…prior to the conclusion of the Information Society
project’s 10-year review.”   The U.S. Government has been extremely
active in engaging in all of the meetings that you mentioned.  In
fact, at the most recent IGF meeting in Istanbul, we had approximately
40 U.S. Government participants engaged in the discussions, including
the State Department Undersecretary of Economic Affairs and two U.S.
Ambassadors.  We plan on being similarly engaged at the 2015 IGF in
Brazil.

We have also been active participants in the CSTD WSIS 10-year review.
The U.S. held the CSTD Chairmanship last year and holds a
Vice-Chairmanship this year.  The Intercessional was held in Geneva
two weeks ago, where the 200 page WSIS Review document was presented
and discussed.  Yesterday, we held a broad, multistakeholder meeting
to discuss our collective input into the WSIS Review report.  We
highly value and strongly encourage contributions to these processes
from the private sector, academia, individuals, and NGSOs and look
forward to continuing these discussions in the lead up to the
High-level WSIS meeting which will be held in New York next year.
While Kristine is our specialist in IPR issues, don’t hesitate to
contact me if you have any specific concerns that you would like to
raise or questions about our engagement related to the World Summit on
the Information Society, CSTD or IGF.

Best regards,

Richard

Richard Johns
Economic and Science Affairs
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
+41 (0)22 749 4647 Office
+41 (0)22 749 4883 Fax

—–Original Message—–
From: Seth Johnson [mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:56 AM
To: Perlmutter, Shira
Cc: Jamie Love; Manon Anne Ress; Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva);
Reves, Todd; Shapiro, Michael
Subject: Re: Question for today’s debrief on the SCCR

Thank you Shira, I will await further word.

Seth

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Perlmutter, Shira
<Shira.Perlmutter@uspto.gov> wrote:
> Thanks Seth.  Within the USG, the State Dept has the lead on this.  I’m copying Kristine, who can give you more information on this.  But please be assured that the positions we are taking at WIPO, including on the proposed broadcast treaty, are the product of extensive interagency discussion, including the State Dept.  And our single-right approach is intended to be consistent with existing US law, primarily through the retransmission consent provisions of the Communications Act.   In our view, it would not require any new form of government regulation.
>
> Best,
> Shira
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:33:47 PM
> To: Perlmutter, Shira
> Cc: James Love; Manon Ress
> Subject: Question for today’s debrief on the SCCR
>
> Dear Ms. Perlmutter:
>
> You are doubtless aware of the activities presently underway taking up
> numerous policy areas related to the Internet and developing of some
> form of “Internet Governance” in relation to the Information Society
> project, represented most prominently by the outcomes of the 2003 and
> 2005 Geneva and Tunis World Summits for the Information Society
> (WSIS).
>
> The US has generally promoted a multistakeholder approach and avoided
> a predominantly intergovernmental approach to Internet-related policy
> areas in these processes.
>
> The US has also generally asserted an opposition to expanding the
> ITU’s scope to the Internet through proposals that would amount to
> regulating of content, rather than telecommunications as such.  We
> might see this distinction reflected in the Information Society
> project’s performance measures, which are based on ISIC (International
> Standard Industrial Classification) categories which distinguish
> content-related industries from telecommunications.
>
> However, while the project’s performance measures do not include
> content creation, policies that the US is pursuing related to
> copyright, including the broadcasters right, are intergovernmental
> policies related to content that can easily affect the nature of the
> Internet platform.
>
> The Information Society project will be completing a 10-year
> assessment of its progress in 2015, beginning with a review by the
> Commission on Science and Technology in Development in the first half
> of the year, followed by an intergovernmental process conducted by the
> President of the General Assembly to determine the project’s status
> and how it will proceed after 2015.  This period of review of
> implementation and followup represents the last opportunity before the
> UN GA’s intergovernmental negotiations to address how well the project
> is addressing the relationship between the project and the Internet.
> The Internet Governance Forum will also provide a forum for
> multistakeholder engagement in Internet-related policy.
>
> Will the US be taking part in these forums to provide the opportunity
> for broader multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US’s
> activities on copyright and other related exclusive rights policies,
> prior to the conclusion of the Information Society project’s 10-year
> review?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Seth Johnson

(Statement also posted here)

November 8, 2014

c/o Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Comments on Network Neutrality in the Context of the International Information Society Project

Dear Commissioners:

In the following open letter, filed ex parte in the FCC’s Open Internet proceeding and addressed to the global Internet community, we address the issue of network neutrality in relation to the international Information Society project.

By addressing this relationship, we hope to amplify our call for the FCC to support the policy environment that originally gave us the open and neutral Internet. This was the policy environment that existed in the US until just prior to the Information Society project.

Our chief concerns are for elements of the Information Society project’s underlying design which support vertically integrated telecommunications environments, without clearly providing for policy environments that support open and competitive access by independent providers at the physical layer, and for the project’s effects on the universal general purpose interoperability of the Internet as we know it.

The Internet’s design to support general purpose interoperability among autonomous networks in the network of networks is the original basis for the neutrality of the Internet, and competitive access at the physical layer is the policy environment that originally established the network of independent and interoperating networks that gave us the open Internet.

The FCC’s overall approach to telecommunications policy over the last decade based on vertical integration, and recent FCC initiatives such as the IP transition, reflect these areas of concern in the Information Society project, and US State Department initiatives also intersect with the Information Society project’s system of international decisions enacted within the UN system and other international agencies.

Network Neutrality and Vertical Integration

In his recent viral commentary, John Oliver describes network neutrality as the reason why the Internet is “a weirdly level playing field.” This result may be produced in a couple of different ways, based on two conceptions of network neutrality.

Network neutrality can denote either 1) the application of a rule requiring networks to treat packets equally within themselves; or 2) the technical principle whereby interoperability among autonomous networks is enabled by transmitting packets between them without regard for application.

Renewed concerns for network neutrality in the first sense have arisen in the US and globally in response to the FCC’s plan to make provisions for fast lanes in its Open Internet policy, and in the wake of Comcast’s and Verizon’s recent moves to initiate interconnection deals directly with the edge application provider Netflix rather than accepting the data their users request from Netflix via backbone intermediaries.  We note that these developments reflect the circumstances of the present policy approach in the United States, which is characterized by a few incumbent network providers who have been allowed to treat physical infrastructure as assets nearly solely under their private control (i.e., the physical infrastructure is “vertically integrated,” treated as a supply that has been acquired as part of a private production process).  In this environment, network neutrality cannot help but be approached in the first sense, as a rule addressing paid prioritization, to be imposed within the networks of a few dominant providers that exercise a controlling role in the telecommunications space, rather than in the second sense, as the kind of policy relevant to a network of autonomous, competing networks.

In point of fact, however, the Internet was originally unleashed in the United States under a policy approach that assured competition at the physical layer, creating an environment that enabled thousands of independent network providers to readily enter the network of networks and interoperate among themselves, in accordance with network neutrality in the second sense.  The Internet was designed to solve the problem that arose in this context, of how to interoperate among numerous autonomous networks, and this was the original basis of the openness of the Internet.  The policy approach that enabled this dynamic to arise was the official position of the US at least until 2000, when the FCC recommended open access as the policy that would best support the Internet in Europe (see FCC Press Release, United States Urges EU to Continue Progress in Opening Communications Market To Competition, 2000 FCC LEXIS 1383 (2000), available at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/News_Releases/2000/nrin0005.doc).

However, roughly concurrently with the beginning of the Information Society project – which might be designated by the 2003 Geneva and 2005 Tunis World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) events – the FCC has implemented a federal telecommunications policy that not only deregulates Internet information services, but also the physical infrastructure carrying telecommunications data.  This enables the incumbents to treat the infrastructure as one would a private asset in any other type of market, and thereby neutralizes the legal foundations of the Communications Act in public franchise law and common carrier obligations, which up until then had assured competitive access to right of way infrastructure by independent Internet providers.

For whatever reason, the underlying premises of the Information Society project currently reflect this change in the policy environment which we have seen in the US.  The ITU’s definitions for the performance measures used to measure the progress of the Information Society draw no distinction between individual networks that may implement specialized services through more specialized treatment of packets within themselves, and open Internet connectivity, constituted of a network of autonomous network providers interoperating among themselves.  The measures are based on telecommunications industry categories as defined in the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), Rev. 4, which reference the Internet solely in relation to a vertically integrated context (“provision of Internet access by the operator of the wired infrastructure”) and not in relation to shared physical infrastructure (“purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of networks and providing telecommunications services using this capacity”).

Current FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler appears to advocate an approach to policy consistent with vertical integration, and with the framework articulated by Joseph Farrell and Philip J. Weiser in 2003, wherein the efficiency advantage of a vertically integrated network platform is weighed against impacts that the platform provider’s practices may have on application markets dependent on their platform. In Ensuring an Open Internet Now and for the Future, Wheeler states that there are likely to be a few broadband networks serving to support essential services for society, and that this condition means they are likely to exercise market power.  He characterizes net neutrality in terms of balancing concerns of producers and consumers within this type of context, such as that network operators may make moves that undermine the value of the network, or that regulation by the FCC might cause economic harm to network operators or inhibit their ability to offer improved service.

Network Neutrality and Universal General Purpose Interoperability

Conformance and Interoperability:

The neutrality of the Internet’s design is based on the way it supports a maximally flexible platform between and across independent networks. Its neutrality is sustained by the need to interoperate across autonomous networks and to connect end users in whatever they may be doing.  With its Conformance and Interoperability program, the US and the Information Society project are effectively pursuing a conception of interoperability that may supplant this notion of universal general purpose interoperability – which the Internet is already designed to support – replacing it with a notion of interoperability as conformance with policy.

This program is a key part of the intergovernmentally-endorsed program of action issued by the ITU at the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference, now being updated at the 2014 Conference, and is geared to support the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBTA).

The TBTA aims at ensuring that technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. It encourages Member States to base these matters on international standards and develop conformity assessment procedures to generate confidence that products conform with applicable technical regulations or standards.

Among our concerns here is the fact that Conformance and Interoperability testing might become a basis for enabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of networks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without distinguishing them from the way the Internet operates or recognizing the tradeoffs these types of networks bring as compared to open internetworking between independent networks.

We see the Conformance and Interoperability program represented in the US’s submission to the WTDC for a Study Question on Conformance Testing, and as part of its program for the Plenipotentiary Conference.

WTSA Resolution 76, issued at the 2012 World Telecommunications/ICTs Standards Assembly (WTSA), articulates the relationship of conformity assessment to the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, ITU-T Recommendations X.290-X.296, on ISO conformance testing, Plenipotentiary Resolution 177 and WTDC Resolution 47, on Conformance and Interoperability, and WTSA Resolutions 17 and 44 and Plenipotentiary Resolution 123, on bridging the standardization gap.

As already noted in connection with vertical integration, the indicators by which the Information Society project’s progress is being measured are based on the same ISIC definitions that underly the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, linking them to both vertically integrated networks and a new conception of interoperability.

Identifiers Infrastructure:

ITU processes have also issued numerous resolutions articulating pieces of an inter-governmentally endorsed technical infrastructure for identifiers that may support the validation or enforcement of various kinds of policy.

Significant pieces of this framework were issued as resolutions by the 2012 WTSA.  They were characterized there as “merely technical” and thereby appropriately within the scope of the WTSA and ITU’s Standardization Sector (ITU-T).  However, they have been supplemented this year with more substantive enactments issued by the recent WTDC under ITU’s Development Sector (ITU-D), and like the Conformance and Interoperability program, these WTSA and WTDC resolutions fulfill directives from the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and therefore enjoy an intergovernmentally endorsed status.

If we do not examine how well the framework enacted by the ITU’s Plenipotentiary Resolutions actually represents the nature of the Internet, governments, including the US, will easily appeal to this framework as representing basic functions to be treated as a foundation for international connectivity, and they may thereby make it difficult to reclaim the original sense of interoperability of the Internet as they claim their new conception under the name of Internet Governance.

Depending on how they are applied, these resolutions providing technical support for identifiers may affect not only open, general purpose technical interoperability, but also the free flow of information, the flexibility of the platform, and its support for interactive and collaborative uses of information published online.

Our concern here is that before these provisions should be treated as components built into the design of international connectivity, their presence and the implications they may have for the nature of the Internet, as they may be used to build support for policy into networks, should be noted and given full opportunity for review prior to being treated as established elements of international networks.

In the US, we see work underway on identifiers policy at the FCC, presented as the technology behind the IP Transition, currently articulated largely in relation to policies applicable to phone numbers. In the US Congress, bills such as the anti-spoofing bills HR 3670 and S 2787 may well serve as a part of a national implementation to support this international system of identifiers.

The most direct provisions for identifiers are in WTSA outputs. WTSA 20, on allocating and managing of international numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources (NNAI), references the integrity and misuse of numbering resources, procedures for allocating and managing international NNAI articulated in ITU-T E-, F-, Q- and X-series Recommendations, and a call to assure Member State sovereignty in relation to country code NNAI plans and ITU-T E.164 (ENUM).  Resolutions on alternate calling procedures such as WTSA Resolution 29, WTDC Resolution 22, and Plenipotentiary Resolution 21 address concerns for origin identification and misuse of resources.

WTSA Resolutions 47, 48, 49 and 64 deal with addressing-related concerns (ccTLDs, IDNs, ENUM and IPv6). Along with WTDC Resolution 63, on IPv6 and address allocation, these resolutions reference Plenipotentiary Resolutions 102, on ITU’s role in international Internet-related public policy, including management of Internet resources such as domain names and addresses, 133, on the role of Member States in IDNs, and 180, on the transition to IPv6.  These resolutions are also referenced as technical supports for the Internet via Plenipotentiary Resolution 178 and WTSA Resolution 75.

Resolutions on Cybersecurity reference ITU-T Study Group 17‘s work on public key infrastructures, identity management, and digital signatures, including WTSA 50 and WTDC 45.  These references reflect ITU-T work on discovery of identity management information in ITU-T Recommendation X.1255.  The theme of confidence and security in ICTs, as voiced in these resolutions and Plenipotentiary Resolutions 130, 174 and 181, may also implicitly reference the use of identifiers, and the facilities for validation and enforcement that may be built around them.

Finally, in the context of Conformance and Interoperability, the reference in Plenipotentiary Resolution 177 to concerns in developing countries regarding counterfeit equipment may also designate a function that may be served, in connection with the TBTA, through validation and enforcement based on identifiers.

In Conclusion

We urge the FCC to reestablish the policy environment that gave us the Internet and to reconsider the decisions made at the outset of the Information Society project which have led to a thoroughly misguided domestic telecommunications policy environment. An international policy framework designed to support the type of network environment presently projected in the Information Society project’s enactments is not consistent with the policies that assured that independent networks could readily enter the network of networks in the United States and freely interoperate among themselves.

We are not calling you to enact a sweeping redefinition of broadband, as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) might call it; we are asking that you reaffirm the policy framework that originally gave us the Internet.  And we are asking that you not allow a commitment to the international Information Society project as it is presently articulated to mislead the US into recasting the very bases of the US telecommunications tradition to which we owe the rise of the open Internet.

Sincerely,

(Affiliations listed for identification purposes only)

Janna Anderson, Director of the Imagining the Internet Center, Elon University
Amelia Andersdotter, FITUG, e.V. (http://www.fitug.de/)
Karl Bode, Freelance technology writer, editor of DSLreports.com
Robin Chase, Founder, Zipcar, GoLoco, Buzzcar, Veniam ‘Works
Juan Carlos de Martin, Faculty Co-director, Nexa Center for Internet & Society at Politecnico di Torino
Karl Fogel, QuestionCopyright.org
Gene Gaines, Gaines Group
Lucas Gonze, XSPF.org
Robert Gregory, BSEE, UCB, Non-Profit IT Director and IP Network Evangelist
Paul Hyland, Education Week
Seth Johnson, Information Quality Specialist
Bruce Kushnick, Executive Director, New Networks Institute
Dean Landsman, LCG
Jon Lebkowsky, President, EFF-Austin
Michael Maranda, Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
W. Scott McCollough, Esq.
Sascha Meinrath, Director, X-Lab, Founder, Open Technology Institute
John T. Mitchell, Interaction Law
Hunter Newby, CEO, Allied Fiber
Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source movement in software
David P. Reed, Ph.D., Internet Pioneer
Chuck Sherwood, Principal, Community Media Visioning
Dana Spiegel, Executive Director, NYCwireless
Robb Topolski, Private Individual, Networking Consultant
Brough Turner, Founder, netBlazr Inc.
Paul Vixie, CEO, Farsight Security
John G. Waclawsky, Ph.D., Technology Advisor and Consultant, Chicago and Washington
David Weinberger, Ph.D., Senior Researcher at Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society
John Wilbanks, Chief Commons Officer at Sage Bionetworks
Brett Wynkoop, First provider of public Internet access in New York City

Respond to:

Seth Johnson
601 West 174th Street, Suite 3D
New York, NY 10033
[protected]

(Statement also posted here)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:39 AM
Subject: Critical Comments on WSIS+10 Review
To: Hamadoun Touré <[protected]>, [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected], [protected], ITU Development Secretary General <[protected]>
Cc: Houlin Zhao <[protected]>(, various UN GIS contacts)

(Please see attached pdf of the following letter)
Letter to WSIS+10 on Critical Impacts

Dear Secretary-General Touré, UNGIS members and other participants and observers of the 2014 WSIS+10 Review,

We are writing to note our concerns regarding the WSIS+10 Review, since the process has not admitted critical contributions in the last two months, including the inputs of Seth Johnson, who sought to take part in the WSIS+10 Review beginning in March. While he was eventually accredited for the May MPP and the present HLE/WSIS Forum meeting, his submitted comments have not been admitted into the process.

Seth’s contributions describe how the usage of key terms at the heart of the WSIS project often work against its own goals as expressed in the Action Lines. A candid review of the WSIS project must take this type of input into account, and these concerns should be understood in the next phases of the project, as the UN considers the course the project will take after this year.

Seth identifies new priorities for the project based on its tendency to encourage confusion of specialized services with the open Internet, its working to implement a form of interoperability based on conformance with policy without recognizing the maximal form of interoperability already established between networks through the Internet protocol, and its supporting vertically integrated telecommunications environments while not adequately recognizing the role of competitive access at the physical layer in supporting the open Internet. He focuses on listing the numerous ways in which these aspects of the project impact the Action Lines, including effects in important areas of concern such as empowerment, digital inclusion and capacity building; development, competition and the enabling environment; openness, flexibility and innovation; governance and cybersecurity; rights; and other areas.

We restate Seth’s comments below, in the form of an open letter to the UN GIS and the broader community of WSIS project participants, placing his comments under useful headings and adding a few more comments based on his analysis of the performance measures that the WSIS project is using to quantify its progress. We believe that future plans for the WSIS project should reflect these considerations.

The following paragraphs relate to the questions in the “Form 1” submission form that participants in the WSIS+10 Review used for their initial contributions to the process, and we have tagged each paragraph with the numeric codes that correlate with the relevant questions from that form.

Recommendations

Key Challenge: We recommend that the WSIS project act to secure the open Internet by incorporating means for recognizing impacts on the Internet’s key characteristics as it proceeds to facilitate the implementation of ICTs. (b1b)

Vision for Disadvantaged Groups: As a vision for addressing the needs of disadvantaged groups, we recommend that the project assure that the way the Internet empowers end users and independent providers be secured by a process that incorporates recognition of the Internet’s key characteristics. (b1c)

Priority Implementation Issue: We recommend that the project pursue the establishing of common understanding of key characteristics of the Internet in order to set up systems to recognize impacts on its basic nature and advantages. (b2c)

Improving Monitoring and Evaluation: We recommend that monitoring and evaluation be improved by implementing performance measures that reflect the distinction between open Internet and specialized services. (b3a)

New Priorities and Objectives: Our review of the WSIS project reveals critical areas for new priorities and objectives in relation to 1) Action Line C2 (IC Infrastructure), wherein the project is acting to replace open Internet with specialized service networks without recognizing the difference; 2) in Action Line C5 (Confidence and Security in ICTs), wherein the project is working to achieve confidence on the basis of interoperability based on conformance with policy without acknowledging the profound degree of confidence that has already been achieved through the maximally flexible, general purpose form of technical interoperability made possible across networks by the Internet Protocol; and 3) in Action Line C6 (Enabling Environment), wherein the project is framed in terms consistent with policy environments that support vertically integrated telecommunications contexts without recognizing that environments that support competitive access to physical layer infrastructure enable a context of competing and autonomous networks interoperating among themselves to arise. (b2a2, b2a5, b2a6)

Priority Focuses, Goals and Targets: The priority focuses, goals and targets we recommend for the WSIS project reflect the above new priorities: 1) identify modalities for coexistence of open Internet with specialized services, assuring the two are not conflated; 2) before proceeding to operate under a general principle of “Internet Universality” such as UNESCO recommends, first incorporate recognition of two types of interoperability into the project: interoperability in the sense of conformance with common policy, whether within or across networks, and interoperability in the sense of technical, general purpose interoperability that the Internet Protocol already makes possible between networks; and 3) address the enabling environment with explicit recognition of competitive access to physical layer infrastructure in addition to policy contexts that support vertically integrated telecommunications environments. (b3b)

Observations

We observe as a special comment that in general the WSIS project encourages a confusion of the Internet with IP-based networks in general, and it therefore enables a movement toward implementing networks to support ICTs that may establish practices and policies which may have adverse impacts on the openness, flexibility and neutrality that arise naturally in an Internet platform made up of competing and interoperating autonomous networks. (b4)

The following paragraphs enumerate trends that arise in relation to the Action Lines as a result of the WSIS project’s failure to distinguish the Internet from other types of IP-based networks.

Empowerment, Digital Inclusion, Capacity Building:

If the difference is not recognized between what the open Internet platform that arises among interoperating autonomous providers makes possible, and the capacity for specialized services that individual providers may implement within their own networks, then the outcome of the Information Society project may easily be to supplant the type of empowerment and digital inclusion that the Internet is designed to bring, replacing it with narrower options that other types of connectivity may entail, with pervasive effects on Action Lines C2, C3, C4, C8 and C11. (b2b2, b2b3, b2b4, b2b8, b2b15, b2b18)

Failing to recognize the empowerment of end users and of independent providers made possible by open Internet connectivity will lead to overlooking of effects on self-determination, autonomy and independence of communities such as the young people, women and girls, nomadic and indigenous peoples, and communities residing in rural and underserved regions which Action Line C4 references, or of the older population, persons with disabilities, children and other disadvantaged groups referenced by Action Line C2. (b2b2, b2b4)

The empowerment of end users made possible by an open Internet platform made up of autonomous providers interoperating among themselves is of a different character from that which managed service frameworks enable within their individual networks, and from that which may be expected in vertically integrated telecommunications regimes such as we find in the United States. The types of ICT applications that would be developed in all the categories covered by Action Line C7 if they are not based on the open platform would reflect this same difference in empowerment, and indeed end users would be less able to freely develop these applications themselves. This concern also relates to the nature of the national, regional and international “broadband network” infrastructure that Action Line C2 advocates pursuing as the “essential foundation” for digital inclusion in the Information Society. (b2b2, b2b7, b2b8, b2b9, b2b10, b2b11, b2b12, b2b13, b2b14)

Conceptions of network types implied in Information Society initiatives will affect access to information, cultural identity and diversity, and international cooperation as envisioned by Action Lines C3, C8 and C11. (b2b3, b2b15, b2b18)

These conceptions will affect the extent of empowerment that would apply toward the calls in Action Line C8 to promote the production of cultural works and local cultural industries, local community media, local heritage and biological diversity, support for rural and isolated communities, and local development for disadvantaged, vulnerable, non-literate and disabled communities. (b2b15)

They will also affect the kinds of best practices that would be recognized for promoting cultural and linguistic diversity and the ways in which the capacity for indigenous peoples to develop works in their language would be enhanced as advocated by Action Line C8. And the role of diverse, local communities could be altered as the public/private partnerships to promote cultural diversity, local and national works, and “ICT-based works” that C8 encourages, interact with policy and regulatory contexts associated with network infrastructure, potentially producing new formulations of the role of the government and private parties and of the nature of the telecommunications regime. (b2b15)

The nature of the network will affect the content of the programmes for capacity building, lifelong learning and universal education, including the substance of courses in public administration, the nature of the qualifications of ICT experts, and the role to be played by the libraries, multipurpose community centers, local ICT training centers, and public access points advocated by Action Line C4. Conceptions of the network will also have impacts on Action Line C7’s promotion of e-learning and e-science in relation to qualifications of ICT experts, accessibility and affordability of scientific information, the effective use of scientific information, and the role of universities and research institutions. (b2b4, b2b9, b2b14)

Development, Competition, the Enabling Environment:

A failure to recognize the characteristics of the Internet in the Information Society’s initiatives will affect the goals of building confidence and security in relation to the enabling environment for development as called for by Action Line C6, given that understandings of what constitutes a pro-competitive policy, legal and regulatory context, and what appropriate incentives are, may reflect the characteristics of other types of networks. (b2b6)

This includes the types of national policies for promoting investment in infrastructure and new services called for in Action Line C2, notably the incentivizing of infrastructure investment by treating privileged access to the physical layer as a “supply” vertically integrated with the production processes of higher layer services offered by telecommunications incumbents, or the defining of policy frameworks associated with the term “broadband.” These approaches may enable various forms of price differentiation or tiers of service that can be readily implemented within individual intranets, but not across autonomous internetworking providers. (b2b2)

The types of commercially negotiated transit and interconnection arrangements for global connectivity that Action Line C2 urges pursuing could supplant the unique strengths and advantages of the Internet if its characteristics are not delineated, and the advocating of “objective, transparent and non-discriminatory parameters” for connectivity in Action Line C2 could serve to replace recognition of how the basis of the Internet in competitive interoperation among independent providers can serve inclusivity by assuring the openness of the platform is maintained by competitive pressure. (b2b2)

Action Line C7 seeks to support sustainable development and diverse applications for public administration, business and numerous areas of life that may be benefited by the Information Society. If policies for promoting development of infrastructure and services are based on vertical integration, this may support the sustainability of that type of network, but it will not sustain the open Internet. End users would be less able to freely develop applications themselves in a managed service network or a vertically integrated telecommunications context, and the diversity of types of ICT applications that would be developed and supported in all the Action Line C7 categories would be adversely affected if they are not based on an open platform. (b2b7, b2b8, b2b9, b2b10, b2b11, b2b12, b2b13, b2b14)

The effects on e-business and e-employment in terms of economic growth, opportunities, productivity, well-being, poverty, international trade, investment and innovation, and assistance to SMEs, as called for under Action Line C7, will vary depending on the flexibility and openness of the network. (b2b8, b2b11)

Failing to recognize the nature of the Internet could affect not only the type of connectivity that would be made available in service of Action Line C11’s calls for universal access and bridging of the digital divide, and for international cooperation on infrastructure development projects, but also the nature of the public-private partnerships also called for by Action Line C11. In policy and regulatory contexts that do not promote competitive access to the physical layer, as we find in contexts that maintain vertically integrated telecommunications environments, the promotion of public-private partnerships can tend to entrench that pattern if those arrangements do not incorporate appropriate recognition of the role of public oversight of shared physical layer infrastructure. (b2b18)

Openness, Flexibility, Innovation:

The openness and flexibility of the Internet platform is supported by competitive access at the physical layer, since competing providers must transmit packets in a general purpose manner in order to interoperate and provide global connectivity to their users. As a result our confidence that the platform will support our ability to innovate can be affected deleteriously if other types of networks are employed to serve public security purposes through a core authority without recognizing the impact those means would have on the Internet. (b2b5, b2b6)

Some types of incentives for infrastructure development may be built on capacities made possible in managed service frameworks (such as discrete tiers of service allowing differentiated price schemes), or that may be enabled by a regulatory environment that allows incumbents to treat the infrastructure they install at the physical layer as a private asset supplying a vertically integrated production process. Our confidence that the platform will support innovation can be undermined in contexts driven by these approaches to encouraging development, which are distinct in nature from an approach based on an Internet platform among autonomous providers who drive demand for buildout through independent innovation in services as they compete and interoperate at the physical layer. (b2b6)

Policies associated with document identifiers and electronic authentication of transactions can interfere with the openness and flexibility of the Internet platform if their impacts on its collaborative and interactive attributes are not properly appreciated. (b2b5)

Governance and Cybersecurity:

A failure to address the nature of the Internet as distinct from other types of networks supporting specialized treatment of packets will have impacts on concerns related to governance under Action Line C6 including how we define internet governance, public policy issues, and roles and responsibilities of various parties, how various technology policies relate to national strategies for public administration, and the effect of enforcement of e-commerce, online transactions and policies on the dynamic, interactive and collaborative capacities of the open Internet. (b2b6)

Failing to recognize the Internet’s special characteristics would also affect how connectivity would work as the “fundamental working tool” for local governance that Action Line C3 recommends recognizing. (b2b3)

In the context of e-government under Action Line C7, transparency, accountability and efficiency are served most reliably by a competitive telecommunications environment populated by independent providers who will agitate for accountability when their ability to use the Internet platform in the maximally flexible way it was designed for is impeded. Accountability also relates to the relationship between a government and its people, within the context of which people’s rights are defined, and a competitive telecommunications environment supports effective forms of accountability in relation to rights as well as in relation to the flexibility of the platform. (b2b7)

Failing to recognize the unique characteristics of the Internet will also affect what comes to be understood as cybercrime and misuse of ICTs in the context of Action Line C5, and what confidence and security mean, both in terms of government enforcement of policy to prevent crime or harm, and in terms of how well we may rely on fundamental liberties as limits on government actions in the name of cybersecurity. It will also affect understandings of the implications of centralized or decentralized approaches to cybersecurity concerns including areas such as spam and the nature of the roles of the government and of network providers in many areas including real-time incident response. Policies and approaches may easily be of a type only enforceable within centrally-managed intranet environments, and in the international context they may not be as well subject to the claims of fundamental liberties as they are in free national contexts. Policies associated with document identifiers and electronic authentication of transactions, also referenced in the cybersecurity context, can interfere with the openness and flexibility of the Internet platform if those attributes are not explicitly acknowledged and confronted. (b2b5)

Rights:

Like the effect on our confidence that the platform will support innovation in the contexts of Action Lines C5 and C6, overlooking the nature of the Internet will also affect our confidence that the platform will support freedoms of speech, press and association, as well as the right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Not only are these rights exercised more freely on an open and flexible Internet platform among autonomous and interoperating providers, but a vertically integrated telecommunications context works to the detriment of securing rights as limits on the government. (b2b5, b2b6)

If the telecommunications environment is vertically integrated, the implication is that infrastructure will be treated as a private asset of those who install it across the right of way, and as a result fundamental liberties related to the communications of citizens, understood as limits on the government, may be characterized as inapplicable. Indeed in that framework oversight of public franchise entities and common carriers in the form of regulation of infrastructure might be characterized as a violation of the rights of those who installed the infrastructure, rather than as a natural reflection of the nature of the right of way as a resource that must be governed to oversee access and foster competition. A context that regulates infrastructure in these terms recognizes this oversight more readily as a government function, which is thus directly barred from abridging the fundamental liberties of the general public, and incumbents in such a context naturally may incur obligations, including limitations that reflect those that apply to the government, in connection with their administration of a public franchise and privileged access to right of way. So security in the sense of reliable support for fundamental liberties may be affected when the foundation of the Internet in competitive access at the physical layer is overlooked, and infrastructure is instead treated as private assets vertically integrated with the products and services of incumbent providers. (b2b5, b2b6)

A failure to acknowledge the characteristics of the Internet will also affect the goals of promoting rights to privacy, data and consumer protection referenced in Action Lines C5 and C6. The conflicting understanding of the roles of public oversight and private parties derived from the telecommunications policy and regulatory environment as described above, can affect the nature of user education regarding privacy online, and of the initiatives and guidelines for rights of privacy, data and consumer protection encouraged by Action Lines C5 and C6. (b2b5, b2b6)

Other Trends:

The Information Society’s failure to distinguish the open Internet from specialized service networks will also have other implications for the WSIS Action Lines.

It will affect the type of connectivity that would be established for schools, universities, health institutions, libraries, post offices, community centers, museums, and other public institutions according to the call in Action Line C2, and the nature of the pilot networking projects among education, training and research institutions between developing and developed countries, and in fact the very kinds of ICTs that would be recognized as appropriate for integration into education and training, referenced by Action Line C4. It will also affect the kind of connectivity that would be made available for international cooperation on infrastructure development projects as called for in Action line C11. (b2b2, b2b4, b2b18)

It will affect the types of educational, administrative and legislative measures to serve various disadvantaged groups, and indeed the type of end user equipment, that Action Line C2 encourages promoting. And it would affect the universal access policies and strategies and connectivity indicators, systems standards, technical, regulatory and operational studies in public/private partnerships, as well as access to orbital resources, satellite for underserved areas, and frequency harmonization advocated by Action Line C2. (b2b2)

It will affect types of information made available, what would count as public domain, the forms of use and sharing of information that would be supported, whether technically or by policy, the kinds of exclusive rights that would apply in the context of the capabilities of the technology, and the roles that would be played by multi-purpose community public access points, all referenced by Action Line C3. (b2b3)

It will affect the open, interoperable, non-discriminatory standards, and the nature of the secure storage framework that Action Line C6 calls for. (b2b6)

Additional Comments: WSIS Performance Measures

We also call attention to Seth’s analysis of the ITU’s performance measures for measuring the progress of the WSIS project, found at https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2014/03/25/wsis-measures-understanding-impacts-on-the-internet/.

The ITU’s performance measures essentially treat all high speed connectivity as Internet without recognizing a distinction between open Internet connectivity based on autonomous networks interoperating among themselves by transmitting packets without regard for application, and networks that support services based on more specialized treatment of packets.

Among these measures, the Revenue and Investment indicator is defined in terms of industry categories that make up the telecommunications sector as defined in the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), Rev. 4. Among industry categories included under telecommunications, the ISIC refers to the Internet solely in relation to a vertically integrated context (“provision of Internet access by the operator of the wired infrastructure”) and not in relation to shared physical infrastructure (“purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of networks and providing telecommunications services using this capacity”).

These observations illustrate that the WSIS project’s failing to distinguish the Internet from other types of IP-based networks is a systemic problem, built into the definitions of the measures that the project uses to assess its success and progress.

We recommend not only that the WSIS performance measures distinguish open Internet from specialized services, but that they also be designed to track vertically integrated telecommunications contexts distinctly from contexts assuring competitive access to physical layer infrastructure.

We urge that assessment of the progress of the WSIS project, including the WSIS+10 Review, be performed as much as possible in the above terms, addressing characteristics and advantages of the Internet that are uniquely conducive to WSIS and broader UN goals, as well as tracking effects of different types of networks on these goals and on each other.

We recommend that United Nations agencies, including those constituting the UN GIS, incorporate these insights in framing the contribution of technologies and development programs to broader UN goals, as well as in areas of concern related to Internet Governance, including Enhanced Cooperation, proceedings of the Internet Governance Forum, and various other proceedings such as those related to Internet-related Public Policy Issues.

Signed (affiliations listed for identification purposes only):

Michel Bauwens, P2P Foundation
Robin Chase, Founder, Zipcar, GoLoco, Buzzcar, Veniam ‘Works
Gene Gaines, Gaines Group
Robert Gregory, BSEE, UCB, Non-Profit IT Director and IP Network Evangelist
Robin Gross, Executive Director, IP Justice
Michael Maranda, Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Sascha Meinrath, Director, X-Lab, Founder, Open Technology Institute
John T. Mitchell, Interaction Law
Hunter Newby, CEO, Allied Fiber
Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source movement in software
Ian Peter, Internet Consultant and Owner, Ian Peter and Associates
David P. Reed, Ph.D., Internet Pioneer
Chuck Sherwood, Principal, Community Media Visioning
Clay Shirky, Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York University
Aram Sinnreich, Ph.D., Author and Journalist, Assistant Professor, Rutgers
Jay Sulzberger, Statistical Consultant
Brough Turner, Founder, netBlazr Inc ., Co-founder & former CTO of NMS Communications and of Natural MicroSystems
Paul Vixie, CEO, Farsight Security
John G. Waclawsky Ph.D., Technology Advisor and Consultant, Chicago and Washington
John Wilbanks, Chief Commons Officer at Sage Bionetworks

(Statement also posted here)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:04 PM
Subject: Concerns Regarding WTDC Outputs
To: Houlin Zhao <[protected]>, Hamadoun Touré <[protected]>, ITU Development Secretary General <[protected]>, ITU BDT <[protected]>, ITU Secretary General <[protected]>
Cc: (various Regional Planning Meeting contacts)

(Please see attached pdf of the following letter)
Letter to WTDC on Critical Edits

Dear Secretary-General Touré, Deputy Secretary-General Zhao, and other participants in the 6th World Telecommunications/ICTs Development Conference,

We are members of civil society and industry who are concerned with the outputs being prepared in support of the WSIS project at the 6th WTDC, particularly with respect to their effects on developing countries, the Internet, and on the goals of the WSIS project. These concerns all derive from the failure to recognize important characteristics of the Internet and how the Internet differs from other types of IP-based networks, in the ITU’s guiding resolutions from the 2010 Plenipotentiary conference, and in the basic documents of the WSIS project.

We are also concerned about the implications for our own domestic policy of the type of network and policy framework being represented by the international WSIS project in its various proceedings.

Our chief concern is that the WSIS-related proceedings overseen by the ITU are working to implement networks that don’t represent the nature and advantages of the Internet, and the process is failing to address the potential tradeoffs in moving to IP-based next-generation networks designed for ICTs to support various WSIS goals, without understanding how these networks differ from the Internet.

In addition, these components of the WTDC’s work also present special concerns:

Contributions in support of a conformance and interoperability system that dovetails with the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and that does not specifically recognize the type of general purpose interoperability already provided by the Internet’s basic design.

Contributions in support of promoting broadband, which are articulated in terms that do not acknowledge policy contexts supporting competitive access to physical layer infrastructure.

Various WTDC resolutions referencing ITU work related to identifiers that may support policies according to a conception of interoperability through conformance to common policy, without examining the impacts this conception may have on the form of maximal interoperability already provided by the Internet platform’s basic design.

The implications relate to important parts of the Hyderabad Action Plan and their associated WSIS Action Lines, including Cbersecurity, ICT applications, and IP-based network issues, and the Enabling environment, Capacity building, and Digital Inclusivity.

Overlooking the basic key characteristics of the Internet can affect the empowerment and digital inclusion pursued under Action Lines C2, C3, C4, C8 and C11, along with the self-determination, autonomy and independence for various communities that an open Internet platform arising among independent, autonomous providers makes possible. It may also affect the transparency, accountability and efficiency of e-government, and the sustainability and diversity of ICT applications development noted under Action Line C7. Neglecting to establish a proper basis for recognizing impacts on essential characteristics of the Internet may easily lead to development solutions for the enabling environment under Action Line C6 that are based on capacities made possible in managed service network contexts or vertically integrated telecommunications environments, or to approaches to cybersecurity-related concerns under Action Line C5 that might well be implemented by means of centrally-managed intranet environments.

These problems derive from the 2010 Plenipotentiary Resolutions, which present the terms Internet, IP-based networks, and Next-generation networks in a confused manner.1 However, several WTDC Resolutions can be improved in critically important ways to assure that the concrete technological solutions and policies for development that the WTDC endorses do not serve to mislead.

IP-layer Technical Interoperability:

We can refer to the Internet’s characteristic of universal general purpose interoperability as “technical interoperability,” and this aspect of the Internet reflects the IP layer’s design to support diverse communication patterns through digitization in the form of packet transmissions. This type of interoperability should be distinguished from interoperability understood as conformance with common policy, transmissions following the specifications and requirements of particular communications protocols.

Both general purpose, technical interoperability and more specialized interoperability in the form of conformance with a common policy need to be recognized by the initiatives of the Information Society, including relevant WTDC resolutions and research proposals. The IP layer’s design to support general purpose interoperability is the basis for the Internet’s properties of flexibility, openness, neutrality and empowerment of end users and independent providers.

Physical Layer Competition:

In the United States, the element of competition at the physical layer is represented by the bases of the Communications Act, including the 1996 revision, in the traditions of public franchise law and common carriage. For the Internet, the basic dynamic of competition among diverse, autonomous Internet providers combined with the need to support global connectivity between the endpoints of all participating networks sustains its openness, flexibility and neutrality through general purpose interoperability among providers who may nevertheless support diverse services within themselves. There is no such dynamic at work within the scope of a vertically integrated telecommunications provider’s network, though such a provider may efficiently deliver its own particular types of information services within the scope of its own network.

Identifiers-Related Work:

The work in the ITU on identifiers presents a problem in that it may potentially be used to support interoperability in the sense of enforcement of common policy, without acknowledging the form of maximal technical interoperability we already have in IP internetworking, or providing for recognition of the effects that interoperability in the form of assuring conformance to common policy may have on that Internet platform. These effects could include impacts on the free flow of information, the platform’s flexibility, or its support for interactive and collaborative use of published information.

In addition, the ITU’s identifiers-related technical work proceeds within an inter-governmentally supported frame and is presently being treated as a “merely technical” aspect more readily recognized as within the ITU’s mandate, while discussions regarding Internet governance are proceeding separately without acknowledging this identifiers-related work. These discussions do not yet address the need to incorporate modes for recognizing and addressing circumstances when policies and technologies in this area may have impacts on the Internet platform.

For those of us from the United States, the most significant factor of our experience related to telecommunications in the first ten years of the WSIS project has been the fundamental change in the nature of our telecommunications policy environment that was established by our FCC at the very outset of the period. We do not want the policy framework we labor under, one of vertical integration of the physical layer infrastructure with the information services of a few incumbent providers, to be exported to the world as an emulative example without specifically acknowledging the type of policy context on which our Communications Act is based, and within which the Internet was originally released to the public and grew by leaps and bounds. The dynamic at work at that time gave us an Internet that was naturally open and neutral, whereas at the same time as the commencement of the WSIS project, we found ourselves subject to a telecommunications environment in which the incumbents have repeatedly sought to introduce practices that would foreclose the open nature of the platform. Since the physical layer was no longer open to competitive access by independent Internet providers, the Internet’s foundation could no longer be relied on.

While Internet governance is a matter presently in contention in numerous fora, with Brazil’s NETMundal conference approaching and the NTIA’s recent announcement of its willingness to transfer oversight of the IANA to global multistakeholder processes that are not to be government-led or inter-governmental, the ITU’s processes already represent an inter-governmental framework in place, organized in terms of the outputs of the 2010 Plenipotentiary conference.

We ask the developing and developed countries taking part in the 6th WTDC to help illuminate key principles describing the Internet’s basic nature and set the stage properly for the discussions of Internet governance that are upon us, solve the problems of the WSIS in a manner that sustains the Internet’s openness, flexibility, interoperability and inherent neutrality, and empowers end users and independent providers to freely enter the arena. We would like the WTDC to communicate their support for bringing the Internet to developing countries, not just ICT applications and special networks to support them that may act at odds with the open Internet.

Your decisions at the WTDC represent the concrete embodiment of the inter-governmental instructions that the ITU is acting under from the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference, just as the 2012 WTSA represented global endorsement of more abstract standards. When you finish and issue your findings, the inter-governmental frame, including its conception of the key terms Internet, IP-based networks, and Next-generation networks, will have received global endorsement in both senses before the next Plenipotentiary conference at the end of this year. The opportunity to register recognition by both developing and developed countries of the characteristics of the open Internet that are critical, and your interest in its full advantages, is upon you at this moment.

The Plenipotentiary body will either treat the 2010 frame as fulfilled, or reexamine the misconceptions embodied in it, based on whether the concerns raised in this letter are raised within the intervening 4 years. They were not raised at the WTSA; they have not been raised in the contributing documents for the WTDC, and they were not discussed at the WTPF. And they will not be raised at the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference unless the participants in the ITU’s proceedings recognize the concern before then, and indeed before the status of the WSIS project is reviewed in the WSIS+10 MPP and HLE processes.

Recommendations

There are three general areas that need fixes in the WTDC’s resolutions.

First, the fact that the Internet already provides general purpose interoperability universally, to all end users and independent providers participating in the network of networks using IP to interoperate, needs to be recognized explicitly.

Second, the role of competition at the physical layer needs to be acknowledged explicitly. In the context of development, policies ensuring competitive access to shared infrastructure assure that competition is the principle at work at the physical layer. The openness, flexibility and neutrality of the Internet are sustained naturally in a competitive context at the physical layer.

Third, work in the ITU on a number of standards related to identifiers needs to be rendered explicit and addressed in relation to both interoperability and the broader context of Internet governance and Internet-related public policy.

IP-layer Technical Interoperability:

Conformance and Interoperability: Address the conformance and interoperability study question and WTDC Resolution 47 based on recognition of both types of conformance and interoperability — adherence to common policy in support of particular functions or applications within a given network versus general purpose technical interoperability among independent networks made possible by the flexible Internet platform.

Adapt the study question to:

Address the implications of recognizing both types of interoperability in relation to ITU recommendations, program materials, capacity building initiatives, etc.

Develop best practices for ITU recommendations and critical priority issues based on recognizing the two types of interoperability: general purpose internetworking among autonomous network providers versus common policies within particular networks for specialized treatment of IP packet transmissions

Adapt capacity building programs to address different types of networks and both types of interoperability, assuring the process fosters confidence in ICTs on the basis of both types of interoperability

Address topics such as policy and regulatory contexts, quality of service, interoperation between ICT networks and Internet networks, according to the same question

Develop terms of reference, mobilization programs and the coordinating functions of TSAG and TDAG in these terms as well

Adapt WTDC 47 along the same lines, to:

Recognize at least these two types of conformance and interoperability

Recognize their relevance to policies and regulatory contexts, bridging the digital divide and the standardization gap

Encourage best practice implementation of ITU-T and ITU-R Recommendations for both general purpose technical interoperability between networks and conformance with policies for particular functions within individual networks

Provide for certifications in relation to each type of interoperability distinctly

See attached documents for recommended revisions
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/files/2014/03/Conformance-Interoperability-Study-Question-ID-Edits.pdf
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/files/2014/03/WTDC-47-ID-Edits.pdf

Physical Layer Competition

Broadband Deployment:

Adapt the broadband deployment study question to

Recognize specialized services distinctly from open internet connectivity

Explicitly reference policy and regulatory contexts that support competitive access to shared infrastructure

Address different modes by which specialized service frameworks like IMT might coexist with general purpose open Internet connectivity, both with reference to the distinction between specialized services and open Internet and with reference to policy and regulatory contexts that do and do not assure competition at the physical layer

Develop implications for ICT applications in light of both specialized service intranet contexts and open Internet contexts

Address the impacts of broadband on the underserved in light of characteristics of general purpose open internetworking of importance to developing countries and underserved or disadvantaged populations — notably the support such a networking context provides for independent innovation by end users and competing network providers

See attached document for recommended revisions
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/files/2014/03/Broadband-Study-Question-2-ID-Edits.pdf

Funding Mechanisms and Partnerships:

Adapt WTDC Resolutions 13 and 30 to:

Support developing funding mechanisms based on recognizing distinction between networks implemented within vertically integrated telecommunications contexts, and the network of networks produced among competing providers readily entering the physical layer and interoperating among themselves

Encourage investments and innovative partnership schemes, and ICT financing joint ventures for both vertically integrated telecommunications contexts and contexts that support competitive access at the physical layer

Incorporate explicit recognition of the role of public oversight as a feature that applies inherently to a shared resource such as the public right of way in public-private partnerships

Recognize distinct kinds of advantages of both the Internet and other types of IP-based networks including next-generation networks, observing the distinction between the open Internet platform and other types of networks in relation to WSIS goals

Endorse statistical work reflecting the distinction between the open Internet platform and other types of networks;

Promote human capacity building in developing countries for both networks producing an Internet platform among themselves, and other types of IP-based networks

See attached documents for recommended revisions
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/files/2014/03/WTDC-13-ID-Edits.pdf
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/files/2014/03/WTDC-30-ID-Edits.pdf

International Internet Connectivity

Adapt WTDC Resolution 23 to:

Recognize that some commercial initiatives by providers of international connectivity to the broader Internet may take the form of practices within their networks that must be distinguished from Internet connectivity, notwithstanding cost advantages of these practices, since they are not consistent with the flexible mode of interoperability among competitive, autonomous Internet providers that the Internet protocols make possible

See attached document for recommended revisions
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/files/2014/03/WTDC-23-ID-Edits.pdf

Identifiers-Related Work

Cybersecurity:

Adapt WTDC Resolution 45 to:

Note support for the free flow of information based on the Internet’s support for innovative and flexible modes of interactive and collaborative use of published information

Recognize that both policies and cryptographic measures to address security-related issues may potentially be used in ways that extend their effects to impacting free flow of information, ideas and knowledge and flexible modes of interaction and collaboration with published information

See attached document for recommended revisions
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/files/2014/03/WTDC-45-ID-Edits.pdf

IP Addressing and IPv6 Deployment:

Adapt WTDC Resolution 63 to:

Acknowledge studies underway in IP address allocation mechanisms and IP-based network issues such as interoperability with other networks, numbering, signaling requirements and protocol considerations, evolution/migration to next-generation networks and implementation of ITU-T Recommendation D.50 on international Internet connectivity

Acknowledge the relationship of requirements, features and interoperability of next-generation networks to development of future forms of IP-based networks

Recognize the use of IP addresses for both general purpose open Internet transmissions supporting interoperability between autonomous networks and more specialized treatment of packets to support particular specialized functions within networks

Recognize that the development of ICTs and the addressing of technical or policy issues within the process of deploying IPv6 may work to support either general purpose internetworking or specialized services

Call for the ITU Council to support the coexistence of both the general purpose open Internet, and specialized services that may be developed within individual networks, as it endorses the BDT Director’s initiatives in support of IPv6 deployment

See attached document for recommended revisions
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/files/2014/03/WTDC-63-ID-Edits.pdf

Signed (affiliations listed for identification purposes only):

Robin Chase, CEO, Buzzcar
Gene Gaines, Gaines Group
Seth Johnson, Information Quality Specialist
Michael Maranda, Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Sascha Meinrath, Director, X-Lab, Founder, Open Technology Institute
David P. Reed, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, TidalScale, Inc.
Chuck Sherwood, Principal, Community Media Visioning
Aram Sinnreich, Author and Journalist, Assistant Professor, Rutgers
Brough Turner, Founder, netBlazr Inc ., co-founder & former CTO of NMS
Communications and of Natural MicroSystems
Brett Wynkoop, First provider of public Internet access in New York City

Footnotes:

1 See these analyses for details:

Conformance and Interoperability:

Conformance and Interoperability: Understanding Impacts on the Internet

Cybersecurity, ICT Applications and IP-Based Network Issues:

Cybersecurity, ICT Applications and IP-Based Network Issues: Understanding Impacts on the Internet

Enabling Environment, Capacity Building, Digital Inclusivity:

Enabling Environment, Capacity Building, Digital Inclusivity: Understanding Impacts on the Internet

WSIS Performance Measures:

WSIS Performance Measures: Understanding Impacts on the Internet

by Seth Johnson

Introduction

Definitions/Usage of Terms

The ITU’s WSIS Indicators

Broad Usage of the Term Internet

Internet Associated with Vertically Integrated Telecommunications Contexts

Conformance, Interoperability, Broadband and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement

Introducing De-convergence

Convergence in the WSIS Project

Implications

Internet Governance and “Internet Universality”

The FCC’s “IP Transition”

Recommendations/Conclusions

Introduction

In the first week of December the World Telecommunications Indicators Symposium (WTIS) met in Mexico City and endorsed the latest set of revisions to the indicators by which the ITU will measure the progress of the WSIS project. The Experts Group on Telecommunications Indicators (EGTI) met just prior to the WTIS to prepare inputs based on their discussions in the preceding months.

The indicators adopted at these meetings show how the WSIS project as a whole will have critical effects on key characteristics of the Internet. They fail to distinguish the Internet from other types of IP-based networks, or to distinguish the open Internet from specialized services. They are also based on a set of definitions for the telecommunications sector that does not clearly provide for legal traditions such as common carrier that assure competitive access by autonomous Internet providers to physical layer infrastructure.

The following presents the usage of the term Internet in the ITU’s measures and offers comments placing the analysis in the broader context, then offers a set of recommendations. The broader context includes factors such as the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, proposals for study questions on broadband and conformance and interoperability testing being pursued for the WTDC, and the notion of convergence that underlies the WSIS project. It also includes various proceedings presently underway, including the “IP Transition” at the FCC in the United States, discussions in different fora on the nature and scope of enhanced cooperation in the WSIS project and on the role of governments in a number of Internet-related public policy areas, as well as on international Internet governance in general, the WSIS+10 review of status, the development of the ITU’s Strategic Plan for the next 4-year cycle, and ITU-D’s processes for promoting ICT development and investment in infrastructure as framed by WTDC-related ITU resolutions.

Definitions/Usage of Terms

The ITU’s WSIS Indicators

The EGTI and WTIS resolved to update the ITU’s core indicators to conform to the definitions in the ITU’s 2011 Handbook for the Collection of Administrative Data on Telecommunications/ICT.

These indicators include:

• Fixed telephone subscriptions
• Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions
• Fixed/wired broadband Internet subscriptions
• Wireless broadband subscriptions
• International Internet bandwidth
• Percentage of the population covered by at least a 3G mobile network
• Fixed broadband Internet prices
• Mobile cellular telephone prepaid prices

The following were deleted:

• Fixed internet subscribers (which included dialup and other fixed broadband)
• Percentage of localities with public Internet access centres (PIACs)

The following indicators were added to the above:

• Mobile broadband Internet prices
• TV broadcasting subscriptions

Some of these core indicators also play a part in the ITU’s ICT Development Index and Revenue and Investment indicators, key elements of the ITU’s annual report, Measuring the Information Society.

Recent work by the EGTI and the ITU has focused on developing indicators for mobile broadband prices and backbone transmission networks. This work has translated into the addition of “mobile broadband Internet prices” to the core indicators (inserting the term Internet with the present permutation) and contributes to the “international Internet bandwidth” core indicator.

ITU Definitions: Broad Usage of the Term Internet

All of the subcategories that make up the ITU’s definitions for fixed/wired and wireless broadband could just as well represent networks providing specialized services as open Internet. But the ITU Handbook’s definitions for the fixed and wireless broadband subcategories — cable, DSL, FTTH/B and “other” for wired, and satellite, terrestrial fixed, and active-mobile for wireless — simply present them with reference to the term Internet.

The ITU’s definitions for the international Internet bandwidth measure, and for both fixed and mobile broadband Internet prices, also reference the term Internet while not distinctly addressing specialized services. A correlative measure in the ITU Handbook for domestic Internet bandwidth, not as yet included in the core indicators, also shows this pattern. No distinction is made between the Internet and particular networks that may shape packet transmissions to support specialized functions within themselves.

Both the ICT Development Index and the Revenue and Investment indicators incorporate the fixed/wired and wireless broadband core indicators, thereby incorporating the same problem.

Recent work by the EGTI and the ITU has focused on developing measures for mobile broadband prices and backbone transmission networks. The status of the interactive backbone map project was reported at the WTIS. Just as for the core indicators and the ICT development and revenue and investment measures, these analyses of fixed and wireless broadband prices or domestic and international backbone capacity do not incorporate a recognition of a distinction between open Internet and specialized services.

While ITU’s resolutions for the WSIS project more generally make numerous references to the key terms IP-based Networks, Internet and Next-Generation Networks (NGNs) (though without actually distinguishing the terms clearly) the indicators the ITU is using to measure progress for the WSIS project, as well as the analyses built upon these indicators in their annual Measuring the Information Society report, do not provide for any distinction among these types of networks at all. This is a clear indication that the WSIS project as it is currently designed will allow managed services to supplant and be confused with the open Internet — exactly in accord with the FCC’s projections in its “Further Inquiry into Two Under-developed Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding”. Also see the Joint Statement on Advancing Open Internet Policy Through Analysis Distinguishing Open Internet from Specialized Network Services.

ISIC Definitions: Internet Associated with Vertically Integrated Telecommunications Contexts

While the core indicators use the term Internet in a broad way that fails to recognize the difference between open Internet and networks offering specialized services, the ITU’s definitions of its revenue and investment measures use the term in a more particular way as it specifies industry categories to be included or excluded. The revenue and investment measures are based on the definitions for the telecommunications sector in the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), Revision 4, which is used as a basis for the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade agreement, described below.

The ISIC breaks telecommunications into four categories: wired, wireless, satellite and other. For wired, the term Internet is referenced solely in connection with the category of “provision of Internet access by the operator of the wired infrastructure,” while a separate category provides for operators “purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of networks and providing telecommunications services using this capacity.” The former category clearly represents a vertically integrated telecommunications context. The latter category represents access to physical infrastructure but not necessarily infrastructure subject to a policy context assuring competitive access by independent Internet providers. It also, in contrast with the former category, makes no reference to the term Internet. The wireless and satellite categories in the ISIC definition of the telecommunications sector show a similar pattern.

Vertical Integration in the United States: Incumbents who are allowed by the policy context to treat the physical layer infrastructure largely as vertically integrated assets within their own processes for producing higher level information services might well lease access to that infrastructure to other providers without a policy mandating that they do so. However, in the experience of the US, where this type of policy context has been established, we have not seen this practice arise on a basis that assures equitable access and rates.

For nearly the entire period since the initiation of the WSIS project — which might be designated by the 2003 Geneva and 2005 Tunis WSIS events — the United States’ application of its Communications Act has been framed by a series of findings, issued by the FCC in 2002 for cable and in 2004-2005 for other modalities, that not only deregulated Internet service but also the physical infrastructure over which telecommunications transmissions are carried. These findings neutralized the legal foundations of the Communications Act in public franchise law and common carrier obligations which up until then had assured competitive access to the physical layer by independent, autonomous Internet providers.

The FCC’s 2005 Wireline Order stated the incumbents were free to lease their lines (see paragraphs 86-95), but in fact thousands of autonomous, competing ISPs closed operations as a result of these findings, thereby eliminating the open and neutral Internet platform that had arisen among them up until then as a natural reflection of their need to interoperate with each other. The FCC is currently positioned to continue to apply this same policy framework within the context of the WSIS initiatives that these indicators are intended to measure, as well as in the context of the TBT agreement, as the US pursues its “IP Transition.”

The ISIC also uses the term Internet in a set of diverse categories combined under the “other” heading, including Internet access over networks between the client and the ISP not owned or controlled by the ISP (such as dial-up), telephone and Internet access in facilities open to the public, telecommunications services provided over telecommunications connections, such as VoIP and telecommunications resellers, and specialized applications such as satellite tracking and telemetry. These categories are distinguished from the main wired, wireless and satellite telecommunications categories.

Conformance and Interoperability and Promoting Broadband: the Role of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement

The ISIC definitions show the relationship of the WSIS project and WTDC initiatives to the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement. The relevance of the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement can be seen particularly in the work in the ITU-D sector on “Conformance and Interoperability” assessment, including a Study Question proposed by the US on “Conformance Testing,” which reflects the provisions of the TBT agreement calling for WTO Member States to uphold harmonized conditions for international trade in part through conformance testing.

Conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis for enabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of networks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without distinguishing them from the Internet or recognizing the tradeoffs these types of networks bring as compared to open internetworking between networks. This could be a problem if these standards work against connectivity in the form the Internet makes possible, or if their promotion allows something different to be called Internet.

Study Question 25 on promoting broadband emphasizes IMT, the ITU’s term for the 3G/4G wireless managed services framework, and can also be related to the TBT agreement. Both the ITU’s notion of broadband in this study question and the use of the term Internet in the ISIC’s definition of the telecommunications sector underlying the TBT agreement suggest a move to approaches to services and infrastructure that reflect the US’s emphasis on a vertically integrated telecommunications environment while overlooking other approaches such as those based on public franchise law and common carrier obligations.

The TBT agreement aims at ensuring that technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Under the TBT, technical regulations may only be developed for legitimate objectives (such as security, preventing deceptive practices, protecting health and safety or protecting the environment). Members are encouraged to base their technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures on international standards and to develop conformity assessment procedures to generate confidence that products conform with applicable technical regulations or standards. Members are called to accept each other’s technical regulations as equivalent until international harmonization is achieved and to enter into mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) for the acceptance of each other’s assessment results. The TBT Agreement also authorizes special and differential treatment for developing countries based on a number of considerations.

When we consider the combination of the broad use of the term Internet in the ITU’s WSIS indicators with the more particular use of the term in the ISIC definitions for the telecommunications sector, we recognize that these measures represent a WSIS project whose structure fits readily into an international policy framework to implement a more specialized service version of connectivity, in contexts that do not necessarily support competition at the physical layer. We also see that the TBT agreement is situated to potentially play a part in enforcing this arrangement.

OECD Recommendations: Introducing De-convergence

The EGTI endorsed a set of recommendations by the OECD regarding what to include or exclude in the Revenue and Investment measures in light of a general scheme governing the ISIC industry categories. The implications of these recommendations are notable in relation to the notion of convergence that undergirds the WSIS project. The addition of the “TV broadcasting subscriptions” measure to the core indicators at the WTIS is also significant in this connection.

The OECD recommendations note that discrepancies in data reporting based on questions regarding what should be included under the term telecommunications and what should not will continue to be a problem given the phenomenon of convergence. They offer guidance by applying the principle by which the ISIC differentiates the telecommunications sector — as made up of those entities that transmit information while not being involved in content creation. The ISIC distinguishes the telecommunications sector from other industrial categories under the broader heading of “information and communications” on this basis.

The OECD explains that in the case of a cable operator that produces TV content, revenues from sales of rights to the content should be excluded, while revenues from subscriptions to cable programming should be included. In further guidelines they indicate that free-to-air TV relates to content creation from traditional broadcasters and should therefore be excluded, but IPTV should be included because it deals with distribution by telecommunication operators. Pay digital terrestrial television channels relate mainly to content creation and should be excluded, while cable TV and satellite should be included where their activity relates to Internet or multichannel distribution, but not where they are producing TV content.

To identify investments within these industrial categories, they recommend a formula including expenditures on fixed telecommunications network assets (tangible and intangible), less assets that have been disposed of. They include research and development, and exclude operating license or radio spectrum fees, since these are often lump sums that would disrupt the consistency of time series analyses across countries and businesses.

For revenues, they recommend one measure for all telecommunications and a separate one for mobile telecommunications. Telecommunications revenues include retail fixed-telephone, mobile-cellular, Internet, and data services, while excluding revenues from content creation. This is to include transmission of TV signals, and to exclude wholesale sources such as interconnection. Mobile revenues include revenues from all voice, SMS and data, including value added services like premium SMS, while excluding wholesale revenues from termination, origination, and transit rates or inbound roaming.

In this way, the OECD recommendations for the revenue and investments measures use the ISIC definition to distinguish the telecommunications sector from other categories in the “information and communications” sector, for broadcasting and programming, print media and software publishing, movie, TV, sound and music publishing, computer programming and consultancy, and information services such as data processing and web portals.

These definitions of the revenue and investment measures are notable because so much of the motivation for the WSIS project is based on the notion of convergence. Despite the WSIS project’s appeal to convergence as a general trend bringing about dramatic changes, warranting a call for stakeholder participation in the development of a governance system that appreciates the significance of the changes, in fact the use of the ISIC definitions in the ITU’s measures represents a form of “de-convergence” built into the WSIS project. It creates a schema that distinguishes telecommunications from content creation in general and a number of other “information and communications” industry categories. The implications of this de-convergence have yet to be acknowledged in the WSIS proceedings.

Convergence in the WSIS Project

The notion of convergence that governs the WSIS project is of concern in its own right, since the form it takes in WSIS materials can easily imply networks that may uphold policies may not readily be applied in the open Internet context. However, here we observe that the ITU’s WSIS measures presently embody a form of de-convergence that contrasts with the generally recognized role of the idea of convergence in the project. We see in the ITU’s WSIS measures a divergence between a prominent aspect of the WSIS project wherein convergence has been generally appealed to as a historical force the best development of which the project seeks to foster, and a less-recognized aspect of the project wherein systems to support a particular form of de-convergence are implied in the basic terms according to which WSIS success is to be measured.

As just observed, not all functions can be converged with an Internet comprised of autonomous routers using the Internet Protocol to interoperate. Perhaps the most noted example is quality of service (QOS) in the form of prioritizing of particular application transmissions. This can generally be done best within individual networks or across sets of contracting networks, since independent networks cannot be expected to apply the same priority to packets as is applied within the network where they originated and where they were designated for specialized treatment. Other specialized services may also apply policies that are similarly suited to intranet contexts rather than networks of autonomous interoperating networks.

Numerous documents related to the WSIS project incorporate references to convergence, using the term in a wide variety of senses. But perhaps the instance that uses the term in a way that most clearly designates the type of network foreseen as the outcome of convergence, is the 2013 WCIT’s background document on convergence:

“There is no single definition of convergence. However, a key innovation is the transformation from circuit-based telecommunication networks to packet-based ones using the Internet protocol (IP): so-called next-generation networks, or NGN. The “vertical” structure of independent networks is evolving into a “horizontal” structure based on IP that can deliver many kinds of content through a single platform. This has profound implications for the market, regulators, and ultimately the expansion of communications to people everywhere.”

This conception of convergence is notable in at least two ways: in its simple identification of IP packet-based networks with next-generation networks, and in its contrasting of a single IP-based platform against a network made up of independent networks, treated as a past stage of evolution. This presentation is probably the most direct indication that may be found in the WSIS documents of an outcome in mind that is not a network of networks, but a single platform in which discrete individual providers might take part, but in which they would not be fully autonomous and competitive networks interoperating neutrally.

In referring to the packet-based networks that are to replace legacy circuit-based telecommunications networks as “next-generation networks” or “IP-based networks,” this presentation glosses over the distinction between the Internet as a network of networks using IP packet transmissions to interoperate with each other, and other types of IP-based networks that may implement specialized treatment of packets by instituting a common policy across routers under their control.

Instead WSIS documents and notably the ITU’s resolutions tend to use the term “ICTs” and present many signs of a trajectory toward establishing a next-generation network framework like that described above, which would support ICT applications related to a number of policy areas.

Plenipotentiary Resolution 31, from the 2002 Marrakesh conference, directly identifies the concept of convergence with the term ICTs, referencing “the convergence of telecommunication and computer technologies and services, referred to as information and communication technologies (ICT)” as “an agent of change for the information age.” Plenipotentiary Resolution 137, from the 2010 Guadalajara conference, promotes the deployment of next-generation networks in developing countries. Similar references to convergence and ICTs can be found in Plenipotentiary Resolution 71, the ITU’s Strategic Plan for 2012-2015, and in Plenipotentiary Resolution 139, on telecommunications/ICTs to bridge the digital divide. The Geneva and Tunis WSIS outcome documents and the 2010 WTDC’s Hyderabad Declaration also make extensive references to ICTs in this sense.

The Broadband Commission’s 2012 State of Broadband Report enumerates several types of convergence consistent with the notion of new networks supporting ICT Applications. These include convergence of ICT policy with various policy areas such as energy, health, education and the climate, a notion of an “economical balance” among converging services, positioned as a strategy to connect new subscribers, convergence of regulatory spheres such as telecommunications, radio and television given that combined (“triple play”) services make separate regulation difficult, and the proposal of simplified or unified licensing regimes designed to support any telecommunications provider offering any services, on a basis of assuring that consumer rights and market competitiveness are protected.

WTDC Resolutions 54, 72 and 74, on ICT applications, effective usage of mobile communications, and e-government services, also reflect this notion of ICT Applications through new networks, while failing to provide a basis for recognizing when these types of telecommunications environments may have impacts on the nature and advantages of the open Internet. WTDC Resolutions 34, 63, 65, and 66, and WTSA Resolutions 47, 48, 49, 64 and 73 represent more particular ICT applications, including disaster preparedness, healthcare services, ICTs for climate change, IPv6 and IP address allocation, country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs), Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), and ENUM.

We note the role of the concept of convergence in order to show the significance of the fact that the ITU’s WSIS measures actually represent a de-convergence in service of a distinction between content creation and telecommunications.

The position of the notion of the Internet in relation to these categories is still unclear, but 1) the WSIS project is proceeding in a manner that confuses the nature of the Internet in service of networks that may support convergence in the form of ICT Applications of various sorts, while 2) the process already incorporates a de-converged framework that is not being acknowledged in the general discourse, one of great significance from the standpoint of the Internet’s support for shared information and collaboration.

Implications

A few observations follow on the implications of the above analysis in the context surrounding the WSIS project.

Internet Governance and “Internet Universality”

In recent developments in the Internet governance arena, Brazil has responded to revelations of US government surveillance by initiating proceedings to develop a frame for international Internet governance in some way independent from the role of the US. Subsequently the US’s NTIA has announced its willingness to release core IANA functions to oversight by global multistakeholder processes, stipulating while doing so that it would not support a framework that was governmental or inter-governmental in nature.

However, the WSIS project incorporates elements of inter-governmental agreement in the way in which the pursuit of the project has been framed, and the WSIS measures represent the bases by which the progress of these processes are to be assessed. The 2010 Plenipotentiary conference issued a set of resolutions setting an inter-governmentally endorsed framework within which the ITU would conduct proceedings in its radio (ITU-R), standards (ITU-T) and development (ITU-D) sectors in accord with WSIS and broader UN parameters. Indeed, the confusion in the WSIS measures regarding the distinctions between Internet connectivity and other types of IP-based connectivity can be traced to certain key resolutions issued by the 2010 Plenipotentiary conference.

Two submissions to Brazil’s Netmundial conference are of great potential significance in relation to the inter-governmental frame set at the 2010 Plenipotentiary conference, and to the framework of industry categories embodied in the ITU’s WSIS measures. Verizon’s submission makes specific reference to the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement, with its relationship to conformance assessment and the ISIC categories. UNESCO has called for recognition of a principle of “Internet Universality” the significance of which can be understood in light of the question of whether the type of interoperability already made possible among autonomous networks by the Internet will be recognized in processes that so far do not adequately recognize that key characteristic.

The 2010 Plenipotentiary resolutions called for the WTSA and WTDC proceedings to be conducted with open consultancy processes (PP 178, PP 140). At the same time, though, they stipulated that the WTSA was to be framed by the strategic goals of the WSIS outcome documents (PP 122), and the WTDC was to be framed within the terms of the broader UN Development Program and the UN Millennium Goals (PP 135). The WTSA was concluded in 2012 and its outputs include resolutions recognizing the ITU-T sector’s work on certain “more technical” topics, including various standards related to Names, Numbers, Addresses and Identifiers (NNAIs), including ENUM and more indirectly the system for digital identifiers described in ITU-T Recommendation 1255.

These standards are potentially critical in relation to a notion of “Internet Universality,” as they can be used to support a conception of interoperability understood on the basis of adherence to common rules, potentially upheld by validation of identifiers, rather than on the basis of recognizing interoperability as an inherent attribute already available from the maximally flexible platform produced by using IP to interoperate among autonomous networks. Some functions implemented as “universal” by ensuring conformance with common rules could interfere with the open design for interoperability across autonomous networks already provided by the Internet Protocol and the fundamentally flexible nature of the platform that results. If such functions are implemented, these decisions should not proceed without recognizing and addressing their impact in these terms.

The WTSA outcomes for the ITU’s standardization sector already enjoy inter-governmental support since they fulfill 2010 Plenipotentiary instructions, and anyway are subject to inter-governmental review again in the regular 4-year ITU cycle, with the next Plenipotentiary conference closing the current cycle later this year. The open consultancy process associated with the WTSA also serves to politically affirm and validate the framework set in the 2010 Plenipotentiary resolutions. This includes, unfortunately, the confusion in the terms Internet, IP-based networks and Next-generation networks presently embodied in the Plenipotentiary resolutions.

UNESCO presents its “Internet Universality” proposition as an outcome of the UN GIS and WSIS+10 processes, relating the proposition more closely to the process of reviewing the success of the WSIS project and the broader UN frame that sets the limits for the WTDC than to the WSIS outcome documents that set the boundaries for the WTSA. Whereas the WTSA endorsed more abstract and “more technical” standards according to strategic goals in the WSIS outcomes, the WTDC will endorse more concrete technology solutions and policy frameworks for developing countries throughout the world in accord with UN purposes and a determination of the success of the project that fail to recognize the impacts these initiatives will have on the Internet — serving through its own open consultancy process as a political affirmation and validation of these components of the WSIS project as well as the 2010 Plenipotentiary framework.

It stands to reason that if the present confusion in the 2010 Plenipotentiary resolutions and the ITU’s WSIS measures is not clarified, then “Internet Universality” could be implemented in ways based on a new conception of the meaning of the term Internet that would undermine the inherently open form of universal interoperability that is already built into the design of the IP layer, and this new framework could be enforced by means of conformance assessment processes in support of the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement.

The FCC’s “IP Transition”

The fact that both the ITU’s measures and the US’s draft of the broadband study question fail to distinguish open Internet from specialized services and both are elaborated in terms consistent with vertical integration, without referencing the Internet in contexts supporting competitive access at the physical layer, may explain much of the FCC’s approach to the “IP Transition” in the United States.

The FCC is presently engaged in an “IP Transition” that does not clearly represent a transition to an Internet platform, though it might seem that way. The IP Transition designates a process of encouraging experiments by network providers to deliver connectivity in new ways using IP-based networks, independent of regulatory principles that have applied to traditional telecommunications, as a result of the fundamental changes in the regime wrought by IP communications. These IP experiments are to examine impacts on principles of public safety, universal access, competition and consumer protection. The Technology Transition Task Force indicates that this process is to be conducted with the use of clear and consistent definitions and metrics that allow results to be aggregated across experiments.

However, there is little sign of attention by the FCC to the distinction between Internet and specialized services that it examined during the Open Internet proceeding, in its “Further Inquiry into Two Under-developed Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding“.

The characteristics of the WSIS measures I have described above are fully consistent with an IP Transition to the type of next-generation IP-based networks to support ICT applications that the WSIS project is presently designed to foster — failing to recognize distinctions between open Internet and specialized services or among the terms Internet, IP-based networks and next-generation networks, and referencing the Internet in relation to vertically integrated telecommunications.

In fact, the recent addition of the TV subscriptions indicator to the core indicators, combined with the incorporating into the revenue and investment measures of a de-converged framework based on distinguishing video and content creation from other information and communications industry sectors, might reasonably lead one to wonder how much we can attribute to coincidence the facts that nearly at the same time Comcast is moving to consolidate Time Warner Cable and making a critical move to a direct interconnection arrangement with Netflix, with Verizon announcing it intends to reach a similar arrangement with Netflix.

Indeed, concurrent activities related to copyright also might lead one to ask a similar question: the US’s pursuit of an international broadcaster’s right, its position in the Aereo case, and the US PTO’s proceedings on numerous aspects of digital copyright. Similar copyright-related developments are also underway in the European Union.

FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler presumes a vertically integrated context and describes his approach to ensuring the open Internet in a manner consistent with the WSIS impetus toward implementing networks designed to support key ICT applications. He appears to advocate an “Internet ecosystem” approach to policy and to take an approach to analysis of telecommunications policy choices consistent with the principles of the framework which was articulated by Joseph Farrell and Philip J. Weiser in 2003 and which was a key citation in the FCC’s 2005 Wireline Order, presenting a basis for understanding the dynamics of vertically integrated platform providers engaging in application markets dependent on their platform.

In Ensuring an Open Internet Now and for the Future, Wheeler bases the necessity of government oversight on the facts that broadband networks support essential services for society, and there are likely to be few such networks, stating that this condition means they are likely to enable exercises of market power.

He characterizes concerns expressed in the NN debate in relation to a process of developing policy decisions regarded as a “work in progress” and in light of Michael Powell’s Open Internet Principles. He articulates his approach in terms of a dynamic constituted of weighing concerns of producers and consumers, such as that network operators will make moves that cut off or diminish the value of the Internet, or that the FCC will intrude on network operators in ways that cause economic harm or inhibit their ability to offer improved service, declaring that he will avoid either interfering with practices that produce efficiency and enhance competition, or allowing practices that reduce those characteristics.

This approach consistently overlooks recognition of the basis of the Internet in the problem of interoperating among autonomous network providers, which had ready, competitive access to physical infrastructure up until the 2002-2005 timeframe in the United States, and consequently provided an open, neutral and universally interoperable platform up until then to all providers and end users taking part in the network of networks established among them on the basis of the TCP/IP protocol. Wheeler’s reference to Title II in his response to the DC Circuit’s ruling on the Open Internet rules most easily suggests the use of Title II (if its usefulness becomes apparent to the FCC) as a basis for establishing net neutrality by setting rules on information service providers at a higher level, rather than simply as a basis for applying common carriage principles at the physical layer, thereby opening it up to competing providers and reestablishing the original dynamic.

It should be noted that Farrell and Weiser describe the modularity of the Internet within their framework in terms that do not acknowledge it as an emergent property of autonomous networks interoperating, but more in terms that treat it as deriving from decisions of the network provider. They frame the question of how to assess acts by vertically integrated platform providers wherein they take part in or exert influence on complementary application markets dependent on their platform to various degrees or not, in light of effects on efficiency in delivering information services which derive from their vertical integration. They do not phrase the question, however, of how the advantages of a dramatically flexible platform wide open to independent innovation that emerges as a consensus solution to interoperation among independent competing providers (not the applications that stem from that platform, but the advantages of the platform itself that so arises) should be considered against the efficiencies in delivering the particular services of a vertically integrated provider.

Farrell and Weiser also reference the definition of the Internet issued in 1995 by the Federal Networking Council in connection with their treatment of the modularity of the platform that lies at the center of their analysis. This definition of the Internet was notable at the time for referencing the TCP/IP protocol, but its suitability for representing the Internet is a mirage. It essentially reduces the Internet to the collection of networks that use IP addresses, citing the Internet Protocol solely for its reference to those identifiers in the header fields of Internet Protocol packets, while making no reference to what IP packets accomplish in terms of providing a layer that enables maximal interoperability between autonomous networks. The FNC definition thus represents an early basis for the present confusion in terms, whereby individual networks that may be performing esoteric functions within themselves while using TCP/IP, and which may thus properly be called “IP-based,” are easily confused with the network of networks that the concept of internetworking represents and that the Internet Protocol was designed to enable. The FNC definition was also issued at a time when the telecommunications policy context in the United States supported competitive access to the physical infrastructure layer, so the basis of the dynamic of the Internet platform in a policy context that originally assured competition among autonomous network providers at the physical layer was perhaps too implicit to be explicitly acknowledged as a factor in sustaining its most profound characteristics: its flexibility, openness, interoperability and inherent neutrality.

Recommendations/Conclusion

In the measures that it uses to assess its progress the WSIS project is systemically designed to implement telecommunications network environments that do not distinguish between the Internet made up of interoperating autonomous networks and other types of IP-based networks, and thus that fail to distinguish between open Internet and specialized services.

If we fail to correct this oversight while encouraging the advancement of the WSIS project, we are encouraging the establishment of networks in developing countries that do not reflect the key strengths of the Internet, and we are encouraging a fundamental reshaping of what the term Internet means as we implement governance within this framework. This is a critical concern for the upcoming WTDC, the WSIS+10 process, the development of the ITU Strategic Plan, as well as various proceedings underway related to international Internet governance and Internet-related public policy and developments in telecommunications at the national level.

Recommendations:

WSIS Indicators, including WSIS+10

• Revise the measures used to assess the performance of the WSIS project to quantify the status of application-independent packet transmissions separately from transmissions that tailor the treatment of packets according to application, to enable tracking trends related to open Internet services, both in terms of availability of open Internet and in terms of the influence of open Internet connectivity on WSIS goals.
• Alternately, begin a process to develop common understanding of key characteristics of the Internet to support identification and tracking of trends and effects of WSIS processes; in the meantime, revise the WSIS indicators to use the general term “IP-based networks” wherever they presently use the term “Internet.”
• Identify and track vertically integrated communications environments separately from contexts assuring competitive access to physical layer infrastructure.
• Since a network of autonomous networks supports network neutrality naturally since individual networks cannot predict the applications that other networks and their user will be using and supporting, introduce a measure of the number of network providers of various types per geographical region.
• Other characteristics useful in understanding whether networks are open include:
  • blocking or monitoring of ports, particular applications, or servers
  • blocking or monitoring traffic for spam, other undesirable content, copyright infringement, anti-government activities or for other purposes
  • symmetric or asymmetric upload/download capacity
  • capacity caps
  • whether the network is on lines that are subject to competitive access by regulation
  • whether network neutrality is established by regulation at the information service level
  • whether the lines are subject to traffic shaping based on application or content
  • whether general purpose, application-independent traffic can be impinged on by specialized services on the same lines
• Develop protocols to notify users when transient traffic shaping is occurring because of temporary congestion issues.
• Recognize and consider the progress and effects of the WSIS project in the WSIS+10 review process frankly in terms of the above distinctions, addressing availability of the Internet’s characteristics and advantages that are uniquely conducive to WSIS and broader UN goals, as well as effects of different types of networks on these goals and on each other.

2014 Plenipotentiary Conference

• Correct confusion in key terms “Internet,” “IP-based networks,” and “next-generation networks” in Internet-related resolutions, including PP 101, 102, 133 and 137
• Address these types of networks distinctly and explicitly rather than using general terms such as ICTs or ICTs/telecommunications
• Address vertically-integrated policy environments and policy environments assuring competitive access to physical layer infrastructure by independent providers distinctly and explicitly rather than using terms that are indefinite on this distinction such as “pro-competitive policies.”
• Address conformance and interoperability in two distinct senses: technical compatibility including between autonomous networks, such as is already supported by application-independent packet transmissions; and interoperability based on adherence to a common policy. In developing policy and technological solutions, recognize and address impacts on the universal form of interoperability already provided by the Internet’s basic design.

ISIC and Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement

• Assure that shared physical infrastructure telecommunications is recognized as supporting the Internet by specific reference to the term.
• Develop industry categories based on Internet as one information service among others, as distinguished from provision of physical infrastructure, whether vertically integrated or subject to polices for competitive access
• Alternately, begin a process to address implications for the ISIC and TBT Agreement of recognizing that industry sectors that assure competitive access to physical layer infrastructure provide a resilient foundation for an Internet that retains its key characteristics of flexibility, openness, interoperability and inherent neutrality. In the meantime replace usage of the term Internet in the ISIC definitions with the general term “IP-based networks.”
• Address conformance and interoperability in two distinct senses: technical compatibility including between autonomous networks, and interoperability based on adherence to a common policy. In developing industry categories, engage openly with stakeholders in recognizing impacts that schemes such as the present distinction between content creation and telecommunications might have on the open Internet platform, as claims are brought against technologies that may support more flexible and collaborative relationships to shared and published information.

United Nations Agencies

• Incorporate recognition of distinctions between types of networks, including key characteristics of the open Internet, in framing the contribution of technologies and development programs to broader UN goals.

Internet Governance, including Enhanced Cooperation, NETMundial, Proceedings on Internet-related Public Policy Issues

• Establish recognition of key characteristics of the Internet prior to developing policies or systems of governance.
• Implement a process that places recognition of the universal form of maximal interoperability already established for the Internet in a position prior to policies endorsed under the rubric of “Internet Universality,” which may otherwise support interoperability in the sense of adherence to common policy without providing adequate channels for addressing impacts on the platform.
• Assure that policy contexts and development initiatives are framed in terms that recognize that the modularity and flexibility of the Internet derives from the dynamic that arises among autonomous providers that have competitive access to the physical layer.

(Click here for blog post version of this commentary)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson
Date: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:55 PM
Subject: WTDC/Plenipot: 4) Impact Analysis: Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
To: “[protected]” , “Zoller, Julie N” , Paul Najarian

(also WSIS+10 and Strategic Plan and other areas leading up to the Plenipot and the UN’s processes next year)

Hello Julie, Paul, ITAC, and all,

The following is the final component of the analysis of the ITU’s resolutions related to the upcoming WTDC that I have developed for ITAC, designed to identify revisions needed to assure that the WSIS project has an ability to recognize when its initiatives will affect the Internet. While performance measures come under the topic of impact analysis, to be addressed at the WTDC within ITU-D Study Group 1’s areas of concern, this part affects future phases and does not call for revisions in WTDC resolutions, but rather in the definitions for the ITU’s WSIS indicators, as well as various other related elements of the overall context.

The problems I show within the measures by which the ITU is assessing the success of the WSIS project reveal that the project’s effects on the Internet are systemic, built into the basic premises served by the project. As a result, the concern that the project will undermine the Internet cannot be addressed by a partial or incremental approach, but by explicitly addressing the question.

This is long, and will be posted in blog form shortly, with internal links. For now, you might read the Introduction and then the Recommendations/Conclusions at the end for the quickest precis. Next might be to jump to the Implications heading, where I apply the analysis to address implications for Internet Governance and the domestic FCC/”IP Transition” contexts.

Then I suppose it’s most interesting to go up and examine the relationship to the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and how the Conformance and Interoperability and Broadband deployment study questions relate.

Seth

Introduction:

In the first week of December the World Telecommunications Indicators Symposium (WTIS) met in Mexico City and endorsed the latest set of revisions to the indicators by which the ITU will measure the progress of the WSIS project. The Experts Group on Telecommunications Indicators (EGTI) met just prior to the WTIS to prepare inputs based on their discussions in the preceding months.

The indicators adopted at these meetings show how the WSIS project as a whole will have critical effects on key characteristics of the Internet. They fail to distinguish the Internet from other types of IP-based networks, or to distinguish the open Internet from specialized services. They are also based on a set of definitions for the telecommunications sector that does not clearly provide for legal traditions such as common carrier that assure competitive access by autonomous Internet providers to physical layer infrastructure.

The following presents the usage of the term Internet in the ITU’s measures and offers comments placing the analysis in the broader context, then offers a set of recommendations. The broader context includes factors such as the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, proposals for study questions on broadband and conformance and interoperability testing being pursued for the WTDC, and the notion of convergence that underlies the WSIS project. It also includes various proceedings presently underway, including the “IP Transition” at the FCC in the United States, discussions in different fora on the nature and scope of enhanced cooperation in the WSIS project and on the role of governments in a number of Internet-related public policy areas, as well as on international Internet governance in general, the WSIS+10 review of status, the development of the ITU’s Strategic Plan for the next 4-year cycle, and ITU-D’s processes for promoting ICT development and investment in infrastructure as framed by WTDC-related ITU resolutions.

Definitions/Usage of Terms

The ITU’s WSIS Indicators

The EGTI and WTIS resolved to update the ITU’s core indicators to conform to the definitions in the ITU’s 2011 Handbook for the Collection of Administrative Data on Telecommunications/ICT (http://www.itu.int/pub/D-IND-ITC_IND_HBK-2011).

These indicators include:

– Fixed telephone subscriptions
– Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions
– Fixed/wired broadband Internet subscriptions
– Wireless broadband subscriptions
– International Internet bandwidth
– Percentage of the population covered by at least a 3G mobile network
– Fixed broadband Internet prices
– Mobile cellular telephone prepaid prices

The following were deleted:

– Fixed internet subscribers (which included dialup and other fixed broadband)
– Percentage of localities with public Internet access centres (PIACs)

The following indicators were added to the above:

– Mobile broadband Internet prices
– TV broadcasting subscriptions

Some of these core indicators also play a part in the ITU’s ICT Development Index and Revenue and Investment indicators, key elements of the ITU’s annual report, Measuring the Information Society.

Recent work by the EGTI and the ITU has focused on developing indicators for mobile broadband prices and backbone transmission networks. This work has translated into the addition of “mobile broadband Internet prices” to the core indicators (inserting the term Internet with the present permutation) and contributes to the “international Internet bandwidth” core indicator.

I have attached the relevant parts of these sets of definitions in concise form.

ITU Definitions: Broad Usage of the Term Internet

All of the subcategories that make up the ITU’s definitions for fixed/wired and wireless broadband could just as well represent networks providing specialized services as open Internet. But the ITU Handbook’s definitions for the fixed and wireless broadband subcategories — cable, DSL, FTTH/B and “other” for wired, and satellite, terrestrial fixed, and active-mobile for wireless — simply present them with reference to the term Internet.

The ITU’s definitions for the international Internet bandwidth measure, and for both fixed and mobile broadband Internet prices, also reference the term Internet while not distinctly addressing specialized services. A correlative measure in the ITU Handbook for domestic Internet bandwidth, not as yet included in the core indicators, also shows this pattern. No distinction is made between the Internet and particular networks that may shape packet transmissions to support specialized functions within themselves.

Both the ICT Development Index and the Revenue and Investment indicators incorporate the fixed/wired and wireless broadband core indicators, thereby incorporating the same problem.

Recent work by the EGTI and the ITU has focused on developing measures for mobile broadband prices and backbone transmission networks. The status of the interactive backbone map project was reported at the WTIS. Just as for the core indicators and the ICT development and revenue and investment measures, these analyses of fixed and wireless broadband prices or domestic and international backbone capacity do not incorporate a recognition of a distinction between open Internet and specialized services.

While ITU’s resolutions for the WSIS project more generally make numerous references to the key terms IP-based Networks, Internet and Next-Generation Networks (NGNs) (though without actually distinguishing the terms clearly) the indicators the ITU is using to measure progress for the WSIS project, as well as the analyses built upon these indicators in their annual Measuring the Information Society report, do not provide for any distinction among these types of networks at all. This is a clear indication that the WSIS project as it is currently designed will allow managed services to supplant and be confused with the open Internet — exactly in accord with the FCC’s projections in its “Further Inquiry into Two Under-developed Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding” (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1667A1.pdf). Also see the Joint Statement on Advancing Open Internet Policy Through Analysis Distinguishing Open Internet from Specialized Network Services (https://internetdistinction.com/statement/).

ISIC Definitions: Internet Associated with Vertically Integrated Telecommunications Contexts

While the core indicators use the term Internet in a broad way that fails to recognize the difference between open Internet and networks offering specialized services, the ITU’s definitions of its revenue and investment measures use the term in a more particular way as it specifies industry categories to be included or excluded. The revenue and investment measures are based on the definitions for the telecommunications sector in the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), Revision 4 (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcs.asp?Cl=27&Lg=1&Co=61), which is used as a basis for the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade agreement, described below.

The ISIC breaks telecommunications into four categories: wired, wireless, satellite and other. For wired, the term Internet is referenced solely in connection with the category of “provision of Internet access by the operator of the wired infrastructure,” while a separate category provides for operators “purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of networks and providing telecommunications services using this capacity.” The former category clearly represents a vertically integrated telecommunications context. The latter category represents access to physical infrastructure but not necessarily infrastructure subject to a policy context assuring competitive access by independent Internet providers. It also, in contrast with the former category, makes no reference to the term Internet. The wireless and satellite categories in the ISIC definition of the telecommunications sector show a similar pattern.

Incumbents who are allowed by the policy context to treat the physical layer infrastructure largely as vertically integrated assets within their own processes for producing higher level information services might well lease access to that infrastructure to other providers without a policy mandating that they do so. However, in the experience of the US, where this type of policy context has been established, we have not seen this practice arise on a basis that assures equitable access and rates.

For nearly the entire period since the initiation of the WSIS project — which might be designated by the 2003 Geneva and 2005 Tunis WSIS events — the United States’ application of its Communications Act has been framed by a series of findings, issued by the FCC in 2002 for cable and in 2004-2005 for other modalities, that not only deregulated Internet service but also the physical infrastructure over which telecommunications transmissions are carried. These findings neutralized the legal foundations of the Communications Act in public franchise law and common carrier obligations which up until then had assured competitive access to the physical layer by independent, autonomous Internet providers.

The FCC’s 2005 Wireline Order (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf) stated the incumbents were free to lease their lines (see paragraphs 86-95), but in fact thousands of autonomous, competing ISPs closed operations as a result of these findings, thereby eliminating the open and neutral Internet platform that had arisen among them up until then as a natural reflection of their need to interoperate with each other. The FCC is currently positioned to continue to apply this same policy framework within the context of the WSIS initiatives that these indicators are intended to measure, as well as in the context of the TBT agreement, as the US pursues its “IP Transition.”

The ISIC also uses the term Internet in a set of diverse categories combined under the “other” heading, including Internet access over networks between the client and the ISP not owned or controlled by the ISP (such as dial-up), telephone and Internet access in facilities open to the public, telecommunications services provided over telecommunications connections, such as VoIP and telecommunications resellers, and specialized applications such as satellite tracking and telemetry. These categories are distinguished from the main wired, wireless and satellite telecommunications categories.

Conformance and Interoperability and Promoting Broadband: the Role of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement

The ISIC definitions show the relationship of the WSIS project and WTDC initiatives to the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm). The relevance of the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement can be seen particularly in the work in the ITU-D sector on “Conformance and Interoperability” assessment, including a Study Question proposed by the US on “Conformance Testing,” which reflects the provisions of the TBT agreement calling for WTO Member States to uphold harmonized conditions for international trade in part through conformance testing.

Conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis for enabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of networks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without distinguishing them from the Internet or recognizing the tradeoffs these types of networks bring as compared to open internetworking between networks. This could be a problem if these standards work against connectivity in the form the Internet makes possible, or if their promotion allows something different to be called Internet.

Study Question 25 on promoting broadband emphasizes IMT, the ITU’s term for the 3G/4G wireless managed services framework, and can also be related to the TBT agreement. Both the ITU’s notion of broadband in this study question and the use of the term Internet in the ISIC’s definition of the telecommunications sector underlying the TBT agreement suggest a move to approaches to services and infrastructure that reflect the US’s emphasis on a vertically integrated telecommunications environment while overlooking other approaches such as those based on public franchise law and common carrier obligations.

The TBT agreement aims at ensuring that technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade (http://www.who.int/mta/Doc8.doc). Under the TBT, technical regulations may only be developed for legitimate objectives (such as security, preventing deceptive practices, protecting health and safety or protecting the environment). Members are encouraged to base their technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures on international standards and to develop conformity assessment procedures to generate confidence that products conform with applicable technical regulations or standards. Members are called to accept each other’s technical regulations as equivalent until international harmonization is achieved and to enter into mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) for the acceptance of each other’s assessment results. The TBT Agreement also authorizes special and differential treatment for developing countries based on a number of considerations (http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2013%20TBT.pdf).

When we consider the combination of the broad use of the term Internet in the ITU’s WSIS indicators with the more particular use of the term in the ISIC definitions for the telecommunications sector, we recognize that these measures represent a WSIS project whose structure fits readily into an international policy framework to implement a more specialized service version of connectivity, in contexts that do not necessarily support competition at the physical layer. We also see that the TBT agreement is situated to potentially play a part in enforcing this arrangement.

OECD Recommendations: Introducing De-convergence

The EGTI endorsed a set of recommendations by the OECD regarding what to include or exclude in the Revenue and Investment measures in light of general scheme governing the ISIC industry categories. The implications of these recommendations are notable in relation to the notion of convergence that undergirds the WSIS project. The addition of the “TV broadcasting subscriptions” measure to the core indicators at the WTIS is also significant in this connection.

OECD Recommendations:

The OECD recommendations note that discrepancies in data reporting based on questions regarding what should be included under the term telecommunications and what should not will continue to be a problem given the phenomenon of convergence. They offer guidance by applying the principle by which the ISIC differentiates the telecommunications sector — as made up of those entities that transmit information while not being involved in content creation. The ISIC distinguishes the telecommunications sector from other industrial categories under the broader heading of “information and communications” on this basis (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcs.asp?Cl=27&Lg=1&Co=J).

The OECD explains that in the case of a cable operator that produces TV content, revenues from sales of rights to the content should be excluded, while revenues from subscriptions to cable programming should be included. In further guidelines they indicate that free-to-air TV relates to content creation from traditional broadcasters and should therefore be excluded, but IPTV should be included because it deals with distribution by telecommunication operators. Pay digital terrestrial television channels relate mainly to content creation and should be excluded, while cable TV and satellite should be included where their activity relates to Internet or multichannel distribution, but not where they are producing TV content.

To identify investments within these industrial categories, they recommend a formula including expenditures on fixed telecommunications network assets (tangible and intangible), less assets that have been disposed of. They include research and development, and exclude operating license or radio spectrum fees, since these are often lump sums that would disrupt the consistency of time series analyses across countries and businesses.

For revenues, they recommend one measure for all telecommunications and a separate one for mobile telecommunications. Telecommunications revenues include retail fixed-telephone, mobile-cellular, Internet, and data services, while excluding revenues from content creation. This is to include transmission of TV signals, and to exclude wholesale sources such as interconnection. Mobile revenues include revenues from all voice, SMS and data, including value added services like premium SMS, while excluding wholesale revenues from termination, origination, and transit rates or inbound roaming.

In this way, the OECD recommendations for the revenue and investments measures use the ISIC definition to distinguish the telecommunications sector from other categories in the “information and communications” sector, for broadcasting and programming, print media and software publishing, movie, TV, sound and music publishing, computer programming and consultancy, and information services such as data processing and web portals.

These definitions of the revenue and investment measures are notable because so much of the motivation for the WSIS project is based on the notion of convergence. Despite the WSIS project’s appeal to convergence as a general trend bringing about dramatic changes, warranting a call for stakeholder participation in the development of a governance system that appreciates the significance of the changes, in fact the use of the ISIC definitions in the ITU’s measures represents a form of “de-convergence” built into the WSIS project. It creates a schema that distinguishes telecommunications from content creation in general and a number of other “information and communications” industry categories. The implications of this de-convergence have yet to be acknowledged in the WSIS proceedings.

Convergence in the WSIS Project

The notion of convergence that governs the WSIS project is also notable, since it also implies networks that uphold policies that might not be readily applied in the open Internet context. We see in the ITU’s WSIS measures a transition from a phase of the WSIS project wherein convergence has been generally appealed to as a historical force the best development of which the project seeks to foster, to a phase in which systems to support a particular form of de-convergence are implied in the basic terms according to which the WSIS project measures its success.

It should be noted that not all functions can be converged with an Internet comprised of autonomous routers using the Internet Protocol to interoperate. Perhaps the most noted example is quality of service (QOS) in the form of prioritizing particular application transmissions. This can generally be done best within individual networks or across sets of contracting networks, since independent networks cannot be expected to apply the same priority to packets as is applied within the network where they originated and where they were designated for specialized treatment. Other specialized services may also apply policies that are similarly suited to intranet contexts rather than networks of autonomous interoperating networks.

Numerous documents related to the WSIS project incorporate references to convergence, using the term in a wide variety of senses. Perhaps the instance that uses the term in a way that most clearly designates the type of network foreseen as the outcome of convergence, is the 2013 WCIT’s background document on convergence, at http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/WCIT-background-brief3.pdf:

“There is no single definition of convergence. However, a key innovation is the transformation from circuit-based telecommunication networks to packet-based ones using the Internet protocol (IP): so-called next-generation networks, or NGN. The “vertical” structure of independent networks is evolving into a “horizontal” structure based on IP that can deliver many kinds of content through a single platform. This has profound implications for the market, regulators, and ultimately the expansion of communications to people everywhere.”

This conception of convergence is notable in at least two ways: in its simple identification of IP packet-based networks with next-generation networks, and in its contrasting of a single IP-based platform against a network made up of independent networks, treated as a previous stage of evolution. This presentation is probably the most direct indication that may be found in the WSIS documents of an outcome in mind that is not a network of networks, but a single platform in which discrete individual providers might take part, but in which they would not be fully autonomous and competitive networks interoperating neutrally. In referring to the packet-based networks that are to replace legacy circuit-based telecommunications networks as “next-generation networks” or “IP-based networks,” this presentation glosses over the distinction between the Internet as a network of networks using IP packet transmissions to interoperate with each other, and other types of IP-based networks that may implement specialized treatment of packets by instituting a common policy across routers under their control.

Instead WSIS documents and notably the ITU’s resolutions tend to use the term “ICTs” and present many signs of a trajectory toward establishing a next-generation network framework like that described above, which would support ICT applications related to a number of policy areas.

Plenipotentiary Resolution 31, from the 2002 Marrakesh conference, directly identifies the concept of convergence with the term ICTs, referencing “the convergence of telecommunication and computer technologies and services, referred to as information and communication technologies (ICT)” as “an agent of change for the information age.” Plenipotentiary Resolution 137, from the 2010 Guadalajara conference, promotes the deployment of next-generation networks in developing countries. Similar references to convergence and ICTs can be found in Plenipotentiary Resolution 71, the ITU’s Strategic Plan for 2012-2015, and in Plenipotentiary Resolution 139, on telecommunications/ICTs to bridge the digital divide. The Geneva and Tunis WSIS outcome documents and the 2010 WTDC’s Hyderabad Declaration also make extensive references to ICTs in this sense.

The Broadband Commission’s 2012 State of Broadband Report enumerates several types of convergence consistent with the notion of new networks supporting ICT Applications (http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/bb-annualreport2012.pdf). These include convergence of ICT policy with various policy areas such as energy, health, education and the climate, a notion of an “economical balance” among converging services, positioned as a strategy to connect new subscribers, convergence of regulatory spheres such as telecommunications, radio and television given that combined (“triple play”) services make separate regulation difficult, and the proposal of simplified or unified licensing regimes designed to support any telecommunications provider offering any services, on a basis of assuring that consumer rights and market competitiveness are protected.

WTDC Resolutions 54, 72 and 74, on ICT applications, effective usage of mobile communications, and e-government services, also reflect this notion of ICT Applications through new networks, while failing to provide a basis for recognizing when these types of telecommunications environments may have impacts on the nature and advantages of the open Internet. WTDC Resolutions 34, 63, 65, and 66, and WTSA Resolutions 47, 48, 49, 64 and 73 represent more particular ICT applications, including disaster preparedness, healthcare services, ICTs for climate change, IPv6 and IP address allocation, country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs), Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), and ENUM.

We note the role of the concept of convergence in order to show the significance of the fact that the ITU’s WSIS measures actually represent a de-convergence in service of a distinction between content creation and telecommunications. The position of the notion of the Internet in relation to these categories is still unclear, but 1) the WSIS project is proceeding in a manner that confuses the nature of the Internet in service of networks that may support convergence in the form of ICT Applications of various sorts, while 2) the process already incorporates a de-converged framework that is not being acknowledged in the general discourse, one of great significance from the standpoint of the Internet’s support for shared information and collaboration.

Implications

A few observations follow on the implications of the above analysis in the context surrounding the WSIS project.

Internet Governance and “Internet Universality”

In recent developments in the Internet governance arena, Brazil has responded to revelations of US government surveillance by initiating proceedings to develop a frame for international Internet governance in some way independent from the role of the US. Subsequently the US’s NTIA has announced its willingness to release core IANA functions to oversight by global multistakeholder processes, stipulating while doing so that it would not support a framework that was governmental or inter-governmental in nature.

However, the WSIS project incorporates elements of inter-governmental agreement in terms of the way in which the pursuit of the project has been framed, and the WSIS measures represent the bases by which the progress of these processes are to be assessed. The 2010 Plenipotentiary conference issued a set of resolutions setting an inter-governmentally endorsed framework within which the ITU would conduct proceedings in its radio (ITU-R), standards (ITU-T) and development (ITU-D) sectors in accord with WSIS and broader UN parameters. Indeed, the confusion in the WSIS measures regarding the distinctions between Internet connectivity and other types of IP-based connectivity can be traced to certain key resolutions issued by the 2010 Plenipotentiary conference.

Two submissions to Brazil’s Netmundial conference are of great potential significance in relation to the inter-governmental frame set at the 2010 plenipotentiary conference, and to the framework of industry categories embodied in the ITU’s WSIS measures. Verizon’s submission makes specific reference to the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement, with its relationship to conformance assessment and the ISIC categories (http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/keywords-internet-investment-innovation-competition-multistakeholder-standards-human-rights/184.pdf). UNESCO has called for recognition of a principle of “Internet Universality” the significance of which can be understood in light of the question of whether the type of interoperability already made possible among autonomous networks by the Internet will be recognized in processes that so far do not adequately recognize that key characteristic (http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-universality-a-means-towards-building-knowledge-societies-and-the-post-2015-sustainable-development-agenda/151).

The 2010 Plenipotentiary resolutions called for the WTSA and WTDC proceedings to be conducted with open consultancy processes (PP 178, PP 140). At the same time, though, they stipulated that the WTSA was to be framed by the strategic goals of the WSIS outcome documents (PP 122), and the WTDC was to be framed within the terms of the broader UN Development Program and the UN Millennium Goals (PP 135). The WTSA was concluded in 2012 and its outputs include resolutions recognizing the ITU-T sector’s work on certain “more technical” topics, including various standards related to Names, Numbers, Addresses and Identifiers (NNAIs), including ENUM and more indirectly the system for digital identifiers described in ITU-T Recommendation 1255.

These standards are potentially critical in relation to a notion of “Internet Universality,” as they can be used to support a conception of interoperability on the basis of assuring adherence to common rules, potentially by validation of identifiers, rather than recognizing interoperability as an inherent attribute already available from the maximally flexible platform produced by using IP to interoperate among autonomous networks. Some functions implemented as “universal” by assuring conformance with common rules could interfere with the open design for interoperability across autonomous networks already provided by the Internet Protocol and the fundamentally flexible nature of the platform that results.

The WTSA outcomes for the ITU’s standardization sector already enjoy inter-governmental support since they fulfill 2010 Plenipotentiary instructions, and anyway are subject to inter-governmental review again in the regular 4-year ITU cycle, with the next Plenipotentiary conference closing the current cycle later this year. The open consultancy process associated with the WTSA also serves to politically affirm and validate the framework set in the 2010 Plenipotentiary resolutions. This includes, unfortunately, the confusion in the terms Internet, IP-based networks and Next-generation networks presently embodied in the Plenipotentiary resolutions.

UNESCO presents its “Internet Universality” proposition as an outcome of the UN GIS and WSIS+10 processes, relating the proposition more closely to the process of reviewing the success of the WSIS project and the broader UN frame that sets the limits for the WTDC than to the WSIS outcome documents that set the boundaries for the WTSA. Whereas the WTSA endorsed more abstract and “more technical” standards according to strategic goals in the WSIS outcomes, the WTDC will endorse more concrete technology solutions and policy frameworks for developing countries throughout the world in accord with UN purposes and a determination of the success of the project that fail to recognize the impacts these initiatives will have on the Internet — serving through its own open consultancy process as a political affirmation and validation of these components of the WSIS project as well as the 2010 Plenipotentiary framework.

It stands to reason that if the present confusion in the 2010 Plenipotentiary resolutions and the ITU’s WSIS measures is not clarified, then “Internet Universality” could be implemented in ways based on a new conception of the meaning of the term Internet that would undermine the inherently open form of universal interoperability that is already built into the design of the IP layer, and this new framework could be enforced by means of conformance assessment processes in support of the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement.

The FCC’s “IP Transition”

The fact that both the ITU’s measures and the US’s draft of the broadband study question fail to distinguish open Internet from specialized services and both are elaborated in terms consistent with vertical integration, without referencing the Internet in contexts supporting competitive access at the physical layer, may explain much of the FCC’s approach to the “IP Transition” in the United States.

The FCC is presently engaged in an “IP Transition” that does not clearly represent a transition to an Internet platform, though it might seem that way. The IP Transition designates a process of encouraging experiments by network providers to deliver connectivity in new ways using IP-based networks, independent of regulatory principles that have applied to traditional telecommunications, as a result of the fundamental changes in the regime wrought by IP communications. These IP experiments are to examine impacts on principles of public safety, universal access, competition and consumer protection. The Technology Transition Task Force indicates that this process is to be conducted with the use of clear and consistent definitions and metrics that allow results to be aggregated across experiments.

However, there is little sign of attention by the FCC to the distinction between Internet and specialized services that it examined during the Open Internet proceeding, in its “Further Inquiry into Two Under-developed Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding” (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1667A1.pdf).

The characteristics of the WSIS measures I have described above are fully consistent with an IP Transition to the type of next-generation IP-based networks to support ICT applications that the WSIS project is presently designed to foster — failing to recognize distinctions between open Internet and specialized services or among the terms Internet, IP-based networks and next-generation networks, and referencing the Internet in relation to vertically integrated telecommunications.

In fact, the recent addition of the TV subscriptions indicator to the core indicators, combined with the incorporating into the revenue and investment measures of a de-converged framework based on distinguishing video and content creation from other information and communications industry sectors, might reasonably lead one to wonder how much we can attribute to coincidence the facts that nearly at the same time Comcast is moving to consolidate Time Warner Cable and making a critical move to a direct interconnection arrangement with Netflix, with Verizon announcing it intends to reach a similar arrangement with Netflix. Indeed, concurrent activities related to copyright also might lead one to ask a similar question: the US’s pursuit of an international broadcaster’s right, its position in the Aereo case, and the US PTO’s proceedings on numerous aspects of digital copyright. Similar copyright-related developments are also underway in the European Union.

FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler presumes a vertically integrated context and describes his approach to ensuring the open Internet in a manner consistent with the WSIS impetus toward implementing networks designed to support key ICT applications. He appears to advocate an “Internet ecosystem” approach to policy and to take an approach to analysis of telecommunications policy choices consistent with the principles of the framework which was articulated by Joseph Farrell and Philip J. Weiser in 2003 and which was a key citation in the FCC’s 2005 Wireline Order, presenting a basis for understanding the dynamics of vertically integrated platform providers engaging in application markets dependent on their platform (http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v17/17HarvJLTech085.pdf).

In Ensuring an Open Internet Now and for the Future (https://www.fcc.gov/blog/ensuring-open-internet-now-and-future), he bases the necessity of government oversight on the facts that broadband networks support essential services for society, and there are likely to be few such networks, stating that this condition means they are likely to enable exercises of market power.

He characterizes concerns expressed in the NN debate in relation to a process of developing policy decisions regarded as a “work in progress” and in light of Michael Powell’s Open Internet Principles. He articulates his approach in terms of a dynamic constituted of weighing concerns of producers and consumers, such as that network operators will make moves that cut off or diminish the value of the Internet, or that the FCC will intrude on network operators in ways that cause economic harm or inhibit their ability to offer improved service, declaring that he will avoid either interfering with practices that produce efficiency and enhance competition, or allowing practices that reduce those characteristics.

This approach consistently overlooks recognition of the basis of the Internet in the problem of interoperating among autonomous network providers, which had ready, competitive access to physical infrastructure up until the 2002-2005 timeframe in the United States, and consequently provided an open, neutral and universally interoperable platform up until then to all providers and end users taking part in the network of networks established among them on the basis of the TCP/IP protocol. Wheeler’s reference to Title II in his response to the DC Circuit’s ruling on the Open Internet rules may seem to suggest the use of Title II (if its usefulness becomes apparent to the FCC) as a basis for establishing net neutrality by setting rules on information service providers at a higher level, rather than simply as a basis for applying common carriage principles at the physical layer, thereby opening it up to competing providers and reestablishing the original dynamic.

It should be noted that Farrell and Weiser describe the modularity of the Internet within their framework in terms that do not acknowledge it as an emergent property of autonomous networks interoperating, but more in terms that treat it as deriving from decisions of the network provider. They frame the question of how to assess acts by vertically integrated platform providers wherein they take part in or exert influence on complementary application markets dependent on their platform to various degrees or not, in light of effects on efficiency in delivering information services which derive from their vertical integration. They do not phrase the question, however, of how the advantages of a dramatically flexible platform wide open to independent innovation that emerges as a consensus solution to interoperation among independent competing providers (not the applications that stem from that platform, but the platform itself that so arises) should be considered against the efficiencies in delivering the particular services of a vertically integrated provider.

Farrell and Weiser also reference the definition of the Internet issued in 1995 by the Federal Networking Council in connection with their treatment of the modularity of the platform that lies at the center of their analysis. This definition of the Internet was notable at the time for referencing the TCP/IP protocol (http://2001-2009.state.gov/e/eeb/cip/wsis2005/50918.htm), but its suitability for representing the Internet is a mirage. It essentially reduces the Internet to the collection of networks that use IP addresses, citing the Internet Protocol solely for its reference to those identifiers in the header fields of Internet Protocol packets, while making no reference to what IP packets accomplish in terms of providing a layer that enables maximal interoperability between autonomous networks. The FNC definition thus represents an early basis for the present confusion in terms, whereby individual networks that may be performing esoteric functions within themselves while using TCP/IP, and which may thus properly be called “IP-based,” are easily confused with the network of networks that the concept of internetworking represents and that the Internet Protocol was designed to enable.

The FNC definition was also issued at a time when the telecommunications policy context in the United States supported competitive access to the physical infrastructure layer, so the basis of the dynamic of the Internet platform in a policy context that originally assured competition among autonomous network providers at the physical layer was perhaps too implicit to be explicitly acknowledged as a factor in sustaining its most profound characteristics: its flexibility, openness, interoperability and inherent neutrality.

Recommendations/Conclusion

In the measures that it uses to assess its progress the WSIS project is systemically designed to implement telecommunications network environments that do not distinguish between the Internet made up of interoperating autonomous networks and other types of IP-based networks, and thus that fail to distinguish between open Internet and specialized services.

If we fail to correct this oversight while encouraging the advancement of the WSIS project, we are encouraging the establishment of networks in developing countries that do not reflect the key strengths of the Internet, and we are encouraging a fundamental reshaping of what the term Internet means as we implement governance within this framework. This is a critical concern for the upcoming WTDC, the WSIS+10 process, the development of the ITU Strategic Plan, as well as various proceedings underway related to international Internet governance and Internet-related public policy and developments in telecommunications at the national level.

Recommendations:

WSIS Indicators, including WSIS+10:

Revise the measures used to assess the performance of the WSIS project to quantify the status of application-independent packet transmissions separately from transmissions that tailor the treatment of packets according to application, to enable tracking trends related to open Internet services, both in terms of availability of open Internet and in terms of the influence of open Internet connectivity on WSIS goals.

Alternately, begin a process to develop common understanding of key characteristics of the Internet to support identification and tracking of trends and effects of WSIS processes; in the meantime, revise the WSIS indicators to use the general term “IP-based networks” wherever they presently use the term “Internet.”

Identify and track vertically integrated communications environments separately from contexts assuring competitive access to physical layer infrastructure.

Since a network of autonomous networks supports network neutrality naturally since individual networks cannot predict the applications that other networks and their user will be using and supporting, introduce a measure of the number of network providers of various types per geographical region.

Other characteristics useful in understanding whether networks are open include:

blocking or monitoring of ports, particular applications, or servers
blocking or monitoring traffic for spam, other undesirable content, copyright infringement, anti-government activities or for other purposes
symmetric or asymmetric upload/download capacity
capacity caps
whether the network is on lines that are subject to competitive access by regulation
whether network neutrality is established by regulation at the information service level
whether the lines are subject to traffic shaping based on application or content
whether general purpose, application-independent traffic can be impinged on by specialized services on the same lines

Develop protocols to notify users when transient traffic shaping is occurring because of temporary congestion issues.

Recognize and consider the progress and effects of the WSIS project in the WSIS+10 review process frankly in terms of the above distinctions, addressing availability of the Internet’s characteristics and advantages that are uniquely conducive to WSIS and broader UN goals, as well as effects of different types of networks on these goals and on each other.

2014 Plenipotentiary Conference:

Correct confusion in key terms “Internet,” “IP-based networks,” and “next-generation networks” in Internet-related resolutions, including PP 101, 102, 133 and 137.

Address these types of networks distinctly and explicitly rather than using general terms such as ICTs or ICTs/telecommunications

Address vertically-integrated policy environments and policy environments assuring competitive access to physical layer infrastructure by independent providers distinctly and explicitly rather than using terms that are indefinite on this distinction such as “pro-competitive policies.”

Address conformance and interoperability in two distinct senses: technical compatibility including between autonomous networks, such as is already supported by application-independent packet transmissions; and interoperability based on adherence to a common policy. In developing policy and technological solutions, recognize and address impacts on the universal form of interoperability already provided by the Internet’s basic design.

ISIC and Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement:

Assure that shared physical infrastructure telecommunications is recognized as supporting the Internet by specific reference to the term.

Develop industry categories based on Internet as one information service among others, as distinguished from provision of physical infrastructure, whether vertically integrated or subject to policies for competitive access

Alternately, begin a process to address implications for the ISIC and TBT Agreement of recognizing that industry sectors that assure competitive access to physical layer infrastructure provide a resilient foundation for an Internet that retains its key characteristics of flexibility, openness, interoperability and inherent neutrality. In the meantime replace usage of the term Internet in the ISIC definitions with the general term “IP-based networks.”

Address conformance and interoperability in two distinct senses: technical compatibility including between autonomous networks, and interoperability based on adherence to a common policy. In developing industry categories, engage openly with stakeholders in recognizing impacts that schemes such as the present distinction between content creation and telecommunications might have on the open Internet platform, as claims are brought against technologies that may support more flexible and collaborative relationships to shared and published information.

United Nations Agencies:

Incorporate recognition of distinctions between types of networks, including key characteristics of the open Internet, in framing the contribution of technologies and development programs to broader UN goals.

Internet Governance, including Enhanced Cooperation, NETMundial, Proceedings on Internet-related Public Policy Issues:

Establish recognition of key characteristics of the Internet prior to developing policies or systems of governance.

Implement a process that places recognition of the universal form of maximal interoperability already established for the Internet in a position prior to policies endorsed under the rubric of “Internet Universality,” which may otherwise support interoperability in the sense of adherence to common policy without providing adequate channels for addressing impacts on the platform.

Assure that policy contexts and development initiatives are framed in terms that recognize that the modularity and flexibility of the Internet derives from the dynamic that arises among autonomous providers that have competitive access to the physical layer.

-xvx-

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> Hello Julie, ITAC, and all:
>
> As promised, here are parts 2 and 3 of my analysis of ITU Resolutions.
> This constitutes a comprehensive view of the implications of the
> failure of the WSIS project and the ITU to recognize the key
> characteristics that make the Internet unique. It is focused on WTDC
> resolutions and is organized in terms of the WTDC Action Plan, but
> also covers PP and WTSA Resolutions.
>
> Part 2: Cybersecurity, ICT Applications and IP-Based Network Issues:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/11/25/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet/
>
> Part 3: the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building and Digital Inclusivity:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/09/09/enabling-environment-capacity-inclusivity-understanding-impacts-on-the-internet/
>
> This analysis has guided my contributions since at least April,
> allowing me to prioritize the revisions needed and address the
> approach of the US Delegation as the WTDC approached.

<< SNIP >>

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM
Subject: Followup: Seth’s Edits on C&I
To: “Chip Sharp (chsharp)” <[protected]>, Doreen McGirr <[protected]>, “Elizabeth Bacon ([protected])” <[protected]>, “[protected]” <[protected]>

Attaching my edits on WTDC 47 and the C&I Study Question, as promised.
WTDC 47 – ID Edits
Conformance & Interoperability Study Question – ID Edits

Much easier to use than my explanations, also forwarded below. But
you should be able to appreciate the importance of these edits more
and find answers in these comments originally sent this morning.

Seth

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:35 AM
Subject: My Notes — Re: [ITAC-D] WTDC ITAC prep meeting Tuesday
January 14 2-4:30PM
To: Julian Minard <[protected]>
Cc: “[protected]” <[protected]>

A note regarding problems with this study question that I have already noted.

My comments on Conformance and Interoperability from back in April:

https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/

also/more particularly:

On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of Interoperability:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#LikelyInteroperate

On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#QOS

Also note concerns about Identifiers here:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/11/25/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet/#Identifiers

Some notes:

Conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis to promote (and enforce) new types of networks (and related technology), without understanding how they might impact the Internet, even replacing the Internet without bothering to recognize the tradeoffs in doing so.

This is particularly the case since this study question is geared toward ITU-T recommendations, which deal with identifiers in numerous ways and which may serve as a basis for technical approaches to policy
enforcement. This is clearly the case given C&I’s connection to the Technical Barriers to Trade treaty.

This version of the C&I question also phrases things in terms of the
“need for confidence,” which doesn’t get to the point that conformance
and interoperability assessment can serve to support confidence by
policy (of some legal standing) as well as by technical compatibility
in an open Internet context. The Internet already supports confidence
in interoperability across networks on the basis of technical
interoperability.

At the above links I address this concern in terms of specialized
functions like QOS that work within networks but not so well (on the
basis of technical interoperability) between networks. They could be
accomplished, of course, by enforcing policy of some legal status.
This point also applies much more generally from the perspective of
the role of identifiers as I point out at the last link above, which
can enforce numerous types of policies. In the context of current
activities in updating copyright (a new proposed “right to make
available”), and initiatives such as the proposal for a broadcasting
treaty, the need to be explicit when we’re talking about technical
interoperability and when we’re talking about new legal policies
becomes important.

Pulling out a couple of passages:

On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of Interoperability:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#LikelyInteroperate

“WTSA 76 asserts that an increase in confidence in ICT equipment
conformance with ITU-T Recommendations will increase the probability
that equipment from different manufacturers will interoperate across
networks from end to end. This is reflected in an observation in
Guadalajara 177 that the conformance assessment regimes that it
invites Member States to adopt can lead to a higher probability that
equipment, services and systems will interoperate.

“Information Society initiatives for conformance and interoperability should recognize that confidence in end-to-end interoperability is already enabled for the Internet based on general purpose packet transmissions. However, for specialized functions that are not as readily supported across the autonomous networks that make up the Internet, these Resolutions appear to be designed to enable providers and manufacturers to certify their compatibility with particular specialized functions that may be supported by particular types of networks. These specialized functions, and the types of networks that support them, should be distinguished from the Internet. While conformance testing would help increase the likelihood of interoperability for networks supporting specialized functions on the basis of increased confidence, it also can support interoperability on the basis of fulfilling policies backed by an intergovernmental authority. As the Information Society contemplates the establishing of an intergovernmental framework for policymaking that may touch on the Internet, it is critical that a basis is established for identifying when policies would impact the Internet deleteriously, by distinguishing networks supporting more specialized functions from the Internet.”

On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#QOS

“Guadalajara 177 includes a particular note that conformance
assessment regimes adopted by Member States will lead to better
quality of service/quality of experience. Quality of service is a
characteristic often sought to be implemented as a specialized
function in networks that treat IP packets specially according to
types or categories. Providing for quality of service in this way
generally can only be readily implemented across routers within a
network governed by a core authority and/or policy, rather than across
the routers of independent internetworking providers. A conformance
and interoperability regime that recognizes the nature of the Internet
should address quality of service not only in these terms, but also in
terms that recognize the role that the actual capacity of networks
plays in quality of service.”

Original email forwarded below.

Seth

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Subject: WTDC/Plenipot: 1) Conformance and Interoperability:
Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for
WTDC Prep)
To: “[protected]” <[protected]>
Cc: “[protected]” <[protected]>

(Reposting, revised to paste only part of the rather extended text
here in the email. — Seth)

At the link below is an analysis showing where the Conformance and
Interoperability resolutions open up the risk of the Information
Society undermining the Internet. I have pasted the introductory text
below, including general concerns and some key points.

The analysis is designed to contribute to upcoming proceedings such
as the WTPF, the WTDC and High Level WSIS Review in April 2014,
preparing the way to the Plenipotentiary Meeting in October/November
2014, where the necessary actions can be taken.

The full analysis is here:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/

Please take it into account on the next WTDC Prep, general ITAC, and
Council calls.

You can see two general concerns and a set of key points here:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#TwoConcerns
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#KeyPoints

I will move on to the other development-related topic areas I
described in the last ITAC call next: the enabling
environment/inclusivity; cybersecurity, ICTs and the Internet; and
measures/results analysis.

There are a number of reports being prepared to be presented at upcoming proceedings that also need to incorporate this concern: ITU Council Reports to the Plenipotentiary Conference on Conformance and Interoperability/Guadalajara Resolution 177, on Bridging the Digital
Divide/Guadalajara Resolution 139, and on Bridging the Standardization
Gap/WTSA Resolution 44; the BDT Report with lessons learned to WTDC re Conformance and Interoperability/WTDC Resolution 47; and the TSB
Report to the Plenipotentiary Conference (and future WTSAs) on
Bridging the Standardization Gap/WTSA Resolution 44. Additional
reports like these will become relevant as I address the other topics.

The commentary gives a picture of how the fact that the Information
Society leaves out a proper treatment of the nature of the Internet
plays out, by analyzing the subset of resolutions that relate to the
topic of Conformance and Interoperability. While the implications are
diverse, the actual revisions called for would be straightforward.
They mostly entail adding onto some references to general terms like
ICTs or telecommunications/ICTs, additional phrases like “including
the Internet” or “including both general purpose internetworking and
networks supporting various specialized functions,” etc. Then one
general resolution might be issued to which others could refer,
“Resolution XX on Internet Key Characteristics and Properties.”

I will need to look at the US position on conformance and
interoperability, the action plan, and more of the plenipotentiary
resolutions. I also need to know how the conformance and
interoperability regime relates to the “interoperability rules” that
the FirstNet Board is apparently going to be issuing. Other items
that will need to be reviewed are listed in my blog analysis here:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#ReviewCI
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#ReviewDD
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#ReviewSG

See introductory text below or at the blog link.

Seth

Conformance and Interoperability: Understanding Impacts on the Internet

> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/

Contents:

Introduction: Background, General Concerns, Key Points, Relevant Resolutions

Conformance and Interoperability
WTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA Resolution 76
On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service
On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of
Interoperability

Bridging the Digital Divide
Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to the Digital Divide
No Mention of Internet Empowerment of End Users and Providers
On Interoperability, Interconnection and Global Connectivity
On Pro-Competitive Policies and Regulatory Contexts for Expanding Access

Bridging the Standardization Gap
Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to Bridging the
Standardization Gap
Strategic and High Priority Issues in Standardization
Regional Group Terms of Reference and Mobilization Programs

Introduction

Background

The World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) harbors a
potential of undermining the Internet platform. Its framing documents
and resolutions use general terms such as “telecommunications/ICTs”
and make very little reference to the Internet or its special
characteristics, thus providing no basis for recognizing when the
Internet may be affected by its initiatives.

Among these framing resolutions are those that cover development
initiatives and provide the frame for the next World Telecommunication
Development Conference (WTDC) to be held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt
from March 31 to April 11, 2014. The WTDC and the High-Level WSIS
Review event taking place in April 2014, along with the
Plenipotentiary meeting in October-November 2014, represent the key
occasions to assure that the appropriate resolutions are issued or
revised to enable the impacts that WSIS development initiatives may
have on the Internet to be readily recognized.

The WTDC Resolutions related to the Conformance and Interoperability
initiative represent one thrust that indicates where revisions are
needed to enable us to recognize when the Information Society’s
development initiatives may affect the Internet. This commentary
identifies the resolutions related to Conformance and Interoperability
and analyzes them in light of this concern.

We begin with two general concerns, followed by a set of key points
covered with more specificity in the commentary.

Two General Concerns:

The first general concern here has to do with the prospect
that conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis for
enabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of
networks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without
distinguishing them from the Internet or recognizing the tradeoffs
these types of networks bring as compared to the advantages of the
Internet. This could be a problem if these standards work against
connectivity in the form the Internet makes possible, or if their
promotion allows something different to be called Internet.

The other general concern here has to do with applying
conformance and interoperability certification in connection with a
range of public policy issues with which the Information Society is
concerned. If we set up a standardization process under the ITU, and
if it fails to recognize the key characteristics of the Internet while
it is connected to these public policy concerns, we could easily end
up normalizing, in the name of public policy concerns, forms of
telecommunications and related policies that are detrimental to the
advantages of the Internet, without recognizing that impact.

Some Key Points:

The conformance and interoperability framework should reflect the distinction between the general purpose form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes possible between independent networks, and connectivity that supports specialized functions that are not as readily supported by general purpose internetworking.

Capacity building in conformance and interoperability testing
should incorporate recognition of the empowerment of independent
operators and end users made possible by the general purpose internet
platform as well as recognizing other types of networks supporting
specialized functions.

Conformance and interoperability should address quality of
service not only as a specialized function in networks that treat IP
packets specially according to types or categories, but also based on
recognition of the role that the actual capacity of networks plays in
quality of service in general purpose internetworking.

The conformance and interoperability initiative should
recognize that confidence in end-to-end interoperability is already
enabled for the Internet based on general purpose packet
transmissions. While the likelihood of interoperability for other
kinds of networks or specialized services will increase on the basis
of confidence derived from conformance assessment, conformance
assessment can also support interoperability through the upholding of
policies backed by an intergovernmental authority, a prospect with
implications that should be understood and addressed.

The resolutions on bridging the digital divide make no mention
of the empowerment of end users and independent providers made
possible by the Internet, or of how those factors drive development

The references to interoperability, interconnection and global
connectivity in the resolutions do not necessarily mean connectivity
in terms of what we understand as the Internet platform, but are used
in ways that could easily support policies imposing connectivity in
other forms, without clearly recognizing their impact on the Internet

General references to pro-competitive policies and regulatory
contexts in relation to expanding access should be adapted to
recognize the general purpose Internet platform made possible by
interoperation among autonomous, competing providers at the physical
layer, and should not characterize the policy and regulatory context
solely in general terms that may support other types of networks
without specifically recognizing the Internet as well.

Recognition of impacts on the Internet should be identified as a high-level objective and priority in standardization, and strategic and high priority issues in standardization should distinctly recognize end user and independent provider empowerment as a result of the Internet as particularly important concerns for developing countries, along with standardization initiatives that may be geared toward other types of networks.

The advice of proponents of increased competition among
independent providers at the physical layer within the US should be
recognized and applied by TSAG as an explicit consideration within its
mandate to coordinate standardization topics.

For the purposes of commenting on the revisions needed in this area,
it’s most useful to group the relevant resolutions under three related
topic headers — Conformance and Interoperability, Bridging the Digital
Divide, and Bridging the Standardization Gap. Click below to see the
relationships among all the resolutions making up the overall
conformance and interoperability thrust.

Click here for Resolutions Related to Conformance and Interoperability:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#RelatedResolutions

Commentary:

Conformance and Interoperability

WTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA
Resolution 76 fit under the general heading of conformance and
interoperability.

A conformance and interoperability framework that recognizes the
nature of the Internet needs to draw a clear distinction between
certification of conformance and interoperability in relation to the
general purpose form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes
possible between independent networks, and certification for
specialized functions that are not as readily supported by general
purpose internetworking across autonomous routers.

WTDC Resolution 47

WTDC Resolution 47 instructs the Director of the Telecommunications Development Bureau to assist developing countries in building their capacity to perform conformance testing of equipment and systems and to follow up on implementation, including a periodic report to the T-DAG and a report on lessons learned to the WTDC in 2014. It invites Member States and Sector Members to enhance knowledge and effective application of ITU-R and ITU-T Recommendations in developing countries, and to introduce best practices in applying these recommendations. It says nothing about Internet, but does talk about fiber optics, broadband networks, and next-generation networks, inviting Member States to introduce best-practice application of ITU Recommendations in those areas through training and workshops in developing countries.

This resolution needs to reflect the above distinction in the
identification of best practices that it calls for: best practices in
applying recommendations for interoperability by general purpose IP
transmissions among autonomous networks, versus best practices in
applying recommendations related to networks that provide specialized
functions among routers implementing specialized treatment of packets.
The list list of example topics mentioned above should be extended to
include specific mention of Internet networks as well.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Julian Minard <[protected]> wrote:
> We confirm that we will hold an ITAC adhoc on WTDC preps Tuesday January 14,
> BUT IT WILL BE FROM 2-4:30PM. Recall that FCC is hosting this meeting as
> follows:
>
>
>
> Federal Communications Commission
>
> 445 – 12th Street, SW
>
> Room 2-B516
>
> Washington, DC 20554
>
>
>
> We will have a conference bridge and draft agenda on Monday, but it will
> address the draft US contribution and the proposed new question on C&I. The
> draft C&I text is attached herewith; the draft Contribution will be out as
> soon as possible, probably sometime Monday.
>
>
>
> Julian Minard, secretariat

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM
Subject: Followup: Seth’s Edits on Broadband Study Question
To: Flavia Alves <[protected]>, Doreen McGirr <[protected]>, Roxanne McElvane <[protected]>, “Elizabeth Bacon ([protected])” <[protected]>, “[protected]” <[protected]>

Attaching my edits on the Broadband Study Question, as promised.
Broadband Study Question 2 – ID Edits

Much easier to use than my explanations, also forwarded below. But you should be able to appreciate the importance of these edits more and find answers in these comments originally sent Friday morning.

These edits are relevant to assuring the ITU properly addresses wired facilities, and are critical to assure the US and the ITU do not simply apply the Title I and market failure analysis approach that the FCC has acceded to after the DC Circuit’s previous rulings. After today’s ruling, these revisions are likely even more critical.

So as I said, I strongly urge you to bear these in mind.

The US is moving toward a better approach, having gotten CITEL to add wired infrastructure to the broadband question, and coming to understand how the terms IP-based Networks, NGNs and Internet need to be properly understood — and how the ITU’s processes are leading to misunderstanding on those points. BUT this does not mean the US or CITEL or ITU will address the real policy implications that are important for wired infrastructure in relation to the Internet.

Seth

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:55 AM
Subject: Re Deep Dive on IAPs – my broadband edit
To: Roxanne McElvane <[protected]>, Doreen McGirr
<[protected]>, “[protected]” <[protected]>

Please find attached my text inputs for the broadband study question.

What I did was add bits to make sure it articulates how deployment of
broadband in the sense of specialized service network frameworks such
as IMT should coexist with internetworking.

Two paragraphs of explanation. The role of policies related to
land-based infrastructure is critical, and this relates both to the
FCC’s current attempt to defend their Title I approach out of the Open
Internet proceeding, and the Title II approach that reflects the
actual nature of the Communications Act:

Among the considerations that are important in the context of
broadband deployment is the role of the open Internet and policies
that may apply to modalities such as land-based or wired
telecommunications infrastructures. Broadband in this context elicits
important questions including how frameworks for specialized services
such as are enabled for wireless by standards such as IMT should
coexist with the varied offerings of competing providers who rely on
the open Internet and policy frameworks affording competitive access
to shared physical public right-of-way facilities. These providers
rely on general purpose communications protocols to support a flexible
platform for independent innovation that enables them to compete even
as it assures interoperability and global connectivity for their own
services and those of innovating end users.

One of the key questions raised in the United States Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan and Open Internet Orders was how the Open Internet should coexist with specialized services. As we proceed to an emphasis on broadband access and uptake, questions become important regarding how standards such as IMT, which offers incentives for wireless providers, should relate to open Internet as well as issues of competition, the enabling environment, infrastructure development and empowerment of end users and independent providers in the context of other modalities such as land-based or wired facilities over which policies affording competitive access to the physical layer may apply.

Seth

(Click here for blog post version of this commentary)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson
Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM
Subject: WTDC/Plenipot: 3) Enabling Environment/Capacity Building/Inclusivity: Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
To: “[protected]” , “Zoller, Julie N”

Hi Julie, ITAC, and all:

Continuing from the previous email:

The following covers resolutions related to Programmes 3 and 4, on “the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building and Digital Inclusivity.” The analysis covers WTDC, WTSA and PP resolutions, while focusing on revisions to WTDC resolutions that are needed at the upcoming WTDC.

Part 3: the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building and Digital Inclusivity:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/11/25/enabling-environment-capacity-inclusivity-understanding-impacts-on-the-internet/

Contributions:

I am attaching a number of contributions I have offered since the
US began its approach to the WTDC, both in the form of revisions to
WTDC resolutions and in the form of revisions to other inputs the US
Delegation is providing to the WTDC.

The US Delegation’s contribution on the topic of Conformance and
Interoperability is a matter of great concern. The US is promoting
the certification of ICTs under concepts of conformance and
interoperability that may easily be applied in concert with managed
service frameworks to implement policy, rather than in terms of more
flexible and open forms of interoperability made possible by the
Internet Protocol.

Conformance & Interoperability can be addressed in relation to
Capacity Building, so I attach it to this email. I also attach my
revisions to WTDC 47, the main WTDC resolution on this topic.
Conformance & Interoperability Study Question – ID Edits
WTDC 47 – ID Edits

You will also find my contributed revisions on WTDC 30, WTDC 13, and
WTDC 23 attached to this email.
WTDC 30 – ID Edits
WTDC 13 – ID Edits
WTDC 23 – ID Edits

I describe the purposes of each revision in the reply copy text further below.

Seth

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> Hello Julie, ITAC, and all:
>
> As promised, here are parts 2 and 3 of my analysis of ITU Resolutions.
> This constitutes a comprehensive view of the implications of the
> failure of the WSIS project and the ITU to recognize the key
> characteristics that make the Internet unique. It is focused on WTDC
> resolutions and is organized in terms of the WTDC Action Plan, but
> also covers PP and WTSA Resolutions.
>
> Part 2: Cybersecurity, ICT Applications and IP-Based Network Issues:
> internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/11/25/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet/
>
> Part 3: the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building and Digital Inclusivity:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/09/09/enabling-environment-capacity-inclusivity-understanding-impacts-on-the-internet/
>
> This analysis has guided my contributions since at least April,
> allowing me to prioritize the revisions needed and address the
> approach of the US Delegation as the WTDC approached.
>
> Only a few WTDC resolutions require revisions, and the most important
> of these are attached to this email and the next.
>
> The important part of the analysis turns out to be the relationship of
> the WTDC resolutions to a set of core PP Resolutions that present the
> key terms IP-based Networks, Internet and Next-generation Networks in
> a confused manner. I have placed commentary on this aspect under
> “IP-based Network Issues” at the above link for Part 2.
>
> Also as promised, you may find my comments on identifiers under that
> heading as well, which relates to several resolutions in Parts 2 and
> 3.
>
> Contributions:
>
> I am attaching a number of contributions I have offered since the
> US began its approach to the WTDC, both in the form of revisions to
> WTDC resolutions and in the form of revisions to other inputs the US
> Delegation is providing to the WTDC, notably those on Broadband and
> Conformance and Interoperability.
>
> The US Delegation’s contributions on the topics of Broadband and
> Conformance and Interoperability are matters of great concern. With
> the broadband contribution, the US is encouraging the implementation
> of ICT applications for the Information Society under the term
> “broadband,” by reference to the ITU’s work on 3G/4G, the managed
> service framework used by wireless providers. With the conformance
> and interoperability resolution, the US is promoting the certification
> of ICTs under concepts of conformance and interoperability that may
> easily be applied in concert with managed service frameworks to
> implement policy, rather than in terms of more flexible and open forms
> of interoperability made possible by the Internet Protocol.
>
> The last thing we want to do is roll out next-generation networks
> all over the world, without recognizing the tradeoffs brought by these
> types of networks as compared to the open Internet platform — and
> then to place that under a conformance and interoperability
> certification regime that fails to recognize the difference.
>
> The US proposal on broadband might be placed under the heading of
> ICT Applications in general, so I attach it to this email. Conformance
> & Interoperability can be addressed in relation to Capacity Building,
> so I attach it to my next email, under Part 3.
>
> Below I describe the purposes of all the revisions to WTDC resolutions
> I am attaching.
>
>
> Seth
>
> Further notes:
>
> The following covers resolutions related to Programme 2 of the
> Hyderabad Action Plan, in the areas of “Cybersecurity, ICT
> Applications and IP-Based Network Issues.” My next email will cover
> Programmes 3 and 4, on “the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building
> and Digital Inclusivity.” The analysis covers WTDC, WTSA and PP
> resolutions, while focusing on revisions to WTDC resolutions that are
> needed at the upcoming WTDC.
>
> You can find the first part of this analysis, on the Conformance and
> Interoperability initiative, here:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/
> . I determined early on it is not necessary to address the Regulators
> Forum.
>
> Also as promised, you may find my comments on identifiers under
> “IP-based Network Issues” in Part 2 here:
> internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/09/09/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet/#Identifiers
>
> On the Analysis:
>
> Only a few WTDC Resolutions need revisions in terms of their usage
> of the terms IP-based Networks, Internet, Next-generation Networks,
> etc. (though plenty of PP and WTSA resolutions do).
>
> The key part instead turns out to be the relationship of the WTDC
> resolutions to the core PP Resolutions that have guided the ITU’s
> activities since 2010. I address these core resolutions under the
> “IP-Based Network Issues” heading here:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/09/09/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet/#ITUInternet
> . There I describe the confusion in the key terms IP-based Networks,
> Internet and Next-generation Networks that PP 101, 102 and 133 convey,
> and the fact that PP 137 is much more explicit about the commitment by
> the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference to deploying Next-generation
> Networks to developing countries.
>
> The remaining parts of the analysis end up being placeholders for
> important notes, listing PP, WTSA and WTDC resolutions in the
> Hyderabad Action Plan Programmes and commenting on them, but noting
> only a few WTDC Resolutions needing edits. Among these notes are
> comments illustrating how the failure to recognize the nature of the
> Internet in the Information Society project impacts both the Internet
> and the goals of the Information Society project itself, as expressed
> in the Geneva Action Lines.
>
> Not yet in place are some comments on the core resolutions on
> bridging the Digital Divide and the Standardization Gap, PP 139 and PP
> 123. I have already presented these points however, in the
> Conformance and Interoperability analysis:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#DigitalDivide
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#StandardsGap
>
> Describing the Revisions:
>
> On this email you will find attached my contributed revisions on
> WTDC 45, WTDC 63, and the US’s Broadband proposal.
>
> On the next email you will find my contributed revisions on WTDC
> 23, WTDC 13, WTDC 30, and WTDC 47, and the US’s Conformance and
> Interoperability proposal.
>
> I describe the purposes of each revision below, along with other
> resolutions that need to be revised:
>
> US Proposal for a study question on Broadband:
> Revisions to recognize other modes besides wireless, in
> particular addressing the Internet platform created on the basis of
> competitive access by autonomous, interoperating providers to
> infrastructure installed in the public right of way.
>
> US Proposal for a study question on Conformance and Interoperability +
> WTDC 47 (Conformance and Interoperability):
> Revisions to recognize different types of conformance and
> interoperability relevant to different types of networks, including
> general purpose interoperability among autonomous networks and
> interoperability by the application of a common policy across routers
> subject to a core authority.
>
> WTDC 13 and WTDC 30 (Funding Mechanisms and Partnerships):
> Revisions to recognize that funding mechanisms and partnership
> schemes must be developed to support contexts providing competitive
> access at the physical layer, that funding and partnerships in
> vertically integrated telecommunications contexts may differ markedly
> from those that would serve to support competitive access at the
> physical layer, that public-private partnerships that incorporate
> explicit recognition of the role of public oversight may better
> support competitive access to the physical layer, and that recognizing
> the distinction between the open Internet platform and specialized or
> managed services allows for clear understanding of when practices,
> policies and technologies may affect the Internet and its unique
> characteristics and advantages.
> (WTDC 52 and WTDC 71 may also be revised similarly)
>
> WTDC 23 (International Internet Connectivity):
> Revised to recognize that connectivity to the broader
> international Internet does not mean there is an Internet at the
> national or lower levels, and particularly noting that the commercial
> initiatives to deliver cost savings that the resolution suggests might
> address the resolution’s concern for pricing of international
> connectivity for developing countries are not necessarily compatible
> with the general purpose form of connectivity of the Internet.
>
> WTDC 45, WTDC 63, WTDC 47 (Identifiers):
> Revisions to acknowledge that policy associated with
> identifiers may affect the flexibility and openness of the Internet
> unless recognition of its basic nature is incorporated:
>
> WTDC 45 (Cybersecurity): Cryptographic measures may serve as
> part of an implementation of security-related policy in infrastructure
> in ways that may impact the free flow of information, ideas and
> knowledge and the flexible modes of interaction with and collaborative
> use of information the Internet makes possible.
>
> WTDC 63 (IP Address Allocation and IPv6 Deployment): Revisions
> recommending that the ITU Council support both the open Internet
> platform and specialized services networks in its approval of the BDT
> Director’s guidelines for changes in organizational frameworks and
> policies necessitated by migrating to IPv6.
>
> WTDC 47 (Conformance and Interoperability): Revisions to
> recognize different types of conformance and interoperability may
> suffice to address concerns regarding use of identifiers for
> enforcement of policy that may be implied in references to
> counterfeiting in this resolution
>
> (WTDC 22 may also be revised similarly)
>
> WTDC 64 (Consumer Protection):
> Revisions to assure that consumers are able to recognize the
> difference between Internet connectivity and other types of
> connectivity.
>
> WTDC 37 (Digital Divide):
> Revisions to recognize the role of the Internet’s special
> characteristics in bridging the digital divide, including its
> empowerment of end users and independent providers, and to assure that
> references to pro-competitive policies and regulatory contexts
> recognize the role of competitive access to the physical layer in
> producing the Internet platform among autonomous providers, and in
> incentivizing infrastructure development.
>
> WTDC 15, WTDC 20 (Technology Transfer and Non-discriminatory Access):
> Revisions to assure references to partnerships should
> recognize the inherently public nature of publicly-funded research and
> shared infrastructure, and to assure that the value of
> non-discriminatory access does not substitute for recognition of the
> advantages of competition among providers.
>
>
> The Upshot:
>
> In developing my contributions, I have been able to prioritize and
> focus on parts that needed addressing in terms of the approach of the
> US Delegation. The analysis should now serve others in understanding
> where the defects are in the ITU Resolutions that need to be
> corrected.
>
> However, proceeding in a manner that continues to follow through
> according to the process the ITU has laid out will not correct the
> basic problem in the approach, which simply reaffirms WSIS goals
> without adding the critical insights needed to understand what the
> Internet adds to the equation. It will not only undermine the
> Internet to continue to pursue the Information Society project the way
> it has been, but establishing a form of Internet Governance at the
> international level in this way presents the distinct prospect of
> undermining efforts within the US to place the Internet back on a
> sound foundation by recourse to the law.
>
> The US needs to act at the WTDC to correct the oversight regarding
> the Internet in the WSIS project. The US needs to recognize the
> difference between a truly competitive Internet and the types of
> specially tailored services that are offered within individual
> networks — whether they may be individual wireless providers or
> incumbents in other modes who enjoy a privileged status in relation to
> infrastructure — and in the course of the next year help enable those
> engaged in furthering the Information Society project to receive a
> proper understanding of its status in those terms.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Minard, Julian E wrote:
>> ———- Forwarded message ———-
>> From: Seth Johnson
>> Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM
>> Subject: WTDC/Plenipot: 1) Conformance and Interoperability:
>> Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
>> To: “[protected]”
>> Cc: “[protected]”
>>
>>
>> At the link below is an analysis showing where the Conformance and Interoperability resolutions open up the risk of the Information Society undermining the Internet. I have pasted the introductory text below, including general concerns and some key points.
>>
>> The analysis is designed to contribute to upcoming proceedings such as the WTPF, the WTDC and High Level WSIS Review in April 2014, preparing the way to the Plenipotentiary Meeting in October/November 2014, where the necessary actions can be taken.
>>
>> The full analysis is here:
>>> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/
>>
>> Please take it into account on the next WTDC Prep, general ITAC, and Council calls.

<< SNIP >>

(Click here for blog post version of this commentary)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson
Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM
Subject: WTDC/Plenipot: 2) Cybersecurity, ICT Apps, IP-Based Networks: Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
To: “[protected]” , “Zoller, Julie N”

Hello Julie, ITAC, and all:

As promised, here are parts 2 and 3 of my analysis of ITU Resolutions.
This constitutes a comprehensive view of the implications of the
failure of the WSIS project and the ITU to recognize the key
characteristics that make the Internet unique. It is focused on WTDC
resolutions and is organized in terms of the WTDC Action Plan, but
also covers PP and WTSA Resolutions.

Part 2: Cybersecurity, ICT Applications and IP-Based Network Issues:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/11/25/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet/

Part 3: the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building and Digital Inclusivity:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/11/25/enabling-environment-capacity-inclusivity-understanding-impacts-on-the-internet/

This analysis has guided my contributions since at least April,
allowing me to prioritize the revisions needed and address the
approach of the US Delegation as the WTDC approached.

Only a few WTDC resolutions require revisions, and the most important
of these are attached to this email and the next.
Broadband Study Question 2 – ID Edits
WTDC 45 – ID Edits
WTDC 63 – ID Edits

The important part of the analysis turns out to be the relationship of the WTDC resolutions to a set of core PP Resolutions that present the key terms IP-based Networks, Internet and Next-generation Networks in a confused manner. I have placed commentary on this aspect under “IP-based Network Issues” at the above link for Part 2.

Also as promised, you may find my comments on identifiers under that
heading as well, which relates to several resolutions in Parts 2 and
3.

Contributions:

I am attaching a number of contributions I have offered since the
US began its approach to the WTDC, both in the form of revisions to
WTDC resolutions and in the form of revisions to other inputs the US
Delegation is providing to the WTDC, notably those on Broadband and
Conformance and Interoperability.

The US Delegation’s contributions on the topics of Broadband and
Conformance and Interoperability are matters of great concern. With
the broadband contribution, the US is encouraging the implementation
of ICT applications for the Information Society under the term
“broadband,” by reference to the ITU’s work on 3G/4G, the managed
service framework used by wireless providers. With the conformance
and interoperability resolution, the US is promoting the certification
of ICTs under concepts of conformance and interoperability that may
easily be applied in concert with managed service frameworks to
implement policy, rather than in terms of more flexible and open forms
of interoperability made possible by the Internet Protocol.

The last thing we want to do is roll out next-generation networks
all over the world, without recognizing the tradeoffs brought by these
types of networks as compared to the open Internet platform — and
then to place that under a conformance and interoperability
certification regime that fails to recognize the difference.

The US proposal on broadband might be placed under the heading of
ICT Applications in general, so I attach it to this email. Conformance
& Interoperability can be addressed in relation to Capacity Building,
so I attach it to my next email, under Part 3.

Below I describe the purposes of all the revisions to WTDC resolutions
I am attaching.

Seth

Further notes:

The following covers resolutions related to Programme 2 of the
Hyderabad Action Plan, in the areas of “Cybersecurity, ICT
Applications and IP-Based Network Issues.” My next email will cover
Programmes 3 and 4, on “the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building
and Digital Inclusivity.” The analysis covers WTDC, WTSA and PP
resolutions, while focusing on revisions to WTDC resolutions that are
needed at the upcoming WTDC.

You can find the first part of this analysis, on the Conformance and
Interoperability initiative, here:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/
. I determined early on it is not necessary to address the Regulators
Forum.

Also as promised, you may find my comments on identifiers under
“IP-based Network Issues” in Part 2 here:
internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/09/09/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet/#Identifiers

On the Analysis:

Only a few WTDC Resolutions need revisions in terms of their usage
of the terms IP-based Networks, Internet, Next-generation Networks,
etc. (though plenty of PP and WTSA resolutions do).

The key part instead turns out to be the relationship of the WTDC
resolutions to the core PP Resolutions that have guided the ITU’s
activities since 2010. I address these core resolutions under the
“IP-Based Network Issues” heading here:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/09/09/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet/#ITUInternet
. There I describe the confusion in the key terms IP-based Networks,
Internet and Next-generation Networks that PP 101, 102 and 133 convey,
and the fact that PP 137 is much more explicit about the commitment by
the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference to deploying Next-generation
Networks to developing countries.

The remaining parts of the analysis end up being placeholders for
important notes, listing PP, WTSA and WTDC resolutions in the
Hyderabad Action Plan Programmes and commenting on them, but noting
only a few WTDC Resolutions needing edits. Among these notes are
comments illustrating how the failure to recognize the nature of the
Internet in the Information Society project impacts both the Internet
and the goals of the Information Society project itself, as expressed
in the Geneva Action Lines.

Not yet in place are some comments on the core resolutions on
bridging the Digital Divide and the Standardization Gap, PP 139 and PP
123. I have already presented these points however, in the
Conformance and Interoperability analysis:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#DigitalDivide
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#StandardsGap

Describing the Revisions:

On this email you will find attached my contributed revisions on
WTDC 45, WTDC 63, and the US’s Broadband proposal.

On the next email you will find my contributed revisions on WTDC
23, WTDC 13, WTDC 30, and WTDC 47, and the US’s Conformance and
Interoperability proposal.

I describe the purposes of each revision below, along with other
resolutions that need to be revised:

US Proposal for a study question on Broadband:
Revisions to recognize other modes besides wireless, in
particular addressing the Internet platform created on the basis of
competitive access by autonomous, interoperating providers to
infrastructure installed in the public right of way.

US Proposal for a study question on Conformance and Interoperability +
WTDC 47 (Conformance and Interoperability):
Revisions to recognize different types of conformance and
interoperability relevant to different types of networks, including
general purpose interoperability among autonomous networks and
interoperability by the application of a common policy across routers
subject to a core authority.

WTDC 13 and WTDC 30 (Funding Mechanisms and Partnerships):
Revisions to recognize that funding mechanisms and partnership
schemes must be developed to support contexts providing competitive
access at the physical layer, that funding and partnerships in
vertically integrated telecommunications contexts may differ markedly
from those that would serve to support competitive access at the
physical layer, that public-private partnerships that incorporate
explicit recognition of the role of public oversight may better
support competitive access to the physical layer, and that recognizing
the distinction between the open Internet platform and specialized or
managed services allows for clear understanding of when practices,
policies and technologies may affect the Internet and its unique
characteristics and advantages.
(WTDC 52 and WTDC 71 may also be revised similarly)

WTDC 23 (International Internet Connectivity):
Revised to recognize that connectivity to the broader
international Internet does not mean there is an Internet at the
national or lower levels, and particularly noting that the commercial
initiatives to deliver cost savings that the resolution suggests might
address the resolution’s concern for pricing of international
connectivity for developing countries are not necessarily compatible
with the general purpose form of connectivity of the Internet.

WTDC 45, WTDC 63, WTDC 47 (Identifiers):
Revisions to acknowledge that policy associated with
identifiers may affect the flexibility and openness of the Internet
unless recognition of its basic nature is incorporated:

WTDC 45 (Cybersecurity): Cryptographic measures may serve as
part of an implementation of security-related policy in infrastructure
in ways that may impact the free flow of information, ideas and
knowledge and the flexible modes of interaction with and collaborative
use of information the Internet makes possible.

WTDC 63 (IP Address Allocation and IPv6 Deployment): Revisions
recommending that the ITU Council support both the open Internet
platform and specialized services networks in its approval of the BDT
Director’s guidelines for changes in organizational frameworks and
policies necessitated by migrating to IPv6.

WTDC 47 (Conformance and Interoperability): Revisions to
recognize different types of conformance and interoperability may
suffice to address concerns regarding use of identifiers for
enforcement of policy that may be implied in references to
counterfeiting in this resolution

(WTDC 22 may also be revised similarly)

WTDC 64 (Consumer Protection):
Revisions to assure that consumers are able to recognize the
difference between Internet connectivity and other types of
connectivity.

WTDC 37 (Digital Divide):
Revisions to recognize the role of the Internet’s special
characteristics in bridging the digital divide, including its
empowerment of end users and independent providers, and to assure that
references to pro-competitive policies and regulatory contexts
recognize the role of competitive access to the physical layer in
producing the Internet platform among autonomous providers, and in
incentivizing infrastructure development.

WTDC 15, WTDC 20 (Technology Transfer and Non-discriminatory Access):
Revisions to assure references to partnerships should
recognize the inherently public nature of publicly-funded research and
shared infrastructure, and to assure that the value of
non-discriminatory access does not substitute for recognition of the
advantages of competition among providers.

The Upshot:

In developing my contributions, I have been able to prioritize and
focus on parts that needed addressing in terms of the approach of the
US Delegation. The analysis should now serve others in understanding
where the defects are in the ITU Resolutions that need to be
corrected.

However, proceeding in a manner that continues to follow through
according to the process the ITU has laid out will not correct the
basic problem in the approach, which simply reaffirms WSIS goals
without adding the critical insights needed to understand what the
Internet adds to the equation. It will not only undermine the
Internet to continue to pursue the Information Society project the way
it has been, but establishing a form of Internet Governance at the
international level in this way presents the distinct prospect of
undermining efforts within the US to place the Internet back on a
sound foundation by recourse to the law.

The US needs to act at the WTDC to correct the oversight regarding
the Internet in the WSIS project. The US needs to recognize the
difference between a truly competitive Internet and the types of
specially tailored services that are offered within individual
networks — whether they may be individual wireless providers or
incumbents in other modes who enjoy a privileged status in relation to
infrastructure — and in the course of the next year help enable those
engaged in furthering the Information Society project to receive a
proper understanding of its status in those terms.

Seth

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Minard, Julian E wrote:
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> From: Seth Johnson
> Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM
> Subject: WTDC/Plenipot: 1) Conformance and Interoperability:
> Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
> To: “[protected]”
> Cc: “[protected]”
>
>
> At the link below is an analysis showing where the Conformance and Interoperability resolutions open up the risk of the Information Society undermining the Internet. I have pasted the introductory text below, including general concerns and some key points.
>
> The analysis is designed to contribute to upcoming proceedings such as the WTPF, the WTDC and High Level WSIS Review in April 2014, preparing the way to the Plenipotentiary Meeting in October/November 2014, where the necessary actions can be taken.
>
> The full analysis is here:
>> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/
>
> Please take it into account on the next WTDC Prep, general ITAC, and Council calls.

 

by Seth Johnson

Introduction

Enabling Environment

Capacity Building and Digital Inclusivity

International and Regional Initiatives

Introduction

• None of the materials framing the World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) provide a basis to recognize when the policies or technological solutions promoted as part of WSIS will affect the Internet. This basic oversight has critical implications as the World Telecommunications Development Conference (WTDC) approaches in early 2014. The implications relate not just to impacts on the Internet, but to impacts on developing countries, and on the objectives of the WSIS itself.
• The following is an analysis of the 2010 WTDC Resolutions to identify where they need to be adapted to enable recognition of how the WSIS project will impact the Internet. It is organized based on the framework of Study Groups and Programmes for the work of ITU-D outlined in the Hyderabad Action Plan, issued at the 2010 WTDC.
• We preface our commentary by first providing a description of the distinctions between the terms Internet, IP-based Networks and Next-generation Networks (NGNs), and then noting the important role of a number of 2010 Plenipotentiary Resolutions that are shaping the ITU’s WSIS activities.

• IP-Based Networks, the Internet and Next-Generation Networks IP-Based Networks, the Internet and Next-Generation Networks

  • Not all IP-based Networks represent Internet connectivity. The Internet Protocol enables interoperability between independent networks by transmitting IP packets in a way that allows the broadest flexibility in communications patterns to be supported. Among networks interoperating in this way, end users can expect that they will be able to connect to end users on other networks in a way that will support the broad diversity of applications that they may discover or create online. Networks throughout the world that have so chosen are part of a global network of networks that can be called “the Internet.”
  • The Internet empowers independent network providers to enter the communications arena and offer their users global connectivity, knowing that they can readily interoperate with other networks; and it empowers end users by providing them this global connectivity via a maximally flexible platform.
  • An individual network that uses the Internet Protocol among its own routers can be called an “IP-based Network,” but not an “Internet” made up of autonomous networks interoperating with each other. “Next-generation networks” generally use IP in a way that supports specialized functions within their own network that aren’t readily supported by general purpose interoperation between independent networks, and are thus in a subcategory of IP-based Networks that is distinct from the Internet.
  • NGNs open up the prospect of certain advantages for their network providers, including allowing them to perform network management and provide for levels of quality of service and product and price differentiation by shaping packet transmissions. However, these types of offerings will supplant the flexible, inherently neutral and general purpose Internet platform if they are not distinguished from it, or if competition in the communications arena is reduced to a few providers offering networks of this type.

• WTDC Resolutions in the Context of Key 2010 Plenipotentiary Resolutions WTDC Resolutions in the Context of Key 2010 Plenipotentiary Resolutions

  • When we examine the 2010 WTDC Resolutions we find that they only occasionally make reference to the Internet, and generally use the broader and more indefinite terms ICTs or telecommunications/ICTs to reference the technologies under discussion.
  • Instead, a narrow set of resolutions issued at the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference provides the frame for the ITU’s usage of the key terms Internet, IP-based Networks and NGNs, including PP 101, 102, 133 and 137. The first three of these are the resolutions that provided the frame for the 2013 World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) this past May. The last, PP 137, specifically promotes deployment of next-generation networks in developing countries, and was not referenced by the WTPF.
  • These resolutions do not offer a basis for understanding the differences between these terms, encourage a confusion between the terms Internet and IP-based Networks, and in fact emphasize IP-based Networks and NGNs, rather than acknowledging key characteristics of the Internet and addressing tradeoffs that other types of networks entail.
  • Because of their relationship to these core resolutions, the WTDC Resolutions covered by the programmes of the 2010 WTDC’s Hyderabad Action Plan support the same confusion of terms.
  • More broadly, the failure of the ITU’s resolutions and initiatives in support of the WSIS project to articulate these distinctions allows it to proceed in a way that will harm the Internet unless they are corrected.
  • Of particular concern is the specific emphasis on deploying NGNs in developing countries that we find in PP 137. In the confused context created by PP 101, 102 and 133, it becomes critical as we approach the WTDC to address the confusion in the ITU’s treatment of these key terms in its resolutions.

Enabling Environment

• Various topics: resource mobilization and partnerships, applied research and technology transfer, strengthening cooperation of Member States and Sector Members, effective utilization of mobile communications, non-discriminatory access to modern telecommunications and ICTs, protecting consumers of ICTs, Internet access in developing countries and charging principles for international Internet connection, international alternate calling procedures and allocation of international telecommunications revenues, strategic and financial framework for Hyderabad Action Plan

• (Click to See Enabling Environment Resolutions) (Click to Hide Enabling Environment Resolutions)

  • WTDC Resolutions

    • WTDC 13: Resource mobilization and partnerships for accelerating telecommunication and information and communication technology development
    • WTDC 15: Applied research and transfer of technology
    • WTDC 20: Non-discriminatory access to modern telecommunication and information technology facilities, services and related applications
    • WTDC 22: Alternative calling procedures on international telecommunication networks, identification of originand apportionment of revenues in providing international telecommunication services
    • WTDC 23: Internet access and availability for developing countries and charging principles for international Internet connection
    • WTDC 30: Role of the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector in implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society
    • WTDC 53: Strategic and financial framework for the elaboration of the Hyderabad Action Plan
    • WTDC 64: Protecting and supporting users/consumers of telecommunication services/ information and communication technologies
    • WTDC 71: Strengthening cooperation between Member States and Sector Members of the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector, including the private sector
    • WTDC 72: More effective utilization of mobile communication services

    WTSA Resolutions

    • WTSA 20: Procedures for allocation and management of international telecommunication numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources
    • WTSA 29: Alternative calling procedures on international telecommunication networks
    • WTSA 69: Non-discriminatory access and use of Internet resources

    Plenipotentiary Resolutions

    • PP 21: Special measures concerning alternative calling procedures on international telecommunication networks
    • PP 22: Apportionment of revenues in providing international telecommunication services
    • PP 23: Apportionment of Revenues in Providing International Telecommunication Services
    • PP 64: Non-discriminatory access to modern telecommunication/information and communication technology facilities, services and applications, including applied research and transfer of technology, on mutually agreed terms
    • PP 140: ITU’s role in implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society

  (Overview of WTDC Resolutions) Overview of WTDC Resolutions

  • WTDC Resolution 30, on the ITU-D sector’s role in implementing the WSIS, is among the core resolutions defining the broad framework of ITU activities since the last WTDC. It is also the WTDC resolution that serves as the basis for the ITU-D sector’s treatment of the enabling environment.
  • WTDC 30 invites the ITU-D sector to facilitate an enabling environment encouraging ITU-D Sector Members to invest in development of telecommunication/ICT infrastructure, assisting Member States and developing countries in finding innovative financial mechanisms and advancing their legal and regulatory frameworks to further infrastructure development and other WSIS goals. It invites ITU-D to pursue statistical work on telecommunication development, using indicators to evaluate progress with a view to bridging the digital divide, and to propose appropriate funding mechanisms for activities in support of the WSIS Action Lines.
  • WTDC 30 encourages ITU-D to develop and implement the ITU-D strategic plan, placing a priority on building infrastructure at national, regional, interregional and global levels, working in cooperation with the other ITU sectors and development partners, with particular regard to the needs of developing countries, and encouraging the principle of non-exclusion from the information society. It calls on Member States to give priority to development of telecommunication/ICT infrastructure, including in rural, remote and underserved areas, and requests the Secretary-General to transmit the resolution to the 2010 plenipotentiary conference for consideration in updating PP Resolution 140.
  • WTDC Resolution 13 concludes that the main players in the field of ICT should act in a way that encourages investments and innovative partnership schemes, that joint ventures should be explored for financing ICT development, that administrations should act to make the ICT sector more attractive for investment, and that a continuous dialogue should continue among telecommunication operators, service providers, and finance sources to prepare projects where BDT can play a catalyst role.
  • WTDC 13 instructs the BDT Director to act as a catalyst in the development of partnerships, by encouraging regional ICT initiatives, organizing training seminars, signing agreements with national, regional and international development partners, and collaborating on initiatives with other relevant international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, to encourage partnerships with high priority given the WSIS outcomes, to coordinate with international bodies involved in ICT development, to encourage international financing agencies, Member States and Sector Members to address the building, reconstruction or upgrading of networks and infrastructure in developing countries as a priority, to promote conditions required for a successful knowledge-based enterprise incubator process and other projects for small, medium and micro enterprises in developing countries, to assist developing countries in responding to global telecommunication restructuring, especially regarding financial issues, and to promote human capacity building in developing countries relating to the ICT sector.
  • WTDC Resolution 71 resolves that appropriate steps should be taken to create an enabling environment at the national, regional, and international levels for encouraging ICT development and investment by Sector Members and ITU-D should act to encourage the private sector to become Sector Members and take part in partnerships with telecommunication/ICT entities in developing countries, that ITU-D should take the interests and requirements of Sector Members into account to enable them to participate effectively in the Hyderabad Action Plan and the WSIS objectives, that a permanent agenda item on private sector issues will be included on the TDAG agenda, and that operational plans should respond to sector Member issues by strengthening communications between BDT, Member States and ITU-D Sector Members. It concludes that in implementing the ITU-D operational plan the BDT Director should consider actions to facilitate public-private partnerships for global, regional and flagship initiatives, to improve regional cooperation through regional meetings on issues of common interest, in particular for Sector Members, and to promote an enabling environment for investment and ICT development.
  • WTDC 71 instructs the BDT Director to facilitate communications between Member States and Sector Members on issues which contribute to an enabling environment for investment, particularly in developing countries, to continue to organize the Global Industry Leaders Forum, possibly back-to-back with the Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR), to foster exchange of information between Member States, Sector Members and regulators, and to further deploy and strengthen the ITU-D Sector Members’ portal to exchange and disseminate information about Sector Members.
  • WTDC Resolution 22 encourages all administrations and international telecommunication operators to give effect to ITU’s recommendations in order to promote an accounting regime that would help limit the negative effects of alternative calling procedures and calling party number delivery on developing countries and limit the negative effects of misappropriation and misuse of international telecommunication numbering resources. It requests ITU-D to collaborate with ITU-T on the issue of refile to eliminate duplication of effort and achieve an outcome in line with PP Resolution 21, to play an effective role in implementation of PP Resolution 22 with respect to apportionment of revenues in favor of developing countries where cost-oriented accounting rates reflect asymmetric costs for terminating international traffic, requests administrations and international operators that permit alternative calling procedures but do not provide calling party number delivery in accordance with their national regulations to respect decisions of other administrations that do not permit such services and that request calling party number delivery for security and economic reasons, and urges cooperation in implementing WTSA Resolution 20 with respect to telecommunication origin identification and misuse of numbering, addressing and naming resources.
  • WTDC Resolution 23 addresses provisions of § 50 of the Tunis Agenda recognizing the concerns among developing countries that charges for international Internet connectivity should be better balanced to enhance access, and calling for the development of strategies to increase affordable global connectivity. It notes that Internet service provider operators in developing countries have expressed concern that the commercial agreements between parties providing international Internet connectivity have not achieved the required balance in regard to charges between developed and developing countries.
  • WTDC 23 asserts that continuing technical and economic development require ongoing studies in this area, while commercial initiatives by service providers have the potential to deliver cost savings for Internet access. It urges service providers to negotiate commercial arrangements for direct international Internet connectivity based on factors such as geographical coverage, number of routes and the cost of international transmission, instructs the BDT Director to conduct activities to promote information sharing among regulators on the relation between charging arrangements for international Internet connectivity and the affordability of international Internet infrastructure development in developing countries, and reaffirms the quest to ensure everyone can benefit from the opportunities that ICTs offer, recalling that governments, private sector, civil society, the UN and other international organizations can work together to pursue improved access to ICT infrastructure and technologies and other WSIS goals. It invites Member States to create policy conditions for competition in the international Internet backbone network access market and in the domestic Internet access service market, as means to lower the cost of Internet access for users and service providers, and urges regulators to promote competition among all service providers in the context of national policy, with a focus on reducing connectivity costs.
  • WTDC Resolution 64 instructs the BDT Director to support the raising of awareness with decisionmakers regarding ICTs and with regulators regarding the importance of keeping users/consumers informed about basic characteristics, quality, security and rates of different services offered by operators, as well as the creation of other protection mechanisms supporting consumers’ rights, to collaborate with Member States in identifying critical areas for policies or regulatory frameworks for protecting users and consumers, to continue coordination with ITU-T on topics such as service quality, perceived quality and security, to strengthen relations with other international organizations involved in consumer protection, and to invite regions to create end user/consumer associations. It urges Member States to create and promote policies providing end users/consumers wih information on the characteristics of telecommunication services offered by different providers, and invites ITU-D Sector Members to contribute international best practices related to the implementation of consumer-protection policies, taking into consideration ITU guidelines and recommendations.
  • WTDC Resolution 72 cites a need to facilitate development and utilization of mobile communications for many practical tasks, including with a view to ensuring more equal access to telecommunication/ICT services for all, observes that new mobile technologies may help bridge the digital divide between both developing and developed countries and urban and remote or rural regions, notes that performing practical tasks with mobile and broadband technologies opens up new prospects including affording access to new technologies to developing countries, and that many countries are interested in mobile services in areas such as e-health, e-government, money transfer and transactions, near-field communications, banking and mobile marketing. Affirming the role of ITU-D in coordinating rational use of resources in efforts to establish more widespread deployment of mobile telecommunication/ICT services in different countries of the world, WTDC 72 resolves that the BDT should play a key role in implementation of regional and national projects for mobile telecommunication systems to provide services such as the above, in cooperation with interested ITU Member States and the private sector, and should develop a programme to develop proposals and recommendations for mobile telecommunication services at regional and national levels.

  (Usage of Key Terms) Usage of Key Terms

  • The Enabling Environment resolutions are phrased in terms of telecommunications and ICTs in general, with only a few references to the Internet or IP-based networks.
  • WTDC 23 references the Internet in describing concerns among developing countries that charges for international Internet connectivity should be better balanced, as presented in § 50 of the Tunis Agenda, in citing WTSA 69′s call for Member States to refrain from discriminatory actions that could impede access to public Internet sites by other Member States, and in noting that ITU-T Recommendation D.50 recommends international Internet connectivity be based on negotiating bilateral commercial arrangements that incorporate consideration of factors such as traffic flow, geographical coverage, or number of routes, whereas international Internet connections remain subject to commercial agreements that do not achieve balance in charges between developing and developed countries; that increases in costs of international Internet connectivity will result in delays in access to the Internet; and that service providers might deliver cost savings for Internet access through commercial initiatives such as those that might result in more traffic being routed locally. WTDC 23 also speaks of the Internet in its invitation for Member States to support ITU-T’s monitoring of the application of ITU-T D.50 and to create policy conditions for effective competition both in the international Internet backbone market and in domestic Internet access, in its urging service providers to negotiate international Internet connection according to the ITU-T D.50 recommendation, and in its instruction to the BDT Director to promote information sharing among regulators on the relation between charging arrangements for international Internet connectivity and the affordability of international Internet infrastructure development in developing countries.
  • WTDC 23 refers to the Internet and IP-based services as distinct terms in one reference to “the rapid growth of the internet and IP-based international services.”
  • WTDC 22, WTSA 20 and PP 21, on alternative calling procedures on international telecommunication networks, identification of origin and apportionment of revenues in international telecommunication services, all reference other terms besides Internet. WTDC 22 cites PP 21′s call for ITU-T study groups to study alternative calling procedures and identification of origin in relation to next generation networks, and WTSA 20 notes “the ongoing deployment of next-generation networks (NGN), future networks (FN) and IP-based networks.” WTSA 20 makes a single mention of the term Internet in association with the concept of convergence, with a reference to “the global growth of mobile and Internet subscribers and the convergence of telecommunication services.”
  • WTSA 69, on non-discrimination in access to and use of Internet resources, notes that ITU-T is dealing with technical and policy issues related to IP-based networks, including the Internet and next-generation networks, and references the Internet in citations of the UN Human Rights Council resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, § 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles, on the governance of the Internet as a core issue of the information society agenda, and Opinion 1 of the Fourth WTPF and the 2009 Lisbon Consensus on Internet-related public policy matters. It notes the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development, that discrimination in accessing the Internet could greatly affect the developing countries, and the fact that the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference entrusted ITU-T with a number of Internet-related activities, including those under PP 102, on ITU’s role in international Internet-related public policy issues and management of Internet resources.

  (Comments on Resolutions) Comments on Resolutions

  • International Internet Connectivity
  • Whatever the outcome of efforts referred to in WTDC 23 to increase the affordability of international Internet connectivity for developing countries, it is important to incorporate recognition of the key characteristics of the Internet in connection with this resolution because while these bilateral arrangements may provide for connectivity that constitutes Internet access at the international level, this does not mean the term “international Internet connectivity” designates Internet connectivity at more local scopes. The commercial initiatives WTDC 23 suggests service providers might implement to gain cost savings could well include practices that are viable within intranets but not in an Internet context.
  • Funding Mechanisms, Partnerships
  • WTDC 30 and 13 both relate to the role of private investment in development of infrastructure and services. Both relate to PP 102 in the core framework, which among other things also addresses private investment. WTDC 30 is more focused on funding methods and “innovative funding mechanisms,” while WTDC 13 is more focused on encouraging “innovative partnership schemes” and joint ventures.
  • The language in these resolutions should be revised to explicitly acknowledge the problem of developing funding mechanisms and partnership schemes that support and work within contexts providing competitive access at the physical layer, rather than using generalized language amenable to being interpreted in accord with vertically integrated telecommunications contexts such as we find in the United States.
  • If the vertically integrated telecommunications model is to be supported, the language should also incorporate recognition of a competitive environment of numerous providers interoperating at the physical layer, recognizing that this type of context empowers end users and independent providers and creates an open, flexible platform that fosters innovation. The latter type of context has profound advantages that should be compared against the advantages of intranet services, whether by a few providers or numerous.
  • There is no Internet within a vertically integrated telecommunications environment that has joined the physical layer with the higher layers within which applications are deployed, since there are no autonomous networks interoperating. Acknowledging this distinction is particularly important to developing countries that may want to perform this comparison or seek support for developing either type of context in the near or long term.
  • Indeed, if the ITU places an emphasis on NGNs in its development programs in support of the WSIS, as we see expressed in PP 137, it’s imperative to be able to recognize the difference between these types of offerings, with the specialized types of services they support, and the general purpose platform the Internet makes possible between independent network providers.
  • The economics of a vertically integrated market relates to control and efficiency for particular producers and the particular products supported by their production and supply chains. An analysis in those terms does not address the impact that vertical integration has on the direct social advantages of the flexible, general purpose platform produced among providers internetworking as they compete at the physical layer and the diversity of products and services made possible by this platform.
  • In the framing of policy, telecommunications contexts that support vertical integration have the characteristic of treating physical layer infrastructure to a great degree as private, conditioning regulation on a prior determination of anti-competitive behaviors or effects. The use of public-private partnerships in this type of context can reinforce this approach to regulating the physical layer, helping condition involvement of the public sector on greater private privileges.
  • However, other legal traditions may not apply analysis of anti-competitive effects as a precondition to regulate the public right of way: this approach proceeds from a premise that regulation of a shared public resource is given by its nature. This approach more readily applies conditions and obligations on entities that gain access to install infrastructure across the public right of way, treating the infrastructure as inherently subject to public requirements. It will benefit the flexibility of the framework that ITU applies in its activities in support of WSIS, to incorporate recognition that public-private partnerships might also be structured in a way more consistent with this type of legal tradition.
  • All of the areas WTDC 30 invites ITU-D to conduct activities in support of — fostering enabling environments, innovative financial mechanisms, and legal and regulatory frameworks, developing the ITU-D Strategic Plan, measurable indicators for statistical analysis of progress, and appropriate funding mechanisms — should be articulated carefully to incorporate recognition and support for environments that provide for competitive access to the physical layer.
  • (Resolution 71)
  • Technology Transfer, Non-Discrimination
  • Many of the references to the Internet in WTSA 69 may benefit from a review with an eye for adding provisions to recognize the nature, key characteristics of and advantages of the Internet.
  • Consumer Protection
  • distinguish Internet, specialized services
  • Identifiers
  • policy impact on flexibility on Internet

  (Impacts) Impacts

  • The pursuit of enabling environments for infrastructure development without recognizing the nature of the Internet will have impacts on the Internet and on WSIS goals.
  • Impacts on the Internet:
  • Depending on the policy and regulatory context, the establishing of enabling environments can affect the ability for independent, autonomous networks to readily interoperate by means of the Internet protocols unless the nature of the Internet is acknowledged clearly.
  • A communications environment constituted of competing providers interoperating in a general purpose manner supports greater freedom to innovate and diversity of applications than the type of environment that exists within a managed service framework subject to a common policy administered by a core authority, whether public or private. And if governance were established in a manner that mandates or depends on such a framework, this policy frame would have direct effect on the Internet’s flexibility and openness for both independent networks and end users.
  • In addition, if we fail to recognize the basis of the Internet platform in competition among autonomous, interoperating providers, we will easily accommodate a vertically integrated telecommunications environment that treats infrastructure installed across the public right of way as a more wholly private asset supplying the higher level services of the incumbents, with numerous implications for fundamental rights and innovation, as well as for competition. Indeed, without this recognition, the international framework for Internet governance that the WSIS is designed in part to bring about could take overlooking the nature of the public right of way in the telecommunications regulatory context to a whole new level.
  • Impacts on WSIS Goals:
  • Confidence and Security in the Enabling Environment: A failure to recognize the characteristics of the Internet in the Information Society’s initiatives will affect the goals of building confidence and security in relation to the enabling environment for development, with implications for many of the purposes of Action Line C6. The implications can be understood not only in relation to development, but also in relation to innovation and fundamental liberties.
  • Some types of incentives for infrastructure development may be built on capacities made possible in managed service frameworks (such as discrete tiers of service allowing differentiated price schemes), or that may be enabled by a regulatory environment that allows incumbents to treat the infrastructure they install at the physical layer as a supply to a vertically integrated production process. These approaches to encouraging development are distinct in nature from the approach associated with the Internet platform, where innovation by independent providers and end users drives demand for infrastructure. In addition, competitive access at the physical layer supports the openness and flexibility of the Internet platform, since competing providers must transmit packets in a general purpose manner in order to interoperate and provide global connectivity to their users. As a result, our confidence that the platform will support innovation as well as freedoms of press, expression, and association, can be affected deleteriously if a vertically integrated telecommunications market limits access to the physical layer by the effective control of a private party.
  • Security in relation to the enabling environment may be conceived in terms of security of transactions and e-commerce, or it may be conceived in terms of the security of fundamental liberties. The effect of enforcement of e-commerce and policies on the Internet and what counts as security will depend on whether the dynamic, interactive and collaborative possibilities enabled by the Internet are borne in mind.
  • The implications for security in terms of fundamental liberties are like those described for cybersecurity. If the telecommunications environment is vertically integrated, the implication is that infrastructure will be treated in terms of the private interest of those who install it across the public right of way, and as a result fundamental liberties related to the communications of citizens, understood as limits on the government, might be characterized as inapplicable. And public oversight of the public right of way in the form of regulation of infrastructure might be characterized in that framework as a violation of the rights of those who installed the infrastructure, rather than recognizing that oversight as a natural reflection of the nature of the public right of way as a shared resource that must be governed to foster competition and oversee access. In the latter context the government is barred from abridging the fundamental liberties of the general public, not of those who install infrastructure, and incumbents naturally may incur obligations, including limitations that reflect those that apply to the government, in return for privileged access. So security in the sense of reliable support for fundamental liberties may be affected when the foundation of the Internet in competitive access at the physical layer is overlooked and infrastructure is treated as private assets vertically integrated with the products and services of incumbent providers.
  • Action Line C6: A failure to address the nature of the Internet will have impacts on the goals of Geneva Action Line C6 including understandings of what constitutes a pro-competitive policy, legal and regulatory context, and what appropriate incentives are; how we define internet governance, public policy issues, and roles and responsibilities of various parties; how various technology policies relate to national strategies for public administration; how we protect consumers in their access to the Internet; the nature of open, interoperable, non-discriminatory standards; the nature of the secure storage framework; and how we understand online privacy.

Capacity Building and Digital Inclusivity

• Group on capacity-building initiatives; ITU centres of excellence; telecommunication infrastructure and ICTs for socio-economic and cultural development

• (Click to See Capacity Building Resolutions) (Click to Hide Capacity Building Resolutions)

  • WTDC Resolutions

    • WTDC 40: Group on capacity-building initiatives
    • WTDC 73: ITU centres of excellence

    Plenipotentiary Resolutions

    • PP 31: Telecommunication infrastructure and information and communication technologies for socio-economic and cultural development

    Other Resolution Areas

    • Conformance and Interoperability
    • Bridging the Standardization Gap
    • Bridging the Digital Divide
    • Technology Transfer, Non-Discriminatory Access
• Telecommunications/ICTs in rural, isolated and poorly served areas and indigenous communities; gender equality through ICTs; access to ICTs for persons with disabilities, including age-related disabilities; development of the Youth Forum in BDT

• (Click to See Digital Inclusivity Resolutions) (Click to Hide Digital Inclusivity Resolutions)

  • WTDC Resolutions

    • WTDC 11: Telecommunication/information and communication technology services in rural, isolated and poorly served areas and indigenous communities
    • WTDC 38: Development of the Youth Forum in the Telecommunication Development Bureau
    • WTDC 46: Assistance and promotion for indigenous communities in the world: Information society through information and communication technology
    • WTDC 68: Assistance to indigenous peoples within the activities of the Telecommunication Development Bureau in its related programmes
    • WTDC 55: Promoting gender equality towards all-inclusive information societies
    • WTDC 44: Mainstreaming gender in ITU-D programmes
    • WTDC 7: Gender and Telecommunication Policy in Developing Countries
    • WTDC 58: Access to information and communication technology for persons with disabilities, including persons with age-related disabilities
    • WTDC 70: Regional initiative for Central and Eastern Europe on “E-accessibility (Internet and digital television) for persons with disabilities”

    WTSA Resolutions

    • WTSA 55: Mainstreaming a gender perspective in ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector activities
    • WTSA 57: Strengthening coordination and cooperation among the three ITU Sectors on matters of mutual interest
    • WTSA 70: Telecommunication/information and communication technology accessibility for persons with disabilities

    Plenipotentiary Resolutions

    • PP 70: Gender mainstreaming in ITU and promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women through information and communication technologies
    • PP 175: Telecommunication/information and communication technology accessibility for persons with disabilities, including age-related disabilities
    • PP 184: Facilitating digital inclusion initiatives for indigenous peoples

    Other Resolution Areas

    • Non-Discriminatory Access

  (Overview of WTDC Resolutions) Overview of WTDC Resolutions

  • Capacity Building
  • WTDC Resolution 73 concludes that ITU Centers of Excellence should be continued, strengthened according to priorities determined in consultation with the ITU membership, and instructs the BDT Director to assist and facilitate them and carry out a comprehensive analysis of their activities in organizational, financial and programme terms. It references PP Resolutions 123 and 139 on bridging the standardization gap and the digital divide, and WTDC Resolutions 15, 37 and 47, on technology transfer and applied research, bridging the digital divide, and the conformance and interoperability program, which we have already examined. It also references WTDC Resolution 40, on human resource development.
  • WTDC 40 instructs the BDT Director to establish a group on capacity-building initiatives to contribute to ITU-D capacity-building initiatives in an integrated manner in cooperation with all programmes and the two ITU-D study groups. This group is to represent each of the six regions with two experts and work with BDT staff to identify global trends in ICTs and capacity building, regional needs and priorities, including evaluating progress and making proposals to harmonize activities, design and implement an integrated framework for the ITU Academy, advise on development of ICT curricula, accreditation and certification, standards for quality assurance for ITU Academy partnership courses, and initiatives, partnerships and academic alliances that further ITU Academy objectives, as well as prepare a report for the annual TDAG meeting covering achievements and proposals for future action.
  • Digital Inclusivity
  • WTDC Resolution 11 observes that all WTDCs have affirmed a need to provide access to basic telecommunication/ICT services for everyone, particularly for developing countries, in rural and isolated areas and in indigenous communities. It notes that a clear correlation has been shown between availability of universal telecommunication/ICT services and economic and social development and that in many areas there is evidence of the profitability of telecommunication/ICT services in rural, isolated and poorly served areas and in indigenous communities, that several state-of-the-art technologies may help in the provision of telecommunication/ICT services in this area, that access to these services in this circmstance requires judicious choice of technologies, and that ITU-D Study Group 2 has developed useful references in this area under Question 10.
  • WTDC 11 resolves to support the conclusions of Study Group 2 regarding rural telecommunication programmes, including regulatory framework, financial resources and commercial approach and universal access, instructs the group to continue their studies and the BDT Director to promote appropriate means to facilitate development of telecommunication/ICT services in these areas.
  • WTDC Resolution 68 resolves to affirm a special initiative for indigenous peoples in Programme 4 and in all BDT programmes, to support digital inclusion of indigenous peoples in forums and training on ICT for social and economic development, to support human resource training in design and management of public policies for ICT development in remote and isolated areas, for groups with specific needs and for indigenous peoples, and to support capacity training for indigenous peoples in development and maintenance of ICTs, incorporating best practices and knowledge of indigenous peoples and participation by indigenous experts where appropriate. It instructs the BDT Director to reinforce the initiative through collaboration with Member States and other relevant regional and international organizations.
  • WTDC Resolution 55 resolves that the Working Group on Gender Issues will work with ITU-D to promote gender equality in ICTs through recommending policies and programmes at the international, regional and national levels, and endorses an action plan to: develop initiatives in developing countries that are either specifically targeted to women or gender sensitive, incorporate a gender perspective in Study Group questions, support gender-sensitive cross-country data analyses, assess gender implications in evaluating projects, provide capacity training to BDT staff in gender mainstreaming, mobilize resources for gender-sensitive projects or projects specifically targeted to women, and develop partnerships with other UN agencies to promote the use of ICTs in projects aimed at women. It instructs the BDT Director to allocate necessary resources to this action plan and provide assistance to members in relation to it, and invites the Plenipotentiary Conference to provide financial and human resources to support the continued integration of a gender perspective in ITU development activities and bring the resolution to the attention of the UN Secretary-General for increased coordination and cooperation in promoting gender equality.
  • WTDC Resolution 58 invites Member States to envisage establishing a programme that considers priorities for ICT accessibility for persons with disabilities, with a view to progressive implementation, to pursue research and development in ICT-accessible equipment, services and software, to collect data on ICT accessibility with an eye toward creating e-accessibility indicators as a contribution to policy-making, to encourage participation of persons with disabilities in ICT policy-making and areas where ICTs have an impact, to establish ongoing collaboration between developed and developing countries to exchange information, technology and best practices regarding ICT accessibility, and to mainstream ICT accessibility for persons with disabilities. It also urges them to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, develop national laws and policies for ICT accessibility, and consider introducing ICT-accessible services and tax exemptions for assistive devices.
  • WTDC 58 instructs the BDT Director to ensure that the work of ITU-D as well as the provision of ICT equipment, services and software take into account the needs of persons with disabilities, including age-related disabilities, to document and share information on best practices in telecommunication/ICT accessibility, to provide capacity building and develop tools and guidelines for Member States on mainstreaming ICT accessibility issues in national policies and regulations, to collaborate with the other ITU sectors on accessibility-related activities and with relevant UN entities and disability organizations in all regions to generate awareness, and to designate a focal point for ICT accessibility and strengthen the special initiative on persons with disabilities, as well as consider holding forums for policy-makers, telecommunication regulators and Sector Members on accessibility issues, promoting reports and materials on ICT accessibility, and developing an internship program for persons with disabilities with expertise in ICTs. It invites ITU-D Sector Members to adopt a universal design principle in developing ICT equipment, to promote research and development on ICT-accessible technology with due regard for affordability, encouraging participation by persons with disabilities, and to take a self-regulation approach to accessibility of ICT equipment in collaboration with Member States.

  (Usage of Key Terms) Usage of Key Terms

  • Capacity Building
  • WTDC 40 and 73 and PP 31 all speak in terms of ICTs and telecommunication/ICTs, without reference to the Internet, IP-based networks, or next generation networks, other than WTDC 40’s references to the BDT’s Internet training centers initiative.
  • We have addressed the problem of recognizing the Internet in the WSIS project as it relates to capacity building to a great degree already in our treatment of the conformance and interoperability thrust, including our comments there on the resolutions for bridging the digital divide and the standardization gap. We have also commented on the technology transfer resolutions in our treatment of the resolutions for ICT Applications, e-government, and mobile communications.
  • Digital Inclusivity
  • All the digital inclusivity resolutions speak with reference to the general terms ICTs or telecommunication/ICTs. Only the resolutions on access for persons with disabilities use the term internet, and none refer to IP-based networks or next generation networks.
  • The resolutions on access for persons with disabilities, WTDC 58 and 70, WTSA 70, and PP 175, mention the Internet with references to the Internet Governance Forum, to the Internet and digital TV as two technologies presenting special difficulties for persons with disabilities, to maximizing the benefits of online information through the Internet for all sectors of the global community, to promoting access for persons with disabilities to new ICTs and systems including the Internet, and to the provision of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities calling for signatory States to act to provide access to ICT, emergency services and Internet services to persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

• (Comments on Resolutions) Comments on Resolutions

  • We have addressed the problem of recognizing the Internet in the WSIS project as it relates to capacity building to a great degree already in our treatment of the conformance and interoperability thrust, including our comments there on the resolutions for bridging the digital divide and the standardization gap.
  • Capacity building clearly needs to incorporate recognition of the nature and advantages of the Internet as distinct from other types of networks, as capacity building initiatives represent a key means for instituting and expanding understanding of the conceptual framework of the Information Society, with implications for how its initiatives and the technologies it promotes serve its goals. Here we elaborate this concern with reference to the motives of WSIS.
  • Digital inclusivity for various groups and communities is benefited profoundly by the nature of the Internet, and these constituencies may lose these advantages if the Information Society proceeds in a manner that affects the Internet’s character without recognizing this impact.

  (Impacts) Impacts

  • Impacts on WSIS Goals
  • The empowerment of end users made possible by the open platform produced by the Internet when it is constituted of diverse, autonomous providers that can readily enter the field of communications at the physical layer, is of a different character from that which managed service frameworks make possible within individual networks, and from that which may be expected in vertically integrated telecommunications regimes. The implications of failing to recognize the empowerment of end users and independent providers that Internet connectivity is designed to make possible, include effects on self-determination, autonomy and independence of communities such as the young people, women and girls, nomadic and indigenous peoples, and communities residing in rural and underserved regions which Action Line C4 references, or the older population, persons with disabilities, children and other disadvantaged groups referenced by Action Line C2.
  • If the difference is not recognized between what an open platform among independent and autonomous providers makes possible, and the unique possibilities for specialized services that individual providers may make possible within their own networks, then the outcome of the Information Society project may easily be to supplant the type of empowerment and digital inclusion that the Internet is designed to bring, replacing it with narrower options that other types of connectivity may entail, with pervasive effects on all the provisions of Action Lines C2, C3, C4, C8 and C11.
  • It would affect the content of the programmes for capacity building, lifelong learning and universal education that Action Line C4 advocates pursuing, including the substance of courses in public administration, the nature of the qualifications of ICT experts, and the role to be played by the libraries, multipurpose community centers, local ICT training centers, and public access points advocated by C4. It would also affect the nature of the pilot networking projects among education, training and research institutions between developing and developed countries, and in fact the very kinds of ICTs that would be recognized as appropriate for integration into education and training, also referenced by Action Line C4.
  • The failure to recognize the distinction can also easily affect the types of national policies for promoting investment in infrastructure and new services, and indeed the nature of the national, regional and international “broadband network” infrastructure, that Action Line C2 advocates pursuing as the “essential foundation” for digital inclusion in the Information Society. This would include the incentivizing of infrastructure investment by treating privileged access to the physical layer as a “supply” vertically integrated with the production processes of higher layer services offered by telecommunications incumbents, or defining new policy frameworks in association with the term “broadband.”
  • It would affect the type of connectivity that would be established for schools, universities, health institutions, libraries, post offices, community centers, museums, and other public institutions according to the call in Action Line C2. It would affect the type of universal access policies and strategies and connectivity indicators that would be identified, and shape the parameters for the technical, regulatory and operational studies in public/private partnerships, systems standards, access to orbital resources, satellite for underserved areas, and frequency harmonization, also advocated by C2. It would affect the types of educational, administrative and legislative measures to serve various disadvantaged groups, and indeed the type of end user equipment, that Action Line C2 encourages promoting.
  • The commercially negotiated transit and interconnection arrangements for global connectivity that Action Line C2 urges pursuing could supplant the advantages of the Internet if its characteristics are not delineated, and the advocating of “objective, transparent and non-discriminatory parameters” for connectivity in C2 could serve to replace recognition of how the basis of the Internet in competitive interoperation among independent providers can serve inclusivity by assuring the openness of the platform is maintained.
  • The failure to recognize the distinction between Internet and other types of networks would affect access to information, cultural identity and diversity, and international cooperation as envisioned by Action Lines C3, C8 and C11. It would affect the types of information made available as urged by Action Line C3, what would count as public domain, the types of use and sharing of information that would be supported whether technically or legally, what types of exclusive rights would apply in the context of the capabilities of the technology, what roles would be played by multi-purpose community public access points, and how connectivity would work as the “fundamental working tool” for local governance that C3 recommends recognizing.
  • It would affect the extent of empowerment that would apply toward the calls in Action Line C8 to promote the production of cultural works and local cultural industries, local community media, local heritage and biological diversity, support of rural and isolated communities, and local development for disadvantaged, vulnerable, non-literate and disabled communities.
  • It would affect the ways in which the enhancing of the capacity for indigenous to develop works in their language advocated by C8, and what kinds of best practices would be recognized for promoting cultural and linguistic diversity. And the nature of the policy and regulatory contexts associated with network infrastructure would interact with the nature of the public/private partnerships to promote cultural diversity and local and national works, and to recognize “ICT-based works” that C8 encourages, to embed these purposes in new formulations of the nature of the telecommunications regime and of the role of the government and private parties in that regime, in ways that could fundamentally alter the role of diverse, local communities.
  • Effects that a failure to recognize the distinction between Internet and other types of connectivity would have on international cooperation as envisaged by Action Line C11 would relate to the question of what kind of connectivity would be made available in service of C11’s calls for providing means for universal access and bridging of the digital divide, and for international cooperation on infrastructure development projects. Action Line C11 references a larger scope than the WSIS project’s frame, calling for the acceleration of public-private partnerships in the context of the UN’s Global Compact and Millennium Declaration. In policy and regulatory contexts that do not promote competitive access to the physical layer, as we find in contexts that maintain vertically integrated telecommunications environments, the promotion of public-private partnerships can tend to entrench that pattern if they do not build in special recognition of the role of public oversight of shared telecommunications infrastructure.

International and Regional Resolutions

• Strengthening the regional presence; ITU’s role in assisting developing countries and implementing regionally approved initiatives; telecommunication standardization in interests of developing countries; bridging the standardization gap; enhanced participation by developing countries; regional preparations for WTDCs and WTSAs and Plenipotentiary Conferences; deployment of NGNs in developing countries; support for development of the African ICT sector; Agenda for Connectivity in the Americas and Quito action Plan; Central and Eastern Europe initiative on e-accessibility for persons with disabilities; admission of academic research establishments in work of the ITU; special actions for least developed countries, small island developing states, landlocked developing countries and countries with economies in transition; assistance to countries in special need for rebuilding their telecommunication sector

• (Click to See International and Regional Resolutions) (Click to Hide International and Regional Resolutions)

  • WTDC Resolutions

    • WTDC 5: Enhanced participation by developing countries in the activities of the Union
    • WTDC 16: Special actions and measures for the least developed countries, small island developing states, landlocked developing countries and countries with economies in transition
    • WTDC 17: Implementation of regionally approved initiatives , at the national, regional, interregional and global levels
    • WTDC 21: Coordination and collaboration with regional organizations
    • WTDC 31: Regional preparations for world telecommunication development conferences
    • WTDC 32: International and regional cooperation on regional initiatives
    • WTDC 35: Support for development of the African information and communication technology sector
    • WTDC 39: Agenda for connectivity in the Americas and Quito Action Plan
    • WTDC 70: Regional initiative for Central and Eastern Europe on “E-accessibility (Internet and digital television) for persons with disabilities”

    WTSA Resolutions

    • WTSA 43: Regional preparations for world telecommunication standardization assemblies
    • WTSA 53: Establishment of a workshop and seminar coordination group
    • WTSA 56: Roles of TSAG and ITU-T study group vice-chairmen from developing countries
    • WTSA 59: Enhancing participation of telecommunication operators from developing countries
    • WTSA 74: Admission of Sector Members from developing countries in the work of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector

    Plenipotentiary Resolutions

    • PP 25: Strengthening the regional presence
    • PP 30: Special measures for the least developed countries, small island developing states, landlocked developing countries and countries with economies in transition
    • PP 58: Strengthening of relations between ITU and regional telecommunication organizations and regional preparations for the Plenipotentiary Conference
    • PP 112: Regional preparations for plenipotentiary conferences
    • PP 124: Support for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development
    • PP 128: Support for the Agenda for Connectivity in the Americas and Quito Action Plan
    • PP 135: ITU’s role in the development of telecommunications/information and communication technologies, in providing technical assistance and advice to developing countries1, and in implementing relevant national, regional and interregional projects
    • PP 137: Next-generation network deployment in developing countries
    • PP 143: Extending the provisions in ITU documents relating to developing countries1 to apply to countries with economies in transition
    • PP 169: Admission of academia, universities and their associated research establishments to participate in the work of the three Sectors of the Union
    • PP 170: Admission of Sector Members from developing countries to participate in the work of the ITU Radiocommunication Sector and the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector

    Other Resolution Areas

    • Bridging the Standardization Gap
    • Bridging the Digital Divide

by Seth Johnson

Introduction

IP-Based Network Issues: The Core Framework Established in 2010

Cybersecurity

ICT Applications, e-Government, Mobile Services

IP Addressing, Disaster Response, e-Health, Climate Change

Introduction

• None of the materials framing the World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) provide a basis to recognize when the policies or technological solutions promoted as part of WSIS will affect the Internet. This basic oversight has critical implications as the World Telecommunications Development Conference (WTDC) approaches in early 2014. The implications relate not just to impacts on the Internet, but to impacts on developing countries, and on the objectives of the WSIS itself.
• The following is an analysis of the 2010 WTDC Resolutions to identify where they need to be adapted to enable recognition of how the WSIS project will impact the Internet. It is organized based on the framework of Study Groups and Programmes for the work of ITU-D outlined in the Hyderabad Action Plan, issued at the 2010 WTDC.
• We preface our commentary by first providing a description of the distinctions between the terms Internet, IP-based Networks and Next-generation Networks (NGNs), and then noting the important role of a number of 2010 Plenipotentiary Resolutions that are shaping the ITU’s WSIS activities.

• IP-Based Networks, the Internet and Next-Generation Networks IP-Based Networks, the Internet and Next-Generation Networks

  • Not all IP-based Networks represent Internet connectivity. The Internet Protocol enables interoperability between independent networks by transmitting IP packets in a way that allows the broadest flexibility in communications patterns to be supported. Among networks interoperating in this way, end users can expect that they will be able to connect to end users on other networks in a way that will support the broad diversity of applications that they may discover or create online. Networks throughout the world that have so chosen are part of a global network of networks that can be called “the Internet.”
  • The Internet empowers independent network providers to enter the communications arena and offer their users global connectivity, knowing that they can readily interoperate with other networks; and it empowers end users by providing them this global connectivity via a maximally flexible platform.
  • An individual network that uses the Internet Protocol among its own routers can be called an “IP-based Network,” but not an “Internet” made up of autonomous networks interoperating with each other. “Next-generation networks” generally use IP in a way that supports specialized functions within their own network that aren’t readily supported by general purpose interoperation between independent networks, and are thus in a subcategory of IP-based Networks that is distinct from the Internet.
  • NGNs open up the prospect of certain advantages for their network providers, including allowing them to perform network management and provide for levels of quality of service and product and price differentiation by shaping packet transmissions. However, these types of offerings will supplant the flexible, inherently neutral and general purpose Internet platform if they are not distinguished from it, or if competition in the communications arena is reduced to a few providers offering networks of this type.

• WTDC Resolutions in the Context of Key 2010 Plenipotentiary Resolutions WTDC Resolutions in the Context of Key 2010 Plenipotentiary Resolutions

  • When we examine the 2010 WTDC Resolutions we find that they only occasionally make reference to the Internet, and generally use the broader and more indefinite terms ICTs or telecommunications/ICTs to reference the technologies under discussion.
  • Instead, a narrow set of resolutions issued at the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference provides the frame for the ITU’s usage of the key terms Internet, IP-based Networks and NGNs, including PP 101, 102, 133 and 137. The first three of these are the resolutions that provided the frame for the 2013 World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) this past May. The last, PP 137, specifically promotes deployment of next-generation networks in developing countries, and was not referenced by the WTPF.
  • These resolutions do not offer a basis for understanding the differences between these terms, encourage a confusion between the terms Internet and IP-based Networks, and in fact emphasize IP-based Networks and NGNs, rather than acknowledging key characteristics of the Internet and addressing tradeoffs that other types of networks entail.
  • Because of their relationship to these core resolutions, the WTDC Resolutions covered by the programmes of the 2010 WTDC’s Hyderabad Action Plan support the same confusion of terms.
  • More broadly, the failure of the ITU’s resolutions and initiatives in support of the WSIS project to articulate these distinctions allows it to proceed in a way that will harm the Internet unless they are corrected.
  • Of particular concern is the specific emphasis on deploying NGNs in developing countries that we find in PP 137. In the confused context created by PP 101, 102 and 133, it becomes critical as we approach the WTDC to address the confusion in the ITU’s treatment of these key terms in its resolutions.

IP-Based Network Issues: The Core Framework Established in 2010

• IP-Based networks; NGN deployment in developing countries; ITU’s role with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet; ITU’s role in development of telecommunications/ICTs; ITU role in organizing the work on technical aspects of telecommunication networks to support the Internet; role of Member States in internationalized (multilingual) domain names; role of ITU, ITU-D and ITU-T in implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society; evolving role of the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly; effective coordination of standardization work in ITU-T and the role of TSAG; strengthening cooperation among the three ITU Sectors on matters of mutual interest

• (Click to See Core Framework Resolutions) (Click to Hide Core Framework Resolutions)

  • WTDC Resolutions

    • WTDC 30: Role of the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector in implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society
    • WTDC 37: Bridging the Digital Divide
    • WTDC 52: Strengthening the executing agency role of the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector

    WTSA Resolutions

    • WTSA 45: Effective coordination of standardization work across study groups in ITU-T and the role of TSAG
    • WTSA 57: Strengthening coordination and cooperation among the three ITU Sectors on matters of mutual interest
    • WTSA 75: The ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector’s contribution in implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society

    Plenipotentiary Resolutions

    • PP 101: Internet Protocol-based networks
    • PP 102: ITU’s role with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses
    • PP 122: The evolving role of the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly
    • PP 123: Bridging the standardization gap between developing and developed countries
    • PP 133: Role of administrations of Member States in the management of internationalized (multilingual) domain names
    • PP 135: ITU’s role in the development of telecommunications/information and communication technologies, in providing technical assistance and advice to developing countries, and in implementing relevant national, regional and interregional projects
    • PP 137: Next-generation network deployment in developing countries
    • PP 139: Telecommunications/ICTs to bridge the digital divide and build an inclusive information society
    • PP 140: ITU’s role in implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society
    • PP 178: ITU role in organizing the work on technical aspects of telecommunication networks to support the Internet

  (Core Resolutions) Core Resolutions

  • PP Resolutions 101, 102, 133 and 137, issued at the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference, are the resolutions at the core of the ITU’s treatment of the Internet in the WSIS project. Unfortunately, their usage of terms engenders confusion or directly emphasizes terms like IP-based networks or Next-generation networks without recognizing how they differ from the Internet. We find no basis anywhere in the resolutions framing the WSIS project for understanding the special characteristics of the Internet and how policies or technologies implemented by WSIS may affect it, or for understanding the implications for the goals of WSIS itself.
  • These resolutions, along with PP Resolutions 122, 123, 135, 139, 140, and 178, constitute a broad framework setting terms which are to shape and define the activities of the ITU as it develops its relationship to the WSIS and the Internet in the four-year period from 2010 to the next Plenipotentiary Conference in late 2014.
  • The ITU is helping in a process toward establishing a system to enable governments to address public policy concerns related to the Internet, and toward fostering development of infrastructure in developing countries, in part through preparations now underway for the WTDC in early 2014. We find that these preparations, including an open consultation on enhanced cooperation, regional planning meetings engaging developing countries in articulating priorities for the WTDC, and meetings of the ITU-D study groups, are proceeding within a framework that does not provide for recognition of when policies and technologies may affect the Internet or may undermine the key advantages of the Internet for developing countries.

  (Core Treatment of Internet) Core Treatment of Internet

  • PP 101
  • Plenipotentiary Resolution 101 presents the Internet and IP-based networks in a way that allows confusion between the terms, making a few citations that might seem to promote the Internet while emphasizing IP-based networks in general and a migration to NGNs. In the present context of the WSIS, wherein there are no provisions for recognizing the basic nature of the Internet, PP 101 encourages a movement toward other kinds of networks, without recognizing the consequences of this movement.
  • In reference to the Internet, PP 101 calls for the ITU to clearly identify the range of Internet-related public policy issues that fall within its responsibilities based on its basic texts and the role the ITU plays in WSIS activities, notes that the ITU-D sector has made significant progress and carried out studies on the use of the Internet in developing countries, through human capacity building efforts including Internet training centers and through the outcomes of the 2006 WTDC, which called for ITU-D to assist in establishing access points and high-speed backbone networks for the Internet, and asserts the Internet’s special importance among the advances in the global information infrastructure that it observes are serving as an engine of growth in the world economy. It cites WTSA 69’s call for non-discriminatory access to Internet resources, and WTDC 23, which addresses the issue of charges for international Internet connectivity.
  • However, PP 101 addresses the terms IP-based networks and next-generation networks (NGNs) everywhere else. It resolves to embrace opportunities that derive from IP-based services in general, to collaborate and coordinate with other organizations involved in development of IP-based networks (along with the “future Internet”), and to ensure growth in IP-based networks (while taking into consideration traditional networks). The study topics it enumerates in the ITU-T sector are on IP-based network issues, such as their interoperability with other telecommunication networks, and evolution to next-generation networks (NGNs), including issues of numbering, signalling requirements, protocol aspects and security and infrastructure components; and it instructs all three sectors to consider future programs on IP-based networks and a migration to NGNs. PP 101 references a public interest in interoperability and quality of service in terms of the interaction between IP-based networks and other telecommunications networks. And it instructs the Secretary-General to produce an annual report to the ITU Council providing “a comprehensive summary both of the activities that ITU is already undertaking in regard to IP-based networks and any changes thereto, including the development of NGNs and future networks, and of the roles and activities of other relevant international organizations, describing their involvement in IP-based network issues.”
  • PP 101 refers to the global information infrastructure that is of crucial importance as an engine for growth in the world economy, the development of a widely accessible medium for global commerce and communication that elicits a need for the ITU to identify relevant global activities, and technologies that will introduce dramatic changes in the way we acquire, produce, circulate and consume information, all in terms of IP-based networks in general.
  • PP 101 calls for the Secretary-General to propose that the 2013 WTPF be convened to discuss all of the issues raised in PP 101 as well as PP 102 and 133, and instructs the ITU Council to take further steps to address all the issues in these three resolutions.
  • PP 102
  • Plenipotentiary Resolution 102 covers a range of concerns, addressing them much more continuously with reference to the term Internet, but we find in key provisions that it is also focused on IP-based networks and NGNs. In general terms, it addresses the role of the ITU in relation to the Internet, designates Internet-related policy topic areas to ITU-D and ITU-T, connecting a broad scope of policy topics to the ITU-D sector, adumbrates the topics of management of the Internet and Internet resources, the role of governments, enhanced cooperation, and the Internet Governance Forum, and instructs the ITU Council to upgrade the Dedicated Group on international Internet-related public policy issues to a Council Working Group (CWG).
  • PP 102’s numerous references the Internet include its instructions for the Secretary-General to take steps for ITU to facilitate the coordination of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, to take a significant role in international discussions on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources more generally regarded as within the purview of ITU, and to take steps toward enhanced cooperation on international Internet-related public policy issues. PP 102 assigns a broader scope of policy topics related to the Internet to the development sector, directing the BDT Director to organize activities addressing policy, operational and technical issues for the Internet in general, as well as the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources, to promote information exchange, fostering debate and the development of best practices on Internet issues, and to encourage involvement of developing countries in international Internet forums and issues. It directs the TSB Director to ensure the standardization sector performs its role in technical issues, contributing expertise and liaising with appropriate organizations addressing issues related to management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources, such as IPv6, ENUM and IDNs, facilitating studies on these issues, and to play a facilitating role in the development of public policy issues pertaining to Internet domain names and addresses and Internet resources.
  • Other direct references to the Internet in PP 102 may be found in its stipulations that management of the Internet is a valid subject of international interest, encompasses technical and policy issues, and should involve all stakeholders and relevant international and intergovernment organizations, in its references to Internet Governance and the Internet Governance Forum, with citations of Items 29-82 of the Tunis Agenda, and in its observations that the WSIS recognized the need for enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, that the ITU has established a Dedicated Group on international Internet-related public policy issues as part of its process toward enhanced cooperation, that the development of the Internet is market-led, and that the private sector plays a role in the expansion and development of the Internet through investments in infrastructure and services.
  • However, PP 102 also notably refers to the Internet in combination with other types of networks. Like PP 101, PP 102 refers to advances in the global information infrastructure as being of crucial importance as an engine for growth in the world economy, but notes that this includes IP-based networks and the Internet, treating the types more evenhandedly, while also mentioning that requirements, features and interoperability of next-generation networks and future networks are also to be taken into account. It notes that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of both the Internet and its future development, and that the role of governments is to provide a legal framework favorable to interoperation between global ICT networks and Internet networks.
  • PP 102 observes that the ITU is dealing with both technical and policy issues related to IP-based networks, including the existing Internet and evolution to NGN as well as studies into the future internet. Like PP 101, PP 102 calls for exploration of means for greater collaboration and coordination with relevant organizations involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future internet, and also accords a greater recognition of a transition to other types of networks to the ITU-T sector than the ITU-D sector, instructing the TSB Director to play a facilitating role in coordination and development of public policy issues related to Internet domain names, including their possible evolution, and directing the Secretary-General to take into account future developments of the Internet while pursuing a significant role in international initiatives on the management of Internet domain names and other Internet resources.
  • PP 133
  • Like PP 102, Plenipotentiary Resolution 133 references the Internet extensively, but its conclusions are actually drawn with reference to the general term IP-based network. It covers the topics of promoting regional root servers and internationalized domain names to overcome linguistic barriers to Internet access and directs the Secretary-General and Directors to promote the role of the ITU membership in internationalizing of domain names in their respective languages.
  • PP 133 cites PP 101 and 102 on ITU’s role with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses, and notes the Tunis Agenda commitment to advance the introduction of multilingualism in various areas including domain names, e-mail, Internet addresses and keyword lookup. It instructs the Secretary-General and the Directors of the three sectors to prioritize ITU-T studies regarding non-Latin scripts, to take part actively in all international discussions and initiatives on the deployment and management of internationalized Internet domain names, to support Member States in meeting WSIS commitments for internationalized domain names, to make proposals as appropriate, and to report activities and achievements in this area annually to the ITU Council, while ensuring the sovereignty of Member States with respect to Internet resource numbering plans.
  • While PP 133 references the Internet in numerous ways, including with respect to Internet public policy issues, Internet addresses, multilingualization of Internet domain names, and linguistic barriers to and availability and accessibility of the Internet, it references PP 101 and 102 and follows their same pattern of referring to other types of networks when it resolves to collaborate and coordinate with relevant international organizations involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future Internet.
  • PP 137
  • Whereas PP 101, 102 and 133 present terms in ways that can easily allow other technical solutions to be identified with the Internet in an imprecise way as they are incorporated within the impetus for establishing a framework for Internet Governance and for addressing Internet-related public policy issues expressed by the WSIS project, Plenipotentiary Resolution 137 presents no such confusion and directly exhibits the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference’s commitment to establishing next-generation networks (NGNs) in developing countries in service of the goals of the WSIS and the UN Millennium Goals.
  • PP 137 instructs the Directors of the Standardization, Development, and Radio Bureaus to continue and consolidate efforts on NGNs and future networks, to coordinate their studies and programs under the ITU-T sector’s NGN Global Standardization Initiative (NGN-GSI) and the ITU-D sector’s Global Network Planning Initiative (GNPi), to assist the membership in deploying NGNs effectively, especially in conducting a smooth migration from existing telecommunication infrastructures to NGNs, and to expedite affordable NGN deployment in rural areas. It directs the Secretary-General to seek support for NGN deployment, highlighting the benefits of NGNs in overtures to other UN specialized agencies and financial institutions. It encourages Member States and Sector Members to support the ITU and develop their own initiatives in support of the resolution, and to strengthen cooperation among developed and developing countries in improving capabilities to plan, deploy, operate and maintain NGNs and to develop NGN-based applications.
  • Among reasons it presents for this thrust, PP 137 posits that NGNs are considered a potential tool to meet challenges facing the telecommunications industry, that NGN deployment and standards development are essential for developing countries, especially in rural areas, and that countries can benefit from NGNs through their facilitating delivery of a wide range of advanced ICT-based services and applications, resolving difficult issues such as development and implementation of systems for public protection and disaster relief. PP 137 notes that developing countries are being challenged by rapid change in technologies and service convergence trends, that developing countries have limited human and financial resources to cope with an increasing technology gap, and that the digital divide may be aggravated by emergence of new technologies including post-NGNs and by the prospect of failing to introduce NGNs fully and in a timely manner.
  • PP 137 cites § 22 of the Geneva WSIS Declaration of Principles as representing the proposition that a well-developed information and communication network infrastructure and the applications it enables can accelerate the social and economic progress of countries, and the well-being of individuals, communities and peoples, noting that these considerations are covered by Action Lines C2, on information and communications infrastructure as an essential foundation for the Information Society, and C6, on the enabling environment. PP 137 asserts that the challenge, as perceived by WSIS, is to harness the potential of ICTs and ICT applications for promoting the development goals of the UN Millennium Declaration.
  • PP 137 instructs the ITU Council to make appropriate linkages, based on inputs from the Secretary-General and the three ITU Bureaus regarding the implementation of PP 137, with the Action Plan in WTSA 44 for bridging the standardization gap.
  • PP 137 also applies at the international level the notion of the “IP Transition” which is familiar to telecommunications policy observers in the US, stating that “for countries, especially developing countries and many developed countries, that have already invested heavily in the traditional public switched telephone network, it is a pressing task for them to conduct a smooth migration from existing networks to NGNs.”
  • Among the resolutions enacted at the 2012 WTSA, we find that WTSA 17, on Telecommunication standardization in relation to the interests of developing countries, explicitly references PP 137, and WTSA 54, on creation of and assistance to regional groups, references NGNs and future networks as among the topics of certain study groups that are of considerable strategic significance for developing countries in the current study cycle.
  • What we see in PP 137 is a depiction of an “IP Transition” that is not to the Internet, but to NGNs that fit within the general class of IP-based networks but that do not necessarily represent networks of freely interoperating autonomous networks. To make functions possible that are not associated with the general purpose platform created between networks by the Internet Protocol, these networks must institute common policies governing IP transmissions across routers that they control, and thus they essentially act as localized intranets. These types of networks bring certain tradeoffs, chiefly in relation to the autonomy of independent networks and of end users to freely offer, access, use and create services on a platform that they are assured will support them across independent networks, and to the freedom of independent providers to enter the communications space as competing providers based on the assumption of ready interoperability via the Internet Protocol.
  • If we are to take the direction prescribed by PP 137, which treats the deployment and development of standards for NGNs as essential to developing countries, and which identifies NGNs as a type of solution that is specially tailored to serving rural regions, then we must also identify the tradeoffs of NGNs and of policies that may be implemented by means of NGNs in terms of impacts on the nature and advantages of the Internet, so that the full scope of empowerment of individuals and communities that the Internet makes possible can continue to be pursued even if tradeoffs are warranted in the nearer term.

  (Broad Framework) Broad Framework

  • The 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference issued a set of resolutions which established a core framework for the ITU’s WSIS activities in the four-year period after 2010. Understanding how this frame has functioned helps illuminate how the ITU’s processes have failed to incorporate consideration of the nature of the Internet in the present four-year phase of the WSIS project.
  • In addition to the above-mentioned set of resolutions presenting the ITU’s treatment of the key terms Internet, IP-based Networks and NGNs, these core framework resolutions include a second set delimiting the ITU’s WSIS activities in the ITU-T and ITU-D sectors. This includes PP Resolutions 178 and 122, which frame the standardization activities of the ITU-T sector, including the activities and outcomes of the 2012 WTSA. It also includes PP 140 and PP 135, which correlate with WTDC Resolutions 30 and 52 and which address development activities in the ITU-D sector, including the upcoming 2014 WTDC.
  • Another set of resolutions contributing to this core framework includes PP 123 and PP 139, which describe commitments of the ITU-T sector to bridging the standardization gap between developed and developing countries, and of the ITU-D sector to bridging the digital divide through development initiatives. These two plenipotentiary resolutions correlate with WTSA 44 and WTDC 37 respectively, where the two sectors cover the same topics.
  • We can see how this framework has come into play in relation to the ITU’s treatment of the Internet by looking at the resolutions issued by the 2012 WTSA. The ITU-T sector did not clarify the distinctions between the key terms Internet, IP-based Networks and NGNs in the course of its standardization activities as it updated its framing resolutions at the 2012 WTSA. While the WTSA resolutions refer to the terms more often than the 2010 WTDC Resolutions do, they chiefly cite PP 101, 102 and 133 rather than elucidating what these terms mean.
  • For instance, WTSA 75, on the ITU-T sector’s role in implementing WSIS, makes numerous references to the Internet, mostly in connection with Internet-related public policy, Internet governance and management of Internet resources, but it does not explain how Internet is distinct from IP-based networks or NGNs while it cites most of the PP resolutions that make up the core framework. WTSA 69, on non-discriminatory access to Internet resources, makes a single reference to “technical and policy issues related to IP-based networks, including the Internet and next-generation networks,” but otherwise it simply cites PP 102 from the core framework and proceeds to make numerous references to Internet everywhere else, including references to governance of the Internet being a core issue of the information society agenda, to a UN Human Rights Council resolution on human rights on the Internet, to other WTSA resolutions and ITU-T activities for implementing WSIS as having to do with Internet-related issues, to the Internet as a driving force in development, and to discrimination in access to the Internet affecting developing countries. Neither WTSA 69 nor PP 102 address whether these numerous references to the Internet have special implications for the Internet as contrasted with NGNs or IP-based Networks in general.
  • We can understand this oversight better if we examine the structure of the core framework. PP 178 indicated ITU-T should conduct open consultations in preparation for the 2012 WTSA, on how to restructure the ITU-T sector to make it more responsive to changing conditions and new technologies, while focusing on more technical topics more often identified as within the ITU’s mandate. At the same time, PP 122 indicated that the activities by the ITU-T at WTSA would be delimited by strategic priorities. Given the focus of the WTSA on restructuring, and given the strategic context set by the WSIS project, which offers no bases for distinguishing between the Internet, IP-based Networks, and NGNs, it stands to reason that the WTSA would produce outcomes that simply reflected the same indefinite frame.
  • A similar framework is in place for the 2014 WTDC. PP 140 and WTDC 30 outline how open consultations are to be conducted to prepare inputs for the WTDC, while according a broader scope of Internet-related policy topics to the ITU-D sector than are accorded to ITU-T. At the same time, PP 135 and WTDC 52 place this activity into the broader context of the UN Development Program and the UN Millennium Goals. Neither the WSIS framework nor the broader UN frame provide for articulating how to understand impacts the WSIS project may have on the Internet.
  • It is thus critical that the question of how to recognize impacts on the Internet be raised in the course of preparing for the WTDC. This is particularly important if the assessment of the status of the WSIS project that will also be conducted in 2014, including the WSIS+10 proceeding that will coincide with the WTDC, is to reflect this concern.
  • In the meantime, PP 137, on next-generation network deployment in developing countries, represents a clear commitment by the Plenipotentiary Conference, set in 2010, to rolling out next-generation networks in developing countries, placing this goal in the context of the ITU-T sector’s Next-Generation Network Global Standards Initiative (NGN-GSI) and the ITU-D sector’s Global Network Planning Initiative (GNPI). In combination with the lack of any basis for recognizing impacts on the Internet in the WSIS’s core documents or the resolutions framing the ITU’s work on the WSIS, PP 137 clearly indicates the ITU’s impetus toward establishing other types of networks in support of the WSIS, in a process that combines this with the development of governance structures that may depend on those technologies, without confronting the consequences this would have for the real Internet.

  (Identifiers) Identifiers

  • Among the key issues that arises in connection with questions regarding impacts on the Internet and types of networks in the context of public policy, is the role of identifiers. This general topic heading covers many issues, but the overall concern might be summarized as follows: Numerous types of policies can be associated with identifiers, whether as unique signifiers or digital signatures, and these policies may be enforced in various ways, including by means of cryptographic validation. These policies may be enforced privately, by independent participants, or they might be enforced within a network by the provider. The latter arrangement can have clear impacts on the flexible nature of the Internet platform, in its foundational support for interactive and collaborative uses of information online. Questions such as those related to jurisdiction, authority, sovereignty, appropriate uses and others also arise in relation to allocation of canonical identifiers. If the key characteristics of the Internet are not clearly recognized, then the implementation of Internet-related public policy by technical means can easily undermine the most significant characteristics of the Internet platform. This effect would be heightened if public policy concerns were addressed by means of technical infrastructure prior to acknowledging the tradeoffs they might bring.
  • Four WTDC Resolutions touch on this concern: WTDC 45, on cybersecurity, addresses public key infrastructures, identity management, and digital signatures; WTDC 63, on IP address allocation and the IPv6 transition, and WTDC 22, on alternative calling procedures and origin identification, both interact with numerous other resolutions addressing identifiers in various areas; and WTDC 47, on conformance and interoperability, references counterfeiting.
  • ITU Resolutions in the following areas address policy issues with reference to identifiers:
  • Cybersecurity: WTDC 45’s citing of ITU-T Study Group 17’s work on public key infrastructures, identity management, and digital signatures
  • Addressing-related ICT Applications (IPv6, ccTLDs, IDNs, ENUM): References in WTDC 63, WTSA 64, 47, 48, 49, and PP 180, 102 and 133 to IP addresses as fundamental resources key to development of IP-based ICT networks and the world economy, a belief by many countries that there are historical imbalances between developed and developing countries in IPv4 allocation, a desire by many developing countries for ITU-T to become a registry of IP addresses, issues persisting regarding delegation of ccTLD names to entities designated by national authorities, a need for further discussion of the political, economic and technical issues related to IDNs arising from the interaction between national sovereignty and the need for international coordination and harmonization, current unresolved issues concerning administrative control of the highest level Internet domain which will be used for ENUM, invitations for Member States to adapt their national legal frameworks to resolve issues delegating ccTLDs and ensure implementation of ENUM, instructions to ITU-T Study Groups 2 and 16 to study how ITU could have administrative control over the international telecommunication resources used for ENUM and to cooperate with appropriate international or inter-governmental entities working on IDNs, and resolutions to assist Member States in managing and allocating IPv6 resources and to monitor current allocation mechanisms, including in terms of equitable allocation.
  • Enabling Environment: References in WTDC 22, WTSA 20, 29, and PP 21 to the necessity of identifying the origin of calls for national security, the need for ITU-D and ITU-T to cooperate on origin identification and misuse of numbering, addressing and naming resources, ITRs on integrity of numbering resources, resolutions relevant to stability of numbering plans such as ITU-T E.164 (ENUM), including pp 133’s reference to ensuring the sovereignty of ITU Member States, ITU-T E-, ITU-T F-, ITU-T Q- and ITU-T X-series Recommendations on international numbering, naming, addressing and identification (NNAI) resources and related codes, non-identification as among alternative calling procedures that may be harmful or impact the revenue of operating agencies authorized by Member States and hamper development of telecommunication networks in developing countries, and the ITU workshop on alternative calling procedures and origin identification held in Geneva on 19-20 March 2012,
  • Capacity Building: References to counterfeiting in conformance and interoperability resolutions WTDC 47, PP 177 and WTSA 76 could develop into a basis for a legal framework supporting the use of cryptographic validation to uphold policies associated with identifiers.

Cybersecurity

• Cybersecurity, countering spam, child online protection, national computer incident response teams; ITU’s role in relation to building confidence and security in use of ICTs, and in public policy issues related to illicit use of ICTs

• (Click to See Cybersecurity Resolutions) (Click to Hide Cybersecurity Resolutions)

  • WTDC Resolutions

    • WTDC 45: Mechanisms for enhancing cooperation on cybersecurity, including countering and combating spam
    • WTDC 67: The role of the Telecommunication Development Sector in child online protection
    • WTDC 69: Creation of national computer incident response teams, particularly for developing countries, and cooperation between them

    WTSA Resolutions

    • WTSA 50: Cybersecurity
    • WTSA 52: Countering and combating spam
    • WTSA 58: Encouraging the creation of national computer incident response teams, particularly for developing countries

    Plenipotentiary Resolutions

    • PP 130: Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies
    • PP 149: Study of definitions and terminology relating to building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies
    • PP 174: ITU’s role with regard to international public policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of information and communication technologies
    • PP 179: ITU’s role in child online protection
    • PP 181: Definitions and terminology relating to building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies

  (Overview of WTDC Resolutions) Overview of WTDC Resolutions

  • WTDC Resolution 45 recognizes cybersecurity as one of the priority activities of the WTDC, and resolves to address the issue of securing and building confidence in ICTs by raising awareness, identifying best practices and developing training materials to promote a culture of cybersecurity, and to continue to collaborate with relevant international and regional organizations on cybersecurity-related initiatives. It instructs the BDT Director to collaborate with the TSB Director in organizing meetings among Member States, Sector Members and relevant stakeholders to discuss ways to enhance cybersecurity, to support Member States’ initiatives for mechanisms to enhance cooperation on cybersecurity, to assist developing countries in enhancing their states of preparedness for securing critical telecommunication/ICT infrastructures, to conduct studies on strengthening cybersecurity of developing countries regionally and universally, based on identifying their needs, particularly as relates to telecommmunication/ICT use, including protection of children and youth, to assist Member States in establishing a framework among developing countries for rapid response to major incidents, and to report outcomes of cybersecurity efforts to the next WTDC. It invites the Secretary-General and the Directors of ITU’s three bureaus to prepare a document on the prospect of a memorandum of understanding among Member States to protect those who accede to it, including legal analysis of the MoU and its scope of application, and to support global or regional cyber security projects including IMPACT and FIRST, and requests the Secretary-General to report the results of cybersecurity activities to the Council and the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference.
  • WTDC Resolution 67 invites Member States to participate in the Council Working Group on Child Online Protection (WG-COP), for comprehensive discussion of legal, technical, organizational and procedural issues as well as capacity building and international cooperation, and to educate and create consumer-awareness campaigns targeting parents, teachers, industry and the general population to make children aware of the risks online, and invites Sector Members to participate in WG-COP and other ITU activities, particularly in ITU-D, to inform the ITU membership of technological solutions for protecting children online. It instructs the BDT Director to collaborate closely with WG-COP, and with other initiatives being undertaken at national, regional and international levels, to continue Child Online Protection activities through Programme 2 and in collaboration with Question 22-2/1 of Study Group 1, with a view to providing guidance to Member States on strategies, best practices and cooperative efforts that can be promoted, and to submit a report on the results of implementation of the resolution to the next WTDC.
  • WTDC Resolution 69 invites Member States and Sector Members with relevant experience to establish national Computer Incident Response Teams (CIRTs) where needed and to collaborate closely with ITU-T in this area. It directs ITU-D Question 22-1/2 to contribute to the implementation of the resolution, taking into consideration the work of ITU-T, and instructs the BDT Director to promote best practices at national or regional levels for establishing national CIRTs, to promote training programmes for this purpose and provide support to developing countries that so wish, and to facilitate collaboration between national CIRTs, for purposes such as capacity building and information exchange, by encouraging participation in the IMPACT, FIRST and other relevant projects at regional and global levels.

  (Usage of Key Terms) Usage of Key Terms

  • The term Internet arises in the cybersecurity resolutions chiefly in relation to spam and child online protection, with a couple of general references to PP Resolution 102 and Council Resolution 1305 identifying cybersecurity and public policy issues related to the Internet as being within the scope of the ITU. The resolutions generally speak in terms of “ICTs” and “telecommunications/ICTs,” and in two cases refer to a “national IP-based public network security centre” being developed within ITU-T Study Group 17.
  • PP 130 cites ITU Council Resolution 1305 as designating security, safety, continuity, sustainability and robustness of the Internet as public policy issues that fall under ITU’s scope. PP 174 cites ITU Council 1305 as listing issues of use and misuse of the Internet as among the main tasks of the Dedicated Group (now Council Working Group) on Internet-related public policy issues, as well as PP 102, which addresses ITU’s role in internet-related public policy issues and in the management of Internet resources such as domain names and addresses.
  • PP 130 , 174 and 181 and WTSA 50 reference Programme 2, on Cybersecurity, ICT applications and IP-based network-related issues, noting its prioritizing of cybersecurity, and citing it in association with ITU-D Question 22/1’s reference to best practices for a culture of cybersecurity, WTDC 45’s reference to mechanisms to enhance cooperation in cybersecurity and to combat spam, WTDC 69’s national Computer Incident Response Teams (CIRTs), and Study Group 17’s research on National IP-based Public Network Security Centers.

  (Comments on Resolutions) Comments on Resolutions

  • So long as the term Internet designates a network created by protocols that enable autonomous networks to interoperate while supporting the creativity of independent providers and end users through an open, general purpose platform, then the addressing of the problems of spam and child online protection with reference to the Internet in WTDC 45, 67, WTSA 52 and PP 179 can proceed without losing sight of impacts on the Internet. But if the term Internet is not distinguished in this way, or if for instance it is identified with all IP-based networks, then we may see policy decisions supplant technical consensus standards enabling general purpose interoperability, with many associated costs.
  • Spam, child online protection, and general categories of concerns such as security, safety, continuity, sustainability, robustness, and misuse of the Internet, whether related to Internet resources such as domain names and addresses or more general concerns related to the Internet, can arguably be addressed by approaches that accord responsibility to end users or individual networks. Enforcement of a policy by a central authority within an intranet or across networks will have effects on the autonomy and liberty of end users and network providers and the flexibility and end-to-end connectivity of the platform produced when they interoperate.
  • If the Internet is distinguished properly, then the question of what constitutes misuse of the Internet can be understood properly, and solutions or policy decisions instituted to provide for security, safety, continuity, sustainability and robustness, can be addressed in a variety of ways without misunderstanding the implications for the Internet.
  • In prioritizing cybersecurity, identifying best practices for a culture of cybersecurity, developing mechanisms to enhance cooperation in cybersecurity, and researching national Computer Incident Response Teams (CIRTs), and National IP-based Public Network Security Centers, the Internet should be distinguished from other IP-based networks in order to assure that these approaches to cybersecurity do not interfere with the Internet platform without recognizing their effects. Areas falling within references to IP-based networks such as we find in the title of Programme 2 should be analyzed in this light.
  • National IP-Based Public Network Security Centers
  • WTSA Resolution 50 and PP Resolution 130 both refer to work being undertaken by ITU-T Study Group 17 on “National IP-based Public Network Security Centers.” IP-Based networks constituted of routers that are under a core policy or authority can implement security measures in ways that are very different from the types of approaches that are entailed among independent, autonomous, competing providers interoperating through the use of IP. The studies by ITU-T Working Group 17 should reflect this distinction, recognizing that different contexts and different political cultures may favor different approaches.
  • Identifiers
  • In addition, some approaches to concerns in this area may involve associating policies with IP addresses or other identifiers, and if we do not recognize the nature of the Internet in terms of its design to transmit communications without regard for application, then support for this kind of policy can affect the flexibility and openness of the Internet.

  (Impacts) Impacts

  • Pursuing the Cybersecurity initiative without recognizing the nature and advantages of the Internet will have impacts on the Internet and WSIS objectives.
  • Impacts on the Internet:
  • Measures to assure confidence and security that may be established on an IP-based intranet are very different from the kinds of measures that would apply on an Internet among competing and independent interoperating providers. If confidence and security policies depend on forms of oversight like those available within a managed service framework, the platform that results will be subject to those policies rather than relying on the participants in the network to provide for the same purposes themselves.
  • In addition, the nature and advantages that accrue to the Internet, both for those using and for those developing applications for it, have reflected a context more reliably governed by fundamental rights of speech, press and association than we find in the international arena. If we fail to recognize the flexibility of the platform created by general purpose interoperation between independent networks, we will more easily accommodate, without due consideration, international frameworks and associated policies that will have critical effects on the nature of the platform and the process of standards-making.
  • The WSIS project contemplates some form of framework for international Internet-related policy including in the area of cybersecurity, and the difficulties associated with that prospect are exacerbated by the nature of the international arena. First, whereas within many individual countries the governments have been established by acts of the people, in the international arena governments have a priority of status. Where the people have asserted their priority through founding acts, the legal systems of the governments they establish are bound to uphold the priority of fundamental rights based on recognition of this original historical foundation. In the international arena, no such foundation exists and rights are secured at best by treaty agreements among governments.
  • In this type of context, rights are very easily traded off against the claims of governments, including claims for national security, and international courts are not bound to a recognition of the same kind of priority of standing of the people. This will have major impacts on the nature of the platform for those using it, as fundamental rights of speech, press and association (and against unreasonable searches and seizures) do not have the same force.
  • Overlooking the nature of the Internet in the Information Society’s cybersecurity context will also impact standards-making for much the same reason, as within national government contexts, participants in standards-making for communications may conduct their activities largely on the basis of technical merits, given a context governed by fundamental rights of speech, press and association that national governments cannot invade without facing strong recourse to the courts. The international context cannot afford this same environment for standards-making.
  • Impacts on WSIS Goals:
  • Geneva Action Line C5, on “Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs” through cybersecurity measures, seeks to prevent and respond to cyber-crime and misuse of ICTs, to combat spam, to support electronic documents and transactions, to support real-time incident response, and to promote rights to privacy, data and consumer protection. A failure to acknowledge the characteristics of the Internet will affect these goals.
  • While some of these concerns may benefit in some ways from uniformity and consensus among nations, if the nature of the Internet is not recognized the types of policies and approaches that result may be of a type only possible within centrally-managed intranet environments, and they will not be as well subject to the claims of fundamental liberties as they are in free national contexts.
  • Confidence and Security in Cybersecurity: A failure to recognize the characteristics of the Internet in the pursuit of the cybersecurity initiative will affect what confidence and security mean in that context. Both confidence and security can be understood in terms of government enforcement of policy to prevent crime or harm, or in terms how well we may rely on fundamental liberties as limits on the government’s actions in the name of cybersecurity.
  • Openness and flexibility of the platform: The openness and flexibility of the Internet platform is supported by competitive access at the physical layer, since competing providers must transmit packets in a general purpose manner in order to interoperate and provide global connectivity to their users, and as a result our confidence that the platform will support our freedoms of press, expression, and association as well as our ability to innovate can be affected deleteriously if other types of networks are employed to serve public security purposes by means of oversight made possible through a core authority without recognizing the impact those means would have on the Internet.
  • Support for rights of the public: If the telecommunications environment is vertically integrated, the implication is that infrastructure will be treated in terms of the private interest of those who install it across the public right of way, and as a result fundamental liberties related to the communications of citizens, understood as limits on the government, might be characterized as inapplicable. Indeed public oversight of the public right of way in the form of regulation of infrastructure might be characterized in that framework as a violation of the rights of those who installed the infrastructure, rather than recognizing that oversight as a natural reflection of the nature of the public right of way as a shared resource that must be governed to foster competition and oversee access. In the latter context the government is barred from abridging the fundamental liberties of the general public, not of those who install infrastructure, and incumbents naturally may incur obligations, including limitations that reflect those that apply to the government, in return for privileged access. So security in the sense of reliable support for fundamental liberties may be affected when the foundation of the Internet in competitive access at the physical layer is overlooked and infrastructure is treated as private assets vertically integrated with the products and services of incumbent providers.
  • Action Line C5: The impacts on the goals of Geneva WSIS Action Line C5 include understandings of the nature of the roles of the government and of network providers in areas such as real-time incident response, and of the implications of centralized or decentralized approaches to concerns such as spam. Failing to recognize the nature of the Internet may similarly affect the types of information that are shared regarding network security practices in accord with Action Line C5.
  • And the conflicting understanding of the roles of public oversight and private parties derived from the telecommunications policy and regulatory environment as described above, can affect the nature of user education regarding privacy online, and of the initiatives and guidelines for rights of privacy, data and consumer protection encouraged by C5, depending on how well the Internet’s nature is recognized.
  • Policies associated with document identifiers and electronic authentication of transactions can interfere with the openness and flexibility of the Internet platform if those attributes are not properly appreciated. This kind of oversight can also affect what becomes understood to be misuse of ICTs or cybercrime more broadly.

ICT Applications, e-Government, Mobile Services

• ICT Applications; more effective adoption of e-government services; more effective utilization of mobile communication services

• (Click to See ICT Applications, e-Government, Mobile Services Resolutions) (Click to Hide ICT Applications, e-Government, Mobile Services Resolutions)

  • WTDC Resolutions

    • WTDC 54: Information and communication technology applications
    • WTDC 72: More effective utilization of mobile communication services
    • WTDC 74: More effective adoption of e-government services
    • WTDC 15: Applied research and transfer of technology
    • WTDC 20: Non-discriminatory access to modern telecommunication and information technology facilities, services and related applications

    WTSA Resolutions

    • WTSA 69: Non-discriminatory access and use of Internet resources

    Plenipotentiary Resolutions

    • PP 64: Non-discriminatory access to modern telecommunication/information and communication technology facilities, services and applications, including applied research and transfer of technology, on mutually agreed terms

  (Overview of WTDC Resolutions) Overview of WTDC Resolutions

  • WTDC 54 instructs the BDT Director to continue detailed studies on the range of application types listed as playing roles in sustainable development in Action Line C7 of the Tunis Agenda, including e-government, e-business, e-learning, e-health, e-employment, e-environment, e-agriculture, and e-science, considering the types of technology available (wireline, wireless, terrestrial, satellite, fixed, mobile, narrow-band or broadband) and giving a priority to e-government; to make these applications a major strand while focusing on implementation of Question 17 of Study Group 2 in relation to e-government; to support projects related to these applications through strategic partnerships; to increase technical support and training for them; and to give priority to international and regional initiatives, taking into consideration security and confidence in these applications and the protection of privacy in some of them. It instructs the BDT Director to circulate outputs for these applications to Member States regularly and inform subsequent WTDCs on lessons learned.
  • WTDC 74 instructs the BDT Director to take actions to overcome challenges in implementing e-government projects and to allocate necessary resources, to expedite the definition of a model for Member States to monitor the status, usage, quality and impact of e-government, to promote sharing of Member States’ best practices, strategies, and technologies, and to create and update guidelines, tools, strategies and mechanisms conducive to organizational and administrative simplification, collaboration between government authorities, implementation of user-friendly services, integration and personalization of services, use of multiple channels, improvement of the quality of services on the basis of user requirements, marketing of e-government services, protection of personal data and security of e-government transactions.
  • WTDC Resolution 72 cites a need to facilitate development and utilization of mobile communications for many practical tasks, including with a view to ensuring more equal access to telecommunication/ICT services for all, observes that new mobile technologies may help bridge the digital divide between both developing and developed countries and urban and remote or rural regions, notes that performing practical tasks with mobile and broadband technologies opens up new prospects including affording access to new technologies to developing countries, and that many countries are interested in mobile services in areas such as e-health, e-government, money transfer and transactions, near-field communications, banking and mobile marketing. Affirming the role of ITU-D in coordinating rational use of resources in efforts to establish more widespread deployment of mobile telecommunication/ICT services in different countries of the world, WTDC 72 resolves that the BDT should play a key role in implementation of regional and national projects for mobile telecommunication systems to provide services such as the above, in cooperation with interested ITU Member States and the private sector, and should develop a programme to develop proposals and recommendations for mobile telecommunication services at regional and national levels.
  • Both WTDC 74 and 72 reference WTDC Resolution 15, which concludes that transfer of technology in the area of telecommunications/ICT is of benefit to developing countries and should be enhanced as much as possible in respect of both conventional and new technologies, and instructs the BDT Director to promote the exchange of information on transfer of technology and to assist in setting up cooperative networks between telecommunication research institutes in developing and developed countries, to assist in articulating terms of reference guaranteeing technology transfer, to develop handbooks on technology transfer and ensure their dissemination in developing countries, to encourage the admission of academic and research institutions as Sector Members or Associates of the ITU-D sector, at reduced requirements for financial contribution and particularly from developing countries, to encourage the organization of specialized workshops in developing countries by research institutes of developed countries, to give financial support to research institutes for developing countries to attend research meetings and workshops, and to establish a model contract for use by research institutes specifying partnership arrangements between them.
  • WTDC Resolution 20 concludes that access to telecommunication and information technologies, facilities, services and applications established on the basis of ITU-T and ITU-R Recommendations should be non-discriminatory, instructs the BDT Director to engage in partnerships or strategic cooperation with parties who respect non-discriminatory access to telecommunication/ICT facilities, services and applications, requests the Secretary-General to transmit the resolution to the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference, and invites the Plenipotentiary Conference to consider it with a view to taking measures to foster global access to modern telecommunication and information technologies, facilities, services and applications.

  (Usage of Key Terms) Usage of Key Terms

  • With one exception, the resolutions under this heading make no references to the Internet, IP-based networks or next generation networks, speaking entirely with reference to the general terms “ICT” or “telecommunication/ICT.”
  • WTSA 69, on non-discrimination in access to and use of Internet resources, notes that ITU-T is dealing with technical and policy issues related to IP-based networks, including the Internet and next-generation networks, and references the Internet in citations of the UN Human Rights Council resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, § 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles, on the governance of the Internet as a core issue of the information society agenda, and Opinion 1 of the Fourth WTPF and the 2009 Lisbon Consensus on Internet-related public policy matters. It notes the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development, that discrimination in accessing the Internet could greatly affect the developing countries, and the fact that the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference entrusted ITU-T with a number of Internet-related activities, including those under PP 102, on ITU’s role in international Internet-related public policy issues and management of Internet resources.

  (Comments on Resolutions) Comments on Resolutions

  • Technology Transfer and Non-Discrimination
  • Neither WTDC 15 nor 20 contain problems in their usage of key terms related to the Internet. However, it may be helpful to draw attention to the reference to technology transfer in WTDC 15; and WTDC 20’s call for non-discriminatory access to telecommunications technologies can lead to overlooking the advantages of a communications environment that is open to competition at the physical layer.
  • Technology transfer: WTDC 15’s advocacy for transfer of technology for telecommunications/ICTs occupies a significant position in connection with these general resolutions on ICT Applications. It is also cited in connection with resolutions for the Enabling Environment and Capacity Building/Digital Inclusivity.
  • “Technology transfer” has been assigned a variety of meanings since the notion was introduced by Brazil at the UN in the 1960’s, but in the US since the 1980’s it designates mechanisms for privatizing publicly-funded research, and the ITU’s resolutions are consistent with that sense of the term, focusing on transfers by research institutions, and instructing the BDT Director to set up networks between telecommunication research institutes in developing and developed countries, to encourage admission of academic and research institutions into ITU-D, to give financial support to research institutes in developing countries, and to establish a model contract for partnership arrangements between research institutions.
  • While fostering development should involve developing countries’ gaining the advantages of technology that may currently reside within developed countries, policy regimes for privatizing the outcomes of publicly funded research can bring important changes in basic conceptions of public information in relation to public policy, and of the nature of academic and research institutions and their role in and contributions to society. It may be constructive to note that if the WSIS project, or its implementation by agencies such as the ITU, tends to carry a particular conception of the term, as it does here, some might wish to examine that conception rather than have it conveyed without due consideration in the course of pursuing the goals of the Information Society.
  • Non-discriminatory access: WTDC 20 addresses non-discriminatory access to telecom facilities and applications and encourages the establishment of partnerships with parties that respect non-discriminatory access to telecommunication/ICT facilities, services and applications. It too is referenced not only in the significant general context of ICT Applications, but also under the topics of the Enabling Environment and Capacity Building/Digital Inclusivity.
  • While non-discriminatory access is an important value, competition among autonomous providers can also serve the purposes under these topics on a stronger basis, supporting sustainability and diversity of applications, infrastructure development, and empowerment of communities. Non-discrimination policy may be more applicable to intranet offerings or within a vertically integrated telecommunications context, but it should not be applied in a way that overlooks recognition of the advantages of real competition among independent providers producing an Internet platform at the physical layer.
  • WTSA 69 contains many references to the Internet, unlike WTDC 20. WTSA 69 may benefit from a review of these references with an eye for adding provisions to recognize the nature, key characteristics of and advantages of the Internet.
  • Partnerships: Both WTDC 15 and 20 reference partnership arrangements. In the framing of policy, telecommunications contexts that support vertical integration have the characteristic of treating physical layer infrastructure to a great degree as private. The use of public-private partnerships in this type of context can reinforce this treatment of infrastructure, helping to condition public oversight on the application of greater private privileges, rather than addressing public oversight and obligations as inherent aspects of the public right of way at the physical layer. Without specific attention to the nature of partnerships in this light, the support for technology transfer and non-discrimination policy by the Information Society will be embedded in this same dynamic.

  (Impacts) Impacts

  • Attempts to establish ICT Applications in a process that fails to acknowledge the nature of the Internet, will have impacts on the Internet as well as on the WSIS objectives under Action Line C7, on “ICT applications: benefits in all aspects of life.”
  • Impacts on the Internet:
  • ICT applications in a managed service framework, including e-government, would be very different and have very different implications from those developed in an open Internet context of competng providers, and unless specialized services are distinguished from the general purpose nature of the Internet platform, managed service frameworks such as are used for mobile communications could easily serve as a misleading model, supplanting the key characteristics and advantages of the Internet as they become associated with policy solutions and as modalities for Internet governance become established.
  • A communications environment constituted of competing providers interoperating in a general purpose manner supports greater diversity of applications and openness to development of applications than the type of environment that exists within a managed service framework subject to a common policy administered by a core authority, whether public or private. And if governance were established in a manner that mandates or depends on such a framework, this policy frame would have direct effect on the Internet’s flexibility and openness for both independent networks and end users. Any effects undermining the flexibility of the platform also represent impacts on its sustainability for ICT application development.
  • Impacts on WSIS Goals:
  • Geneva Action Line C7, on “ICT applications: benefits in all aspects of life,” seeks to support sustainable development and diverse applications for public administration, business and numerous areas of life that may be benefited by the Information Society. Proceeding to implement ICT applications without recognizing the basic nature of the Internet platform will have critical implications for the goals expressed for all the types of applications in Action Line C7.
  • Transparency, accountability and efficiency of e-government are served most reliably by a competitive telecommunications environment populated by independent providers who will agitate for accountability when their ability to use the Internet platform in the maximally flexible way it was designed for is impeded. Accountability also relates to the relationship between a government and its people, which supports the rights of the people as well as the openness of the Internet platform.
  • The effects on e-business and e-employment in terms of economic growth, opportunities, productivity, well-being, poverty, international trade, investment and innovation, and assistance to SMEs will vary depending on the flexibility and openness of the network. The nature of the network will also affect the diversity and types of e-environment, e-health and e-agriculture applications that will be developed and supported, and will have impacts on e-learning and e-science in terms of capacity building, empowerment of communities, qualifications of ICT experts, accessibility and affordability of scientific information, the effective use of scientific information, and the type of role that universities and research institutions will play.

IP Addressing, Disaster Response, e-Health, Climate Change

• IP address allocation, domain name issues, ENUM and IPv6 deployment; ICTs in healthcare; ICTs and the environment/climate change; telecommunications/ICTs in disaster response

• (Click to See IPv6, Disaster Response, e-Health, Climate Change Resolutions) (Click to Hide IPv6, Disaster Response, e-Health, Climate Change Resolutions)

  • WTDC Resolutions

    • WTDC 34: The role of telecommunications/information and communication technology in disaster preparedness, early warning, rescue, mitigation, relief and response
    • WTDC 63: IP address allocation and encouraging the deployment of IPv6 in the developing countries
    • WTDC 65: Improving access to healthcare services by using information and communication technologies
    • WTDC 66: Information and communication technology and climate change

    WTSA Resolutions

    • WTSA 47: Country code top-level domain names
    • WTSA 48: Internationalized (multilingual) domain names
    • WTSA 49: ENUM
    • WTSA 64: IP address allocation and facilitating th e transition to and deployment of IPv6
    • WTSA 73: Information and communication technologies, environment and climate change

    Plenipotentiary Resolutions

    • PP 35: Telecommunication support for the protection of the environment
    • PP 36: Telecommunications/information and communication technology in the service of humanitarian assistance
    • PP 136: The use of telecommunications/information and communication technologies for monitoring and management in emergency and disaster situations for early warning, prevention, mitigation and relief
    • PP 180: Facilitating the transition from IPv4 to IPv6
    • PP 182: The role of telecommunications/information and communication technologies in regard to climate change and the protection of the environment
    • PP 183: Telecommunication/ICT applications for e-health

  (Overview of WTDC Resolutions) Overview of WTDC Resolutions

  • WTDC Resolution 34 instructs the BDT Director to ensure proper consideration of emergency communications as an element of telecommunication development, and to support administrations in preparing national disaster response plans and by taking appropriate actions in the implementation of the Hyderabad Action Plan in areas covered in the resolution, such as using radiocommunications for Earth observation applications to predict disasters and monitor climate change, providing technical information through study group recommendations on disaster management, and taking into consideration the vulnerability of the economies and infrastructures of least developed, landlocked and small island developing states, the requirements of persons with special needs, the various ways to integrate ICTs into disaster management plans outlined by the ITU Global Forum on Effective Use of Telecommunication/ICT for Disaster Management, the contents of various ITU handbooks and materials, ITU-D Recommendation 13 on amateur services in disaster operations, and the outputs of ITU-D Study Group 2 Question 22/2 and ITU-D Reports and Guidelines on alerts in emergency situations, remote sensing for disaster prediction, and satellite telecommunications for disaster management in developing countries. It instructs the Director to encourage the use of decentralized means of communications, to study flexibility and continuity of telecommunications/ICTs in disasters, to strengthen the role of ITU regional offices in developing plans and workshops on emergency readiness and response, providing training and helping deploy communications in emergencies, to instruct Programme 5 to prepare materials on establishing telecommunications in areas frequently experiencing natural disasters, to consider a new World Forum on optimal use of ICTs for disaster management, to support in ratifying and implementing the Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations, and to report on the status of ratification and implementation of the Tampere Convention at the next WTDC.
  • WTDC Resolution 66 resolves to give priority to and develop further ITU-D activities on ICTs in relation to climate change, ensuring coordination among the three ITU sectors and providing support, including building human and institutional capacity in developing countries. It instructs the BDT Director to formulate a plan of action for ITU-D to be implemented under the relevant programme of the Hyderabad Action Plan, considering the needs of developing countries and cooperating closely with relevant study groups in all three sectors, to ensure resources are allocated to ICT and climate change initiatives, to organize workshops and training courses in developing countries at the regional level, to liaison with other relevant organizations, and to report on implementation of the resolution annually at TDAG. It instructs TDAG to consider changes in working methods to meet the objectives of the resolution, and invites Member States, Sector Members and Associates to continue contributing actively to the ITU-D programme on ICTs and climate change, to support the wide UN process on climate change, to pursue public and private programmes on the topic, and take measures to reduce effects of climate change through more energy-efficient ICT devices, applications and networks.
  • WTDC Resolution 65 instructs the BDT Director to continue to raise awareness of the advantages of telecommunications/ICTs for e-health applications among decision-makers, regulators, telecommunication operators, health professionals, partners, beneficiaries and other key players, to work with the health sector and other partners to develop models for sustainability of e-health applications, particularly in remote and rural areas of developing countries where mobile technologies may have potential, to promote development of telecommunication standards for e-health network solutions and interconnection with medical devices, to support e-health projects in developing countries in collaboration with government, public, private, national, regional and international partners such as WHO, to encourage collaboration on e-health projects at national and regional levels, to assist developing countries in development of national e-health master plans, and to provide technical support and training in ICTs for ehealth. WTDC 65 invites Member States to consider the development of national e-health strategies, international financial institutions to assist in developing e-health and telemedicine applications and projects in developing countries, and private sector entities to develop business models and consider introducing e-health/telemedicine services in developing countries on the basis of public-private partnerships.
  • WTDC Resolution 63 notes that “Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are fundamental resources that are needed for the development of IP-based telecommunication/information and communication technology networks and for the world economy,” and instructs the BDT Director to develop guidelines for adjusting organizational frameworks and policies necessary for the migration to IPv6, and after determining regional needs with respect to the transition, to initiate the project in light of WTSA Resolution 64’s provisions for IP address allocation and facilitating the transition to IPv6, while collaborating closely with relevant entities including ISOC/IETF on capacity development, training and other assistance. WTDC 63 states that many countries believe there have been historical imbalances in IPv4 allocation between developed and developing countries.

  (Usage of Key Terms) Usage of Key Terms

  • These resolutions use the general terms ICT or telecom/ICT in relation to disaster response, climate change/environment, e-health and the IPv6 transition, and only allude to IP-based networks or the Internet as below.
  • WTSA 73 notes the energy consumption demands of the Internet, identifying cloud computing as a basis for energy efficiencies. WTSA 47 and 48 note in connection with ccTLDs and IDNs that intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a role in coordination of Internet-related public policy issues, and that international organizations have had and should continue to have a role in development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies, and WTSA 49 valorizes convergence as it addresses the indeterminate status of ENUM, with its reference to the integration of telecommunications and the Internet.
  • WTDC 63, WTSA 64 and PP 180, on IP address allocation and facilitating the transition to IPv6, all reference IP-based networks. WTDC 63 and WTSA 64 both designate IP addresses as fundamental resources key to the development of IP-based networks and the world economy, and PP 180 references IP-based networks and the future Internet as the subjects of interest of organizations with which it calls for the ITU to find means to collaborate and coordinate, in order to increase the role of ITU in Internet governance.
  • PP 180 also references the term Internet, designating it as a leading factor in social and economic development and a vital tool for communication and technological innovation, and determines that specific actions for the transition to IPv6 must be defined in the name of ensuring the stability, growth and development of the Internet. It resolves to collaborate with the Internet community to encourage IPv6 deployment through capacity building and raising awareness, and to encourage regional Internet registries (RIRs) to coordinate research, dissemination and training activities with governments, industry and academia as a means of facilitating deployment.
  • WTSA 73 notes the energy consumption demands of the Internet, identifying cloud computing as a basis for energy efficiencies. WTSA 47 and 48 note in connection with ccTLDs and IDNs that intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a role in coordination of Internet-related public policy issues, and that international organizations have had and should continue to have a role in development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies, and WTSA 49 valorizes convergence as it addresses the indeterminate status of ENUM, with its reference to the integration of telecommunications and the Internet.

  (Comments on Resolutions) Comments on Resolutions

  • While IP addresses are fundamental resources for IP-based networks on the one hand, and the Internet is a leading factor in social and economic development and innovation, the stability, growth and development of which must be ensured by promoting IPv6 on the other hand, it is critical to delineate exactly what is meant by the terms Internet and IP-based networks, as networks do not necessarily afford the key characteristics and advantages of the Internet simply by dint of their using IP addresses.
  • PP 180 follows a similar pattern to that of PP 101, 102, and 133, speaking of the Internet in broad terms of principles, but referencing IP-based networks in the action items.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ITAC-D] Proposals for MODS to Hyderabad Resolutions
To: “Minard, Julian E” <[protected]>, “[protected]” <[protected]>
Cc: Julian Minard <[protected]>

WTDC 15 and 20 do not need edits related to misleading use of terms.

WTDC 64, on consumer protection, is more straightforward, but also
more “from scratch,” digging up citations. I’ll offer revisions on it
based on my big picture once it’s ready.

WTDC 22 presented too much complexity for my analysis to produce
something useful. I *might* get a clear window in on it with another
look, but currently I see it as by the wayside, not critical to get
into the frame.

Seth

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Seth Johnson <[protected]> wrote:
> Some mods attached; think I will get the rest in today. There’s a
> synthetic overview that you’ll be seeing soon as well.
>
>
> Seth
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Seth Johnson <[protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ITAC-D] Proposals for MODS to Hyderabad Resolutions
To: “Minard, Julian E” <[protected]>, “[protected]” <[protected]>
Cc: Julian Minard <[protected]>

Some mods attached; think I will get the rest in today. There’s a synthetic overview that you’ll be seeing soon as well.
WTDC 30 – ID Edits
WTDC 13 – ID Edits
WTDC 63 – ID Edits
WTDC 45 – ID Edits

Seth

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Seth Johnson <[protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Minard, Julian E <[protected]> wrote:
>> 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

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ITAC-D] Proposals for MODS to Hyderabad Resolutions
To: “Minard, Julian E” <[protected]>

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.

Seth

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Minard, Julian E <[protected]> wrote:
> 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

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Subject: Fwd: IPP: Hip Pocket Analysis of Res 1305: Internet-Related Public Policy
To: “[protected]” <[protected]>, “Minard, Julian E” <[protected]>

Attached please find the below commentary in Word and PDF formats
along with the original Resolution 1305. With my apologies, please
use these copies instead of the ones I sent within the last hour.
Notes on Annex to Res 1305

(Revisions in a couple of places reflect my preference to use careful
language treating the types of networks more even-handedly.)

Seth

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Seth Johnson <[protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, there are actually a good many more “mandate” sources that one
> could list in the Res 1305 Annex’s second column. But I don’t think
> adding those would do much to add insight to the IPP group’s efforts.
>
> In the following, I offer comments on the IPP areas that can serve as
> the “hip pocket” analysis Paul suggested you’d want to bring. I’ll
> turn this into a pdf tomorrow, but for now, use the following text
> version.
>
> The following points are meant to present the point that the CWG may
> undermine their own purposes if they proceed to present this list of
> policy areas without recognizing the distinction between competing and
> interoperating providers creating an Internet, and networks that may
> be IP-based but are governed by a core authority that sets common
> policy across routers that it controls.
>
> The policy areas in the Annex fall into three sets:
>
> I) Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are all cybersecurity-related. They
> cover security, safety, continuity, sustainability, and robustness,
> cybercrime, spam, misuse of the Internet, privacy and personal
> information, and protecting children online. These emphases reflect
> the points of Geneva Action Line C5, on “Building confidence and
> security in the use of ICTs.”
>
> The Cybersecurity resolutions generally speak in terms of “ICTs” and
> “telecommunications/ICTs,” and only refer to the Internet, IP-based
> networks or Next-generation networks in a few instances. They use the
> term Internet in relation to spam and child online protection and in
> reference to these various areas as being Internet-related public
> policy areas within the scope of ITU, including Council Resolution
> 1305, which I am analyzing.
>
> Spam, child online protection, and general categories of concerns such
> as security, safety, continuity, sustainability, robustness, and
> misuse of the Internet, whether related to Internet resources such as
> domain names and addresses or more general concerns related to the
> Internet, can arguably be addressed by approaches that accord
> responsibility to end users or individual networks. Enforcement of a
> policy by a central authority across networks may have effects on the
> autonomy and liberty of end users and network providers and the
> flexibility of the platform produced when they interoperate.
>
> WTSA 50 and PP 130 refer to work being undertaken by ITU-T Study Group
> 17 on “National IP-based Public Network Security Centers.” IP-Based
> networks constituted of routers that are under a core policy or
> authority can implement security measures in ways that are very
> different from the kinds of approaches that may be taken among
> autonomous, competing providers interoperating through the use of IP.
> If confidence and security policies depend on forms of oversight like
> those available within a managed service framework, the platform that
> results will be subject to those policies rather than relying on the
> participants in the network providing for the same purposes
> themselves.
>
> No distinction is made in the ITU framing documents between these two
> types of networks. Proceeding with implementing public policy for
> confidence and security without recognizing the nature of the Internet
> as distinct from an intranet that may transmit packets in specialized
> ways among the routers it controls, will not only impact the nature of
> the platform, but it will affect numerous WSIS goals.
>
>
> 2) Items 2, 8, 9 and 10 are more “developmental.” Items 9 and 10, on
> “Developmental aspects of the Internet” and “capacity building for
> Internet governance in developing countries,” both reference WTDC
> Resolutions 17 and 20. Given that WTDC 17 is cited by Plenipotentiary
> Resolution 137, which promotes “next-generation network deployment in
> developing countries,” we can easily see that failing to distinguish
> the special characteristics of the Internet while addressing policy on
> “developmental aspects of the Internet” will easily encourage the
> implementation of NGNs without recognizing the difference. WTDC 20
> addresses non-discriminatory access to telecom facilities and
> applications as well as the pursuit of partnerships, and is referenced
> by WTDC Resolutions in the areas of the enabling environment, capacity
> building and digital inclusivity and ICT applications in general.
> While non-discriminatory access is a critical value, competition among
> autonomous providers can serve these same purposes through a flexible
> and open Internet platform, supporting infrastructure development,
> empowerment of communities and sustainability and diversity of
> applications on a stronger basis. Non-discrimination policy is more
> applicable to intranet offerings or a vertically integrated
> telecommunications context, and cannot offer the advantages of real
> competition among independent providers producing an Internet
> platform.
>
> Item 2, on International Internet Connectivity, does not list WTDC 23
> under the ITU mandate column. This should be added and it should be
> pointed out that the provision under “recognizing” should add language
> that recognizes that not all commercial practices to reduce costs are
> associated with the general purpose transmissions of packets that
> enable independent networks to interoperate. Connectivity to the
> broader international Internet does not necessarily mean the network
> at the national level supports general purpose internetworking between
> autonomous network providers:
>
> Adding one paragraph to WTDC 23
> (internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_23/ )
>
> recognizing
> a) that commercial initiatives by service providers have the
> potential to deliver cost savings for Internet access, for example
> through the development of more local content and the optimization of
> Internet traffic routing patterns in a manner that provides for a
> greater proportion of traffic to be routed locally;
>
> b) that charging principles for international Internet
> connectivity must recognize that some commercial initiatives by
> providers of international connectivity to the broader Internet may
> take the form of practices within their networks that must be
> distinguished from Internet connectivity, notwithstanding cost
> advantages of these practices, since they are not consistent with the
> flexible mode of interoperability among competitive, autonomous
> Internet providers that the Internet protocols make possible,
>
>
> Item 8, on “availability, affordability, reliability, and quality of
> service, especially in the developing world,” references values that
> are often offered as advantages that managed or specialized service
> network frameworks make possible. The ITU will easily misrepresent
> the nature of the open Internet platform if it does not distinguish it
> from specialized service offerings.
>
>
> 3) And Items 1 and 3 fit are “more technical,” addressing
> internationalized domain names and international public policy issues
> pertaining to Internet resources such as domain names and addresses.
> Under this heading, WTSA 47 and 48 note in connection with ccTLDs and
> IDNs that intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue
> to have a role in coordination of Internet-related public policy
> issues, and that international organizations have had and should
> continue to have a role in development of Internet-related technical
> standards and relevant policies. WTSA 49, on ENUM, valorizes
> convergence in reference to the integration of telecommunications and
> the Internet. WTSA 64 refers to IP addresses as fundamental resources
> key to the development of IP-based networks and the world economy.
>
> For these resolutions, we simply note that networks do not necessarily
> afford the key characteristics and advantages of the Internet simply
> by dint of their using IP addresses, and it is critical to recognize
> that the Internet addresses the problem of interoperating between
> autonomous networks, while other types of IP-based networks seek to
> implement functions that do not use the Internet Protocol in this way.
>
>
> That’s it! I didn’t go into specific impacts on WSIS purposes so
> much, but the point should be plain: that it doesn’t serve the ITU or
> the WSIS project well to fail to recognize how the Internet is unique.
> The oversight can be shown to directly undermine numerous values that
> the WSIS ostensibly supports.
>
>
> Seth

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ITAC-D] Contri. on Work at ITU-D to increase Broadband Access
To: Flavia Alves <[protected]>
Cc: “[protected]” <[protected]>

Hi Flavia, et al.,

Please find edits to the dIAP on promoting broadband and continuing relevant questions.
Broadband Study Question – ID Edits

The main concern is the way this proposal enables the kind of framework developed for wireless in the IMT standards, to be conflated with “broadband” in general.

Seth

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Flavia Alves <[protected]> wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> Per our last call, I am sending the two contributions on the work related to
> Broadband Access:
>
>
> 1. Changes to the Resolutions on BB: I have comments to 3 out of the 6
> resolutions from WTDC-10 that directly or indirectly relates to broadband
> access. I made comments to the ones related to Question 25/2. If anyone
> wants to provide edits to the rest of the resolutions, I will be happy to
> receive and compile them for the group, but I have no input on them.
>
> 2. Continuance of SQ 25/2: The contribution proposes that Question 25
> continues, but with greater coordination with other related Study Questions,
> and the BDT. It also includes an annex with the proposed changes by the
> Rapporteur of the SQs, Amy Sanders, and some other changes included by me
> aiming for greater linkage with related Study Questions and the BDT.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Flavia

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Subject: WTDC 47 Edits – Re: [ITAC-D] Updated proposal for changes to WTDC Resolution 47 on Conformance & Interoperability
To: “Chip Sharp (chsharp)” <[protected]>
Cc: “[protected]” <[protected]>

Hi Chip et al.,

Edits to WTDC 47 attached, as promised.
WTDC 47 – ID Edits

Seth

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Chip Sharp (chsharp) <[protected]> wrote:
> All,
>
> As requested today, here is the proposed modification for Resolution 47.
> Note that this is Rev 4 of the proposal, but the only difference from the
> last one I sent out is one word (highlighted). It is diffmarked against the
> current version of Resolution 47.
>
> I recommend reviewing all the proposed changes, but I want to bring to your
> attention two additions to the Resolution:
> * Addition of text on counterfeit equipment, as per Res. 177 of PP’10.
> * Addition of text related to MRAs
>
>
> The inclusion of counterfeit equipment was the result of discussions (e.g.,
> at TSAG) on whether this work should be done in ITU-T or in ITU-D. The
> intent of adding counterfeit into Res 47 is to try to move this work to
> capacity building in ITU-D as opposed to ITU-T developing Recommendations.
>
> The addition of text on MRAs to Res. 47 was intended to refer to capacity
> building on MRAs, (e.g, what MRAs are, how they are developed, how they
> work), *not* to negotiate MRAs. There seems to be a lot of confusion about
> MRAs and how they work (including me).
>
> For those that are interested, the following ITU-D web site describes the
> activities related to the C&I Program.
> As I noted on the call, the ITU(-D) is already including MRAs in its work
> including developing guidelines for development of MRAs.
> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Technology/Pages/ConformanceandInteroperability.aspx
>
> I also noted on the call that the ITU has signed MOUs related to the C&I
> Program with test labs in countries that have local testing requirements
> (don’t accept test results from the US).
>
> Chip Sharp
> Director – Tech Policy & Internet Governance
> Cary, NC

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Subject: Rapporteur Nomination — Re: [ITAC-D] Proposed New Question on Conformance & Interoperability
To: “[protected]” <[protected]>, “Chip Sharp (chsharp)” <[protected]>, Doreen McGirr <[protected]>, “Zichy, Franz J” <[protected]>
Cc: Bruce Perens <[protected]>, Roxanne McElvane <[protected]>, Julian Minard <[protected]>

Hello all —

I was able with some of the folks I work with to find a Rapporteur for the Conformance and Interoperability Question. Please find a set of revisions to the Question attached.
Conformance & Interoperability Study Question – ID Edits

We offer a nomination for Bruce Perens to play this role. He is cc’d here.

Seth Johnson

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Chip Sharp (chsharp) <[protected]> wrote:
>
>
> C-315 was submitted by the SG2 Chair (Algeria Telecom) to ITU-D SG2 and proposes a new question on Conformance and Interoperability.
> http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=en&parent=D10-SG02-C-0315
>
>
> I had circulated a draft of a new Question on C&I earlier, but I understand that not everyone has seen it. I based this proposal on the proposal submitted by the US to WTDC’10 (but dropped during the meeting).
>
> I’m attaching it to this email.
>
>

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: Rev. WTDC Resolution 23 + Re: WTDC Prep in Context — Re: [ITAC-D] WTDC-14 Preparatory Meeting – Tuesday June 25
To: [protected], Doreen McGirr , “Zichy, Franz J” , “Minard, Julian E”
Cc: Julian Minard

Another one: WTDC 45 relates to PP 130 and WTSA 50, which both refer to work being undertaken by ITU-T Study Group 17 on “National IP-based Public Network Security Centers.” It may be necessary to revise WTDC 45 to reflect edits to PP 130 and WTSA 50, recognizing that the kind of security measures that can be implemented on an IP-based network is very different from cybersecurity across competing, autonomous providers. The work in Study Group 17 should reflect that distinction, acknowledging that different contexts and different political cultures would favor different approaches.

So, one more in the list: WTDC Resolutions 23, 30, 13, 37, 47 and now 45 are all examples of WTDC resolutions that may need to be revised based on recognizing the Internet in the WSIS resolutions.

Here are links to html versions of PP 130 and WTSA 50:

https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_130/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtsa/wtsa_50/

Seth

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:

Hello Doreen, Franz, Julian, all:

Please take note of the following observations on WTDC Prep in the overall WSIS context.

I have been reading all the relevant resolutions from a broad perspective, including WTDC, WTSA and Plenipot.

<SNIP>

 

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson
Date: Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:23 PM
Subject: Rev. WTDC Resolution 23 + Re: WTDC Prep in Context — Re: [ITAC-D] WTDC-14 Preparatory Meeting – Tuesday June 25
To: [protected], Doreen McGirr , “Zichy, Franz J” , “Minard, Julian E”
Cc: Julian Minard

Hello Doreen, Franz, Julian, all:

Please take note of the following observations on WTDC Prep in the overall WSIS context.

I have been reading all the relevant resolutions from a broad perspective, including WTDC, WTSA and Plenipot.

As an example, I have attached a revision to WTDC Resolution 23. It’s relevant to WTDC Prep, though not terribly interesting in itself.
(WTDC 23 – ID Edits)

However, it is related to PP Resolution 101, which is clearly focused on an evolution toward NGNs, a migration to NGNs and future networks.

My overall recommendation for you as you prepare for WTDC and the regional meets is about making it possible to see when the ITU’s development initiatives may undercut the Internet and its advantages, noting that the WSIS resolutions do not provide for that in any useful way. I offer the following comments to be borne in mind, since this analysis of the plenipotentiary and WTSA resolutions will be relevant to WTDC resolutions as we proceed.

However, the approach to take here is more something to pursue as a priority issue — how to recognize the impact of WSIS (ITU-D) initiatives on the Internet — approaching the WTDC with the general problem in mind in the larger context, rather than an approach of just looking at WTDC Resolutions (and Questions).

Below are short notes — in 4 paragraphs — that relate WTDC Resolutions 23, 30, 13, 37 and 47 to the larger context. I’m just addressing a few resolutions more directly related to the ITU’s role in relation to the Internet. Other impacts are important, but not at the center of the problem.

WTDC 30 and 13 relate to PP Resolution 102, which among other things stresses the problem of private investment in infrastructure and services. WTDC 30, for its part, speaks of funding methods, appropriate mechanisms for funding, inviting ITU-D “to facilitate an enabling environment for infrastructure development,” including finding “innovative financial mechanisms,” and advancing “legal and regulatory frameworks” to foster investment in infrastructure. Clearly this can be read as consistent with the nature of the telecommunications market in the US, where the physical layer is allowed to be vertically integrated with the telecommunications services of a few incumbents. If the WSIS places clear emphasis on NGNs in its development programs, it’s imperative to be able to recognize the difference between these kinds of offerings and the Internet. We also need to incorporate funding methods that recognize the special problem of physical layer access by competing providers, as opposed to vertically integrated methods.

WTDC 13 also emphasizes investment and innovative partnership schemes. We need to be sure this does not translate, as it easily will, into promoting arrangements like we find in the US wherein telecommunications providers vertically integrate the physical layer and public right of way with their particular services. If that model is supported at all, we should also be certain to recognize that a competitive environment of numerous providers interoperating at the physical layer empowers end users and providers and fosters innovation. This is particularly important to developing countries. This type of context is also is preferable over local/national/regional intranets provided by a few providers, since it creates a platform using the Internet protocols that doesn’t (can’t) presuppose what kinds of services participating providers and end users will offer on their own networks.

PP Resolutions 101 and 102 were the resolutions recently deliberated over at the WTPF. PP Resolution 137 is also focused on implementing NGNs in developing countries. The WSIS instruments in general are not focused on fostering the Internet as such, but other types of offerings.

You can see these in html form here:
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_101/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_137/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_102/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_23/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_30/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_13/

Other WTDC Resolutions that raise similar problems are WTDC 37 and 47, relating to bridging the digital divide and the standardization gap and the conformance and interoperability program via PP Resolutions 123, 139 and 177. These need to recognize the nature of the Internet, acknowledge the advantages of the open platform produced by autonomous competing providers interoperating by using the Internet protocols, the empowerment of end users and competing providers this engenders, and should speak of pro-competitive policy frameworks in terms that specifically acknowledge other approaches besides vertical integration of the physical layer with particular providers and products. The conformity and interoperability framework should reflect the distinction between the form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes possible between independent networks, and connectivity that supports specialized functions (like QOS) that are not as readily supported by general purpose internetworking.

https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_37/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_47/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_123/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_139/
https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_177/

Seth

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Zichy, Franz J wrote:

A WTDC-14 prep meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 25, from 2:00-4:00pm at 1300 Eye Street NW, on the 5th floor conference room. If you intend to participate in person, please notify me.

<SNIP>

 

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:19 PM
Subject: On IP-Based Networks and the CNRI Definition of Internet
To: “[protected]” <[protected]>

Okay, I promised to post something bringing together and streamlining my verbose comments regarding the CNRI comments on IP-Based Networks and the FNC Definition of the Internet, which Patrice Lyons posted.

At the WTPF, there are several information documents posted by Richard Hill on distinguishing the Internet, and since participants might thereby bring up this topic at the WTPF this is especially relevant today. (SEE: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-INF/en)

Patrice noted these three documents:
The FNC Definition of the Internet from October 1995:
http://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/Internet_res.aspx
CNRI’s Comments to the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2005:
http://www.wgig.org/docs/CNRInovember.pdf
Some Myths on the Internet:
http://sspnet.org/News/Some_Myths_about_the_Internet/news.aspx

In these documents, CNRI presents the FNC definition and reaches two conclusions based on it:

First, since the FNC definition essentially defines the Internet as the set of networks that use a common set of universal identifiers, it follows that 1) the Internet is not packet-based.

Second, since the FNC definition identifies the universal identifiers for the Internet as those used in the Internet Protocol, 2) the idea that some IP-based networks can be said to be separate from the Internet is false.

In the 2005 document CNRI recommends that the WGIG use the FNC definition with a few words added.

In a later statement to the FCC, CNRI disavows even defining the Internet in terms of IP addresses (https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/0114cnri.pdf), suggesting that other kinds of identifiers might also be a part of the Internet — so the problem that I will describe below has broader implications beyond the WSIS. But for the purposes of the WSIS, it will suffice to address the CNRI’s contributions to the early WGIG discussion.

I am in complete agreement that these conclusions follow from the FNC definition. The problem is that the FNC definition does not adequately address the basic problem the Internet solves.

The FNC definition does not recognize how IP enables interoperability of diverse applications across independent networks, and the use of universal identifiers is not sufficient to account for how IP does this. The packets that happen to use universal identifiers are specifically what makes the Internet platform capable of supporting the broad variety of communications patterns that application developers may wish to employ.

In addition, there are specific types of applications that are not readily supported across independent networks unless those networks treat packets for certain applications specially. QOS is a notable example. Services like this can be supported by IP-based networks — if the routers in the network can be made to support a unified policy by some core authority. But they cannot be readily supported across independent, autonomous networks using IP to interoperate — i.e., using IP to internetwork.

Networks that interoperate in this way are using IP to support the broadest diversity of applications possible across autonomous networks, thereby enabling users and providers to develop innovative applications on the basis of a premise that networks throughout the world will treat IP packets uniformly. They develop applications for the Internet by relying on uniform treatment of IP packets making possible a general purpose platform across independent networks.

CNRI simply has overlooked this characteristic in its analysis of internetworking when it comes to defining the Internet. They have done this even though they frequently characterize the Internet in terms of its supporting interoperability across independent networks in its various commentaries, including those Patrice posted.

The use of IP for general purpose interoperability across autonomous networks is distinct from the use of IP within individual networks where policies can be applied treating packets in specialized ways across routers that are subject to a core authority. Internetworking is thus a type of IP-based network (of networks) that is distinct from IP-based networks that use IP in ways that treat packets specially.

There are two more key points to recognize regarding the FNC definition. First, its specifically citing TCP/IP was a significant advance over the circuit-based orientation of the traditional telecoms. However, its use of the IP addresses within the IP RFC alone as the central characteristic to define the Internet is not adequate to allow us to distinguish between internetworking — interoperation across independent networks — and networks that implement specialized types of services that are not readily supported except by the application of a unified policy of specialized treatment of packets across routers by a core authority. It was adequate to cite the TCP/IP protocol to distinguish internetworking from the circuit-based orientation of the traditional telecoms, but today we are moving past that problem.

And second, when the FNC issued its definition, the telecommunications environment in the United States was characterized by a highly competitive market among thousands of independent ISPs, because at that time telecommunications providers were required to lease their lines under Title II. It is understandable and perhaps to be expected that that element of the underlying context was not specifically recognized in a definition of the Internet issued in 1995.

However, the FNC’s 1995 definition cannot serve as a basis for distinguishing the Internet today, when the foundation in interoperating across independent providers needs to be specifically understood and recognized as a key characteristic that makes the Internet so powerful and dynamic. The use of a common set of identifiers does not adequately serve that purpose.

In this letter from Bob Kahn to Sally Shipman-Wentworth when she was at the State Department, Bob Kahn notes the failure of the WGIG to use the FNC definition, but he also notes the problem of recognizing NGNs: http://2001-2009.state.gov/e/eeb/cip/wsis2005/50918.htm. This problem of recognizing when we’re talking about Internet and when we’re talking about other types of networks remains critically important, and is far more important when contemplating intergovernmental frameworks for Internet stewardship.

The CNRI recommendation was to adapt the FNC definition to encompass more types of networks — adding a qualifier allowing for higher layer services that integrate with lower layers. In his letter to Sally Shipman-Wentworth as well, the important thing to note is that the concern Bob Kahn expresses regarding NGNs is not only for how to distinguish them, but also for providing for “internetting” with them. That is, he approaches them in a way that might allow NGNs to be subsumed under the governance regime being developed by the WGIG. This may account for the way CNRI has attempted to keep the term Internet broad, though it works against actually distinguishing it by some of its most important characteristics.

One can understand that a broader definition of the term Internet would create the opportunity to apply Internet governance to a broader variety of networks, but when the question is how to distinguish the Internet by its important characteristics so that policy making does not undermine it, it does not help to overlook the way in which internetworking is accomplished between independent networks by means of IP packets. While CNRI’s conclusions that the Internet is not a packet network and cannot be distinguished from other types of IP-based networks do follow from the FNC definition of the Internet, the FNC definition cannot serve as a basis to distinguish the Internet and to allow us to recognize impacts on it, specifically because its focus solely on universal identifiers within the IP RFC is inadequate for understanding how IP packets make internetworking possible.

Okay: only somewhat redundant. But much more direct and clear.

Seth

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Seth Johnson <[protected]> wrote:
> Okay, I really addressed the FNC definition along the way in the last
> post, though I did not provide references to the definition itself. I
> just need to add a couple of notes on that, and I think I have
> incidentally addressed the E2E point sufficiently, though if prodded I
> could read the treatment of the Myth#2 Patrice gives us regarding the
> assertion that the E2E principle is “essential” to the Internet. That
> treatment has some interesting features, that would be interesting to
> note, but I think the key points I wanted to draw are here. I have
> always found it notable, and interesting in terms of the kind of
> posture CNRI consistently strikes, how much Bob Kahn’s views are
> consistent with what many people see coming from the Internet, but
> maybe they don’t really see how those aspects arise the same way.
> This includes his view on NN, which actually is fully consistent with
> real NN, the NN that naturally results when you have competing
> autonomous networks that must nevertheless interoperate, and that was
> there from the start.
>
> What follows is just a few short comments on the FNC definition. If I
> post one more, that post will be a synthesis, reducing the verbiage
> and redundancy of my first commentary on the IP-based network position
> of the CNRI, at least as presented in that document, and integrating
> this on the FNC definition with it.
>
> —
>
> The FNC Definition, from http://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/Internet_res.aspx,
> is as follows:
>
> RESOLUTION:
> “The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following
> language reflects our definition of the term “Internet”.
> “Internet” refers to the global information system that —
> (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address
> space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent
> extensions/follow-ons;
> (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission
> Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent
> extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and
> (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or
> privately, high level services layered on the communications and
> related infrastructure described herein.”
>
> It defines the Internet in terms of the globally unique addresses,
> providing for the TCP/IP and other protocols that may use IP with a
> provision that says that global information system is able to support
> them. In her comments to the WGIG she posted here, she proposes to
> add a clause that says this global information system not only
> supports “high level services” not only layered on, but also
> “integrated with” the infrastructure
> (http://www.wgig.org/docs/CNRInovember.pdf).
>
> The only part of the FNC definition that tells us about the role the
> Internet Protocol plays in making networks and other elements
> interoperable, is the universality of the IP addresses that are
> incorporated in the header of the packets defined in the Internet
> Protocol.
>
> The important things to remember about this definition are 1) that it
> was significant in 1995 to declare a definition that recognized the
> TCP/IP protocols and the IP addresses in the definition, simply to
> clearly delineate the Internet from the oft-noted services or circuits
> orientation of the traditional telecom providers; and 2) at the time,
> the fact that there were many independent providers was an underlying
> and unacknowledged premise. At that time, you could readily get a
> block of addresses and become an ISP on land lines, because the
> telecoms were required to lease their lines to you. So the multitude
> of autonomous networks that the Internet Protocol enabled to
> interoperate was a part of the context.
>
> That is not the context at present, and without identifying the
> function of enabling autonomous networks to interoperate as a key
> characteristic of the Internet, this emphasis on the addresses as what
> collects the system together overlooks the function of
> interoperability and the distinction between autonomous networks that
> raises the problem of interoperability. It therefore lets us lose
> that ability as dominant providers get to treat their intrAnets as if
> they are Internets.
>
> This definition can’t give us a picture of when the ability to
> interoperate is being affected by specialized functions, particularly
> functions that really aren’t compatible with general purpose
> interoperability, functions which are viable only across routers that
> you control within your own network.
>
>
> Seth

(Click here for blog post version of this commentary)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Subject: WTDC/Plenipot: 1) Conformance and Interoperability: Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
To: “[protected]”
Cc: “[protected]”

Below this note is an analysis showing where the Conformance and
Interoperability resolutions introduce the risk of the Information
Society undermining the Internet.

It is designed to contribute to upcoming proceedings such as the WTPF,
WTDC and High Level WSIS Review in April 2014, preparing the way to
the Plenipotentiary Meeting in October/November 2014, where the
necessary actions can be taken.

You can read this as a blog post with internal links here:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/

Please take it into account on the next WTDC Prep, general ITAC, and
Council calls.

You can see two general concerns and a set of key points here:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#TwoConcerns
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#KeyPoints

See below for raw text version.

I will move on to the other development-related topic areas I
described in the last ITAC call next: the enabling
environment/inclusivity; cybersecurity, ICTs and the Internet; and
measures/results analysis.

There are a number of reports being prepared to be presented at
upcoming proceedings that also need to incorporate this concern: ITU
Council Reports to the Plenipotentiary Conference on Conformance and
Interoperability/Guadalajara Resolution 177, on Bridging the Digital
Divide/Guadalajara Resolution 139, and on Bridging the Standardization
Gap/WTSA Resolution 44; the BDT Report with lessons learned to WTDC re
Conformance and Interoperability/WTDC Resolution 47; and the TSB
Report to the Plenipotentiary Conference (and future WTSAs) on
Bridging the Standardization Gap/WTSA Resolution 44. Additional
reports like these will become relevant as I address the other topics.

The commentary gives a picture of how the fact that the Information
Society leaves out a proper treatment of the nature of the Internet
plays out, by analyzing the subset of resolutions that relate to the
topic of Conformance and Interoperability. While the implications are
diverse, the actual revisions called for would be straightforward.
They mostly entail adding onto some references to general terms like
ICTs or telecommunications/ICTs, additional phrases like “including
the Internet” or “including both general purpose internetworking and
networks supporting various specialized functions,” etc. Then one
general resolution might be issued to which others could refer,
“Resolution XX on Internet Key Characteristics and Properties.”

I will need to look at the US position on conformance and
interoperability, the action plan, and more of the plenipotentiary
resolutions. I also need to know how the conformance and
interoperability regime relates to the “interoperability rules” that
the FirstNet Board is apparently going to be issuing. Other items
that will need to be reviewed are listed in my blog analysis here:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#ReviewCI
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#ReviewDD
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#ReviewSG

See full text below or at the blog link.

Seth

Conformance and Interoperability: Understanding Impacts on the Internet

> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/

Contents:

Introduction: Background, General Concerns, Key Points, Relevant Resolutions

Conformance and Interoperability
WTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA Resolution 76
On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service
On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of Interoperability

Bridging the Digital Divide
Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to the Digital Divide
No Mention of Internet Empowerment of End Users and Providers
On Interoperability, Interconnection and Global Connectivity
On Pro-Competitive Policies and Regulatory Contexts for Expanding Access

Bridging the Standardization Gap
Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to Bridging the
Standardization Gap
Strategic and High Priority Issues in Standardization
Regional Group Terms of Reference and Mobilization Programs

Introduction

Background

The World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) harbors a
potential of undermining the Internet platform. Its framing documents
and resolutions use general terms such as “telecommunications/ICTs”
and make very little reference to the Internet or its special
characteristics, thus providing no basis for recognizing when the
Internet may be affected by its initiatives.

Among these framing resolutions are those that cover development
initiatives and provide the frame for the next World Telecommunication
Development Conference (WTDC) to be held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt
from March 31 to April 11, 2014. The WTDC and the High-Level WSIS
Review event taking place in April 2014, along with the
Plenipotentiary meeting in October-November 2014, represent the key
occasions to assure that the appropriate resolutions are issued or
revised to enable the impacts that WSIS development initiatives may
have on the Internet to be readily recognized.

The WTDC Resolutions related to the Conformance and Interoperability
initiative represent one thrust that indicates where revisions are
needed to enable us to recognize when the Information Society’s
development initiatives may affect the Internet. This commentary
identifies the resolutions related to Conformance and Interoperability
and analyzes them in light of this concern.

We begin with two general concerns, followed by a set of key points
covered with more specificity in the commentary.

Two General Concerns:

The first general concern here has to do with the prospect
that conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis for
enabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of
networks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without
distinguishing them from the Internet or recognizing the tradeoffs
these types of networks bring as compared to the advantages of the
Internet. This could be a problem if these standards work against
connectivity in the form the Internet makes possible, or if their
promotion allows something different to be called Internet.

The other general concern here has to do with applying
conformance and interoperability certification in connection with a
range of public policy issues with which the Information Society is
concerned. If we set up a standardization process under the ITU, and
if it fails to recognize the key characteristics of the Internet while
it is connected to these public policy concerns, we could easily end
up normalizing, in the name of public policy concerns, forms of
telecommunications and related policies that are detrimental to the
advantages of the Internet, without recognizing that impact.

Some Key Points:

The conformance and interoperability framework should reflect
the distinction between the general purpose form of connectivity that
the Internet Protocol makes possible between independent networks, and
connectivity that supports specialized functions that are not as
readily supported by general purpose internetworking.

Capacity building in conformance and interoperability testing
should incorporate recognition of the empowerment of independent
operators and end users made possible by the general purpose internet
platform as well as recognizing other types of networks supporting
specialized functions.

Conformance and interoperability should address quality of
service not only as a specialized function in networks that treat IP
packets specially according to types or categories, but also based on
recognition of the role that the actual capacity of networks plays in
quality of service in general purpose internetworking.

The conformance and interoperability initiative should
recognize that confidence in end-to-end interoperability is already
enabled for the Internet based on general purpose packet
transmissions. While the likelihood of interoperability for other
kinds of networks or specialized services will increase on the basis
of confidence derived from conformance assessment, conformance
assessment can also support interoperability through the upholding of
policies backed by an intergovernmental authority, a prospect with
implications that should be understood and addressed.

The resolutions on bridging the digital divide make no mention
of the empowerment of end users and independent providers made
possible by the Internet, or of how those factors drive development

The references to interoperability, interconnection and global
connectivity in the resolutions do not necessarily mean connectivity
in terms of what we understand as the Internet platform, but are used
in ways that could easily support policies imposing connectivity in
other forms, without clearly recognizing their impact on the Internet

General references to pro-competitive policies and regulatory
contexts in relation to expanding access should be adapted to
recognize the general purpose Internet platform made possible by
interoperation among autonomous, competing providers at the physical
layer, and should not characterize the policy and regulatory context
solely in general terms that may support other types of networks
without specifically recognizing the Internet as well.

Recognition of impacts on the Internet should be identified as
a high-level objective and priority in standardization, and strategic
and high priority issues in standardization should distinctly
recognize end user and independent provider empowerment as a result of
the Internet as particularly important concerns for developing
countries, along with standardization initiatives that may be geared
toward other types of networks.

The advice of proponents of increased competition among
independent providers at the physical layer within the US should be
recognized and applied by TSAG as an explicit consideration within its
mandate to coordinate standardization topics.

For the purposes of commenting on the revisions needed in this area,
it’s most useful to group the relevant resolutions under three related
topic headers — Conformance and Interoperability, Bridging the Digital
Divide, and Bridging the Standardization Gap. Click below to see the
relationships among all the resolutions making up the overall
conformance and interoperability thrust.

Click here for Resolutions Related to Conformance and Interoperability:
> https://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2013/04/28/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability/#RelatedResolutions

Commentary:

Conformance and Interoperability

WTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA
Resolution 76 fit under the general heading of conformance and
interoperability.

A conformance and interoperability framework that recognizes the
nature of the Internet needs to draw a clear distinction between
certification of conformance and interoperability in relation to the
general purpose form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes
possible between independent networks, and certification for
specialized functions that are not as readily supported by general
purpose internetworking across autonomous routers.

WTDC Resolution 47

WTDC Resolution 47 instructs the Director of the
Telecommunications Development Bureau to assist developing countries
in building their capacity to perform conformance testing of equipment
and systems and to follow up on implementation, including a periodic
report to the T-DAG and a report on lessons learned to the WTDC in
2014. It invites Member States and Sector Members to enhance knowledge
and effective application of ITU-R and ITU-T Recommendations in
developing countries, and to introduce best practices in applying
these recommendations. It says nothing about Internet, but does talk
about fiber optics, broadband networks, and next-generation networks,
inviting Member States to introduce best-practice application of ITU
Recommendations in those areas through training and workshops in
developing countries.

This resolution needs to reflect the above distinction in the
identification of best practices that it calls for: best practices in
applying recommendations for interoperability by general purpose IP
transmissions among autonomous networks, versus best practices in
applying recommendations related to networks that provide specialized
functions among routers implementing specialized treatment of packets.
The list list of example topics mentioned above should be extended to
include specific mention of Internet networks as well.

WTDC 47 also notes that the studies endorsed under WTSA
Resolution 76, on conformance and interoperability and the possibility
of establishing an ITU Mark regime, entail a need for understanding of
ITU Recommendations and related international standards in applying
new technology to networks appropriately and effectively. The
distinction between the general purpose Internet and other types of
networks should be encompassed in this understanding, and reflected in
these WTSA studies and conformance and interoperability guidelines.

WTDC 47 should also be revised to note that this distinction
is to be applied in the training courses and workshops that the
Director of the TDB, in collaboration with the TSB and RB, is
instructed to encourage developing countries to participate in, and in
the framing for capacity building in conformance testing, conformance
and interoperability testing events, and international and regional
conformance and interoperability test laboratories that they are also
instructed to support. WTDC 47 also needs to note that the field study
on the feasibility of and need for regional laboratories that it
instructs them to conduct should reflect the distinction, as well as
the report to the Council on that study, the periodic reports to the
TDAG, and the report to WTDC 2014 on implementation and lessons
learned, that the resolution also directs the TDB to present in
collaboration with the other Bureaus.

Guadalajara Resolution 177

Guadalajara Resolution 177 instructs the Director of the TSB
to consult with stakeholders in all regions on implementation of
Council Recommendations related to the conformance and
interoperability program, to conduct studies related to the
possibility of establishing an ITU Mark program, to improve
standards-setting processes and thereby improving interoperability
through conformance, to prepare a long-term business plan on
implementing conformance and interoperability, and to present progress
reports and study outcomes to the Council. Each of these activities
should incorporate recognition of the distinction between
certifications related to general purpose Internet connectivity among
autonomous, independent providers by means of the Internet Protocol,
versus certifications related to specialized functions not readily
supported by general purpose Internet connectivity.

Guadalajara 177 invites Sector Members and organizations
qualified under ITU-T Recommendation A.5 to populate a pilot
conformity database representing products tested to ITU-T
Recommendations, and to participate in interoperability events
facilitated by the ITU. This pilot database and the ITU
interoperability events need to be designed to reflect the same
distinction given above.

Guadalajara 177 also invites Sector Members and ITU-T
A.5-qualified organizations to help build capacity for conformance and
interoperability testing in developing countries. Capacity building
for conformance and interoperability should be designed to distinctly
recognize general purpose interoperability as well as networks and
technologies supporting specialized functions. Information Society
initiatives should sponsor capacity building in conformance and
interoperability testing that not only certifies specialized
functions, but that fosters the empowerment of independent operators
and end users by distinctly certifying technologies that support a
general purpose platform through the use of IP to interoperate among
independent networks in a context of numerous competing providers.

On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service

Guadalajara 177 includes a particular note that conformance
assessment regimes adopted by Member States will lead to better
quality of service/quality of experience. Quality of service is a
characteristic often sought to be implemented as a specialized
function in networks that treat IP packets specially according to
types or categories. Providing for quality of service in this way
generally can only be readily implemented across routers within a
network governed by a core authority and/or policy, rather than across
the routers of independent internetworking providers. A conformance
and interoperability regime that recognizes the nature of the Internet
should address quality of service not only in these terms, but also in
terms that recognize the role that the actual capacity of networks
plays in quality of service.

That is, conformance assessment should distinctly provide for
certifications that recognize that general purpose interoperability
supports quality of service on the basis of provision of capacity, and
is supported by an enabling environment that assures end users, and
providers on shared lines, will receive the actual capacity that they
purchase. In this type of context, end user demand and ready and
competitive access by independent providers at the physical layer
drive infrastructure development and therefore support quality of
service and quality of experience on that basis. To make a general
point not to be developed in detail here, Information Society
initiatives focused on establishing a conformance and interoperability
regime should distinguish this physical layer competition model for
building network capacity to support quality of service, from models
that seek to support quality of service through specialized networks
and services, and that tie return on investment in infrastructure to
the product and service offerings of particular providers with a
privileged relationship to the right of way.

WTSA Resolution 76

WTSA Resolution 76 refers to conformance assessment as the
accepted way to demonstrate products adhere to an international
standard, describing it as increasingly important in the context of
standardization commitments under the WTO’s Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade. It notes four pillars of the ITU conformance and
interoperability program as enumerated in the executive summary of the
ITU Conformance and Interoperability Business Plan report: conformance
assessment, interoperability events, capacity building, and
establishment of test centers in developing countries.

WTSA 76 resolves that ITU-T study groups should develop
conformance testing Recommendations as soon as possible, that Study
Group 11 be designated as coordinating activities on conformance and
interoperability across all ITU-T study groups, that ITU-T, in
collaboration with the other Sectors, should develop a program to
assist developing countries in identifying opportunities for capacity
building in conformance and interoperability testing, and in
establishing regional or subregional conformance and interoperability
testing centers in cooperation with accreditation and certification
bodies, and that conformance and interoperability testing requirements
should verify parameters defined in current and future ITU-T
Recommendations.

All of these elements should incorporate recognition of the
distinction between general purpose internetworking and other types of
networks, including the pillars of conformance assessment,
interoperability events, capacity building, and test centers, as well
as the content and scope of the new conformance testing
Recommendations, the coordinating function of Study Group 11, and
testing requirements reflecting ITU-T Recommendations.

WTSA 76 instructs the Director of the TSB to conduct
exploratory activities in each region to identify and prioritize
problems in developing countries related to interoperability of
telecommunications/ICT equipment and services, to implement the action
plan agreed to by the Council in its 2012 session, and to implement a
conformance and interoperability program that may connect with the
introduction of an ITU Mark in alignment with the Council’s 2012
decision in C12/91. It instructs the study groups to identify ITU-T
Recommendations that may be candidates for interoperability testing,
to prepare these Recommendations for testing as appropriate, and to
cooperate with stakeholders in optimizing studies for the preparation
of test specifications

These elements of WTSA 76 should also be related to the same
distinction given above. Exploration of problems in the regions should
allow for various regions and countries to support either Internet or
other types of connectivity under the general term
“telecommunication/ICT equipment and services.” The overall framing of
the ITU Mark program should also incorporate the distinction.

On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of
Interoperability

WTSA 76 asserts that an increase in confidence in ICT
equipment conformance with ITU-T Recommendations will increase the
probability that equipment from different manufacturers will
interoperate across networks from end to end. This is reflected in an
observation in Guadalajara 177 that the conformance assessment regimes
that it invites Member States to adopt can lead to a higher
probability that equipment, services and systems will interoperate.

Information Society initiatives for conformance and
interoperability should recognize that confidence in end-to-end
interoperability is already enabled for the Internet based on general
purpose packet transmissions. However, for specialized functions that
are not as readily supported across the autonomous networks that make
up the Internet, these Resolutions appear to be designed to enable
providers and manufacturers to certify their compatibility with
particular specialized functions that may be supported by particular
types of networks. These specialized functions, and the types of
networks that support them, should be distinguished from the Internet.
While conformance testing would help increase the likelihood of
interoperability for networks supporting specialized functions on the
basis of increased confidence, it also can support interoperability on
the basis of fulfilling policies backed by an intergovernmental
authority. As the Information Society contemplates the establishing of
an intergovernmental framework for policymaking that may touch on the
Internet, it is critical that a basis is established for identifying
when policies would impact the Internet deleteriously, by
distinguishing networks supporting more specialized functions from the
Internet.

?Other Conformance and Interoperability Items to Review

?Under the Conformance and Interoperability heading we find
two items to be prepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which
should address the need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU
Council Report to the next plenipotentiary conference on progress
related to Guadalajara Resolution 177, and the Report by BDT and the
other Bureaus to the 2014 WTDC with lessons learned related to WTDC
Resolution 47.

Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding how
well the existing proceedings address this concern include:

The ITU Conformance and Interoperability Business Plan,
the Action Plan agreed to by the ITU Council in 2012, and the
Secretary-General’s Conformance and Interoperability Status Report and
Action Plan (C12/48), all referred to in WTSA Resolution 76, and the
ITU Council Document C09/28 approving TSB Recommendations, mentioned
in Guadalajara 177

The TSB Business Plan, Progress Reports to the Council in
2009, 10, 11, 12 and to the 2010 Plenipotentiary conference, TSB
studies and reports on implementation of Guadalajara 177 and WTSA 76,
including studies on the potential of establishing an ITU Mark, and
consultations with regional stakeholders on human capacity building
and establishing of test facilities

The Report by BDT and the other Bureaus to the Council on
implementation of Guadalajara Resolution 47, mentioned in Guadalajara
177, and periodic reports to the TDAG by BDT and the other Bureaus
mentioned in WTDC 47

The pilot conformity database mentioned in Guadalajara 177

The ITU-T A-series Recommendations, including
Recommendation A.5 regarding qualification of participating
organizations, mentioned in Guadalajara 177, and Supplement 2,
mentioned in WTSA 76

ITU-T Recommendations X.290 to ITU-T X.296, mentioned in WTSA 76

The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, mentioned in
WTSA 76, should also be reviewed for how both general purpose
interoperability and interoperability for specialized functions and
networks might relate to the Agreement, including how conformance
assessment might relate to both general purpose interoperability and
interoperability for specialized functions and networks through
inter-governmental policies and standards

Bridging the Digital Divide

WTDC Resolution 37, Guadalajara Resolution 139, and WTSA
Resolution 17 address the topic of bridging the digital divide.

Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to the Digital Divide

Guadalajara Resolution 139 relates bridging the digital divide
and inclusivity to the general term telecommunications/ICTs with no
recognition of how the characteristics of the Internet relate to those
concerns. It notes the lack of basic infrastructure, plans, laws and
regulations to support development of ICT and ICT applications in many
countries, and concludes that the ITU should continue to support
studies on the contribution of ICTs and ICT applications to
development, to act as a clearing-house for the exchange of
information and expertise in this area, and to pursue initiatives to
promote access to telecommunications/ICTs and ICT applications.
However, it makes no reference to how the unique characteristics of
the Internet relate to or contribute to these concerns.

WTDC Resolution 37 also notes the lack of basic
infrastructure, plans, laws and regulations to support ICT development
in many developing countries, again using the general term ICTs. It
makes no mention of the Internet’s characteristics in particular as
part of the revolution available to create digital opportunities in
developing countries, and refers to networks supporting the Internet
and Internet applications as “legacy networks,” without addressing
tradeoffs of other types of networks. It requests the Director of the
TDB to create social connectivity indicators for the digital divide,
support various special initiatives including developing a
user-awareness campaign to build trust and confidence in ICT
applications, and help reduce access costs by encouraging
manufacturers to develop appropriate technology scalable to broadband
applications.

WTSA Resolution 17 does not address the Internet distinctly as
it notes the purpose of the ITU to promote development of the
worldwide telecommunication network. It refers to NGN deployment
studies and migration to NGNs with no distinct references to the
Internet, as it instructs the Director of the TSB to assist developing
countries in studies on priority questions, to support flagship groups
on those questions, and to continue supporting NGN deployment studies
and standards development activities as related to rural development
and bridging the digital and development divides.

No Mention of Internet Empowerment of End Users and Providers

Notably for a resolution on bridging the digital divide and
inclusivity, Guadalajara 139 makes no mention of the empowerment of
end users and independent providers made possible by the Internet. It
observes the integral role played by telecommunications/ICTs and ICT
applications — but not the Internet as such — as part of the national,
regional and international development process, and as not only the
consequence of economic growth, but a prerequisite for overall
development, including economic growth. It states that ICTs and ICT
applications must be placed at the service of development, and that
telecommunication/ICT infrastructure and applications are central to
the goal of digital inclusion, while making no mention of the unique
empowerment and innovation by end users and independent providers that
the Internet makes possible or how those factors drive development.

Guadalajara 139 recommends national e-strategies be linked to
development goals with no mention of how characteristics of the
Internet contribute to these strategies. It calls ICTs and ICT
applications essential to political, economic, social and cultural
development and notes the important role they play in e-government,
labor, job creation, agriculture, health, education, transport,
industry, human rights, poverty alleviation, environmental protection,
prevention/mitigation of natural and other disasters, trade and
transfer of information for social welfare in economic and social
progress. But again, it does not provide any indication of how the
characteristics of the Internet contribute to these purposes.

Guadalajara 139 notes that the Strategic Plan for the Union
for 2012-2015 has the aim of “enabling and fostering the growth and
sustained development of telecommunication networks and services,”
while it makes no mention of the Internet, of end user and independent
provider innovation driving development, or of this innovation being
made possible by the general purpose platform created by the Internet
among competing providers. It also notes the goals of assisting
developing countries in bridging the digital divide through
socio-economic development enabled by telecommunications/ICTs, and of
facilitating universal access, with no mention of how development is
enabled by the Internet as such, or for that matter specifying that
this universal access is to the Internet as well as other types of
networks.

On Interoperability, Interconnection and Global Connectivity

Guadalajara 139 references Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan for
the Union for 2008-2011 and the fundamental goal of the Strategic Plan
for 2012-2015, which call for the ITU to assist in bridging the
national, regional and international digital divide in ICTs and ICT
applications by facilitating interoperability, interconnection and
global connectivity of telecommunication networks and services. But it
does not relate bridging the divide to access to the Internet as such.
Interoperability, interconnection and global connectivity do not
necessarily mean connectivity by what we understand as the Internet
platform, but could mean establishing policies imposing connectivity
in other forms, which might occur without recognizing that the
characteristics of the Internet were affected.

On Pro-Competitive Policies and Regulatory Contexts for Expanding Access

Guadalajara 139 and WTDC 37 both endorse pro-competitive
policies and regulatory contexts in general terms in relation to
expanding access to telecommunications/ICTs.

Guadalajara 139 cites comments from the Hyderabad and Geneva
Declarations on the role of governments, policy-makers and regulators
and the legal and regulatory environments in promoting widespread
affordable access to telecommunications/ICTs. It also instructs the
Director of the TDB, in coordination with the other Bureaus, to assist
the Member States and Sector Members in developing a pro-competitive
policy and regulatory framework for ICTs and ICT applications, and in
strategies that expand access to telecommunication infrastructure,
particularly for rural areas, to evaluate models for affordable and
sustainable systems for rural access to information, communications
and ICT applications on the global network, based on studies of these
models, and to conduct case studies concerning telecommunications/ICTs
in rural areas, and potentially to deploy a pilot model using IP-based
technology, or equivalent thereof in the future, to extend rural
access.

WTDC 37 requests the Director of the TDB to assist Member
States and Sector Members in developing a pro-competition policy and
regulatory framework for ICTs, including online services and
electronic commerce, as well as capacity building in connectivity and
accessibility.

These references should acknowledge the general purpose
Internet platform made possible by interoperation among autonomous,
competing providers at the physical layer, and should not characterize
the policy and regulatory context solely in general terms referencing
competition, innovation and investment incentives in ways that may
support other types of networks while not recognizing the Internet as
well.

Strategies to expand access to telecommunications
infrastructure (particularly in rural areas) should be addressed in
terms that specifically acknowledge the advantages built into the
Internet as such. Given that under Guadalajara 139 the TDB may pursue
the deployment of a pilot model for rural access using IP-based
technology (or equivalent), it is important that the nature and
advantages of the Internet are delineated now so that tradeoffs in
using other, future protocols are recognized.?

Other Digital Divide Items to Review

?We find two items under the Digital Divide heading to be
prepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which should address
the need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU Council Progress
Report to the next Plenipotentiary Conference, and the Annual Reports
by the Secretary-General to the ITU Council, both on Guadalajara
Resolution 139.

Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding how
well the existing proceedings address this concern include:

?The social connectivity indicators mentioned in WTDC Resolution 37

The work of the flagship groups mentioned in WTSA Resolution 17

The Digital Solidarity Agenda, including the Geneva Plan
of Action, the outcomes of the Connect Africa summit and the Connect
CIS summit, the Tunis Agenda and the Strategic Plan for the Union for
2012-2015, as alluded to in WTDC 37 and Guadalajara 139

Various Antalya Plenipotentiary Resolutions cited by WTSA
17, including Resolutions 22, 25, 71, 123, 136 and 137

Other Plenipotentiary Resolutions cited by Guadalajara
139, including Kyoto Resolution 24, on the role of ITU in the
development of world telecommunications, Marrakesh Resolutions 31 and
129, on telecommunication infrastructure and ICTs for socio-economic
and cultural development, and bridging the digital divide, Antalya
Resolution 139, Doha Resolution 37, and Guadalajara Resolutions 30 and
143

Bridging the Standardization Gap

Guadalajara Resolution 123 and WTSA Resolutions 44, 45 and 54 fit
under the heading of bridging the standardization gap between
developed and developing nations

Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to Bridging the
Standardization Gap

Both Guadalajara Resolution 123 and WTSA Resolution 44 present
the role of ITU-T in bridging the standardization gap between
developed and developing countries in relation to the general term
“information and communication network infrastructure and
applications,” citing the Strategic Plan for the Union for 2012-2015.
Neither the Strategic Plan nor these two resolutions incorporate
recognition of the unique character of the Internet in their
presentation of the mission of narrowing the standardization gap in
service of the ITU’s goal of facilitating worldwide standardization of
telecommunications.

Guadalajara 123 cites the strategic goal of ITU-D under the
Strategic Plan of bridging the digital divide by enabling
socio-economic development through telecommunications/ICTs. And WTSA
44 cites ITU Council Resolution 1353 as identifying telecommunications
and ICTs as essential components for sustainable development in
developed and developing countries, and as instructing the
Secretary-General and the Directors of the Bureaus to identify ways to
support developing countries in achieving sustainable development
through telecommunications and ICTs. Again, both resolutions use
general terms without referencing the unique character and
contributions of the Internet in relation to development.

These two resolutions, and the Strategic Plan and Council
Resolution 1353, should be revised to describe standardization
initiatives and their relationship to the development initiatives of
the Information Society with specific reference to the unique
characteristics of the Internet as well as other types of networks
under the general term “telecommunications/ICTs.”

WTSA 44 should specifically reference the distinction between
the Internet and other types of networks designed to support various
specialized functions as of particular import to the activities of the
Directors of the Bureaus and the implementation group established
within the TSB to implement WTSA 44 and its Action Plan. This includes
assisting developing countries with studies on priority questions,
developing implementation guidelines for relevant ITU-T
Recommendations, drafting guidelines for national application of ITU
Recommendations, supporting regional mobilization of standardization,
conducting studies on innovation as related to bridging the
standardization gap, institutionalizing terms of reference for TSAG
and ITU-T study groups, providing education and training on
implementation of ITU-T Recommendations, conducting workshops and
seminars on new Recommendations, and in reporting on effectiveness of
regional groups to the ITU Council, as well as on the implementation
of the WTSA 44 Action Plan to future WTSAs and Plenipotentiary
Conferences.

The reporting mechanisms on the implementation of WTSA 44 that
Guadalajara 123 instructs the Secretary-General and the Directors of
the Bureaus to improve should incorporate recognition of the distinct
characteristics of the Internet. The report and advice that WTSA 44
invites the ITU Council to provide to the 2014 Plenipotentiary
Conference should reflect this recognition as well.

WTSA 44 also invites the Council to establish a panel on
stimulating ICT innovations. This provision should be revised to
invite the Council “to encourage the establishment of a specialised
panel, under ITU-T, on stimulating ICT innovations in both the
contexts of general purpose internetworking among autonomous providers
and of networks that support more specialized functions, with the
objective of enhancing global collaborative innovation to bridge the
standardization gap between developed and developing countries and to
identify and support innovations from developing countries”

Strategic and High Priority Issues in Standardization

WTSA 44 instructs the Director of the TSB, in collaboration
with the other Bureaus, to assist developing countries in studies on
their priority questions, with an eye to developing and implementing
ITU-T Recommendations.

WTSA Resolutions 45 and 54 list a number of high priority
standardization issues, both starting with NGNs or future networks.
These priorities could lead to misunderstanding unless we clearly
articulate key characteristics of the Internet. Priority questions and
studies on them should distinguish between concerns that pertain to
the Internet, which supports general purpose interoperation among
autonomous networks, and those that pertain to networks that support
specialized functions not readily supported by general purpose
interoperation among autonomous networks.

WTSA 45 notes the call in Guadalajara Resolution 122, for the
WTSA to address strategic issues in standardization, concludes that
ITU-T activities on high priority standardization issues should
identify high level objectives and priorities for ITU-T studies from a
global standpoint, based on taking into account the interests of
developing countries and encouraging their involvement, and instructs
the Telecommunications Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) to ensure
coordination between study groups on high priority standardization
issues, taking into account advice from groups established to
coordinate high priority and joint standardization topics.

Recognition of impacts on the Internet should be identified as
a high-level objective and priority for ITU-T standardization studies,
and coordination of standardization initiatives should concentrate on
assuring that a basis is established to allow identification of the
impact that standards may have on the Internet. ITU-T should recognize
that the interests of developing countries can be understood in terms
of end user and independent provider empowerment as a result of the
general purpose platform made possible by IP. Strategic and high
priority issues in standardization should distinctly emphasize
empowerment of end users, independent providers, and a communications
platform that is general purpose and supports diversity of
applications while also enabling competition among providers while
supporting one platform.

The standardization and development initiatives of the
Information Society must recognize these characteristics of the
Internet as particularly important concerns for developing countries,
along with initiatives that may be geared toward other types of
networks.

There are very active constituencies in the US seeking the
establishment of a telecommunications policy framework in the US that
supports the Internet by enabling competition among independent
providers at the physical layer, and the advice of these proponents
should be recognized as a priority and applied by TSAG as an explicit
consideration within its mandate to coordinate standardization topics.

Regional Group Terms of Reference and Mobilization Programs

WTSA 44and 54 both invite regions and their Member States to
develop draft terms of reference and working methods for regional
groups, and WTSA 44 resolves that vice-chairs and chairs from
developing countries in TSAG and ITU-T study groups should develop
mobilization programs for their regions and make mobilization and
participation reports to the ITU.

These regional group terms of reference should reflect the
distinction between the Internet, which supports interoperation among
autonomous networks, and networks that support specialized functions
not readily supported by general purpose interoperation among
autonomous networks, and should reference the nature of the
communications environment in terms of whether it supports
interoperation among competing providers at the physical layer, or is
characterized by few providers only supporting an intranet

These regional mobilization programs and reports should be
articulated with reference to the type of networks their countries and
regions support, specifically whether they support interoperation
among autonomous providers readily entering and competing at the
physical layer throughout their countries or regions, or whether they
have few providers at the physical layer in any given area, with
telecommunications initiatives chiefly arranged through those
providers.

Other Standardization Gap Items to Review

??The Standardization Gap resolutions reference two items to
be prepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which should address
the need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU Council Report,
with Advice, to the next Plenipotentiary Conference, and the Reports
by the TSB and other Bureaus to future WTSAs and Plenipotentiary
Conferences, both on WTSA Resolution 44

?Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding
how well the existing proceedings address this concern, all referred
to by WTSA 44, include:

ITU Council Resolution 1353

Annual reviews of WTSA 44

Conclusions of the Global Standardization Symposium

by Seth Johnson

Introduction

Background
Two General Concerns
Some Key Points
Resolutions Related to Conformance and Interoperability

Conformance and Interoperability

WTDC Resolution 47
Guadalajara Resolution 177

On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service

WTSA Resolution 76

On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of Interoperability

Other Conformance and Interoperability Items to Review

Bridging the Digital Divide

Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to the Digital Divide
No Mention of Internet Empowerment of End Users and Providers
On Interoperability, Interconnection and Global Connectivity
On Pro-Competitive Policies and Regulatory Contexts for Expanding Access
Other Digital Divide Items to Review

Bridging the Standardization Gap

Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to Bridging the Standardization Gap
Strategic and High Priority Issues in Standardization
Regional Group Terms of Reference and Mobilization Programs
Other Standardization Gap Items to Review

Introduction

Background

The World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) harbors a potential of undermining the Internet platform. Its framing documents and resolutions use general terms such as “telecommunications/ICTs” and make very little reference to the Internet or its special characteristics, thus providing no basis for recognizing when the Internet may be affected by its initiatives.

Among these framing resolutions are those that cover development initiatives and provide the frame for the next World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) to be held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt from March 31 to April 11, 2014. The WTDC and the High-Level WSIS Review event taking place in April 2014, along with the Plenipotentiary meeting in October-November 2014, represent the key occasions to assure that the appropriate resolutions are issued or revised to enable the impacts that WSIS development initiatives may have on the Internet to be readily recognized.

The WTDC Resolutions related to the Conformance and Interoperability initiative represent one thrust that indicates where revisions are needed to enable us to recognize when the Information Society’s development initiatives may affect the Internet.  This commentary identifies the resolutions related to Conformance and Interoperability and analyzes them in light of this concern.  We begin with two general concerns, followed by a set of key points covered in the commentary which can be viewed by clicking on the Key Points header below.

Two General Concerns

• • The first general concern here has to do with the prospect that conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis for enabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of networks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without distinguishing them from the Internet or recognizing the tradeoffs these types of networks bring as compared to the advantages of the Internet. This could be a problem if these standards work against connectivity in the form the Internet makes possible, or if their promotion allows something different to be called Internet.
  • The other general concern here has to do with applying conformance and interoperability certification in connection with a range of public policy issues with which the Information Society is concerned. If we set up a standardization process under the ITU, and if it fails to recognize the key characteristics of the Internet while it is connected to these public policy concerns, we could easily end up normalizing, in the name of public policy concerns, forms of telecommunications and related policies that are detrimental to the advantages of the Internet, without recognizing that impact.

(Click to See Key Points) (Click to Hide Key Points)

• • The conformance and interoperability framework should reflect the distinction between the general purpose form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes possible between independent networks, and connectivity that supports specialized functions that are not as readily supported by general purpose internetworking.
  • Capacity building in conformance and interoperability testing should incorporate recognition of the empowerment of independent operators and end users made possible by the general purpose internet platform as well as recognizing other types of networks supporting specialized functions.
  • Conformance and interoperability should address quality of service not only as a specialized function in networks that treat IP packets specially according to types or categories, but also based on recognition of the role that the actual capacity of networks plays in quality of service in general purpose internetworking.
  • The conformance and interoperability initiative should recognize that confidence in end-to-end interoperability is already enabled for the Internet based on general purpose packet transmissions. While the likelihood of interoperability for other kinds of networks or specialized services will increase on the basis of confidence derived from conformance assessment, conformance assessment can also support interoperability through the upholding of policies backed by an intergovernmental authority, a prospect with implications that should be understood and addressed.
  • The resolutions on bridging the digital divide make no mention of the empowerment of end users and independent providers made possible by the Internet, or of how those factors drive development
  • The references to interoperability, interconnection and global connectivity in the resolutions do not necessarily mean connectivity in terms of what we understand as the Internet platform, but are used in ways that could easily support policies imposing connectivity in other forms, without clearly recognizing their impact on the Internet
  • General references to pro-competitive policies and regulatory contexts in relation to expanding access should be adapted to recognize the general purpose Internet platform made possible by interoperation among autonomous, competing providers at the physical layer, and should not characterize the policy and regulatory context solely in general terms that may support other types of networks without specifically recognizing the Internet as well.
  • Recognition of impacts on the Internet should be identified as a high-level objective and priority in standardization, and strategic and high priority issues in standardization should distinctly recognize end user and independent provider empowerment as a result of the Internet as particularly important concerns for developing countries, along with standardization initiatives that may be geared toward other types of networks.
  • The advice of proponents of increased competition among independent providers at the physical layer within the US should be recognized and applied by TSAG as an explicit consideration within its mandate to coordinate standardization topics.

For the purposes of commenting on the revisions needed in this area, it’s most useful to group the relevant resolutions under three related topic headers — Conformance and Interoperability, Bridging the Digital Divide, and Bridging the Standardization Gap. Click below to see the relationships among all the resolutions making up the overall conformance and interoperability thrust.

(Click for Resolutions Related to Conformance and Interoperability) (Click to Hide Resolutions Related to Conformance and Interoperability)

• • WTDC Resolution 47 cites WTSA Resolutions 44, 54 and 76, on bridging the standardization gap between developed and developing countries, creating and assisting regional groups, and studies on conformance and interoperability testing, assistance to developing countries, and the prospect of an ITU Mark. These Resolutions cite WTDC Resolution 37, on bridging the digital divide, ITU Council Resolution 1353, and ITU-T Recommendations ITU-T X.290 – X.296, specifying a general methodology for conformance testing.
  • In turn, WTSA Resolutions 44, 54 and 76 stem from Guadalajara Resolutions 123, 139 and 177, on bridging the standardization gap, telecommunications/ICTs for inclusivity and for bridging the digital divide, and conformance and interoperability.
  • Guadalajara Resolution 123, for its part, cites Guadalajara Resolution 71, the Strategic Plan, and WTSA Resolution 17, on telecommunications standardization in the interests of developing countries. WTSA Resolution 17 cites WTSA Resolution 45, on TSAG and coordinating work across study groups, and numerous Antalya Plenipotentiary Resolutions, including nos. 22, 25, 71, 123, 136 and 137.
  • Guadalajara Resolution 139 cites various Plenipotentiary Resolutions, including Kyoto Resolution 24, on the role of ITU in the development of world telecommunications, Marrakesh Resolutions 31 and 129, on telecommunication infrastructure and ICTs for socio-economic and cultural development, and bridging the digital divide, Antalya Resolution 139, Doha Resolution 37, and Guadalajara Resolutions 30 and 143.
  • I will defer commenting on the details of the Strategic Plan in Guadalajara Resolution 71 and the Action Plan in WTSA Resolution 44.

Conformance and Interoperability

• WTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA Resolution 76 fit under the general heading of conformance and interoperability.
• A conformance and interoperability framework that recognizes the nature of the Internet needs to draw a clear distinction between certification of conformance and interoperability in relation to the general purpose form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes possible between independent networks, and certification for specialized functions that are not as readily supported by general purpose internetworking across autonomous routers.

• WTDC Resolution 47

  • WTDC Resolution 47 instructs the Director of the Telecommunications Development Bureau to assist developing countries in building their capacity to perform conformance testing of equipment and systems and to follow up on implementation, including a periodic report to the T-DAG and a report on lessons learned to the WTDC in 2014. It invites Member States and Sector Members to enhance knowledge and effective application of ITU-R and ITU-T Recommendations in developing countries, and to introduce best practices in applying these recommendations. It says nothing about Internet, but does talk about fiber optics, broadband networks, and next-generation networks, inviting Member States to introduce best-practice application of ITU Recommendations in those areas through training and workshops in developing countries.
  • This resolution needs to reflect the above distinction in the identification of best practices that it calls for: best practices in applying recommendations for interoperability by general purpose IP transmissions among autonomous networks, versus best practices in applying recommendations related to networks that provide specialized functions among routers implementing specialized treatment of packets. The list list of example topics mentioned above should be extended to include specific mention of Internet networks as well.
  • WTDC 47 also notes that the studies endorsed under WTSA Resolution 76, on conformance and interoperability and the possibility of establishing an ITU Mark regime, entail a need for understanding of ITU Recommendations and related international standards in applying new technology to networks appropriately and effectively. The distinction between the general purpose Internet and other types of networks should be encompassed in this understanding, and reflected in these WTSA studies and conformance and interoperability guidelines.
  • WTDC 47 should also be revised to note that this distinction is to be applied in the training courses and workshops that the Director of the TDB, in collaboration with the TSB and RB, is instructed to encourage developing countries to participate in, and in the framing for capacity building in conformance testing, conformance and interoperability testing events, and international and regional conformance and interoperability test laboratories that they are also instructed to support. WTDC 47 also needs to note that the field study on the feasibility of and need for regional laboratories that it instructs them to conduct should reflect the distinction, as well as the report to the Council on that study, the periodic reports to the TDAG, and the report to WTDC 2014 on implementation and lessons learned, that the resolution also directs the TDB to present in collaboration with the other Bureaus.

  Guadalajara Resolution 177

  • Guadalajara Resolution 177 instructs the Director of the TSB to consult with stakeholders in all regions on implementation of Council Recommendations related to the conformance and interoperability program, to conduct studies related to the possibility of establishing an ITU Mark program, to improve standards-setting processes and thereby improving interoperability through conformance, to prepare a long-term business plan on implementing conformance and interoperability, and to present progress reports and study outcomes to the Council. Each of these activities should incorporate recognition of the distinction between certifications related to general purpose Internet connectivity among autonomous, independent providers by means of the Internet Protocol, versus certifications related to specialized functions not readily supported by general purpose Internet connectivity.
  • Guadalajara 177 invites Sector Members and organizations qualified under ITU-T Recommendation A.5 to populate a pilot conformity database representing products tested to ITU-T Recommendations, and to participate in interoperability events facilitated by the ITU. This pilot database and the ITU interoperability events need to be designed to reflect the same distinction given above.
  • Guadalajara 177 also invites Sector Members and ITU-T A.5-qualified organizations to help build capacity for conformance and interoperability testing in developing countries. Capacity building for conformance and interoperability should be designed to distinctly recognize general purpose interoperability as well as networks and technologies supporting specialized functions. Information Society initiatives should sponsor capacity building in conformance and interoperability testing that not only certifies specialized functions, but that fosters the empowerment of independent operators and end users by distinctly certifying technologies that support a general purpose platform through the use of IP to interoperate among independent networks in a context of numerous competing providers.
  • On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service
  • Guadalajara 177 includes a particular note that conformance assessment regimes adopted by Member States will lead to better quality of service/quality of experience. Quality of service is a characteristic often sought to be implemented as a specialized function in networks that treat IP packets specially according to types or categories. Providing for quality of service in this way generally can only be readily implemented across routers within a network governed by a core authority and/or policy, rather than across the routers of independent internetworking providers. A conformance and interoperability regime that recognizes the nature of the Internet should address quality of service not only in these terms, but also in terms that recognize the role that the actual capacity of networks plays in quality of service.
  • That is, conformance assessment should distinctly provide for certifications that recognize that general purpose interoperability supports quality of service on the basis of provision of capacity, and is supported by an enabling environment that assures end users, and providers on shared lines, will receive the actual capacity that they purchase. In this type of context, end user demand and ready and competitive access by independent providers at the physical layer drive infrastructure development and therefore support quality of service and quality of experience on that basis. To make a general point not to be developed in detail here, Information Society initiatives focused on establishing a conformance and interoperability regime should distinguish this physical layer competition model for building network capacity to support quality of service, from models that seek to support quality of service through specialized networks and services, and that tie return on investment in infrastructure to the product and service offerings of particular providers with a privileged relationship to the right of way.

  WTSA Resolution 76

  • WTSA Resolution 76 refers to conformance assessment as the accepted way to demonstrate products adhere to an international standard, describing it as increasingly important in the context of standardization commitments under the WTO’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. It notes four pillars of the ITU conformance and interoperability program as enumerated in the executive summary of the ITU Conformance and Interoperability Business Plan report: conformance assessment, interoperability events, capacity building, and establishment of test centers in developing countries.
  • WTSA 76 resolves that ITU-T study groups should develop conformance testing Recommendations as soon as possible, that Study Group 11 be designated as coordinating activities on conformance and interoperability across all ITU-T study groups, that ITU-T, in collaboration with the other Sectors, should develop a program to assist developing countries in identifying opportunities for capacity building in conformance and interoperability testing, and in establishing regional or subregional conformance and interoperability testing centers in cooperation with accreditation and certification bodies, and that conformance and interoperability testing requirements should verify parameters defined in current and future ITU-T Recommendations.
  • All of these elements should incorporate recognition of the distinction between general purpose internetworking and other types of networks, including the pillars of conformance assessment, interoperability events, capacity building, and test centers, as well as the content and scope of the new conformance testing Recommendations, the coordinating function of Study Group 11, and testing requirements reflecting ITU-T Recommendations.
  • WTSA 76 instructs the Director of the TSB to conduct exploratory activities in each region to identify and prioritize problems in developing countries related to interoperability of telecommunications/ICT equipment and services, to implement the action plan agreed to by the Council in its 2012 session, and to implement a conformance and interoperability program that may connect with the introduction of an ITU Mark in alignment with the Council’s 2012 decision in C12/91. It instructs the study groups to identify ITU-T Recommendations that may be candidates for interoperability testing, to prepare these Recommendations for testing as appropriate, and to cooperate with stakeholders in optimizing studies for the preparation of test specifications
  • These elements of WTSA 76 should also be related to the same distinction given above. Exploration of problems in the regions should allow for various regions and countries to support either Internet or other types of connectivity under the general term “telecommunication/ICT equipment and services.” The overall framing of the ITU Mark program should also incorporate the distinction.
  • On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of Interoperability
  • WTSA 76 asserts that an increase in confidence in ICT equipment conformance with ITU-T Recommendations will increase the probability that equipment from different manufacturers will interoperate across networks from end to end. This is reflected in an observation in Guadalajara 177 that the conformance assessment regimes that it invites Member States to adopt can lead to a higher probability that equipment, services and systems will interoperate.
  • Information Society initiatives for conformance and interoperability should recognize that confidence in end-to-end interoperability is already enabled for the Internet based on general purpose packet transmissions. However, for specialized functions that are not as readily supported across the autonomous networks that make up the Internet, these Resolutions appear to be designed to enable providers and manufacturers to certify their compatibility with particular specialized functions that may be supported by particular types of networks. These specialized functions, and the types of networks that support them, should be distinguished from the Internet. While conformance testing would help increase the likelihood of interoperability for networks supporting specialized functions on the basis of increased confidence, it also can support interoperability on the basis of fulfilling policies backed by an intergovernmental authority. As the Information Society contemplates the establishing of an intergovernmental framework for policymaking that may touch on the Internet, it is critical that a basis is established for identifying when policies would impact the Internet deleteriously, by distinguishing networks supporting more specialized functions from the Internet.

  Other Conformance and Interoperability Items to Review

  • Under the Conformance and Interoperability heading we find two items to be prepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which should address the need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU Council Report to the next plenipotentiary conference on progress related to Guadalajara Resolution 177, and the Report by BDT and the other Bureaus to the 2014 WTDC with lessons learned related to WTDC Resolution 47.
  • Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding how well the existing proceedings address this concern include:
    • The ITU Conformance and Interoperability Business Plan, the Action Plan agreed to by the ITU Council in 2012, and the Secretary-General’s Conformance and Interoperability Status Report and Action Plan (C12/48), all referred to in WTSA Resolution 76, and the ITU Council Document C09/28 approving TSB Recommendations, mentioned in Guadalajara 177
    • The TSB Business Plan, Progress Reports to the Council in 2009, 10, 11, 12 and to the 2010 Plenipotentiary conference, TSB studies and reports on implementation of Guadalajara 177 and WTSA 76, including studies on the potential of establishing an ITU Mark, and consultations with regional stakeholders on human capacity building and establishing of test facilities
    • The Report by BDT and the other Bureaus to the Council on implementation of Guadalajara Resolution 47, mentioned in Guadalajara 177, and periodic reports to the TDAG by BDT and the other Bureaus mentioned in WTDC 47
    • The pilot conformity database mentioned in Guadalajara 177
    • The ITU-T A-series Recommendations, including Recommendation A.5 regarding qualification of participating organizations, mentioned in Guadalajara 177, and Supplement 2, mentioned in WTSA 76
    • ITU-T Recommendations X.290 to ITU-T X.296, mentioned in WTSA 76
  • The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, mentioned in WTSA 76, should also be reviewed for how both general purpose interoperability and interoperability for specialized functions and networks might relate to the Agreement, including how conformance assessment might relate to both general purpose interoperability and interoperability for specialized functions and networks through inter-governmental policies and standards

Bridging the Digital Divide

• WTDC Resolution 37, Guadalajara Resolution 139, and WTSA Resolution 17 address the topic of bridging the digital divide.

• Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to the Digital Divide

  • Guadalajara Resolution 139 relates bridging the digital divide and inclusivity to the general term telecommunications/ICTs with no recognition of how the characteristics of the Internet relate to those concerns. It notes the lack of basic infrastructure, plans, laws and regulations to support development of ICT and ICT applications in many countries, and concludes that the ITU should continue to support studies on the contribution of ICTs and ICT applications to development, to act as a clearing-house for the exchange of information and expertise in this area, and to pursue initiatives to promote access to telecommunications/ICTs and ICT applications. However, it makes no reference to how the unique characteristics of the Internet relate to or contribute to these concerns.
  • WTDC Resolution 37 also notes the lack of basic infrastructure, plans, laws and regulations to support ICT development in many developing countries, again using the general term ICTs. It makes no mention of the Internet’s characteristics in particular as part of the revolution available to create digital opportunities in developing countries, and refers to networks supporting the Internet and Internet applications as “legacy networks,” without addressing tradeoffs of other types of networks. It requests the Director of the TDB to create social connectivity indicators for the digital divide, support various special initiatives including developing a user-awareness campaign to build trust and confidence in ICT applications, and help reduce access costs by encouraging manufacturers to develop appropriate technology scalable to broadband applications.
  • WTSA Resolution 17 does not address the Internet distinctly as it notes the purpose of the ITU to promote development of the worldwide telecommunication network. It refers to NGN deployment studies and migration to NGNs with no distinct references to the Internet, as it instructs the Director of the TSB to assist developing countries in studies on priority questions, to support flagship groups on those questions, and to continue supporting NGN deployment studies and standards development activities as related to rural development and bridging the digital and development divides.

  No Mention of Internet Empowerment of End Users and Providers

  • Notably for a resolution on bridging the digital divide and inclusivity, Guadalajara 139 makes no mention of the empowerment of end users and independent providers made possible by the Internet. It observes the integral role played by telecommunications/ICTs and ICT applications — but not the Internet as such — as part of the national, regional and international development process, and as not only the consequence of economic growth, but a prerequisite for overall development, including economic growth. It states that ICTs and ICT applications must be placed at the service of development, and that telecommunication/ICT infrastructure and applications are central to the goal of digital inclusion, while making no mention of the unique empowerment and innovation by end users and independent providers that the Internet makes possible or how those factors drive development.
  • Guadalajara 139 recommends national e-strategies be linked to development goals with no mention of how characteristics of the Internet contribute to these strategies. It calls ICTs and ICT applications essential to political, economic, social and cultural development and notes the important role they play in e-government, labor, job creation, agriculture, health, education, transport, industry, human rights, poverty alleviation, environmental protection, prevention/mitigation of natural and other disasters, trade and transfer of information for social welfare in economic and social progress. But again, it does not provide any indication of how the characteristics of the Internet contribute to these purposes.
  • Guadalajara 139 notes that the Strategic Plan for the Union for 2012-2015 has the aim of “enabling and fostering the growth and sustained development of telecommunication networks and services,” while it makes no mention of the Internet, of end user and independent provider innovation driving development, or of this innovation being made possible by the general purpose platform created by the Internet among competing providers. It also notes the goals of assisting developing countries in bridging the digital divide through socio-economic development enabled by telecommunications/ICTs, and of facilitating universal access, with no mention of how development is enabled by the Internet as such, or for that matter specifying that this universal access is to the Internet as well as other types of networks.

  On Interoperability, Interconnection and Global Connectivity

  • Guadalajara 139 references Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan for the Union for 2008-2011 and the fundamental goal of the Strategic Plan for 2012-2015, which call for the ITU to assist in bridging the national, regional and international digital divide in ICTs and ICT applications by facilitating interoperability, interconnection and global connectivity of telecommunication networks and services. But it does not relate bridging the divide to access to the Internet as such. Interoperability, interconnection and global connectivity do not necessarily mean connectivity by what we understand as the Internet platform, but could mean establishing policies imposing connectivity in other forms, which might occur without recognizing that the characteristics of the Internet were affected.

  On Pro-Competitive Policies and Regulatory Contexts for Expanding Access

  • Guadalajara 139 and WTDC 37 both endorse pro-competitive policies and regulatory contexts in general terms in relation to expanding access to telecommunications/ICTs.
  • Guadalajara 139 cites comments from the Hyderabad and Geneva Declarations on the role of governments, policy-makers and regulators and the legal and regulatory environments in promoting widespread affordable access to telecommunications/ICTs. It also instructs the Director of the TDB, in coordination with the other Bureaus, to assist the Member States and Sector Members in developing a pro-competitive policy and regulatory framework for ICTs and ICT applications, and in strategies that expand access to telecommunication infrastructure, particularly for rural areas, to evaluate models for affordable and sustainable systems for rural access to information, communications and ICT applications on the global network, based on studies of these models, and to conduct case studies concerning telecommunications/ICTs in rural areas, and potentially to deploy a pilot model using IP-based technology, or equivalent thereof in the future, to extend rural access.
  • WTDC 37 requests the Director of the TDB to assist Member States and Sector Members in developing a pro-competition policy and regulatory framework for ICTs, including online services and electronic commerce, as well as capacity building in connectivity and accessibility.
  • These references should acknowledge the general purpose Internet platform made possible by interoperation among autonomous, competing providers at the physical layer, and should not characterize the policy and regulatory context solely in general terms referencing competition, innovation and investment incentives in ways that may support other types of networks while not recognizing the Internet as well.
  • Strategies to expand access to telecommunications infrastructure (particularly in rural areas) should be addressed in terms that specifically acknowledge the advantages built into the Internet as such. Given that under Guadalajara 139 the TDB may pursue the deployment of a pilot model for rural access using IP-based technology (or equivalent), it is important that the nature and advantages of the Internet are delineated now so that tradeoffs in using other, future protocols are recognized.

  Other Digital Divide Items to Review

  • We find two items under the Digital Divide heading to be prepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which should address the need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU Council Progress Report to the next Plenipotentiary Conference, and the Annual Reports by the Secretary-General to the ITU Council, both on Guadalajara Resolution 139.
  • Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding how well the existing proceedings address this concern include:
    • The social connectivity indicators mentioned in WTDC Resolution 37
    • The work of the flagship groups mentioned in WTSA Resolution 17
    • The Digital Solidarity Agenda, including the Geneva Plan of Action, the outcomes of the Connect Africa summit and the Connect CIS summit, the Tunis Agenda and the Strategic Plan for the Union for 2012-2015, as alluded to in WTDC 37 and Guadalajara 139
    • Various Antalya Plenipotentiary Resolutions cited by WTSA 17, including Resolutions 22, 25, 71, 123, 136 and 137
    • Other Plenipotentiary Resolutions cited by Guadalajara 139, including Kyoto Resolution 24, on the role of ITU in the development of world telecommunications, Marrakesh Resolutions 31 and 129, on telecommunication infrastructure and ICTs for socio-economic and cultural development, and bridging the digital divide, Antalya Resolution 139, Doha Resolution 37, and Guadalajara Resolutions 30 and 143

Bridging the Standardization Gap

• Guadalajara Resolution 123 and WTSA Resolutions 44, 45 and 54 fit under the heading of bridging the standardization gap between developed and developing nations

• Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to Bridging the Standardization Gap

  • Both Guadalajara Resolution 123 and WTSA Resolution 44 present the role of ITU-T in bridging the standardization gap between developed and developing countries in relation to the general term “information and communication network infrastructure and applications,” citing the Strategic Plan for the Union for 2012-2015. Neither the Strategic Plan nor these two resolutions incorporate recognition of the unique character of the Internet in their presentation of the mission of narrowing the standardization gap in service of the ITU’s goal of facilitating worldwide standardization of telecommunications.
  • Guadalajara 123 cites the strategic goal of ITU-D under the Strategic Plan of bridging the digital divide by enabling socio-economic development through telecommunications/ICTs. And WTSA 44 cites ITU Council Resolution 1353 as identifying telecommunications and ICTs as essential components for sustainable development in developed and developing countries, and as instructing the Secretary-General and the Directors of the Bureaus to identify ways to support developing countries in achieving sustainable development through telecommunications and ICTs. Again, both resolutions use general terms without referencing the unique character and contributions of the Internet in relation to development.
  • These two resolutions, and the Strategic Plan and Council Resolution 1353, should be revised to describe standardization initiatives and their relationship to the development initiatives of the Information Society with specific reference to the unique characteristics of the Internet as well as other types of networks under the general term “telecommunications/ICTs.”
  • WTSA 44 should specifically reference the distinction between the Internet and other types of networks designed to support various specialized functions as of particular import to the activities of the Directors of the Bureaus and the implementation group established within the TSB to implement WTSA 44 and its Action Plan. This includes assisting developing countries with studies on priority questions, developing implementation guidelines for relevant ITU-T Recommendations, drafting guidelines for national application of ITU Recommendations, supporting regional mobilization of standardization, conducting studies on innovation as related to bridging the standardization gap, institutionalizing terms of reference for TSAG and ITU-T study groups, providing education and training on implementation of ITU-T Recommendations, conducting workshops and seminars on new Recommendations, and in reporting on effectiveness of regional groups to the ITU Council, as well as on the implementation of the WTSA 44 Action Plan to future WTSAs and Plenipotentiary Conferences.
  • The reporting mechanisms on the implementation of WTSA 44 that Guadalajara 123 instructs the Secretary-General and the Directors of the Bureaus to improve should incorporate recognition of the distinct characteristics of the Internet. The report and advice that WTSA 44 invites the ITU Council to provide to the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference should reflect this recognition as well.
  • WTSA 44 also invites the Council to establish a panel on stimulating ICT innovations. This provision should be revised to invite the Council “to encourage the establishment of a specialised panel, under ITU-T, on stimulating ICT innovations in both the contexts of general purpose internetworking among autonomous providers and of networks that support more specialized functions, with the objective of enhancing global collaborative innovation to bridge the standardization gap between developed and developing countries and to identify and support innovations from developing countries;”

  Strategic and High Priority Issues in Standardization

  • WTSA 44 instructs the Director of the TSB, in collaboration with the other Bureaus, to assist developing countries in studies on their priority questions, with an eye to developing and implementing ITU-T Recommendations.
  • WTSA Resolutions 45 and 54 list a number of high priority standardization issues, both starting with NGNs or future networks. These priorities could lead to misunderstanding unless we clearly articulate key characteristics of the Internet. Priority questions and studies on them should distinguish between concerns that pertain to the Internet, which supports general purpose interoperation among autonomous networks, and those that pertain to networks that support specialized functions not readily supported by general purpose interoperation among autonomous networks.
  • WTSA 45 notes the call in Guadalajara Resolution 122, for the WTSA to address strategic issues in standardization, concludes that ITU-T activities on high priority standardization issues should identify high level objectives and priorities for ITU-T studies from a global standpoint, based on taking into account the interests of developing countries and encouraging their involvement, and instructs the Telecommunications Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) to ensure coordination between study groups on high priority standardization issues, taking into account advice from groups established to coordinate high priority and joint standardization topics.
  • Recognition of impacts on the Internet should be identified as a high-level objective and priority for ITU-T standardization studies, and coordination of standardization initiatives should concentrate on assuring that a basis is established to allow identification of the impact that standards may have on the Internet. ITU-T should recognize that the interests of developing countries can be understood in terms of end user and independent provider empowerment as a result of the general purpose platform made possible by IP. Strategic and high priority issues in standardization should distinctly emphasize empowerment of end users, independent providers, and a communications platform that is general purpose and supports diversity of applications while also enabling competition among providers while supporting one platform.
  • The standardization and development initiatives of the Information Society must recognize these characteristics of the Internet as particularly important concerns for developing countries, along with initiatives that may be geared toward other types of networks.
  • There are very active constituencies in the US seeking the establishment of a telecommunications policy framework in the US that supports the Internet by enabling competition among independent providers at the physical layer, and the advice of these proponents should be recognized as a priority and applied by TSAG as an explicit consideration within its mandate to coordinate standardization topics.

  Regional Group Terms of Reference and Mobilization Programs

  • WTSA 44and 54 both invite regions and their Member States to develop draft terms of reference and working methods for regional groups, and WTSA 44 resolves that vice-chairs and chairs from developing countries in TSAG and ITU-T study groups should develop mobilization programs for their regions and make mobilization and participation reports to the ITU.
  • These regional group terms of reference should reflect the distinction between the Internet, which supports interoperation among autonomous networks, and networks that support specialized functions not readily supported by general purpose interoperation among autonomous networks, and should reference the nature of the communications environment in terms of whether it supports interoperation among competing providers at the physical layer, or is characterized by few providers only supporting an intranet
  • These regional mobilization programs and reports should be articulated with reference to the type of networks their countries and regions support, specifically whether they support interoperation among autonomous providers readily entering and competing at the physical layer throughout their countries or regions, or whether they have few providers at the physical layer in any given area, with telecommunications initiatives chiefly arranged through those providers.

  Other Standardization Gap Items to Review

  • The Standardization Gap resolutions reference two items to be prepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which should address the need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU Council Report, with Advice, to the next Plenipotentiary Conference, and the Reports by the TSB and other Bureaus to future WTSAs and Plenipotentiary Conferences, both on WTSA Resolution 44
  • Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding how well the existing proceedings address this concern, all referred to by WTSA 44, include:
    • ITU Council Resolution 1353
    • Annual reviews of WTSA 44
    • Conclusions of the Global Standardization Symposium

(Statement also posted here)

• (Email posted Feb 28, 2013)
• (Click here for pdf)
• (Chairman’s Report on the Third Informal Expert Group meeting here)
• (Opinion on Recognizing the Internet in the Information Society posted at ITU here)

 

2013-02-28

Dear ITU Deputy Secretary Zhou and IEG Chair Kantchev,

The Internet Systems Consortium chose to take part in the Secretary-General’s work with the IEG to finalize the substance of the Report for the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum, shortly before the Third IEG Meeting in Geneva convened, joining the group on the first day of the meet, February 6. Seeking to have our concerns issued as an opinion by the WTPF in May, we submitted our Opinion on Recognizing the Internet in the Information Society to the IEG that same evening.

In light of the last minute nature of our participation, we were told that our opinion was late and that the Chair would consider it. Unfortunately, the first indication that we received of the Chair’s consideration – or of the IEG even receiving our submission – was in footnote 2 of the Secretary-General’s Report on the Third IEG Meeting, announced by email to the members of the IEG on Feb 20th – two weeks later.

We are submitting this comment on the Secretary-General’s Report on the Third IEG Meeting to note that our ability to contribute was hampered by the failure to acknowledge our submission and to note its status for the group’s benefit.

Our opinion observes that the outputs of the Geneva and Tunis phases of the World Summit on the Information Society make only minimal references to the term “Internet,” and that those documents as well as the Council Decision and Resolutions framing the WTPF use other terms representing broader categories or more specialized technical notions rather than the term “Internet,” such as “ICTs,” “telecommunications/ICTs,” “IP-Based Networks,” and “Next-Generation Networks.”

The opinion addresses the need for the WSIS to be able to recognize the impacts that public policy decisions and particular technical systems deployed in development programs may have on the Internet, in order to assure that the Internet’s advantages are not undermined or overlooked without recognizing the tradeoffs that various other technological solutions may bring. It concludes that the WSIS project must identify key characteristics of the Internet.

In expressing our concern regarding the Internet within the context of the WSIS, our Opinion directly addresses the subject areas and concerns identified by Council Decision 562 and Resolutions 101, 102 and 133 as within scope for the 2013 WTPF. Decision 562 highlights Internet-related public policy matters as of great current concern, and Resolutions 101 and 102 call for the WTPF to direct its attention to the Internet as an engine of growth in the world economy emphasizing the Internet’ s development and management. These framing documents emphasize enabling governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet through enhanced cooperation, and the promotion of a favorable environment for interoperation between Internet and other global ICT networks.

They also direct the focus of the WTPF on the progress being made by ITU-D in use of the Internet in developing countries, on Internet access and availability for developing countries, including non-discriminatory access to and use of Internet resources, on the developing of strategies for increasing global connectivity. They note the ITU’s addressing of technical and policy issues related to the Internet, including a Dedicated Group on international Internet-related public policy issues, and the preparation of a Handbook on IP-Based Networks that includes examination of the question of what the Internet is. They note the significant work being done by the ITU and other international bodies on future Internet, and the cooperation agreement in place between ITU-T, ISOC and IETF.

While we recognize that our opinion was received after the agenda for the IEG meeting had been established, and its substance might not have fit easily into the mode of approach the IEG had taken, of consolidating more than 30 opinions into 6, there was no deadline for opinions noted on the IEG web site, and we heard nothing from the Chair regarding our opinion for the next two days, as the other opinions were taken up by the group. We were thus placed in a position of being admitted to the group yet unable to participate though we had submitted our Opinion the same day we joined, while there was no word regarding our submission from the Chair, either in a revised meeting agenda, or directly to us or to the group.

In any case, the submission should have been posted to the IEG document store and noted on the site as soon as it was received, perhaps noting whether it was under consideration or how it would be handled, including that it might have been found to be inadmissible since the IEG’s work would be finished at the end of the Geneva meeting from February 6-8. One week later, a number of associates and concerned onlookers submitted a letter to the Deputy Secretary and the IEG Chair asking for the status of the opinion and urging that it be posted. That email was sent the same day that the other submission noted in footnote 2 of the Report on the Third IEG Meeting, a comment from Canada on the Fourth Draft, was entered into the IEG document store.

Five days later, on February 20, we received word by email to the IEG list, that the Report on the Third IEG Meeting had been completed, wherein we found our first indication of the disposition of our opinion. At this point we discovered that our opinion had finally been entered into the IEG document store on the day before, February 19 – nearly two weeks after we had joined the IEG and provided our contribution. However, our opinion is still not noted among those received by the IEG on the WTPF site.

Whatever the sequence of events that transpired relating to our attempt to provide our perspective and insights to the group might mean, it bears stating that our ability to contribute was severely hampered by a process that did not transparently disclose the status of submissions or respond to them in a timely and forthright fashion. If the Secretary-General intends to conduct proceedings that are actually open to the contributions of stakeholders, it must be recognized that their ability to contribute constructively depends on genuine receptiveness and forthright administration of the contributions of the members taking part in the group.

Sincerely,

Paul Vixie, Chairman and Founder
Internet Systems Consortium


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Posted: Report of the Chairman on the 3rd IEG meeting
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:28:20 -0800
From: Paul Vixie
To: WTPF, ITU
CC: [protected]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretariat, and IEG members:

I enclose ISC's response of this date (2013-02-28) to the posted report
of the IEG Chair on 2013-02-20. Thank you for your attention and
consideration.

Paul Vixie, Chairman and Founder
Internet Systems Consortium


(Also here.  The opinion is now posted by the ITU here.)

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Seth Johnson
Date: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:15 AM
Subject: Status of ISC Opinion Submission for WTPF Informal Experts Group
To: [protected]
Cc: Paul Vixie (, Signers)

Dear ITU Deputy Secretary Zhou and IEG Chair Kantchev,

We are writing to express our concern that the Internet Systems
Consortium's submission for the WTPF, the Opinion on Recognizing the
Internet in the Information Society, has not been posted to the IEG
site though it was submitted the same day Paul Vixie was admitted to
the group for the ISC, and in the evening prior to the beginning of
the group's discussion of submitted opinions last Thursday and Friday.

The opinion is entirely in keeping with the theme of the upcoming
WTPF, of capacity building for broadband, as well as with the topic
areas listed in Council Decision 562 and Resolutions 101, 102 and 133;
and it is eminently in keeping with the overall purpose of the WTPF as
given in Resolution 2.

The Opinion asserts that the World Summit for the Information Society
must identify the key characteristics that distinguish the Internet in
order to assure that the impact of its initiatives on the Internet can
be readily recognized. Without this measure, the Information
Society's initiatives may easily undermine the Internet.

We recognize that the basic conclusion of the Opinion has broad
implications, as it seeks to bring greater clarity and a clearer
foundation to the areas of public policy issues, development
initiatives, and governance in general that the Information Society
initiatives address, but this broadness is only a reflection of a
basic, fundamental oversight which needs to be corrected or else
introduce unnecessary doubts regarding the overall WSIS enterprise.

It is understandable to consider that the Opinion may elicit broader
ranging discussions than others presently being considered for
acceptance in the Secretary-General's Final Draft. However, it can be
considered and all questions answered satisfactorily in the remaining
time before the final draft is issued on March 1; or it can be added
to the remaining Opinions presently being considered for summary
acceptance.

This is a constructive Opinion, addressing an oversight for which the
WTPF is specifically designed to provide, by means of appropriately
framed opinions promoting informed views and responses that may guide
future Information Society activities.

We ask that you please accept the Opinion on Recognizing the Internet
in the Information Society, already submitted as the contribution of
the Internet Systems Consortium, and include it in the
Secretary-General's Report for the World Telecommunications/ICT Policy
Forum, so it can be considered for issuing this May.

Signed,

(Affiliations are listed for identification only)

Janna Anderson, Director of the Imagining the Internet Center, Elon University
Michel Bauwens, P2P Foundation
Scott Bradner, Harvard University, long time IETF and ISOC
participant, former ARIN board member and Network World columnist
Robin Chase, CEO, Buzzcar
Gene Gaines, Gaines Group
Robert Gregory, BSEE UCB, I.T. Director for a non-profit human
services agency, and BSD, open source and IP network evangelist
David S. Isenberg, Ph. D., Producer, F2C: Freedom to Connect
Seth P. Johnson, Information Quality Specialist
Sascha Meinrath, Director, Open Technology Institute
John Mitchell, Interaction Law
Hunter Newby, CEO, Allied Fiber
Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source movement in software
David P. Reed, Ph.D., Participant in the original design of the
Internet Protocols and well-known expert in network and computing
architecture
Chuck Sherwood, Principal, Community Media Visioning
Aram Sinnreich, Author and Journalist, Assistant Professor, Rutgers
University School of Communication and Information
Brough Turner, Founder, netBlazr Inc., co-founder & former CTO of NMS
Communications and of Natural MicroSystems
John G. Waclawsky Ph.D., Technology Advisor and Consultant, Chicago
and Washington
David Weinberger, Ph.D., Senior Researcher at Harvard Berkman Center
for Internet & Society
Brett Wynkoop, First provider of public Internet access in New York City

• (Click here for pdf.)
• (Streamlined web version here.)
• (Also see preparatory comments of January 4.)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Draft Opinion on Recognizing the Internet in the Information
Society -- Re: [ITAC] WTPF-2013: Existing Draft Opinions
To: "Najarian, Paul B"
Cc: [protected]

Okay, I was doing something right in my original proposal, though
since I used the term "ICTs" as the title, others in the State
Department suggested my opinion should go to the CWG-Internet
committee which is developing a definition of ICTs. As a result, I
had to develop the sort of broad opinion that I hoped to avoid, and
therefore this has taken a week instead of the day or two I intended.

See attached.

The only reason I used the term ICTs was because the US was proposing
to present an opinion about development goals of the WSIS, on
diffusing ICTs globally. But I'm not concerned with defining ICTs.
ICT is a general term, and defining it right will keep it a general
term. The NTIA has submitted exactly that type of definition to the
CWG-Internet group on behalf of the US.

The concern we should address at the WTPF is the fact that there's
nothing, anywhere in the WSIS framework, that provides a way to see
when we're messing with the Internet. Instead we have lots of other
terms in use that don't lend clarity to that issue.

I therefore submit the attached opinion, the text of which I paste
below in snipped form for readability. Title: Opinion X on
Recognizing the Internet in the Information Society.

It does not define any terms, just provides a few suggested
characteristics of the Internet as such. Also note that nothing in it
says the ITU should do governance, or even that intergovernmental
governance will occur anywhere in particular -- it just acknowledges
that that's part of the WSIS frame.

Here are a couple of references I wasn't sure I should include:
Internet as General Purpose Platform:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/preserving-open-internet-broadband-industry-practices-1
"Like electricity and the computer, the Internet is a "general
purpose technology" that enables new methods of production that have a
major impact on the entire economy."
from a footnote on that page:
Timothy F. Bresnahan & M. Trajtenberg, General Purpose
Technologies: Engines of Growth'?, 65 J. OF ECONOMETRICS 83108 (1995)
RICHARD G. LIPSEY ET AL., ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATIONS: GENERAL
PURPOSE TECHNOLOGIES AND LONG TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH 132 (2005)

Matt Lasar develops similar ideas to this draft opinion in this Ars
Technica article:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/11/are-you-on-the-internet-or-something-else/

OPINION X ON RECOGNIZING THE INTERNET IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY


(Click here for streamlined version of the opinion)

[. . .]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> Hi Paul: I'm going to do an opinion on ICTs in the "noting x, calling
> attention to y, resolves that z" style because it seems very
> straightforward in the case of ICTs. I'll use the past documents you
> provided to format it, make it a Word document, and hopefully it will
> be done quickly.
>
> After struggling to get a big picture, I'm just going to try to mock
> that one up since it will make a good example that has to do with the
> big picture as such, far better than going on describing how to do it,
> the way I have been. It won't be perfect, and it won't be about
> citing external sources (at least I won't approach it that way, but
> more conceptually -- cites might be added later).
>
> I think that's better than trying to revise the opinions on the other
> topics (enhanced cooperation, multi-stakeholderism) from Saudi Arabia
> in the form of track changes -- because that's not a US opinion,
> first, and more importantly, because the points to be made on those
> topics are more complex.
>
> I think you'll find it useful. This will be something I'll attempt tomorrow.
>
> (Now I hope I can deliver on that simplified task without having to
> work too hard at it.)
>
>
> Seth
> Seth
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Najarian, Paul B wrote:
>> At today’s ad hoc ITAC prep meeting for the upcoming WTPF IEG, a request was
>> made to circulate the current (existing) 6 Draft Opinions, that have already
>> been submitted for consideration at WTPF-2013.
>>
>>
>>
>> The 6 draft Opinions are attached to this email; and they are:
>>
>>
>>
>> • Saudi Arabia (on Supporting Full Multistakeholderism in Internet
>> Governance)
>>
>> • Saudi Arabia (on Supporting Operationalizing the Enhanced
>> Cooperation Process)
>>
>> • Saudi Arabia and UAE ( on Support of the Adoption of IPv6 and of
>> Careful Management of the Transition from IPv4)
>>
>> • UK (on Supporting Capacity Building for the deployment of IPv6)
>>
>> • UK (on Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXP’s) as a long term
>> solution to advance connectivity)
>>
>> • UK (on Supporting the inclusivity of communications for all)
>>
>>
>>
>> These draft Opinions, as well as all documentation of the WTPF IEG, are
>> publically available, without any TIES account, on the WTPF-IEG web page at:
>>
>> http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>> The existing Draft Opinions are listed as WTPF-IEG/2/10 through 15; on the
>> above web page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ACTION: Your specific comments on these Draft Opinions (preferably in Track
>> Changes) are requested by COB January 22.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note however, that I don’t have an indication as to whether the IEG
>> Chair will entertain detailed and explicit revisions to each of these Draft
>> Opinions. At the previous IEG, Draft Opinions were simply introduced; and
>> questions for clarification-only were allowed.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Chair of the IEG indicated that the in-depth debate re. the Draft
>> Opinions will be addressed during the WTPF; in order to produce the Opinions
>> of the Forum.
>>
>>
>>
>> We will seek clarification from the ITU (very shortly); but my sense is that
>> the Chair of the IEG simply wants to complete the SecGen’s Report; and
>> submit the Draft Opinions for consideration by the WTPF.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Najarian
>>
>> U.S. Department of State
>>
>> Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs (EEB)
>>
>> Communication and Information Policy (CIP)
>>
>> 2201 C Street, NW; Rm-4634
>>
>> Washington, DC 20520
>>
>> Tel: 202-647-7847
>>
>> Fax: 202-647-0158
>>
>>