Recognizing WSIS Impacts

———- 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.