Recognizing WSIS Impacts

———- 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
>>
>>