Recognizing WSIS Impacts
- Synopsis of the Opinion
- Supporters Letter
- Statements
- WSIS
- Geneva Plan of Action
- ITU Plenipotentiary Conferences
- PP 2010 – Guadalajara, Mexico
- PP Resolution 2
- PP Resolution 21
- PP Resolution 22
- PP Resolution 23
- PP Resolution 24
- PP Resolution 25
- PP Resolution 30
- PP Resolution 31
- PP Resolution 34
- PP Resolution 35
- PP Resolution 36
- PP Resolution 58
- PP Resolution 64
- PP Resolution 70
- PP Resolution 71
- PP Resolution 73
- PP Resolution 100
- PP Resolution 101
- PP Resolution 102
- PP Resolution 112
- PP Resolution 113
- PP Resolution 122
- PP Resolution 123
- PP Resolution 124
- PP Resolution 128
- PP Resolution 129
- PP Resolution 130
- PP Resolution 131
- PP Resolution 133
- PP Resolution 135
- PP Resolution 136
- PP Resolution 137
- PP Resolution 138
- PP Resolution 139
- PP Resolution 140
- PP Resolution 143
- PP Resolution 149
- PP Resolution 157
- PP Resolution 169
- PP Resolution 170
- PP Resolution 172
- PP Resolution 174
- PP Resolution 175
- PP Resolution 177
- PP Resolution 178
- PP Resolution 179
- PP Resolution 180
- PP Resolution 181
- PP Resolution 182
- PP Resolution 183
- PP Resolution 184
- PP 2014 – Busan, Republic of Korea
- PP Resolution 2
- PP Resolution 21
- PP Resolution 58
- PP Resolution 64
- PP Resolution 70
- PP Resolution 71
- PP Resolution 101
- PP Resolution 102
- PP Resolution 123
- PP Resolution 130
- PP Resolution 131
- PP Resolution 133
- PP Resolution 135
- PP Resolution 137
- PP Resolution 139
- PP Resolution 140
- PP Resolution 157
- PP Resolution 162
- PP Resolution 174
- PP Resolution 177
- PP Resolution 180
- PP Resolution 185
- PP Resolution 187
- PP Resolution 188
- PP Resolution 189
- PP Resolution 190
- PP Resolution 191
- PP Resolution 195
- PP Resolution 196
- PP Resolution 197
- PP Resolution 199
- PP Resolution 200
- PP Resolution 201
- PP Resolution 203
- PP 2010 – Guadalajara, Mexico
- World Telecommunications Development Conferences
- WTDC 2010 – Hyderabad, India
- WTDC Resolution 5
- WTDC Resolution 7
- WTDC Resolution 8
- WTDC Resolution 11
- WTDC Resolution 13
- WTDC Resolution 15
- WTDC Resolution 16
- WTDC Resolution 17
- WTDC Resolution 20
- WTDC Resolution 21
- WTDC Resolution 22
- WTDC Resolution 23
- WTDC Resolution 24
- WTDC Resolution 30
- WTDC Resolution 31
- WTDC Resolution 32
- WTDC Resolution 34
- WTDC Resolution 35
- WTDC Resolution 36
- WTDC Resolution 37
- WTDC Resolution 38
- WTDC Resolution 39
- WTDC Resolution 40
- WTDC Resolution 44
- WTDC Resolution 45
- WTDC Resolution 46
- WTDC Resolution 47
- WTDC Resolution 48
- WTDC Resolution 50
- WTDC Resolution 52
- WTDC Resolution 53
- WTDC Resolution 54
- WTDC Resolution 55
- WTDC Resolution 56
- WTDC Resolution 58
- WTDC Resolution 59
- WTDC Resolution 62
- WTDC Resolution 63
- WTDC Resolution 64
- WTDC Resolution 65
- WTDC Resolution 66
- WTDC Resolution 67
- WTDC Resolution 68
- WTDC Resolution 69
- WTDC Resolution 70
- WTDC Resolution 71
- WTDC Resolution 72
- WTDC Resolution 73
- WTDC Resolution 74
- WTDC 2014 – Dubai, United Arab Emirates
- WTDC Resolution 22
- WTDC Resolution 23
- WTDC Resolution 30
- WTDC Resolution 37
- WTDC Resolution 40
- WTDC Resolution 43
- WTDC Resolution 45
- WTDC Resolution 50
- WTDC Resolution 54
- WTDC Resolution 63
- WTDC Resolution 64
- WTDC Resolution 69
- WTDC Resolution 73
- WTDC Resolution 77
- WTDC Resolution 78
- WTDC Resolution 79
- WTDC Resolution 80
- WTDC Resolution 82
- WTDC 2010 – Hyderabad, India
- World Telecommunications Standards Assemblies
- WTSA 2012 – Dubai, United Arab Emirates
- WTSA Resolution 1
- WTSA Resolution 7
- WTSA Resolution 17
- WTSA Resolution 20
- WTSA Resolution 22
- WTSA Resolution 29
- WTSA Resolution 33
- WTSA Resolution 43
- WTSA Resolution 44
- WTSA Resolution 45
- WTSA Resolution 47
- WTSA Resolution 48
- WTSA Resolution 49
- WTSA Resolution 50
- WTSA Resolution 52
- WTSA Resolution 53
- WTSA Resolution 54
- WTSA Resolution 55
- WTSA Resolution 56
- WTSA Resolution 57
- WTSA Resolution 58
- WTSA Resolution 59
- WTSA Resolution 64
- WTSA Resolution 69
- WTSA Resolution 70
- WTSA Resolution 73
- WTSA Resolution 74
- WTSA Resolution 75
- WTSA Resolution 76
- WTSA 2012 – Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Letter from ISC on WTPF Experts Group Report
February 28, 2013
Comments of the Internet Systems Consortium
on the Secretary-General’s Report on the Third Meeting
of the Informal Experts Group
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
- No comments yet.