{"id":658,"date":"2013-06-02T11:45:54","date_gmt":"2013-06-02T15:45:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/?page_id=658"},"modified":"2015-06-30T00:31:00","modified_gmt":"2015-06-30T04:31:00","slug":"wtsa_47","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wsis\/wtsa\/wtsa-2012\/wtsa_47\/","title":{"rendered":"WTSA Resolution 47"},"content":{"rendered":"

[cf]treestyles[\/cf]
\n[cf]marktree[\/cf]<\/p>\n

WTSA RESOLUTION 47 (Rev. Dubai, 2012)<\/span><\/h3>\n

Country code top-level domain names<\/span><\/h4>\n

The World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (Dubai, 2012),<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • recognizing<\/span>\n
      \n
    • a) relevant parts of Resolution 102 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) of the Plenipotentiary Conference;<\/span><\/li>\n
    • b) Resolution 133 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) of the Plenipotentiary Conference;<\/span><\/li>\n
    • c) relevant outcomes of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society;<\/span><\/li>\n
    • d) the evolving role of the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly, in accordance with Resolution 122 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) of the Plenipotentiary Conference,<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
    • considering<\/span>\n
        \n
      • a) that issues persist in some ca ses with respect to the delegation of country code top-level domain names (ccTLD) to entities designa ted by national authorities;<\/span><\/li>\n
      • b) that Member States represent the interests of the population of the country or territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated, as noted in recognizing g) of Resolution 102 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010);<\/span><\/li>\n
      • c) that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s ccTLD, as noted in recognizing i) of Resolution 102 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010);<\/span><\/li>\n
      • d) that intergovernmental organizati ons have had, a nd should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues;<\/span><\/li>\n
      • e) that international organizations have also had, an d should continue to have, an important role in the development of Internet-related techni cal standards and relevant policies;<\/span><\/li>\n
      • f) that ITU has a record of succes sfully handling similar issues,<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
      • instructs ITU-T Study Group 2<\/span>\n
          \n
        • to continue studies, and to work with Member Stat es and Sector Members, in their respective roles, recognizing the activities of other appropriate entities, to review Member States’ ccTLD experiences,<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
        • instructs the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau<\/span>\n
            \n
          • to take appropriate action to facilitate the above an d to report to the ITU Council annually regarding the progress achieved in this area,<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
          • invites Member States<\/span>\n
              \n
            • to contribute to these activities,<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
            • further invites Member States<\/span>\n
                \n
              • to take appropriate steps within their national legal fra meworks to ensure that issu es related to delegation of country code top-level domains are resolved.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n