{"id":1211,"date":"2013-11-05T11:26:08","date_gmt":"2013-11-05T16:26:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/?p=1211"},"modified":"2014-03-20T01:45:53","modified_gmt":"2014-03-20T05:45:53","slug":"proposals-for-modifications-to-wtdc-resolutions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/11\/05\/proposals-for-modifications-to-wtdc-resolutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Proposals for Modifications to WTDC Resolutions"},"content":{"rendered":"

———- Forwarded message ———-
\nFrom: Seth Johnson
\nDate: Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM
\nSubject: Re: [ITAC-D] Proposals for MODS to Hyderabad Resolutions
\nTo: “Minard, Julian E” <\/p>\n

Hi Julian: keep in mind my input. I have had to prioritize resolutions to address the WTDC, and the US Delegation’s approach to it, in a systematic way.<\/p>\n

Among WTDC resolutions I have mentioned, following WTDC 47 and 23
\n(conformance and interoperability and international internet
\nconnectivity) I would place the following, which require important
\nclarifications in important contexts:<\/p>\n

WTDC 13 and 30, maybe edits to 52 and 71 in line with those as well
\n(to clarify regarding vertical integration), followed by WTDC 64
\n(consumer protection) and WTDC 20 (non-discrimination).<\/p>\n

(WTDC 43, on IMT, does not require mods because it does not use the
\ngeneral term broadband, but I naturally rank it High along with
\nConformance and Interoperability, just as the US does, because of the
\nIAP study question on broadband associated with it).<\/p>\n

At the last meeting I also mentioned a set of WTDC resolutions
\nimportant for their treatment of identifiers: These are WTDC 22, which
\nonly refers to NGNs in that connection, and WTDC 63, which only refers
\nto IP-based networks in that connection. WTDC 45 also refers to
\ncryptographic research that connects with the identifiers concern.<\/p>\n

The rest of the WTDC Resolutions have mostly trivial issues with
\nterminology, such as a weird reference to an ICT device in WTDC 37
\n(digital divide) and WTDC 58 and 70 (persons with disabilities), which
\nare not misleading though they refer to the Internet extensively.
\nWTDC 45 has a similar trivial terminology issue, and I had set it
\naside, but I consider revisions to it important because of the
\nidentifiers issue.<\/p>\n

Almost all the WTDC resolutions are framed in terms of the indefinite
\nterms ICTs or telecommunications\/ICTs. This use of language is only
\nmisleading when considered in the overall context. I do have an
\nentirely new concern regarding WTDC 15, which I will raise separately.<\/p>\n

Seth<\/p>\n

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Minard, Julian E wrote:
\n> Apparently I neglected to send this out. Please take a look at this list of
\n> Resolutions from the perspective of (a) identifying those that you consider
\n> to be of high priority (some, but maybe not all, have been already
\n> identified), and (b) identifying the MODs you consider important to you
\n> (giving due consideration to those that are high priority). The leads have
\n> been identified, some by name, others by organization. Leads are only
\n> expected to lead the work, and need not do everything on their own.
\n>
\n> The list also reminds that we had agreed that there would be talking points
\n> on the DIAPs; we have not seen much activity on this part of the project.
\n>
\n> At the next TDAG\/WTDC prep meeting (this Tuesday), we will be replacing
\n> organizational identities with real names, and then we can do the real work
\n> of proposing MODs.
\n>
\n> Julian Minard
\n