{"id":1290,"date":"2013-04-29T15:04:34","date_gmt":"2013-04-29T19:04:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/?p=1290"},"modified":"2014-11-20T22:02:32","modified_gmt":"2014-11-21T03:02:32","slug":"to-state-dept-conformance-and-interoperability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/29\/to-state-dept-conformance-and-interoperability\/","title":{"rendered":"To State Dept: Conformance and Interoperability"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Click here for blog post version<\/a> of this commentary)<\/p>\n

———- Forwarded message ———-
\nFrom: Seth Johnson
\nDate: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM
\nSubject: WTDC\/Plenipot: 1) Conformance and Interoperability: Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
\nTo: “ITAC@LMLIST.STATE.GOV”
\nCc: “ITAC-D@LMLIST.STATE.GOV”<\/p>\n

Below this note is an analysis showing where the Conformance and
\nInteroperability resolutions introduce the risk of the Information
\nSociety undermining the Internet.<\/p>\n

It is designed to contribute to upcoming proceedings such as the WTPF,
\nWTDC and High Level WSIS Review in April 2014, preparing the way to
\nthe Plenipotentiary Meeting in October\/November 2014, where the
\nnecessary actions can be taken.<\/p>\n

You can read this as a blog post with internal links here:
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Please take it into account on the next WTDC Prep, general ITAC, and
\nCouncil calls.<\/p>\n

You can see two general concerns and a set of key points here:
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#TwoConcerns<\/a>
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#KeyPoints<\/a><\/p>\n

See below for raw text version.<\/p>\n

I will move on to the other development-related topic areas I
\ndescribed in the last ITAC call next: the enabling
\nenvironment\/inclusivity; cybersecurity, ICTs and the Internet; and
\nmeasures\/results analysis.<\/p>\n

There are a number of reports being prepared to be presented at
\nupcoming proceedings that also need to incorporate this concern: ITU
\nCouncil Reports to the Plenipotentiary Conference on Conformance and
\nInteroperability\/Guadalajara Resolution 177, on Bridging the Digital
\nDivide\/Guadalajara Resolution 139, and on Bridging the Standardization
\nGap\/WTSA Resolution 44; the BDT Report with lessons learned to WTDC re
\nConformance and Interoperability\/WTDC Resolution 47; and the TSB
\nReport to the Plenipotentiary Conference (and future WTSAs) on
\nBridging the Standardization Gap\/WTSA Resolution 44. Additional
\nreports like these will become relevant as I address the other topics.<\/p>\n

The commentary gives a picture of how the fact that the Information
\nSociety leaves out a proper treatment of the nature of the Internet
\nplays out, by analyzing the subset of resolutions that relate to the
\ntopic of Conformance and Interoperability. While the implications are
\ndiverse, the actual revisions called for would be straightforward.
\nThey mostly entail adding onto some references to general terms like
\nICTs or telecommunications\/ICTs, additional phrases like “including
\nthe Internet” or “including both general purpose internetworking and
\nnetworks supporting various specialized functions,” etc. Then one
\ngeneral resolution might be issued to which others could refer,
\n“Resolution XX on Internet Key Characteristics and Properties.”<\/p>\n

I will need to look at the US position on conformance and
\ninteroperability, the action plan, and more of the plenipotentiary
\nresolutions. I also need to know how the conformance and
\ninteroperability regime relates to the “interoperability rules” that
\nthe FirstNet Board is apparently going to be issuing. Other items
\nthat will need to be reviewed are listed in my blog analysis here:
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#ReviewCI<\/a>
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#ReviewDD<\/a>
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#ReviewSG<\/a><\/p>\n

See full text below or at the blog link.<\/p>\n

Seth<\/p>\n

Conformance and Interoperability: Understanding Impacts on the Internet<\/p>\n

> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Contents:<\/p>\n

Introduction: Background, General Concerns, Key Points, Relevant Resolutions<\/p>\n

Conformance and Interoperability
\nWTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA Resolution 76
\nOn Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service
\nOn Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of Interoperability<\/p>\n

Bridging the Digital Divide
\nLack of References to the Internet in Relation to the Digital Divide
\nNo Mention of Internet Empowerment of End Users and Providers
\nOn Interoperability, Interconnection and Global Connectivity
\nOn Pro-Competitive Policies and Regulatory Contexts for Expanding Access<\/p>\n

Bridging the Standardization Gap
\nLack of References to the Internet in Relation to Bridging the
\nStandardization Gap
\nStrategic and High Priority Issues in Standardization
\nRegional Group Terms of Reference and Mobilization Programs<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) harbors a
\npotential of undermining the Internet platform. Its framing documents
\nand resolutions use general terms such as \u201ctelecommunications\/ICTs\u201d
\nand make very little reference to the Internet or its special
\ncharacteristics, thus providing no basis for recognizing when the
\nInternet may be affected by its initiatives.<\/p>\n

Among these framing resolutions are those that cover development
\ninitiatives and provide the frame for the next World Telecommunication
\nDevelopment Conference (WTDC) to be held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt
\nfrom March 31 to April 11, 2014. The WTDC and the High-Level WSIS
\nReview event taking place in April 2014, along with the
\nPlenipotentiary meeting in October-November 2014, represent the key
\noccasions to assure that the appropriate resolutions are issued or
\nrevised to enable the impacts that WSIS development initiatives may
\nhave on the Internet to be readily recognized.<\/p>\n

The WTDC Resolutions related to the Conformance and Interoperability
\ninitiative represent one thrust that indicates where revisions are
\nneeded to enable us to recognize when the Information Society\u2019s
\ndevelopment initiatives may affect the Internet. This commentary
\nidentifies the resolutions related to Conformance and Interoperability
\nand analyzes them in light of this concern.<\/p>\n

We begin with two general concerns, followed by a set of key points
\ncovered with more specificity in the commentary.<\/p>\n

Two General Concerns:<\/p>\n

The first general concern here has to do with the prospect
\nthat conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis for
\nenabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of
\nnetworks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without
\ndistinguishing them from the Internet or recognizing the tradeoffs
\nthese types of networks bring as compared to the advantages of the
\nInternet. This could be a problem if these standards work against
\nconnectivity in the form the Internet makes possible, or if their
\npromotion allows something different to be called Internet.<\/p>\n

The other general concern here has to do with applying
\nconformance and interoperability certification in connection with a
\nrange of public policy issues with which the Information Society is
\nconcerned. If we set up a standardization process under the ITU, and
\nif it fails to recognize the key characteristics of the Internet while
\nit is connected to these public policy concerns, we could easily end
\nup normalizing, in the name of public policy concerns, forms of
\ntelecommunications and related policies that are detrimental to the
\nadvantages of the Internet, without recognizing that impact.<\/p>\n

Some Key Points:<\/p>\n

The conformance and interoperability framework should reflect
\nthe distinction between the general purpose form of connectivity that
\nthe Internet Protocol makes possible between independent networks, and
\nconnectivity that supports specialized functions that are not as
\nreadily supported by general purpose internetworking.<\/p>\n

Capacity building in conformance and interoperability testing
\nshould incorporate recognition of the empowerment of independent
\noperators and end users made possible by the general purpose internet
\nplatform as well as recognizing other types of networks supporting
\nspecialized functions.<\/p>\n

Conformance and interoperability should address quality of
\nservice not only as a specialized function in networks that treat IP
\npackets specially according to types or categories, but also based on
\nrecognition of the role that the actual capacity of networks plays in
\nquality of service in general purpose internetworking.<\/p>\n

The conformance and interoperability initiative should
\nrecognize that confidence in end-to-end interoperability is already
\nenabled for the Internet based on general purpose packet
\ntransmissions. While the likelihood of interoperability for other
\nkinds of networks or specialized services will increase on the basis
\nof confidence derived from conformance assessment, conformance
\nassessment can also support interoperability through the upholding of
\npolicies backed by an intergovernmental authority, a prospect with
\nimplications that should be understood and addressed.<\/p>\n

The resolutions on bridging the digital divide make no mention
\nof the empowerment of end users and independent providers made
\npossible by the Internet, or of how those factors drive development<\/p>\n

The references to interoperability, interconnection and global
\nconnectivity in the resolutions do not necessarily mean connectivity
\nin terms of what we understand as the Internet platform, but are used
\nin ways that could easily support policies imposing connectivity in
\nother forms, without clearly recognizing their impact on the Internet<\/p>\n

General references to pro-competitive policies and regulatory
\ncontexts in relation to expanding access should be adapted to
\nrecognize the general purpose Internet platform made possible by
\ninteroperation among autonomous, competing providers at the physical
\nlayer, and should not characterize the policy and regulatory context
\nsolely in general terms that may support other types of networks
\nwithout specifically recognizing the Internet as well.<\/p>\n

Recognition of impacts on the Internet should be identified as
\na high-level objective and priority in standardization, and strategic
\nand high priority issues in standardization should distinctly
\nrecognize end user and independent provider empowerment as a result of
\nthe Internet as particularly important concerns for developing
\ncountries, along with standardization initiatives that may be geared
\ntoward other types of networks.<\/p>\n

The advice of proponents of increased competition among
\nindependent providers at the physical layer within the US should be
\nrecognized and applied by TSAG as an explicit consideration within its
\nmandate to coordinate standardization topics.<\/p>\n

For the purposes of commenting on the revisions needed in this area,
\nit\u2019s most useful to group the relevant resolutions under three related
\ntopic headers \u2014 Conformance and Interoperability, Bridging the Digital
\nDivide, and Bridging the Standardization Gap. Click below to see the
\nrelationships among all the resolutions making up the overall
\nconformance and interoperability thrust.<\/p>\n

Click here for Resolutions Related to Conformance and Interoperability:
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#RelatedResolutions<\/a><\/p>\n

Commentary:<\/p>\n

Conformance and Interoperability<\/p>\n

WTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA
\nResolution 76 fit under the general heading of conformance and
\ninteroperability.<\/p>\n

A conformance and interoperability framework that recognizes the
\nnature of the Internet needs to draw a clear distinction between
\ncertification of conformance and interoperability in relation to the
\ngeneral purpose form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes
\npossible between independent networks, and certification for
\nspecialized functions that are not as readily supported by general
\npurpose internetworking across autonomous routers.<\/p>\n

WTDC Resolution 47<\/p>\n

WTDC Resolution 47 instructs the Director of the
\nTelecommunications Development Bureau to assist developing countries
\nin building their capacity to perform conformance testing of equipment
\nand systems and to follow up on implementation, including a periodic
\nreport to the T-DAG and a report on lessons learned to the WTDC in
\n2014. It invites Member States and Sector Members to enhance knowledge
\nand effective application of ITU-R and ITU-T Recommendations in
\ndeveloping countries, and to introduce best practices in applying
\nthese recommendations. It says nothing about Internet, but does talk
\nabout fiber optics, broadband networks, and next-generation networks,
\ninviting Member States to introduce best-practice application of ITU
\nRecommendations in those areas through training and workshops in
\ndeveloping countries.<\/p>\n

This resolution needs to reflect the above distinction in the
\nidentification of best practices that it calls for: best practices in
\napplying recommendations for interoperability by general purpose IP
\ntransmissions among autonomous networks, versus best practices in
\napplying recommendations related to networks that provide specialized
\nfunctions among routers implementing specialized treatment of packets.
\nThe list list of example topics mentioned above should be extended to
\ninclude specific mention of Internet networks as well.<\/p>\n

WTDC 47 also notes that the studies endorsed under WTSA
\nResolution 76, on conformance and interoperability and the possibility
\nof establishing an ITU Mark regime, entail a need for understanding of
\nITU Recommendations and related international standards in applying
\nnew technology to networks appropriately and effectively. The
\ndistinction between the general purpose Internet and other types of
\nnetworks should be encompassed in this understanding, and reflected in
\nthese WTSA studies and conformance and interoperability guidelines.<\/p>\n

WTDC 47 should also be revised to note that this distinction
\nis to be applied in the training courses and workshops that the
\nDirector of the TDB, in collaboration with the TSB and RB, is
\ninstructed to encourage developing countries to participate in, and in
\nthe framing for capacity building in conformance testing, conformance
\nand interoperability testing events, and international and regional
\nconformance and interoperability test laboratories that they are also
\ninstructed to support. WTDC 47 also needs to note that the field study
\non the feasibility of and need for regional laboratories that it
\ninstructs them to conduct should reflect the distinction, as well as
\nthe report to the Council on that study, the periodic reports to the
\nTDAG, and the report to WTDC 2014 on implementation and lessons
\nlearned, that the resolution also directs the TDB to present in
\ncollaboration with the other Bureaus.<\/p>\n

Guadalajara Resolution 177<\/p>\n

Guadalajara Resolution 177 instructs the Director of the TSB
\nto consult with stakeholders in all regions on implementation of
\nCouncil Recommendations related to the conformance and
\ninteroperability program, to conduct studies related to the
\npossibility of establishing an ITU Mark program, to improve
\nstandards-setting processes and thereby improving interoperability
\nthrough conformance, to prepare a long-term business plan on
\nimplementing conformance and interoperability, and to present progress
\nreports and study outcomes to the Council. Each of these activities
\nshould incorporate recognition of the distinction between
\ncertifications related to general purpose Internet connectivity among
\nautonomous, independent providers by means of the Internet Protocol,
\nversus certifications related to specialized functions not readily
\nsupported by general purpose Internet connectivity.<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 177 invites Sector Members and organizations
\nqualified under ITU-T Recommendation A.5 to populate a pilot
\nconformity database representing products tested to ITU-T
\nRecommendations, and to participate in interoperability events
\nfacilitated by the ITU. This pilot database and the ITU
\ninteroperability events need to be designed to reflect the same
\ndistinction given above.<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 177 also invites Sector Members and ITU-T
\nA.5-qualified organizations to help build capacity for conformance and
\ninteroperability testing in developing countries. Capacity building
\nfor conformance and interoperability should be designed to distinctly
\nrecognize general purpose interoperability as well as networks and
\ntechnologies supporting specialized functions. Information Society
\ninitiatives should sponsor capacity building in conformance and
\ninteroperability testing that not only certifies specialized
\nfunctions, but that fosters the empowerment of independent operators
\nand end users by distinctly certifying technologies that support a
\ngeneral purpose platform through the use of IP to interoperate among
\nindependent networks in a context of numerous competing providers.<\/p>\n

On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 177 includes a particular note that conformance
\nassessment regimes adopted by Member States will lead to better
\nquality of service\/quality of experience. Quality of service is a
\ncharacteristic often sought to be implemented as a specialized
\nfunction in networks that treat IP packets specially according to
\ntypes or categories. Providing for quality of service in this way
\ngenerally can only be readily implemented across routers within a
\nnetwork governed by a core authority and\/or policy, rather than across
\nthe routers of independent internetworking providers. A conformance
\nand interoperability regime that recognizes the nature of the Internet
\nshould address quality of service not only in these terms, but also in
\nterms that recognize the role that the actual capacity of networks
\nplays in quality of service.<\/p>\n

That is, conformance assessment should distinctly provide for
\ncertifications that recognize that general purpose interoperability
\nsupports quality of service on the basis of provision of capacity, and
\nis supported by an enabling environment that assures end users, and
\nproviders on shared lines, will receive the actual capacity that they
\npurchase. In this type of context, end user demand and ready and
\ncompetitive access by independent providers at the physical layer
\ndrive infrastructure development and therefore support quality of
\nservice and quality of experience on that basis. To make a general
\npoint not to be developed in detail here, Information Society
\ninitiatives focused on establishing a conformance and interoperability
\nregime should distinguish this physical layer competition model for
\nbuilding network capacity to support quality of service, from models
\nthat seek to support quality of service through specialized networks
\nand services, and that tie return on investment in infrastructure to
\nthe product and service offerings of particular providers with a
\nprivileged relationship to the right of way.<\/p>\n

WTSA Resolution 76<\/p>\n

WTSA Resolution 76 refers to conformance assessment as the
\naccepted way to demonstrate products adhere to an international
\nstandard, describing it as increasingly important in the context of
\nstandardization commitments under the WTO\u2019s Agreement on Technical
\nBarriers to Trade. It notes four pillars of the ITU conformance and
\ninteroperability program as enumerated in the executive summary of the
\nITU Conformance and Interoperability Business Plan report: conformance
\nassessment, interoperability events, capacity building, and
\nestablishment of test centers in developing countries.<\/p>\n

WTSA 76 resolves that ITU-T study groups should develop
\nconformance testing Recommendations as soon as possible, that Study
\nGroup 11 be designated as coordinating activities on conformance and
\ninteroperability across all ITU-T study groups, that ITU-T, in
\ncollaboration with the other Sectors, should develop a program to
\nassist developing countries in identifying opportunities for capacity
\nbuilding in conformance and interoperability testing, and in
\nestablishing regional or subregional conformance and interoperability
\ntesting centers in cooperation with accreditation and certification
\nbodies, and that conformance and interoperability testing requirements
\nshould verify parameters defined in current and future ITU-T
\nRecommendations.<\/p>\n

All of these elements should incorporate recognition of the
\ndistinction between general purpose internetworking and other types of
\nnetworks, including the pillars of conformance assessment,
\ninteroperability events, capacity building, and test centers, as well
\nas the content and scope of the new conformance testing
\nRecommendations, the coordinating function of Study Group 11, and
\ntesting requirements reflecting ITU-T Recommendations.<\/p>\n

WTSA 76 instructs the Director of the TSB to conduct
\nexploratory activities in each region to identify and prioritize
\nproblems in developing countries related to interoperability of
\ntelecommunications\/ICT equipment and services, to implement the action
\nplan agreed to by the Council in its 2012 session, and to implement a
\nconformance and interoperability program that may connect with the
\nintroduction of an ITU Mark in alignment with the Council\u2019s 2012
\ndecision in C12\/91. It instructs the study groups to identify ITU-T
\nRecommendations that may be candidates for interoperability testing,
\nto prepare these Recommendations for testing as appropriate, and to
\ncooperate with stakeholders in optimizing studies for the preparation
\nof test specifications<\/p>\n

These elements of WTSA 76 should also be related to the same
\ndistinction given above. Exploration of problems in the regions should
\nallow for various regions and countries to support either Internet or
\nother types of connectivity under the general term
\n\u201ctelecommunication\/ICT equipment and services.\u201d The overall framing of
\nthe ITU Mark program should also incorporate the distinction.<\/p>\n

On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of
\nInteroperability<\/p>\n

WTSA 76 asserts that an increase in confidence in ICT
\nequipment conformance with ITU-T Recommendations will increase the
\nprobability that equipment from different manufacturers will
\ninteroperate across networks from end to end. This is reflected in an
\nobservation in Guadalajara 177 that the conformance assessment regimes
\nthat it invites Member States to adopt can lead to a higher
\nprobability that equipment, services and systems will interoperate.<\/p>\n

Information Society initiatives for conformance and
\ninteroperability should recognize that confidence in end-to-end
\ninteroperability is already enabled for the Internet based on general
\npurpose packet transmissions. However, for specialized functions that
\nare not as readily supported across the autonomous networks that make
\nup the Internet, these Resolutions appear to be designed to enable
\nproviders and manufacturers to certify their compatibility with
\nparticular specialized functions that may be supported by particular
\ntypes of networks. These specialized functions, and the types of
\nnetworks that support them, should be distinguished from the Internet.
\nWhile conformance testing would help increase the likelihood of
\ninteroperability for networks supporting specialized functions on the
\nbasis of increased confidence, it also can support interoperability on
\nthe basis of fulfilling policies backed by an intergovernmental
\nauthority. As the Information Society contemplates the establishing of
\nan intergovernmental framework for policymaking that may touch on the
\nInternet, it is critical that a basis is established for identifying
\nwhen policies would impact the Internet deleteriously, by
\ndistinguishing networks supporting more specialized functions from the
\nInternet.<\/p>\n

?Other Conformance and Interoperability Items to Review<\/p>\n

?Under the Conformance and Interoperability heading we find
\ntwo items to be prepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which
\nshould address the need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU
\nCouncil Report to the next plenipotentiary conference on progress
\nrelated to Guadalajara Resolution 177, and the Report by BDT and the
\nother Bureaus to the 2014 WTDC with lessons learned related to WTDC
\nResolution 47.<\/p>\n

Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding how
\nwell the existing proceedings address this concern include:<\/p>\n

The ITU Conformance and Interoperability Business Plan,
\nthe Action Plan agreed to by the ITU Council in 2012, and the
\nSecretary-General\u2019s Conformance and Interoperability Status Report and
\nAction Plan (C12\/48), all referred to in WTSA Resolution 76, and the
\nITU Council Document C09\/28 approving TSB Recommendations, mentioned
\nin Guadalajara 177<\/p>\n

The TSB Business Plan, Progress Reports to the Council in
\n2009, 10, 11, 12 and to the 2010 Plenipotentiary conference, TSB
\nstudies and reports on implementation of Guadalajara 177 and WTSA 76,
\nincluding studies on the potential of establishing an ITU Mark, and
\nconsultations with regional stakeholders on human capacity building
\nand establishing of test facilities<\/p>\n

The Report by BDT and the other Bureaus to the Council on
\nimplementation of Guadalajara Resolution 47, mentioned in Guadalajara
\n177, and periodic reports to the TDAG by BDT and the other Bureaus
\nmentioned in WTDC 47<\/p>\n

The pilot conformity database mentioned in Guadalajara 177<\/p>\n

The ITU-T A-series Recommendations, including
\nRecommendation A.5 regarding qualification of participating
\norganizations, mentioned in Guadalajara 177, and Supplement 2,
\nmentioned in WTSA 76<\/p>\n

ITU-T Recommendations X.290 to ITU-T X.296, mentioned in WTSA 76<\/p>\n

The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, mentioned in
\nWTSA 76, should also be reviewed for how both general purpose
\ninteroperability and interoperability for specialized functions and
\nnetworks might relate to the Agreement, including how conformance
\nassessment might relate to both general purpose interoperability and
\ninteroperability for specialized functions and networks through
\ninter-governmental policies and standards<\/p>\n

Bridging the Digital Divide<\/p>\n

WTDC Resolution 37, Guadalajara Resolution 139, and WTSA
\nResolution 17 address the topic of bridging the digital divide.<\/p>\n

Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to the Digital Divide<\/p>\n

Guadalajara Resolution 139 relates bridging the digital divide
\nand inclusivity to the general term telecommunications\/ICTs with no
\nrecognition of how the characteristics of the Internet relate to those
\nconcerns. It notes the lack of basic infrastructure, plans, laws and
\nregulations to support development of ICT and ICT applications in many
\ncountries, and concludes that the ITU should continue to support
\nstudies on the contribution of ICTs and ICT applications to
\ndevelopment, to act as a clearing-house for the exchange of
\ninformation and expertise in this area, and to pursue initiatives to
\npromote access to telecommunications\/ICTs and ICT applications.
\nHowever, it makes no reference to how the unique characteristics of
\nthe Internet relate to or contribute to these concerns.<\/p>\n

WTDC Resolution 37 also notes the lack of basic
\ninfrastructure, plans, laws and regulations to support ICT development
\nin many developing countries, again using the general term ICTs. It
\nmakes no mention of the Internet\u2019s characteristics in particular as
\npart of the revolution available to create digital opportunities in
\ndeveloping countries, and refers to networks supporting the Internet
\nand Internet applications as \u201clegacy networks,\u201d without addressing
\ntradeoffs of other types of networks. It requests the Director of the
\nTDB to create social connectivity indicators for the digital divide,
\nsupport various special initiatives including developing a
\nuser-awareness campaign to build trust and confidence in ICT
\napplications, and help reduce access costs by encouraging
\nmanufacturers to develop appropriate technology scalable to broadband
\napplications.<\/p>\n

WTSA Resolution 17 does not address the Internet distinctly as
\nit notes the purpose of the ITU to promote development of the
\nworldwide telecommunication network. It refers to NGN deployment
\nstudies and migration to NGNs with no distinct references to the
\nInternet, as it instructs the Director of the TSB to assist developing
\ncountries in studies on priority questions, to support flagship groups
\non those questions, and to continue supporting NGN deployment studies
\nand standards development activities as related to rural development
\nand bridging the digital and development divides.<\/p>\n

No Mention of Internet Empowerment of End Users and Providers<\/p>\n

Notably for a resolution on bridging the digital divide and
\ninclusivity, Guadalajara 139 makes no mention of the empowerment of
\nend users and independent providers made possible by the Internet. It
\nobserves the integral role played by telecommunications\/ICTs and ICT
\napplications \u2014 but not the Internet as such \u2014 as part of the national,
\nregional and international development process, and as not only the
\nconsequence of economic growth, but a prerequisite for overall
\ndevelopment, including economic growth. It states that ICTs and ICT
\napplications must be placed at the service of development, and that
\ntelecommunication\/ICT infrastructure and applications are central to
\nthe goal of digital inclusion, while making no mention of the unique
\nempowerment and innovation by end users and independent providers that
\nthe Internet makes possible or how those factors drive development.<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 139 recommends national e-strategies be linked to
\ndevelopment goals with no mention of how characteristics of the
\nInternet contribute to these strategies. It calls ICTs and ICT
\napplications essential to political, economic, social and cultural
\ndevelopment and notes the important role they play in e-government,
\nlabor, job creation, agriculture, health, education, transport,
\nindustry, human rights, poverty alleviation, environmental protection,
\nprevention\/mitigation of natural and other disasters, trade and
\ntransfer of information for social welfare in economic and social
\nprogress. But again, it does not provide any indication of how the
\ncharacteristics of the Internet contribute to these purposes.<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 139 notes that the Strategic Plan for the Union
\nfor 2012-2015 has the aim of \u201cenabling and fostering the growth and
\nsustained development of telecommunication networks and services,\u201d
\nwhile it makes no mention of the Internet, of end user and independent
\nprovider innovation driving development, or of this innovation being
\nmade possible by the general purpose platform created by the Internet
\namong competing providers. It also notes the goals of assisting
\ndeveloping countries in bridging the digital divide through
\nsocio-economic development enabled by telecommunications\/ICTs, and of
\nfacilitating universal access, with no mention of how development is
\nenabled by the Internet as such, or for that matter specifying that
\nthis universal access is to the Internet as well as other types of
\nnetworks.<\/p>\n

On Interoperability, Interconnection and Global Connectivity<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 139 references Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan for
\nthe Union for 2008-2011 and the fundamental goal of the Strategic Plan
\nfor 2012-2015, which call for the ITU to assist in bridging the
\nnational, regional and international digital divide in ICTs and ICT
\napplications by facilitating interoperability, interconnection and
\nglobal connectivity of telecommunication networks and services. But it
\ndoes not relate bridging the divide to access to the Internet as such.
\nInteroperability, interconnection and global connectivity do not
\nnecessarily mean connectivity by what we understand as the Internet
\nplatform, but could mean establishing policies imposing connectivity
\nin other forms, which might occur without recognizing that the
\ncharacteristics of the Internet were affected.<\/p>\n

On Pro-Competitive Policies and Regulatory Contexts for Expanding Access<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 139 and WTDC 37 both endorse pro-competitive
\npolicies and regulatory contexts in general terms in relation to
\nexpanding access to telecommunications\/ICTs.<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 139 cites comments from the Hyderabad and Geneva
\nDeclarations on the role of governments, policy-makers and regulators
\nand the legal and regulatory environments in promoting widespread
\naffordable access to telecommunications\/ICTs. It also instructs the
\nDirector of the TDB, in coordination with the other Bureaus, to assist
\nthe Member States and Sector Members in developing a pro-competitive
\npolicy and regulatory framework for ICTs and ICT applications, and in
\nstrategies that expand access to telecommunication infrastructure,
\nparticularly for rural areas, to evaluate models for affordable and
\nsustainable systems for rural access to information, communications
\nand ICT applications on the global network, based on studies of these
\nmodels, and to conduct case studies concerning telecommunications\/ICTs
\nin rural areas, and potentially to deploy a pilot model using IP-based
\ntechnology, or equivalent thereof in the future, to extend rural
\naccess.<\/p>\n

WTDC 37 requests the Director of the TDB to assist Member
\nStates and Sector Members in developing a pro-competition policy and
\nregulatory framework for ICTs, including online services and
\nelectronic commerce, as well as capacity building in connectivity and
\naccessibility.<\/p>\n

These references should acknowledge the general purpose
\nInternet platform made possible by interoperation among autonomous,
\ncompeting providers at the physical layer, and should not characterize
\nthe policy and regulatory context solely in general terms referencing
\ncompetition, innovation and investment incentives in ways that may
\nsupport other types of networks while not recognizing the Internet as
\nwell.<\/p>\n

Strategies to expand access to telecommunications
\ninfrastructure (particularly in rural areas) should be addressed in
\nterms that specifically acknowledge the advantages built into the
\nInternet as such. Given that under Guadalajara 139 the TDB may pursue
\nthe deployment of a pilot model for rural access using IP-based
\ntechnology (or equivalent), it is important that the nature and
\nadvantages of the Internet are delineated now so that tradeoffs in
\nusing other, future protocols are recognized.?<\/p>\n

Other Digital Divide Items to Review<\/p>\n

?We find two items under the Digital Divide heading to be
\nprepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which should address
\nthe need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU Council Progress
\nReport to the next Plenipotentiary Conference, and the Annual Reports
\nby the Secretary-General to the ITU Council, both on Guadalajara
\nResolution 139.<\/p>\n

Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding how
\nwell the existing proceedings address this concern include:<\/p>\n

?The social connectivity indicators mentioned in WTDC Resolution 37<\/p>\n

The work of the flagship groups mentioned in WTSA Resolution 17<\/p>\n

The Digital Solidarity Agenda, including the Geneva Plan
\nof Action, the outcomes of the Connect Africa summit and the Connect
\nCIS summit, the Tunis Agenda and the Strategic Plan for the Union for
\n2012-2015, as alluded to in WTDC 37 and Guadalajara 139<\/p>\n

Various Antalya Plenipotentiary Resolutions cited by WTSA
\n17, including Resolutions 22, 25, 71, 123, 136 and 137<\/p>\n

Other Plenipotentiary Resolutions cited by Guadalajara
\n139, including Kyoto Resolution 24, on the role of ITU in the
\ndevelopment of world telecommunications, Marrakesh Resolutions 31 and
\n129, on telecommunication infrastructure and ICTs for socio-economic
\nand cultural development, and bridging the digital divide, Antalya
\nResolution 139, Doha Resolution 37, and Guadalajara Resolutions 30 and
\n143<\/p>\n

Bridging the Standardization Gap<\/p>\n

Guadalajara Resolution 123 and WTSA Resolutions 44, 45 and 54 fit
\nunder the heading of bridging the standardization gap between
\ndeveloped and developing nations<\/p>\n

Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to Bridging the
\nStandardization Gap<\/p>\n

Both Guadalajara Resolution 123 and WTSA Resolution 44 present
\nthe role of ITU-T in bridging the standardization gap between
\ndeveloped and developing countries in relation to the general term
\n\u201cinformation and communication network infrastructure and
\napplications,\u201d citing the Strategic Plan for the Union for 2012-2015.
\nNeither the Strategic Plan nor these two resolutions incorporate
\nrecognition of the unique character of the Internet in their
\npresentation of the mission of narrowing the standardization gap in
\nservice of the ITU\u2019s goal of facilitating worldwide standardization of
\ntelecommunications.<\/p>\n

Guadalajara 123 cites the strategic goal of ITU-D under the
\nStrategic Plan of bridging the digital divide by enabling
\nsocio-economic development through telecommunications\/ICTs. And WTSA
\n44 cites ITU Council Resolution 1353 as identifying telecommunications
\nand ICTs as essential components for sustainable development in
\ndeveloped and developing countries, and as instructing the
\nSecretary-General and the Directors of the Bureaus to identify ways to
\nsupport developing countries in achieving sustainable development
\nthrough telecommunications and ICTs. Again, both resolutions use
\ngeneral terms without referencing the unique character and
\ncontributions of the Internet in relation to development.<\/p>\n

These two resolutions, and the Strategic Plan and Council
\nResolution 1353, should be revised to describe standardization
\ninitiatives and their relationship to the development initiatives of
\nthe Information Society with specific reference to the unique
\ncharacteristics of the Internet as well as other types of networks
\nunder the general term \u201ctelecommunications\/ICTs.\u201d<\/p>\n

WTSA 44 should specifically reference the distinction between
\nthe Internet and other types of networks designed to support various
\nspecialized functions as of particular import to the activities of the
\nDirectors of the Bureaus and the implementation group established
\nwithin the TSB to implement WTSA 44 and its Action Plan. This includes
\nassisting developing countries with studies on priority questions,
\ndeveloping implementation guidelines for relevant ITU-T
\nRecommendations, drafting guidelines for national application of ITU
\nRecommendations, supporting regional mobilization of standardization,
\nconducting studies on innovation as related to bridging the
\nstandardization gap, institutionalizing terms of reference for TSAG
\nand ITU-T study groups, providing education and training on
\nimplementation of ITU-T Recommendations, conducting workshops and
\nseminars on new Recommendations, and in reporting on effectiveness of
\nregional groups to the ITU Council, as well as on the implementation
\nof the WTSA 44 Action Plan to future WTSAs and Plenipotentiary
\nConferences.<\/p>\n

The reporting mechanisms on the implementation of WTSA 44 that
\nGuadalajara 123 instructs the Secretary-General and the Directors of
\nthe Bureaus to improve should incorporate recognition of the distinct
\ncharacteristics of the Internet. The report and advice that WTSA 44
\ninvites the ITU Council to provide to the 2014 Plenipotentiary
\nConference should reflect this recognition as well.<\/p>\n

WTSA 44 also invites the Council to establish a panel on
\nstimulating ICT innovations. This provision should be revised to
\ninvite the Council \u201cto encourage the establishment of a specialised
\npanel, under ITU-T, on stimulating ICT innovations in both the
\ncontexts of general purpose internetworking among autonomous providers
\nand of networks that support more specialized functions, with the
\nobjective of enhancing global collaborative innovation to bridge the
\nstandardization gap between developed and developing countries and to
\nidentify and support innovations from developing countries\u201d<\/p>\n

Strategic and High Priority Issues in Standardization<\/p>\n

WTSA 44 instructs the Director of the TSB, in collaboration
\nwith the other Bureaus, to assist developing countries in studies on
\ntheir priority questions, with an eye to developing and implementing
\nITU-T Recommendations.<\/p>\n

WTSA Resolutions 45 and 54 list a number of high priority
\nstandardization issues, both starting with NGNs or future networks.
\nThese priorities could lead to misunderstanding unless we clearly
\narticulate key characteristics of the Internet. Priority questions and
\nstudies on them should distinguish between concerns that pertain to
\nthe Internet, which supports general purpose interoperation among
\nautonomous networks, and those that pertain to networks that support
\nspecialized functions not readily supported by general purpose
\ninteroperation among autonomous networks.<\/p>\n

WTSA 45 notes the call in Guadalajara Resolution 122, for the
\nWTSA to address strategic issues in standardization, concludes that
\nITU-T activities on high priority standardization issues should
\nidentify high level objectives and priorities for ITU-T studies from a
\nglobal standpoint, based on taking into account the interests of
\ndeveloping countries and encouraging their involvement, and instructs
\nthe Telecommunications Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) to ensure
\ncoordination between study groups on high priority standardization
\nissues, taking into account advice from groups established to
\ncoordinate high priority and joint standardization topics.<\/p>\n

Recognition of impacts on the Internet should be identified as
\na high-level objective and priority for ITU-T standardization studies,
\nand coordination of standardization initiatives should concentrate on
\nassuring that a basis is established to allow identification of the
\nimpact that standards may have on the Internet. ITU-T should recognize
\nthat the interests of developing countries can be understood in terms
\nof end user and independent provider empowerment as a result of the
\ngeneral purpose platform made possible by IP. Strategic and high
\npriority issues in standardization should distinctly emphasize
\nempowerment of end users, independent providers, and a communications
\nplatform that is general purpose and supports diversity of
\napplications while also enabling competition among providers while
\nsupporting one platform.<\/p>\n

The standardization and development initiatives of the
\nInformation Society must recognize these characteristics of the
\nInternet as particularly important concerns for developing countries,
\nalong with initiatives that may be geared toward other types of
\nnetworks.<\/p>\n

There are very active constituencies in the US seeking the
\nestablishment of a telecommunications policy framework in the US that
\nsupports the Internet by enabling competition among independent
\nproviders at the physical layer, and the advice of these proponents
\nshould be recognized as a priority and applied by TSAG as an explicit
\nconsideration within its mandate to coordinate standardization topics.<\/p>\n

Regional Group Terms of Reference and Mobilization Programs<\/p>\n

WTSA 44and 54 both invite regions and their Member States to
\ndevelop draft terms of reference and working methods for regional
\ngroups, and WTSA 44 resolves that vice-chairs and chairs from
\ndeveloping countries in TSAG and ITU-T study groups should develop
\nmobilization programs for their regions and make mobilization and
\nparticipation reports to the ITU.<\/p>\n

These regional group terms of reference should reflect the
\ndistinction between the Internet, which supports interoperation among
\nautonomous networks, and networks that support specialized functions
\nnot readily supported by general purpose interoperation among
\nautonomous networks, and should reference the nature of the
\ncommunications environment in terms of whether it supports
\ninteroperation among competing providers at the physical layer, or is
\ncharacterized by few providers only supporting an intranet<\/p>\n

These regional mobilization programs and reports should be
\narticulated with reference to the type of networks their countries and
\nregions support, specifically whether they support interoperation
\namong autonomous providers readily entering and competing at the
\nphysical layer throughout their countries or regions, or whether they
\nhave few providers at the physical layer in any given area, with
\ntelecommunications initiatives chiefly arranged through those
\nproviders.<\/p>\n

Other Standardization Gap Items to Review<\/p>\n

??The Standardization Gap resolutions reference two items to
\nbe prepared for presenting at upcoming occasions, which should address
\nthe need to identify impacts on the Internet: the ITU Council Report,
\nwith Advice, to the next Plenipotentiary Conference, and the Reports
\nby the TSB and other Bureaus to future WTSAs and Plenipotentiary
\nConferences, both on WTSA Resolution 44<\/p>\n

?Further items to be reviewed with an eye for understanding
\nhow well the existing proceedings address this concern, all referred
\nto by WTSA 44, include:<\/p>\n

ITU Council Resolution 1353<\/p>\n

Annual reviews of WTSA 44<\/p>\n

Conclusions of the Global Standardization Symposium