<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
Dear Pranesh,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your comments. Some responses inline.<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 26 October 2012 07:48 PM,
Pranesh Prakash wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:508A9BC1.7000704@cis-india.org" type="cite">Dear
Parminder and Gene,
<br>
Excellent points. Just one word of caution over points 3-5: While
3-5 are a contentious even substantively, I think it's worth
pointing out that the private sector do not have a seat at the
negotiating table and have to go through states.</blockquote>
<br>
I did not understand what are you proposing here. Please elaborate.
I dont think it is civil society's job to seek seats for the private
sector at the negotiating table. While of course they should be
consulted and participate in pre policy negotiating/ making
processes. Civil society actors as complementary public interest
players (to governments) must be consulted and participate in these
pre policy making processes even (much) more. Unless you mean <i>pre</i>
policy negotiating/ making processes, and I am wrong in putting the
interpretation on your language that I am putting, your proposition
is quite problematic for me to accept. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:508A9BC1.7000704@cis-india.org" type="cite">
While the change in the telecom landscape since 1988 (especially
privatization) might necessitate thinking along these lines,</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
It is also a completely wrong notion, although often presented, that
just because the telecom sector now has many, or is full of,
private/ business sector players, <i>therefore</i>, they must have
a seat at the policy negotiating table. Private sector makes all the
drugs and health equipment, and are a very big part of health
services. So does it mean private players should have a seat at the
negotiating table at WHO. Private sector owns most IP, so should
they have seat at the negotiating table at WIPO. And they do almost
all the trade, and so, also at WTO. I am sure you dont mean what it
seems you mean above by saying that since telecom sector is now full
of private players, we should be thinking on lines of having the
private sector have a seat at the negotiating table. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:508A9BC1.7000704@cis-india.org" type="cite">
it is also important to think about how ideas of
multistakeholderism and democratization of decision-making fit in
here.</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, true. I missed mentioning that. ITUs participatory processes
are terrible. They must change and we must make specific
recommendations about it. Preferably lets clearly state what kind of
participation model do we seek. Meanwhile, since ITRs are general
principles level, we can ask for an element to be included in the
ITRs for transparency and greater participation of all stakeholders
in policy making processes. <br>
<br>
regards, <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:508A9BC1.7000704@cis-india.org" type="cite">
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Pranesh
<br>
<br>
Gene Kimmelman [2012-10-26 18:38]:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I totally agree with Parminder's
observations on points 1-4 (I need think
<br>
more about 5., and how "operating agencies" will be
interpreted); I'm
<br>
hoping our conversations can identify key points of civil
society agreement
<br>
and not get caught up in all the details of the ITR proposals.
I'd just
<br>
like to highlight the importance of focusing on the transport
layer,
<br>
preserving the appropriate definition of "telecommunications" to
ensure
<br>
that transport bottlenecks can and should be regulated to
preserve network
<br>
neutrality/prevent undue discrimination and should be platforms
for access
<br>
to affordable essential communications services.
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM, parminder
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Hi Bill/ All
<br>
<br>
Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now,
but will
<br>
put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative,
views on the
<br>
current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again
in a properly
<br>
through manner.
<br>
<br>
I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they
are as follows:
<br>
<br>
*1. State control over Internet routing system*
<br>
<br>
This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR
debate,
<br>
even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is
rightly feared
<br>
that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China
and Iran to
<br>
develop strict state control over the routing of Internet
traffic which
<br>
today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of
these
<br>
countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this
regard. Even
<br>
though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft,
there is
<br>
significant text still there that can be used for a tightly
controlled
<br>
Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can
lead to
<br>
nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
<br>
<br>
In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30
which deals
<br>
with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know
which routes are
<br>
used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to
'imposing any
<br>
routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go with
one of the
<br>
listed options which is to suppress section 30 altogether; so,
no language
<br>
on this issue at all.
<br>
<br>
*2. ITU and CIRs management*
<br>
<br>
One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to,
and vide
<br>
the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed
by the
<br>
distributed CIR management system as it exists at present. In
the current
<br>
draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of
ITU's feared
<br>
encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The
options in the
<br>
current draft regarding this section range from 'naming,
numbering,
<br>
addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used'
and 'assigned
<br>
resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to 'all
ITU
<br>
recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing
and
<br>
identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to
'nation states,
<br>
if they elect to, can control these resources within their
territories for
<br>
the sake of international communication'.
<br>
<br>
If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to
names and
<br>
numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping
encroachment on ICANN's
<br>
remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific
ITU
<br>
recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied
individually
<br>
which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which
means future ITU
<br>
recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that ITU can
formally enter
<br>
into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more
problematic
<br>
when seen along with draft options that make ITRs obligatory
and not just
<br>
a set of general principles. We should speak up against all
such efforts to
<br>
take over, or even substantially affect, the current
distributed system of
<br>
CIRs management.
<br>
<br>
*3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet*
<br>
<br>
Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The
issue is
<br>
really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under
ITRs and ITU
<br>
has its problems and a completely new kind of global
regulatory system may
<br>
then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has
developed and
<br>
needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just argue
that, when we
<br>
are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be excluded from
telecom
<br>
definition, because that would beg the question - what then
remains of
<br>
telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based
convergence. Is then ITU
<br>
to close down as traditional telephony disappears. Perhaps
more
<br>
importantly, correspondingly, does this new definitional
approach also mean
<br>
that national level telecom regulatory systems like FCC and
TRAI wind up
<br>
sooner or later.
<br>
<br>
I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts
seeking
<br>
complete deregulation of the entire communications systems
that, for
<br>
instance, are at present being made in the US, which employ
definitional
<br>
logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet not
as a
<br>
telecommunication but as an information service and thus not
subject to
<br>
common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly
rescuing VoIP
<br>
services from universal service obligations.) At the same
time, it is
<br>
necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the ITU
which can be
<br>
used to for control of content and application layers. This is
the dilemma.
<br>
What would the implications of putting Internet under
telecommunications in
<br>
the definitional and other sections? What does adding
'processing' signals
<br>
to just sending, transporting and receiving signals does to
what happens
<br>
in the future vis a vis ITU's role? (These are all existing
optional
<br>
language in the current draft.)
<br>
<br>
This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time
on. My
<br>
tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the
transport /
<br>
infrastructural layer is included in the definition of
telecommunication
<br>
(which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At
the same
<br>
time content and application layers are explicitly excluded.
Contributing
<br>
the right language in this respect may be one of the most
important things
<br>
that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of thinking
and
<br>
discussion among us.
<br>
<br>
In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of
'security' would
<br>
become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue
we may have to
<br>
separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a
lot of tricky
<br>
language in the current draft around this issue.
<br>
<br>
*4. Net neutrality or an open Internet
<br>
<br>
*We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a
'sender pays'
<br>
arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it.
Everywhere it is
<br>
recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net
neutrality cannot
<br>
survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of
normative
<br>
soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an
issue called
<br>
'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there is
perhaps some
<br>
role for a global regulatory system - if not of enforceable
rules, at least
<br>
for providing normative frameworks and general principles. And
net
<br>
neutrality concerns the transport layer, net neutrality
concerns can be
<br>
accommodated even while we do the above mentioned
'definitional
<br>
separations' about what part of the Internet is telecom and
which not.
<br>
<br>
While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for
reasons one
<br>
can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the
sender pays
<br>
principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to
promote a
<br>
normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet -
or even more
<br>
specific things like open peering and the such.
<br>
<br>
I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS
term which can
<br>
become the normative indication for violation of net
neutrality and it
<br>
should be opposed.
<br>
<br>
*5. Some sundry issues
<br>
<br>
*Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may
require
<br>
separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One,
whether ITRs
<br>
should stay as general principles or they should become
mandatory. These is
<br>
alternative language in the current draft on these option. I
think we
<br>
should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if
the
<br>
principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain
'administrations'
<br>
or be changed to 'member states and operating agencies'. I
think the
<br>
telecom environment has become complex and diverse enough to
require the
<br>
more flexible term 'operating agencies' to be included.
<br>
<br>
Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on
this.
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi everyone
<br>
<br>
Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
<br>
<br>
A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on
possible ways to
<br>
boot up this process. One option considered was to have some
of the folks
<br>
that most closely follow the issues around the two statements
get started
<br>
with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, but
we ultimately
<br>
decided this was a bad idea. With a diverse group, some of
whom may not
<br>
have worked together before, it seemed better to move in a
completely
<br>
inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who
wants to
<br>
follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative stages.
Setting up
<br>
these lists seemed a good way to get that started, and we
might want to try
<br>
pushing as far as we can before meeting so the F2F bit is less
stressed.
<br>
So let's see what we can do?
<br>
<br>
I guess the first and foundational question is what style of
letter with
<br>
what principal focus. I've stated my views previously,
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
<br>
<br>
<br>
On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of
preachments to the
<br>
ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it.
That is much
<br>
more doable.
<br>
<br>
<br>
I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT
statement.
<br>
Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in
the process,
<br>
e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark,
watershed, historic
<br>
(quoting the press office) release of a document that had
already been
<br>
leaked and widely accessed. If you know the zeitgeist in
tower, this was
<br>
news. And more generally, those statements made senior staff
who'd
<br>
previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering
among the riff
<br>
raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception
management
<br>
gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website
telling
<br>
critics that their concerns are all myths. So all good.
<br>
<br>
What's needed now though is something different—less meta,
more focused
<br>
on specific aspects of Dubai. There's a proposal that the
conference chair
<br>
declare some sessions open to the public. One imagines there
will be push
<br>
back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the
case.
<br>
Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals
that could be
<br>
problematic for the Internet and offer substantive
counterpoints. Ideally,
<br>
these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may
have real
<br>
legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach
and that
<br>
there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than
via a
<br>
multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in
tone and
<br>
content. If we do that, at least some delegations might have
a look before
<br>
tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into
the trash, and
<br>
that would establish another reference point for delegates
carrying similar
<br>
messages. BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR
main session
<br>
in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up
the main
<br>
topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and
each prepare a
<br>
tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point
conclusions,
<br>
that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind
the
<br>
proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching
and likely to
<br>
have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better
way to go
<br>
about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred
language. Maybe not
<br>
in that order, but you see what I mean. Aggregation of and
editing for
<br>
consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements would be
fairly easy to do
<br>
in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and closing, and voila,
we'd have
<br>
the sort of input document delegates are used to reading, and
perhaps one
<br>
that wouldn't head straight to the circular file.
<br>
<br>
Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make
references to
<br>
civil society thinks this or feels that. Many delegates read
that as
<br>
"fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels
that." They know
<br>
who we are, basically. Let's not stand around calling
attention to it, and
<br>
just stick to the issues at hand.
<br>
<br>
At least, that's what I'd do.
<br>
<br>
Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start
in on?
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
<br>
Bill
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi all,
<br>
<br>
Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in
another
<br>
thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to
some of the
<br>
existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many
of you are
<br>
familiar with already!), including:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT">https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet">https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/">http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/</a>
<br>
<br>
In terms of specific proposals that raise significant
concerns, CDT has
<br>
identified several categories of proposals that both raise
human rights
<br>
concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at
WCIT. I've
<br>
included some discussion and text of proposals below, and
would be very
<br>
curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues
raise concerns.
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
Emma
<br>
<br>
1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a
new
<br>
provision that would give states the right to know where
traffic has been
<br>
routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for
security and fraud
<br>
purposes. If this provision is applied to regulate the route
of Internet
<br>
traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet
that would give
<br>
governments additional tools to block traffic to and from
certain websites
<br>
or countries. Regulations on routing could also enable
greater tracking of
<br>
users by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in
the name of
<br>
security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and
impact on the
<br>
right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully
assessed.
<br>
<br>
Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have
proposed that "A
<br>
Member State shall have the right to know through where its
traffic has
<br>
been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing
regulations in
<br>
this regard, for purposes of security and countering fraud." A
similar
<br>
proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of
states (RCC)
<br>
and is also supported by Russia.
<br>
<br>
2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of
telecommunications -
<br>
Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
<br>
states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member
States to
<br>
ensure access and use of international telecommunications
services, but
<br>
allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for
the purpose of
<br>
interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the
sovereignty,
<br>
national security, territorial integrity and public safety of
other States,
<br>
or to divulge information of a sensitive nature." The
Internet has become
<br>
an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human
rights. This
<br>
proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that
articulate when
<br>
governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom of
expression under
<br>
Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR. This
proposal could be
<br>
used to legitimize
<br>
restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of
expression,
<br>
association, and assembly.
<br>
<br>
3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European
Telecommunications
<br>
Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
<br>
Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how
networks on the
<br>
Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a
"sending party
<br>
pays" system, where content providers would have to pay fees
to reach the
<br>
user who wants to access that content. Some civil society
organizations
<br>
believe this system would result in increased costs of
Internet access for
<br>
users, especially in less developed countries, since the fees
companies pay
<br>
would be then passed on to users. The ETNO proposal also
encourages ISPs
<br>
to make special deals with content companies to prioritize
their content,
<br>
which undermines net neutrality online. Taken together, the
effect of the
<br>
ETNO proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet
access and limit
<br>
equal access to information online. Again, the full impact of
the ETNO
<br>
proposal on Internet access and the ability of individuals to
seek and
<br>
receive information online must be fully assessed.
<br>
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
Emma J. Llansó
<br>
Policy Counsel
<br>
Center for Democracy & Technology
<br>
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
<br>
Washington, DC 20006
<br>
202-407-8818 | @cendemtech
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech"><https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<br>
<br>
The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for
our two output
<br>
documents, which a core of interested participants could join
to come up
<br>
with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions
in Baku.
<br>
<br>
As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been
suggested we
<br>
bring the discussion back onto the main list. To that end, I
am starting
<br>
two threads, for discussion of the two statements. I'm
beginning with the
<br>
ITU statement.
<br>
<br>
I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not
compared to
<br>
some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.
But in general
<br>
terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and
unified civil
<br>
society position to which most of us subscribe, not only
pushing back
<br>
against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits
with respect
<br>
to the WSIS process criteria (openness, multi-stakeholderism,
etc), but
<br>
being quite specific about the issues on the table for WCIT.
What issues
<br>
do we already know are the key ones for our members or
constituents?
<br>
<br>
So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are
more
<br>
progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty)
pad at
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU</a>.
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
<br>
*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
<br>
Senior Policy Officer
<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers*
<br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
Lumpur,
<br>
Malaysia
<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
<br>
<br>
*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a>
<br>
<br>
@Consumers_Int | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a> |
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a>
<br>
<br>
Read our email confidentiality
notice<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"><http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality></a>.<br>
Don't print this email unless necessary.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>