<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 26 October 2012 06:38 PM,
Gene Kimmelman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+4KnA-Rq3pBSi2ygjc9JVG9g5fbubtkr9EMK8k_kx75Jz5yCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I totally agree with Parminder's observations on
points 1-4 (I need think more about 5., and how "operating
agencies" will be interpreted);</blockquote>
<br>
If the fear is that it may at some time be used for ITU to seek
jurisdiction over ICANN plus institutions, maybe we can make it
'telecom operating agencies' or just 'telecom agencies' removing any
possibility of such a mis representation. parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+4KnA-Rq3pBSi2ygjc9JVG9g5fbubtkr9EMK8k_kx75Jz5yCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> I'm hoping our conversations can identify key points
of civil society agreement and not get caught up in all the
details of the ITR proposals. I'd just like to highlight the
importance of focusing on the transport layer, preserving the
appropriate definition of "telecommunications" to ensure that
transport bottlenecks can and should be regulated to preserve
network neutrality/prevent undue discrimination and should be
platforms for access to affordable essential communications
services.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"
class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p style="margin-bottom:0.5cm"><big><font face="Times New
Roman, serif">Hi Bill/ All<br>
<br>
Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy
right now, but will put forward some ideas from my
emerging, and yet tentative, views on the current
draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again
in a properly through manner.<br>
<br>
I see four sets of issues that are most important, and
they are as follows:</font></big></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm" lang="en-US"><big><font
face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"><big><i>1.
State control over Internet routing system</i></big></font></font></big></p>
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0cm"
lang="en-US"><big> <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font
size="3"><big>This is perhaps the single most
controversial issue in the ITR debate, even more
than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is
rightly feared that ITRs will be used by
authoritarian countries like China and Iran to
develop strict state control over the routing of
Internet traffic which today is globally ordered
to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these
countries into the ITR draft were rather more
explicit in this regard. Even though rendered
relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there
is significant text still there that can be used
for a tightly controlled Internet routing system,
which if taken to its logical end can lead to
nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet. </big></font></font>
</big></p>
<p><big> <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"><big>In
the current draft, it is the text pertaining to
section 30 which deals with this issue. Options
range from 'states right to know which routes are
used', to 'states determining which routes are
used', to 'imposing any routing regulation in this
regard'. My proposal is to go with one of the
listed options which is to suppress section 30
altogether; so, no language on this issue at all.<br>
<br>
</big></font><i>2. ITU and CIRs management</i></font></big></p>
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0cm"
lang="en-US"><big> <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font
size="3"><big>One of the most important issues is
whether ITU is seeking to, and vide the ITRs be
enabled to, take up the functions being performed
by the distributed CIR management system as it
exists at present. In the current draft, section
31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's
feared encroachment of</big></font> <font
size="3"><big>the remit</big></font> <font size="3"><big>of
the ICANN plus system . The options in the current
draft regarding this section range from 'naming,
numbering, addressing and identification resources
will not be mis-used' and 'assigned resources
would only be used for the agreed purposes' to
'all ITU recommendations will apply to naming,
numbering, addressing and identification
resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation
states, if they elect to, can control these
resources within their territories for the sake of
international communication'. </big></font></font>
</big></p>
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0cm"
lang="en-US"><big> <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font
size="3"><big>If ITU recommendations are made vide
the new ITRs to apply to names and numbering
systems, this may tend towards a creeping
encroachment on ICANN's remit. One option in the
current draft lists a set of specific ITU
recommendations that will apply (these need to be
studied individually which I havent). Other
options are more open ended, which means future
ITU recommendations may also apply, which, may
mean that ITU can formally enter into doing and/or
supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more
problematic when seen along with dr<span>aft
options that make ITRs obligatory and not just a
set of general principles. We should speak up
against all such efforts to take over, or even
substantially affect, the current distributed
system of CIRs management.</span></big></font></font></big></p>
<p
style="font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0cm"
lang="en-US"><big> <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font
size="3"><big><i><span>3. Definitional issues in the
ITRs, telecom or Internet</span></i></big></font></font></big></p>
<p><big><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Resolving this
issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue
is really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and
thus under ITRs and ITU has its problems and a
completely new kind of global regulatory system may
then be built over it, which would hurt the way
Internet has developed and needs to develop. However,
it is also difficult to just argue that, when we are
in times we are in, Internet traffic will be excluded
from telecom definition, because that would beg the
question - what then remains of telecommunicaiton in
the era of increased IP based convergence. Is then ITU
to close down as traditional telephony disappears.
Perhaps more importantly, correspondingly, does this
new definitional approach also mean that national
level telecom regulatory systems like FCC and TRAI
wind up sooner or later. </font> </big></p>
<p><big> <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"><big>I
dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the
efforts seeking complete deregulation of the
entire communications systems that, for instance,
are at present being made in the US, which employ
definitional logics of a highly dubious kind (like
classifying Internet not as a telecommunication
but as an information service and thus not subject
to common carriage or net neutrality provisions,
and similarly rescuing VoIP services from
universal service obligations.) At the same time,
it is necessary to resist providing constitutional
basis to the ITU which can be used to for control
of content and application layers. This is the
dilemma. What would the implications of putting
Internet under telecommunications in the
definitional and other sections? What does adding
'processing' signals to just sending, transporting
and receiving signals does to what happens in the
future vis a vis ITU's role? (These are all
existing optional language in the current draft.)<br>
<br>
</big></font>This is something we really may have to
spend a lot of time on. My tentative suggestion is
that we find a way whereby the transport /
infrastructural layer is included in the definition of
telecommunication (which also is closest to reality)
and thus in ITR's remit. At the same time content and
application layers are explicitly excluded.
Contributing the right language in this respect may be
one of the most important things that we can do. But
as I said, this requires a lot of thinking and
discussion among us. <br>
<br>
In trying any such definitional separations, the issue
of 'security' would become a sticking point. In fact,
'security' may be an issue we may have to separately
treat in our submission, becuase there is also a lot
of tricky language in the current draft around this
issue. <br>
<br>
<i>4. Net neutrality or an open Internet <br>
<br>
</i>We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal
of a 'sender pays' arrangement. However, we should
seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is recognised that
net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality
cannot survive with regulatory intervention, or at
least some kind of normative soft pressure from
regulatory quarters. So if there is an issue called
'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then
there is perhaps some role for a global regulatory
system - if not of enforceable rules, at least for
providing normative frameworks and general principles.
And net neutrality concerns the transport layer, net
neutrality concerns can be accommodated even while we
do the above mentioned 'definitional 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 can appreciate) what they
themselves propose in the US is the sender pays
principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some
way to promote a normative framework for net
neutrality or an open Internet - or even more 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 become the normative indication
for violation of net neutrality and it should be
opposed. <br>
<br>
<i>5. Some sundry issues<br>
<br>
</i>Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above,
which may require separate treatment, I can see two
other important issues. One, whether ITRs should stay
as general principles or they should become mandatory.
These is alternative language in the current draft on
these option. I think we should seek that ITRs stay as
general principles. Second, <font size="3"><big>if
the principal parties that are subject to ITRs
should remain 'administrations' or be changed to
'member states and operating agencies'. I think
the telecom environment has become complex and
diverse enough to require the more flexible term
'operating agencies' to be included.<br>
</big></font></font></big></p>
<p><big><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"><big>Thanks,
and look forward to listen to other people's views
on this. <br>
</big></font></font></big></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"><big>parminder</big>
<br>
<br>
</font></font> </p>
<div>On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi everyone
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on
possible ways to boot up this process. One option
considered was to have some of the folks that most
closely follow the issues around the two statements get
started with some drafting of bits for collective
consideration, but we ultimately decided this was a bad
idea. With a diverse group, some of whom may not have
worked together before, it seemed better to move in a
completely inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so
that anyone who wants to follow or weigh in can do so at
the most formative stages. Setting up these lists
seemed a good way to get that started, and we might want
to try pushing as far as we can before meeting so the
F2F bit is less stressed. So let's see what we can do?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I guess the first and foundational question is what
style of letter with what principal focus. I've stated
my views previously,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;border-collapse:separate">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span
style="text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;border-collapse:separate"><br>
On the other hand, if we just want to give a
list of preachments to the ITU on how should
be conduct its business, I am game for it.
That is much more doable. </span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in
the WCIT statement. Statements critiquing the
ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the process,
e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the
landmark, watershed, historic (quoting the press
office) release of a document that had already
been leaked and widely accessed. If you know the
zeitgeist in tower, this was news. And more
generally, those statements made senior staff
who'd previously declared they'd be unaffected by
any muttering among the riff raff launch an
unprecedented counter-offensive perception
management gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm"
(tee hee) and website telling critics that their
concerns are all myths. So all good.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What's needed now though is something
different—less meta, more focused on specific
aspects of Dubai. There's a proposal that the
conference chair declare some sessions open to the
public. One imagines there will be push back from
the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make
the case. Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on
the concrete proposals that could be problematic
for the Internet and offer substantive
counterpoints. Ideally, these should acknowledge
that in some cases governments may have real
legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides
of overreach and that there are other, more
effective ways to deal with them than via a
multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be
positive in tone and content. If we do that, at
least some delegations might have a look before
tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment
call into the trash, and that would establish
another reference point for delegates carrying
similar messages. BTW, such a statement could
also feed into the CIR main session in Baku, which
will discuss WCIT issues.</div>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div><span
style="text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;border-collapse:separate">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So my pref would be that as a starting point, we
divide up the main topics/bad proposals potentially
impacting the Internet and each prepare a tight
paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point
conclusions, that sort of a) respectfully
acknowledges the concerns behind the proposals, b)
says why the proposed solution is overreaching and
likely to have unforeseen negative consequences, c)
indicates a better way to go about addressing the
problem, and d) offers preferred language. Maybe
not in that order, but you see what I mean.
Aggregation of and editing for consistent style a
bunch of such mini-statements would be fairly easy
to do in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and
closing, and voila, we'd have the sort of input
document delegates are used to reading, and perhaps
one that wouldn't head straight to the circular
file.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Speaking of circular files: I would not in the
text make references to civil society thinks this or
feels that. Many delegates read that as "fifth
column for Western domination thinks this or feels
that." They know who we are, basically. Let's not
stand around calling attention to it, and just stick
to the issues at hand.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At least, that's what I'd do.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Does anyone have a different preferred plan we
could start in on?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div> </div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Hi all,<br>
<br>
Apologies if I've missed discussion about this
statement in another thread, but I thought it
might be helpful to provide links to some of the
existing civil society statements about the WCIT
(which many of you are familiar with already!),
including: <br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT"
target="_blank">https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet"
target="_blank">https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/"
target="_blank">http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/</a><br>
<br>
In terms of specific proposals that raise
significant concerns, CDT has identified several
categories of proposals that both raise human
rights concerns and seem likely to be the
subject of much debate at WCIT. I've included
some discussion and text of proposals below, and
would be very 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 provision that would give
states the right to know where traffic has been
routed, and the right to regulate routing of
traffic for security and fraud purposes. If
this provision is applied to regulate the route
of Internet traffic, it would require technical
changes to the Internet that would give
governments additional tools to block traffic to
and from certain websites or countries.
Regulations on routing could also enable
greater tracking of users by their IP addresses.
This provision is put forward in the name of
security and fraud, but their necessity,
proportionality, and impact on the 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 Member State shall
have the right to know through where its traffic
has been routed, and should have the right to
impose any routing regulations in this regard,
for purposes of security and countering fraud."
A similar proposal has been made by the Regional
Commonwealth group of states (RCC) and is also
supported by Russia.<br>
<br>
2) Allowable limitations on public access and
use of telecommunications - Russia and the
Regional Commonwealth group of<br>
states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that
requires Member States to ensure access and use
of international telecommunications services,
but allows an exception for when
telecommunications is used "for the purpose of
interfering in the internal affairs or
undermining the sovereignty, national security,
territorial integrity and public safety of other
States, or to divulge information of a sensitive
nature." The Internet has become an essential
tool for the exercise of a range of human
rights. This proposal is inconsistent with
human rights standards that articulate when
governments may permissibly limit the right to
freedom of expression under Article 19 of the
ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR. This proposal
could be used to legitimize<br>
restrictions on a range of human rights,
including freedom of expression, association,
and assembly.<br>
<br>
3) Internet access and net neutrality - The
European Telecommunications Network Operators
Association (ETNO), a Sector<br>
Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of
changes to how networks on the Internet connect
to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a
"sending party pays" system, where content
providers would have to pay fees to reach the
user who wants to access that content. Some
civil society organizations believe this system
would result in increased costs of Internet
access for users, especially in less developed
countries, since the fees companies pay would be
then passed on to users. The ETNO proposal also
encourages ISPs to make special deals with
content companies to prioritize their content,
which undermines net neutrality online. Taken
together, the effect of the ETNO proposal would
be to increase the cost of Internet access and
limit equal access to information online.
Again, the full impact of the ETNO proposal on
Internet access and the ability of individuals
to seek and receive information online must be
fully assessed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>-- <br>
Emma J. Llansó<br>
Policy Counsel<br>
Center for Democracy & Technology<br>
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100<br>
Washington, DC 20006<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-407-8818" target="_blank"
value="+12024078818">202-407-8818</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech"
target="_blank">@cendemtech</a></div>
<br>
<br>
On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> The original plan was to
have two small drafting groups for our two
output documents, which a core of interested
participants could join to come up 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 bring the discussion back
onto the main list. To that end, I am starting
two threads, for discussion of the two
statements. I'm beginning with the ITU
statement.<br>
<br>
I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU
(certainly not compared to some of you), so I am
not going to propose any actual text. But in
general terms, it is hoped that the statement
would by a strong and unified civil society
position to which most of us subscribe, not only
pushing back against the ITU's mission creep and
pointing out its deficits with respect to the
WSIS process criteria (openness,
multi-stakeholderism, etc), but being quite
specific about the issues on the table for
WCIT. What issues 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 progressed, some draft text
could go into a (currently empty) pad at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU"
target="_blank">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU</a>.<br>
<br>
<div>-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9pt"><b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global
campaigning voice for consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg,
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599"
target="_blank" value="+60377261599">+60 3
7726 1599</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9pt"><b>Your rights, our
mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://consint.info/RightsMission"
target="_blank">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9pt">@Consumers_Int | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/"
target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational"
target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-size:8pt">Read
our <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email confidentiality
notice</a>. Don't print this email unless
necessary.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>