<div>Dear all,</div><div><br></div>I like Gene's proposal about identifying key concerns in a clear manner, provided we add to each point a reference to all the sections in the ITRs that are relevant to that particular point. There are already quite a few documents around that convey general concerns. If we want governments to pay attention to our recommendations at this late point in time, I think it is crucial that we guide them as precisely as possible to all the sections that we believe either deserve support or need to be thrown out.<div>
<br></div><div>Regards content, my own concerns mirror Parminder's points 1-4, but I feel discomfort about the suggestion to include "operating agencies". What exactly is it that we would gain by including them here also (rather than only in national legislation); what would we lose by not doing so?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks and best,</div><div>Anja<div><div><div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 26 October 2012 21:16, Gene Kimmelman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com" target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">For the purpose of maximizing the likelihood of support from many participants, I suggest a SHORT narrative that identifies key concerns (which could capture what might otherwise be done article by article), which is both respectful of the proposals but also clear about concerns. And for the most important civil society concerns which the ITU cannot/should not seek to address, we may want to highlight the need for member states to commit to taking these up in a timely manner in the most appropriate jurisdictions (including multistakeholder processes).<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:33 AM, William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</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 style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi<div><br></div><div>Thanks Parminder for the detailed response, very helpful. We can plunge into debating the details of these and other points, but shouldn't we first try to agree on the basic architecture? Some options might include</div>
<div><br></div><div>1. A narrative treatment of priority issues, per the below (one risk—could get long winded, and the more detailed we are, the greater the scope for disagreement amongst us on particulars)</div><div><br>
</div><div>2. An article by article concise statement of positions, like 1-2 para each, maybe bullets</div><div><br></div><div>3. A CS Proposal for the Work of the Conference, i.e. in the form of an ITR edit? </div><div>
<br></div><div>4. An ITR edit with like one para parenthetical explanations</div><div><br></div><div>5. Something else…</div><div><br></div><div>I suspect 3 or 4 might elicit giggles in the tower and perhaps elsewhere, if we care…</div>
<div><br></div><div>At present I think I tend toward the 2nd option, sticking close to positions rather than getting too much into analytical reconstructions of each issue-area, and per previous </div><div><br></div><div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span style="text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;border-collapse:separate"><div>
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. </div>
</span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><br></div><div>or maybe the sensibility behind that could just be stated once in a chapeau... In any event, I hope we can avoid a tone that sounds overly righteous and finger wagging in order to avoid playing into the caricatures that have been deployed to delegitimize criticisms etc.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Just my two cents, let's hear from others and see if we can start leaning toward a shared framework.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br><div>
</div>
<div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin:0px"><span style="color:rgba(0,0,0,1);font-family:"Helvetica";font-size:medium"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica";font-size:medium">parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
</span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="color:rgba(0,0,0,1);font-family:"Helvetica";font-size:medium"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica";font-size:medium">October 26, 2012 2:34:55 PM GMT+02:00<br>
</span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="color:rgba(0,0,0,1);font-family:"Helvetica";font-size:medium"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica";font-size:medium"><a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
</span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="color:rgba(0,0,0,1);font-family:"Helvetica";font-size:medium"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica";font-size:medium"><b>Re: ITU statement thread</b><br>
</span></div><br>
<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 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 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 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 href="tel:202-407-8818" value="+12024078818" target="_blank">202-407-8818</a> | <a 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 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 href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599" value="+60377261599" target="_blank">+60 3 7726 1599</a></p><p style="font-size:9pt"><b>Your rights,
our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:</b> <a href="http://consint.info/RightsMission" target="_blank">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p><p style="font-size:9pt">@Consumers_Int
| <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a 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 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></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>The Internet Democracy Project<br><br>+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br><a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
<br><br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div>