[bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 29 - Nov 3
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Mon Nov 3 09:23:10 EST 2014
Thanks Lea - this is really helpful for those of us not on location.
Matthew
On 11/3/2014 12:38 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> This is to give an update of the ongoing discussions at the ITU PP14.
>
> Civil society in Busan have participated in many debates outlined
> below, through their national delegations or informal discussions with
> other delegates. It would be great if colleagues following particular
> discussions could expand or reflect on the summary presented below. On
> a general note, with 4 days to go, most people seem to think that
> compromises have been reached sooner than expected.
>
> A number of us participated in the second meeting with the outgoing
> ITU Secretary General, which was largely seen as an ITU PR-stunt. In
> order to ensure continuity, an informal meeting of CS reps with the
> Secretary General elect, Mr. Zhao, is expected to take place in the
> next few days. If you have suggestions for what issues should be
> raised at that meeting, share them here.
>
> Hope this is useful.
>
> Best,
> Lea
>
>
> ---
>
>
> *_Process_*
> At the beginning of Week 3 of the Plenipot, most ad hoc working groups
> (AHGs) dealing with specific proposals are wrapping up. Many AHGs have
> already agreed text, which has been sent to Committee 5 (COM5),
> Committee 6 (COM6), and the Plenary Working Group (WGPL). Once agreed
> in an ad hoc, the text rarely gets re-opened for discussion in the
> Committees or WGPL, and even more rarely in the Plenary.
>
>
> Discussions
>
> What follows is an overview of main discussions divided by relevant
> AHGs. The list is not exhaustive. For a visual representation of
> various AHGs pertaining to the WGPL, see this usefulchart
> <http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/10/30/wg-plenary-chart-v1.png>created
> bySamantha Dickinson <https://twitter.com/sgdickinson>(who has also
> been diligently live-tweeting the meeting).
>
> COM5 AHG on draft new resolution on counterfeit devices
>
> Status:Ad hoc closed,text
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-TD-0058%21%21MSW-E.pdf>sent
> to COM5 which will consider it on Monday afternoon.
>
> Highlights:
>
> *
>
> All references to ‘unauthorised devices’ have been dropped so the
> resolution is now only about counterfeit devices.
>
> *
>
> References to a device database in which all
> telecommunications/ICT would need to be registered, are removed
> from the document;
>
> *
>
> Problematic language on combating counterfeit is now balanced by
> reference to taking into consideration ‘importance of maintaining
> user connectivity’ (which is very similar to the BB
> recommendation). This means that in combating counterfeit
> equipment, countries should not simply disconnect all counterfeit
> devices without considering how this affects user connectivity,
> which is great win for end-users.
>
> *
>
> We did not manage to get references to IMEI and other unique
> identifiers completely out of the text, but it doesn't seem that
> this will do much harm or increase mandate of ITU, since this is
> mostly regulated via national legislation and regulation and the
> provision on the consideration of end-user connectivity. ITU-T
> also already has a strong standard on this (namely X.1255 which
> can be found here:http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1255-201309-I
>
> AHGs on ITU openness and transparency (Decisions 11 & 12, New Decision
> on Access to ITU documents)
>
> Status:Ad hoc on access to documents closed,text
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-TD-0061%21%21MSW-E.pdf>agreed
> by COM5; Ad hoc onDecision 11
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0044%21R2%21MSW-E.pdf>(opening
> up CWGs) ongoing, next to meet on Monday afternoon.
>
> Highlights:
>
> COM5 AHG on access to documents (New decision):
>
> *
>
> Member States agreed on the broad principle that the ITU needs to
> be more transparent and that more of its documents should be open
> to the public.
>
> *
>
> They disagreed on how this should be done in practice (what the
> official policy would look like), who should take the decision,
> and the appropriate timeframe.
>
> *
>
> The agreed text decides to open all input and output documents of
> ITU conference and assemblies starting in 2015. It then instructs
> one of the Council Working Groups to draft a policy to present to
> the Council for consideration. The Council can then, on an interim
> basis, decide to implement the policy, as appropriate. The final
> decision on policy to be taken at PP 2018.
>
>
> WGPL AHG on Council Working Groups (CWGs) & CWG Internet (Decision 11):
>
> *
>
> [Currently, all CWGs are open to all ITU Member States; some are
> open to Sector Members; none are open to observers. CWG-Internet
> is only open to Member States. Best Bits submitted a request to
> open this CWG in 2013, which was denied by Council.]
>
> *
>
> Proposals from Europe and US ask for all CWGs to be open to all
> Member States and Sector members, and for CWG-Internet to be open
> to all stakeholders. There is no agreement on this and discussions
> are ongoing.
>
>
> WGPL AHG on Resolution 130(Strengthening the role of ITU in building
> confidence and security in the use of ICTs)
>
> Status:Ad hoc closed,text
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-TD-0067%21%21MSW-E.pdf>to
> be presented for WGPL consideration on Monday afternoon.
>
> Highlights:
>
> *
>
> The agreed text does not diverge greatly from the original
> Resolution 130 – an outcome that is most aligned with proposals
> from those who advocated a ‘no-change’ approach to this Resolution
> (US, Europe);
>
> *
>
> Proposals to include references to privacy and human rights have
> been resisted;
>
> *
>
> Proposals for the ITU to come up with a roadmap for dealing with
> cybersecurity have equally been resisted,
>
>
> WGPL AGH on Internet-related resolutions(Res 101, Res 102, Res 133,
> Res 180, and new proposals)
>
> Status:Ad hoc closed. Texts to be considered by WGPL on Monday
> afternoon. Status of texts as of Nov 2 is availablehere
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0011%21R9%21MSW-E.pdf>(updated
> text from Nov 3 not yet online).
>
> Highlights:
>
> *
>
> Compromise text was reached on all Internet-related resolutions,
> with minor revisions, some slight improvements, and a limited
> concession on the side of the US/Europe to acknowledge more
> explicitly the role of the ITU in Internet-related issues
> (particularly in Res 102);
>
> *
>
> It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative
> approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was
> agreed that CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various
> agenda items prior to CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the
> CWG will stay closed to non-Member States;
>
> *
>
> The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including
> the controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will
> nevertheless get a mention in the Chairman's report,
>
>
> WGPL AHG on Res 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public
> policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs)
>
> Status:Ad hoc closed,text
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-TD-0043%21%21MSW-E.pdf>agreed
> by WGPL
>
> Highlights:
>
> *
>
> Outcome document has been boiled down to awareness raising and
> sticking to the ITU’s existing mandate in combatting illicit use
> of ICTs;
>
> *
>
> All references to ‘global charter’ related to security of ICTs
> have been dropped,
>
>
> WGPL AHG on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172)
>
> Status:Ad hoc on WSIS reached agreement onRes 140 text
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-TD-0048%21%21MSW-E.pdf>,
> which was subsequently considered and approved by WGPL. Res 172 has
> been supressed.
>
> Highlights:
>
> *
>
> The group decided to supress Resolution 172 (reasons: text seen as
> out-dated and otherwise covered in Res 140), which was
> subsequently approved by WGPL.
>
> *
>
> The agreed text of Res 140 resolves that ITU continues its
> facilitating role in the WSIS process, subject to UNGA 2015 WSIS
> Review, and continues being the lead facilitator in relevant WSIS
> Action Lines as specified in the Tunis Agenda (C2, C5, C6). The
> resolution encourages the UNGA overall review to take into account
> ITU’s review of the WSIS, including the outcome doc of WSIS+10
> High Level Event.
>
>
> WGPL AHG on Res 64 (Non-discriminatory access)
> Status:Ad hoc closed, proposed text to be considered by WGPL on Monday
> afternoon
> Highlights:
>
> *
>
> It is also worth noting the discussion onResolution 64
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-TD-0073%21%21MSW-E.pdf>,
> which has spurred a stand off between Cuba and others in relation
> to non-discriminatory access to ICTs. For context, similar
> discussions have, arguably, led to the break-down of WCIT. It now
> seems that a compromise text has been found and should be
> presented to WGPL on Monday afternoon.
>
>
> ----
>
> *Lea Kaspar*
>
> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_| M: +44 (0)7583 929216| Skype: l.kaspar
>
> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141103/9bc9b53c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list