[bestbits] Fwd: Important Recommendations for CWG-WSIS -- was: Re: [ITAC] ITU Council Working Group on WSIS (October 2-3)/GVA

[Seth Johnson]

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:37 PM
Subject: Important Recommendations for CWG-WSIS -- was: Re: [ITAC] ITU
Council Working Group on WSIS (October 2-3)/GVA
To: "Gordon, Marian R" <GordonMR at state.gov>
Cc: "ITAC at LMLIST.STATE.GOV" <ITAC at lmlist.state.gov>, "Zoller, Julie N"
<ZollerJN at state.gov>, Paul Najarian <najarianpb at state.gov>


Below are my recommendations for the CWG on WSIS meeting.

First, for reference, see the following letter to the UN GIS on the
WSIS+10 Review, sent this past June:
http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/statements/wsis-10-letter/


Next, what's happening at this juncture:

    The WSIS+10 Review conducted this year, prior to the ITU
Plenipotentiary Conference, has articulated the status of the
Information Society project's Action Lines through a process that
combined the capture of inputs from diverse stakeholders with the
production of outcome documents for the HLE event this past June.

    This review process has emphasized the Action Lines but has not
examined how they will be affected by the way the Information Society
project represents the Internet.  It has not considered how the
confusion regarding the distinction between the Internet and other
types of networks in the project's framing documents and resolutions,
as well as in its performance measures, may affect the project's
goals.

    The CWG on WSIS recommends forwarding the outcomes of this review
process as the multistakeholder contribution to the intergovernmental
WSIS+10 review that will be conducted by the UN General Assembly next
year, along with outputs of a CSTD review to be conducted in the first
half of the year.

    However, the important concern that arises for the CWG's
recommendations, in the context of the ITU's role in the Information
Society project, has to do with the need to correct the confused
representation of the Internet in the ITU's framing documents before
they are affirmed at the Plenipotentiary Conference as an
intergovernmentally endorsed framework.

    As the US proceeds to remove US national agencies from their role
in the stewardship of the Internet, the ITU and its resolutions will
remain in place, serving as an intergovernmentally-endorsed foundation
for Internet-related concerns and activities in the international
arena.  The resolutions must therefore be corrected prior to the
conclusion of the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, to assure that the
framework we are left with does not fail to recognize the Internet's
most important characteristics, does not undermine its unique
strengths, and does not undermine the unique contributions that the
Internet brings to the goals of the Information Society.  At that
point ITU Member States, including the US, will be able to appeal to
the ITU's framework as embodying an established intergovernmental
consensus that could only be reconsidered with considerable difficulty
after the fact.  The problems in the framework that are most pertinent
to this meeting of the CWG on WSIS have to do with how the ITU's
confused representation of the Internet will affect the Information
Society's goals.  This concern must be made a part of the 10-year
review of the Information Society project before the close of the
ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference next month.

    Nothing in the frame of the CWG-WSIS's responsibilities as given
in Council Resolutions 1332 and 1334, or ITU Resolutions 102, 140,
178, or UN GA Resolution 68/302 contradicts the above considerations.
They simply fail to recognize that the Information Society project's
framing documents, and the WSIS+10 Review, lead us to a new governance
context that will allow the nature of the Internet to be reshaped
under a new basis of authority, while the frame encourages confusion
between the Internet and other IP-based networks.


Recommendations

(The latter recommendations are more concrete manifestations of the
first more abstract ones.)

1) Recognize the needs to address the ways in which the Internet
contributes to the Information Society's goals, and to clarify the
proper usage of the terms Internet, IP-based networks and
Next-generation networks in the ITU's framing resolutions, prior to
the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference and prior to transferring the
WSIS+10 Review to the CSTD and the UN General Assembly next year.

2) Recognize that unless the distinction between the Internet and
other types of networks is explicitly acknowledged and the question of
how the Internet contributes to the Action Lines is explicitly raised,
it is unlikely that the review will capture how well the project
brings the advantages of the Internet to the Action Lines.

3) Use a methodology that conducts the process of capturing the voice
of stakeholders independently from a process of articulating
forward-looking outcome documents.

    Having stakeholders both voice comments on the status of the WSIS
Action Lines and prepare outcome statements to direct the future
course of the WSIS project, in the same process, can interfere with
frank and full commentary.

    A better approach would be to break the review into a first phase
collecting comments and concerns on the Action Lines as voiced by
stakeholders, and then a separate phase by other participants
developing conclusions regarding what these inputs constitute.  Better
yet would be a second phase that translates the captured input into
quantifiable criteria for measuring progress in the future, in the
voice of stakeholders.

4) Issue a statement indicating that:

   - the WSIS+10 HLE Outcomes do not address how well the project
employs the advantages of the Internet to serve the goals of the
Information Society
   - the Information Society's performance measures do not yet address
the distinction between the Internet and other types of networks
   - the unique contributions that the Internet brings to the goals of
the Information Society need to be clarified before the completion of
WSIS+10 Review
   - the question of recognizing how the Internet and policy and
development initiatives of the Information Society affect each other
should be identified as an area for continued focus
   - performance measures that distinguish between types of networks
will help clarify the relationship between Information Society goals
and the Internet
   - the relationship between the Action Lines and the nature of the
Internet are important global references for improving connectivity
and access in the use of ICTs in promoting the objectives of the Plan
of Action and of the endorsed WSIS+10 High Level Event Outcome
Documents

    Issue this statement as a complement to the Report on the Outcomes
of the WG-WSIS meetings held since PP-10

5) Note for the benefit of CWG-WSIS some of the issues elaborated in
the analysis in my letter on how confusion regarding the nature of the
Internet can affect the Action Lines, particularly C2, C5 and C6.

6) Recommend that processes be initiated to develop our understanding
of this relationship between the Internet and the IS goals

7) Notify CWG-WSIS that

   - the ITU Plenipotentiary Resolutions need to be revised to
incorporate recognition of the difference between Internet, IP-based
networks and Next-generation networks.

        This will affect PP Resolutions 140, 178, 172 and 102, all of
which define the responsibilities of CWG-WSIS.

        The revisions needed include the following:

        The confusion of terms will need to be clarified in PP 101,
102, 133, 137 and 180.

        The activities of the ITU-T and ITU-D Sectors will need to be
defined with recognition of these distinctions in PP 178 and PP 140.
PP 122 and PP 135, which set parameters for PP 178 and PP 140
respectively, also will need to reflect these distinctions.

    - the ITU's WSIS Performance Measures need to be revised to
distinguish between open Internet networks and specialized service
networks, and to track the difference between vertically integrated
telecommunications contexts and contexts that support competitive
access to shared physical infrastructure.

        This will affect PP 172 and 131.


Seth


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I'll likely make a few comments on these resolutions and your
> contribution to the CWG.  We need to note that any issues in terms of
> how the ITU's activities derive from 2010 PP Resolutions will need to
> be considered at the 2014 conference.  This relates to the ITU's role,
> but how to address it is a complex question that I'll be trying to
> sort out.
>
> The phone call drew to a close a bit too quickly for me to stick in my
> two cents, so noting this here.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Gordon, Marian R <GordonMR at state.gov> wrote:
>> The meeting will be held at ATT, 1120 20th Street, Conference Room 8-2 on
>> the 8th floor.  If you will be attending the meeting in person, please let
>> Amy Alvarez know, who I copy here for your convenience.   A conference
>> bridge will follow.


On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Gordon, Marian R <GordonMR at state.gov> wrote:
> For those of you who have not yet let Sally Gadsten know that you wish to be
> part of the US delegation to the ITU CWG/WSIS meeting on October 2-3, 2014,
> please do so no later than Monday, September 22nd.  Sally is copied on this
> email for you convenience.   Thanks, Marian