[IRPCoalition] State of Things at WSIS This Year -- was Re: Comments and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review Committee

[Seth Johnson]

Thank you, Marianne!  Feel free to forward as widely as you please.


Seth

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
wrote:

>
> Dear all
>
> Have taken the liberty of forwarding this message on to the IRPC list.
> Points raised in this analysis of WSIS+10 are of interest perhaps to the
> wider community, and as the 2016 IGF meeting preparations get underway.
>
> best wishes
> MF
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [bestbits] State of Things at WSIS This Year -- was Re: Comments
> and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review Committee
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:20:23 -0400
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> To: Bestbits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> FYI -- This is the framework I presented to the State Department at
> the beginning of the year, describing my approach and concerns I will
> address related to the Internet in the international
> telecommunications context.
>
>
> Seth
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:59 PM
> Subject: For ITAC Call -- My Planned Contributions Following WSIS+10
> To: "Zoller, Julie N" <ZollerJN at state.gov> <ZollerJN at state.gov>
> Cc: Paul Najarian <najarianpb at state.gov> <najarianpb at state.gov>, "Gordon, Marian R"<GordonMR at state.gov> <GordonMR at state.gov>
>
>
> Hello, the following is a template of concerns I will address
> following the conclusion of the WSIS+10 Review.  They reflect my
> comments on the last ITAC call, which focused chiefly on my concerns
> regarding the WSIS+10 Review as connected to sustainable development
> and the trade agenda.
>
> The WSIS+10 outputs are generally stated, so are of little concern as
> stated.  The issues brought on in the context established after 2015
> are in the diverse intergovernmentally endorsed pieces being brought
> together, where we may find how the WSIS processes are representing
> the Internet.
>
> So, these are areas that need attention:
>
> ICTs for Development: the use of the term ICTs as an overgeneral
> frame, with no recognition of the difference between a network of
> autonomous networks and networks that support various specialized
> functions by upholding policy across routers under their control
>
> Sustainable Development: The Information Society proceedings paid
> little attention sustainable development in the UN's full sense; this
> means the project has not addressed sustainability in relation to
> shared physical layer infrastructure
>
> Trade Agenda:  This includes the globalization, partnerships and
> interdependence themes of the 1996 UNCTAD 9, and the trade efficiency
> framework of UNCTAD 10, as well as enhanced cooperation.  The trade
> context is built on industry categories that do not distinguish the
> open Internet from specialized service networks, and that place the
> Internet in a vertically integrated telecom category (whether fully
> private or simulated under Title II and "facilities-based
> competition").  The trade context is also where copyright-related
> concerns are being addressed.  This lays a foundation and develops
> copyright-related policy that will affect the Internet, in processes
> outside the Information Society's proceedings in which stakeholders
> are not as effectively engaged.
>
> Information Policy in General:  Public aspects of information policy
> have been overlooked since the 1980's, under political thrusts for
> privatization and deregulation that began in the US at about the same
> time as the Vienna Program for Science and Technology for Development
> in the international arena (around 1978).  This has affected
> telecommunications policy, copyright, and technology transfer in ways
> that need to be addressed before these areas can be satisfactorily
> addressed in the international context.
>
> These need to be addressed with a proper understanding of the nature
> of the international arena.  Some of its most important impacts on the
> stewardship context for the Internet, on rights we rely on at the
> domestic level, and Internet governance and enhanced cooperation in
> general.
>
> The ITU Plenipotentiary conference asserted the relationship of the
> Information society project to UN General Assembly initiatives in
> overgeneral terms, declared the relationship of the ITU's activities
> for the Information Society to sustainable development, articulate
> sustainability in terms consistent with vertical integration and
> managed service intranets, and act to establish the ITU's flawed
> framework as underlying technical infrastructure to support the
> Internet.  This connections need to be clarified with respect to the
> difference between the open network of autonomous networks and other
> types of IP-based networks.
>
> The assessment of the WSIS Action Lines is not attentive to the
> difference between the open Internet and other types of networks, so
> doesn't capture the special strengths the Internet brings or the
> effect of the Information Society on the Internet
>
> The WSIS Review affirms an approach to Internet Governance based on
> overgeneral terms such as IP-based networks and ICTs rather than a
> proper understanding of the Internet, affirming a flwed representation
> of the Internet, and the Information Society project's relationships
> to sustainable development and the trade agenda as presently
> articulated.
>
> In the meantime, in the same period at the domestic level, shifts in
> patterns of interconnection have taken place as the FCC's regulatory
> oversight has implemented a vertically integrated telecommunications
> environment (and maintained that structure even unde Title II), which
> fundamentally alter the nature of the network of networks.
>
> I will focus on these areas, including the WTSA's "merely technical"
> outputs from the 2012 WTSA conference, as they address these areas
> anew at the 2016 conference, while as they intersect with the present
> affirmation of the UN's full conception of sustainable development,
> last articulated in the UN's more technological and Information
> Society-related processes with the 1997 Development Agenda, and as
> they intersect with recent developments in the trade agenda as framed
> since UNCTAD 9 and 10.
>
> Three questions are key in relation to Internet governance and
> enhanced cooperation in the international context now developing, and
> I will focus on these
>
>
>
> How do we address rights in the international arena, and how do we
> assure the distinctive empowerment of network participants that the
> Internet enables?
>
> This includes considerations of the role of fundamental rights,
> centralized and decentralized approaches to cybersecurity, the role of
> diversity in sustaining the openness of the network of networks,
> non-discrimination, and technology transfer.
>
> How do we foster development of a telecom environment for open
> internetworking, and how does the open network of autonomous networks
> coexist with network environments that implement policy across routers
> under their control to support specialized services?
>
> This includes considerations related to the enabling environment and
> ICT applications, inherent limits on the notion of convergence that
> apply in a network of networks, as well as network neutrality,
> specialized service concerns such as quality of service and
> prioritization/"fast lanes," settlement-free peering and
> interconnection policy, and right of way policy.
>
> What roles should technical infrastructure and conformance assessment
> play in relation to interoperability, security, policy, and relevant
> aspects of international agendas -- including how the Internet should
> converge with content-related policies such as copyright?
>
> This includes considerations of conformance and interoperability
> assessment and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the use of
> Internet-related identifiers, the role of connectivity in local
> governance and local content, and the broadcaster's treaty and the
> notion of retransmission consent.
>
> Beyond the above, the WSIS+10 Review's flaws are methodological,.  I
> will also offer recommendations for how to approach the UN's method of
> review of implementation and followup, on which the WSIS+ 10 Review is
> based.
>
>
> Seth Johnson
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> > Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:01 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: Comments and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review
> > Committee was:Re: Important Recommendations for CWG-WSIS -- was: Re:
> > [ITAC] ITU Council Working Group on WSIS (October 2-3)/GVA
> > To: itu-d <ITU-D at lmlist.state.gov> <ITU-D at lmlist.state.gov>, itac at lmlist.state.gov
> >
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> > Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:00 PM
> > Subject: Comments and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review Committee
> > was:Re: 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> <GordonMR at state.gov>
> > Cc: "ITAC at LMLIST.STATE.GOV" <ITAC at LMLIST.STATE.GOV> <ITAC at lmlist.state.gov> <ITAC at lmlist.state.gov>, "Zoller, Julie N"
> > <ZollerJN at state.gov> <ZollerJN at state.gov>, Paul Najarian <najarianpb at state.gov> <najarianpb at state.gov>
> >
> >
> > Hi Marian, Julie, Paul:
> >
> > Sorry for the roughness of prose here, but believe me this is
> > massively reduced and improved from earlier drafts.  It's also not
> > quite streamlined to eliminate redundancy. The recommendations section
> > at the end is very rough, as I try to get this in before today's ITAC
> > call.
> >
> > The preceding text is important to organize conceptions, and I
> > encourage you to review it.  It's much the same sort of stuff I've
> > been saying, just related to various aspects.  But you can jump to the
> > recommendations at the end to get the quickest sense of where this is
> > driving.  I guess now I'll have to go back and improve it.
> >
> >
> > Comments and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review Committee:
> >
> > The Information Society project does not recognize key characteristics
> > of the Internet or the unique ways it contributes to the project's
> > goals, and is not designed to recognize how policy decisions and
> > technological solutions may affect the Internet. Instead, the project
> > encourages a confusion of the open Internet with IP-based networks in
> > general, including specialized service networks and NGNs.
> >
> > We are presently proceeding to the culminating phases of the WSIS+10
> > review despite this defect in the project.  Indeed, the WSIS+10 review
> > is not effectively designed to capture or address this type of input,
> > and has failed to recognize this problem during the 2014
> > multistakeholder review phase.  As a result, the WSIS+10 Review will
> > affirm an information society project after 2015 that does not
> > recognize the nature of the Internet unless we compel the review
> > process to recognize this concern before the intergovernmental
> > negotiation phase begins in the UN General Assembly in the latter half
> > of this year.
> >
> > In the following comments I will present recommendations regarding how
> > to contribute to the WSIS+10 review in light of these problems, as
> > well as how to correct the intergovernmental frame that UN and ITU
> > have set up in their resolutions as well as in the outcomes of
> > activities by other agencies in the UN System, including ECOSOC,
> > UNCTAD and UNESCO.
> >
> > The ITU Council, ITU Resolutions and UN General assembly Resolution
> > 68/302 articulate the modalities of the WSIS+10 Review with reference
> > to the WSIS Tunis outcome document and its major section addressing
> > implementation.  UN GA 68/302 cites only the WSIS outcomes and UN GA
> > 68/198, so one might fairly suppose that the review process was
> > developed purely as a sort of reading of the WSIS events in
> > themselves.  However, UN GA 68/198, on ICTs for Development (now
> > updated with UN GA 69/204), cites many other sources, including UN GA
> > 57/270 B.  UN GA 57/270 B describes the UN system's developed approach
> > to reviewing the implementation and follow-up of the outcomes of all
> > major UN summits and conferences.
> >
> > We can better understand the role of the WSIS+10 Review and how it
> > relates to the implementation section of the Tunis Agenda by examining
> > this method of review, including its rationales and how the UN uses
> > it.  57/270 B cites previous incarnations in 57/270 A and 50/227,
> > which in turn cites 46/235.
> >
> > We might tend to think of the Information Society project as
> > originating at the Geneva and Tunis WSIS events in 2003 and 2005, but
> > it in fact traces to a G7 conference in 1995, followed by the
> > Information Society and Development conference in South Africa in
> > 1996.  The UN's method of review traces to 1977, in the Vienna Program
> > for Science and Technology in Development, and the origin of the CSTD
> > in 1978.  The UN has undergone an extensive process of restructuring
> > throughout this period.
> >
> > The review of implementation and follow-up for the Information Society
> > project is being undertaken in the present phase by the CSTD under the
> > auspices of ECOSOC, with assistance from UNCTAD.  The 57/270 B system
> > was modified recently with UN GA Resolutions 68/1, 68/210 and 69/214.
> >
> > I will reserve for later fuller comments on the overall schema of UN
> > activities, represented by numerous other major conferences whose
> > activities are converging this year and next.  Here I am simply
> > referencing the UN's method to help address the WSIS+10 Review process
> > properly as we enter its concluding phases and the UN General Assembly
> > commences its intergovernmental review of the first 10 years of the
> > project and negotiating of the post-2015 agenda in the latter half of
> > this year. For reference, the UN Secretary-General has created a draft
> > synthesis of inputs for the post-2015 agenda at
> > (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/700) that is one
> > way to get good picture of the overall intergovernmental framework
> > being developed.  The most notable recent developments relate to the
> > sustainable development agenda, as well as the World Summit for Social
> > Development, a 1995 conference that has recently been “activated” by
> > initiating its own review of implementation and follow-up.  The UNCTAD
> > agenda related to globalization, interdependence and partnerships in
> > the arena of trade, initiated through UNCTAD’s 9th Session conference,
> > which took place in South Africa in 1996, just prior to the
> > Information Society and Development conference, and which was keynoted
> > by Nelson Mandela.
> >
> >
> >
> > The notable feature of the outcomes of both of the Geneva and Tunis
> > WSIS conferences is the fact that they are articulated almost entirely
> > through the general terms ICTs or telecommunications/ICTs (and in a
> > misleading use of the term "IP-based networks" in the resolutions the
> > ITU has issued in support of the project).  The usage of the term
> > Internet in the WSIS outcome documents is almost entirely confined to
> > the term "Internet Governance."
> >
> > Implementing an international system of oversight for the Internet
> > that is based on a general term like ICTs, without acknowledging the
> > basic nature of the open Internet, will easily undermine the Internet
> > by failing to understand it.  A project like the Information Society
> > project also pursues purposes that the Internet uniquely supports
> > through its special characterstics, and thus a review of the status of
> > the project -- particularly as it contemplates systems for
> > international governance and "enhanced cooperation" -- is best served
> > by understanding what the Internet as such contributes to its goals.
> >
> > The upshot here is that a review of implementation and follow-up of
> > ICTs can mislead us if we allow a review in those terms to be
> > conflated with the Information Society's concern for "Internet
> > Governance."
> >
> > By affirming the Information Society as currently framed, the WSIS
> > Review process will have numerous effects on the Internet, and in
> > various ways is already designed in ways that will supplant the
> > Internet with other types of networks.  I have already elaborated how
> > the universal general purpose technical interoperability of the
> > Internet will be affected by a notion of interoperability that would
> > treat it as conformance with policy, and how the project's design
> > supports vertical integration without clearly recognizing the role of
> > an open and competitive physical infrastructure layer in establishing
> > the network of networks.
> >
> > The project fails to address the enabling environment, digital
> > inclusivity, capacity building, or the digital divide and the
> > standardization gap in terms of empowering both end users and
> > independent providers.  Rather than emphasizing open and
> > permissionless innovation based on a competitive, freely peering
> > network of networks, its emphasis is more on interconnection.
> >
> > The project is examining numerous policy areas related to the Internet
> > while encouraging the development of international forms of
> > governance.  A number of these policy areas relate to the WSIS Action
> > Lines, which were a key focus of the 2014 multistakeholder and
> > high-level event portion of the WSIS+10 Review.  These and more policy
> > areas are presently being examined in the CSTD along with ITU Council
> > working groups on Enhanced Cooperation and Internet-Related Public
> > Policy, as well as in the Internet Governance Forum and various
> > proceedings of the ITU and other UN organs.  At the same time, core
> > names, numbers, addressing and identifiers functions are being
> > transitioned from their present relationship with the United States'
> > NTIA, raising numerous issues regarding the implications of placing
> > these areas into the international context.
> >
> > The WSIS+10 Review is built on an intergovernmentally-endorsed
> > framework, a portion of which has been developed through the work of
> > the ITU, including the outcomes of the 2012 ITU-T WTSA and 2014 WTDC
> > events as well as the recent ITU Plenipotentiary Conference.  These
> > ITU activities also contribute to a number of initiatives associated
> > with the UN System and supported by acts of the UN General Assembly.
> > The ITU's activities in support of the Information Society project
> > similarly do not address the open Internet as distinct from more
> > specialized types of networks.  As long as this distinction is not
> > clear, the frame set up by the ITU leads to a broader
> > intergovernmental frame for the Information Society in the UN that
> > will become a basis for supplanting the open Internet with other types
> > of networks.
> >
> > The ITU’s resolutions were updated to render explicit a number of
> > these relationships to broader UN initiatives at the just-concluded
> > ITU Plenipotentiary Conference.  They were also updated to endorse the
> > outcomes of the 2014 multistakeholder phase of the WSIS+10 Review,
> > directing the ITU to submit these outputs as the multistakeholder
> > contribution to the final High Level conference at the conclusion of
> > the WSIS+10 Review at the end of this year, which will produce the
> > UN's final conclusions regarding the future of the Information Society
> > project after 2015.
> >
> > The multistakeholder review process concluded during 2014 did not
> > address the Action Lines in terms of how the Internet contributes to
> > them, and for that matter it did not consider the question of how the
> > Information Society project would affect the Internet.  The WSIS+10
> > Review also uses performance measures that do not recognize the open
> > Internet as a distinct category from other types of IP-based networks,
> > such as those designed to support specialized services.
> >
> > These concerns were raised in the concluding months of the review, and
> > reiterated in an open letter to various relevant agencies, but were
> > not admitted into the materials on the basis of which the 2014 WSIS+10
> > prepared their conclusions.  This letter listed concerns in the areas
> > of empowerment, digital inclusion and capacity building; development,
> > competition and the enabling environment (including the sustainability
> > of the open Internet); openness, flexibility and innovation;
> > governance and cybersecurity; and rights.  It also identified problems
> > with the performance measures the Information Society project is using
> > to assess its progress.
> >
> > Since the ITU has not clarified the distinction between open Internet
> > and other types of networks, and the ITU's 2014 MPP review therefore
> > does not reflect this concern, the present CSTD/ECOSOC phase of the
> > WSIS+10 Review in the first half of 2015 is the remaining occasion to
> > make clear that the way we approach the future of the WSIS project,
> > including how enhanced cooperation and Internet Governance, needs to
> > recognize the unique characteristics and strengths of the open
> > Internet.
> >
> > In the US domestic context we see an approach to telecom policy that
> > is focused on fast lanes in the limited context of a few incumbent
> > providers, and on interconnection policy rather than on a competitive
> > physical layer readily accessible by independent and autonomous
> > providers.
> >
> >
> > The methodology of the UN's WSIS+10 Review will have effects in all of
> > the above areas, by serving to confirm the project's frame while
> > overlooking the nature of the Internet.  The outcomes of the ITU's
> > activities in these areas will be placed within a framework
> > established by the activities of the UN system in general.  As the
> > WSIS+10 review affirms WSIS goals by reporting progress in achieving
> > the Action Lines, it overlooks how the unique strengths of the
> > Internet contribute to the project's purposes, the effects that the
> > project will have on the open Internet, and indeed how those effects
> > will in turn affect the project's goals.  The WSIS+10 Review method
> > can be traced to a general system of reviewing the outcomes of UN
> > initiatives, articulated in UN General Assembly resolutions, that does
> > not provide for effective examination of premises embedded in these
> > initiatives.
> >
> > Recent revisions to the UN's system of review also establish new
> > relationships of the Information Society project to an overall
> > framework being articulated through the UN's other major initiatives.
> >
> > By confirming the project as framed at a time when oversight of the
> > Internet is placed into the international arena, the intergovernmental
> > context will have critical effects on the context within which the
> > stewardship of the Internet has heretofore been conducted.
> >
> >
> > Recommendations:
> >
> > 57/270 B says that the review and follow-up must focus on the progress
> > made in the implementation of commitments.
> >
> > The review is also not to renegotiate the outcomes of the summits they
> > are assessing
> >
> > This combination of features gives a clear suggestion of how the UN's
> > process can tend to become a self-fulfilling prophecy that serves to
> > reaffirm the "process owners'" perspective rather than subject the
> > review to examination of its underlying presumptions or potential
> > contradictions contained in the use of overgeneral terms.  However,
> > there is no reason why the process can't be open to examination of the
> > presuppositions and internal conflicts that may be built in.  This is
> > not renegotiating outcomes of summits, but providing for means to
> > recognize that greater precision in terminology is necessary.  From
> > the standard process excellence standpoint, the capture of the voice
> > of the stakeholders serves as an independent criterion against which
> > process owners (who apply themethod in earnest) hold themselves.  So
> > the main thing is to capture the stakeholder voice as a separate
> > phase, then transform that input , which is more likely to be frank
> > and more fully attentive to real concerns, into a report by a second
> > step that can appropriately be judged by observers in terms of its
> > fidelity to that independent input.
> >
> > In the process excellence method, this second step often is to
> > translate the stakeholder concerns into measures that assess the
> > process by that independent criterion.
> >
> > Now, this can be rationalized clearly on the basis of un ga resolutions.
> >
> > 57/270 B calls for the format of the review process to address the
> > "specific nature" of the issue.  Clearly the nature of the Internet is
> > critical to Internet Governance.
> >
> > 57/270 A asked the working group developing the method to assure that
> > the outcomes of major UN summits and conferences "re taken fully into
> > account."
> >
> > 57/270 B notes the need for the process to identify constraints and
> > obstacles in implementation, lessons learned, important measures, and
> > new challenges ad emerging issues
> >
> > 68/302 and 68/198 reflect this call.
> >
> > Finally, the purpose of the UN's review process is to strengthen
> > political will and political impetus.  This is usually construed in
> > terms of energizing the activities in a way that doesn't necessarily
> > examine premises, but clearly division can develop on the basis of
> > contradictions that my arise in the implementation of generalized
> > terms.
> >
> > This recommendation needs to be addressed to the UN General Assembly
> > and cc'd to UNGIS, the CEB, and CSTD and ECOSOC.  It also contributes
> > to "continuous overall improvement in the effectiveness, efficiency,
> > management and impact of the United Nations system in delivering its
> > development assistance"
> >
> >
> > Seth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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> <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> <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> <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
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20160419/2dfbdb3d/attachment.html>