WCIT-12What happened?

What next? ISOC Swiss Chapter

WCIT DigestBern, 8 March 2013

Richard HillIndependent consultant

The views presented here are those of the author.They do not necessarily represent the views of the ITU Membershipor of the ITU Secretariat or of ISOC

Was WCIT-12 a success or a failure?• Failure:– Did not achieve desired goal, which was full consensus– Split amongst the membership, resulting in a vote– Media coverage was partly inaccurate, influenced by

misinformation campaign

• Success:– Active participation from all parts of the world– Broad agreement: 90% of the treaty is not controversial,

10% was agreed by 62% of Member States present and accredited to sign

– Key issues were identified and discussed– It was agreed to continue discussions with a view to

reaching consensus

Why the ITRs are importantThe International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs): Establish general principles on the provision and operation of international

telecommunication services offered to the public Facilitate global interconnection and interoperability Underpin harmonious development and efficient operation of technical facilities Promote efficiency, usefulness, and availability of international telecommunication services Treaty-level provisions are required for international networks and services

The ITRs underpin how we communicate with each other by phone or computer, with voice, video or data, and across the globe.

The 1988 ITRs were not limited to telephony, on the contrary, they enabled the growth of the Internet.

The goal is universal connectivityBut consider Average Broadband Speeds (Mbps)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Global 9 12 16 21 27 34Asia Pacific 8 11 15 21 28 36Latin America 4 5 7 8 10 12North America 11 14 18 23 29 37West Europe 11 14 18 24 32 42C and E Europe 9 12 15 19 24 29Mid East & Africa 3 4 5 6 7 8

Source: CISCO VNI, 2012

Key WCIT12 overall outcomes• New ITRs (as old ITRs) not restricted to telephony• New ITRs (as old ITRs) cover “authorized operating

agencies”, not just ROAs, but only with respect to international services offered to the public

• No treaty text explicitly mentioning Internet– But implicitly included in some provisions, as is the

case for the old ITRs• Explicit recognition of existing human rights provisions• New pro-consumer provisions• New pro-competitive provisions• New pro-investment provisions• Recognition of divergent views on Internet matters and

need to discuss further

What is in the 2012 ITRs (1/2)• Preamble (human rights, right to access)• Article 1: Purpose and scope (not content-related, AOA)• Article 2: Definitions• Article 3: Right to communicate at good technical quality;

countries to coordinate their infrastructure (misuse, CLI, traffic exchange points)

• Article 4: International telecom services to be made available to the public (roaming transparency, quality and competition)

• Article 5: Priority to be given to emergency communications (emergency number notification)

• Article 5A: Network security• Article 5B: Combating spam

Note: these are not the actual titles of the articles.Items in red are new compared to the 1988 version

What is in the 2012 ITRs (2/2)• Article 6: Charging and accounting (commercial agreements,

encourage investments, competitive wholesale pricing)• Article 7: Suspension of services • Article 8: Dissemination of information (Member States to

communicate information to ITU)• Article 8A: Energy efficiency, E-waste• Article 8B: Accessibility• Article 9: Special arrangements• Article 10: Entry into force; reservations• Appendix 1: Accounting rate system• Appendix 2: Maritime telecommunications• Some provisions of the old Appendix 3 on service

telecommunications were moved to Article 6

Note: these are not the actual titles of the articles.Items in red are new compared to the 1988 version

WCIT-12 Resolutions1. Special measures for landlocked developing

countries2. Globally harmonized national emergency number3. Fostering an enabling environment for the greater

growth of the Internet (controversial)4. Periodic review of the ITRs5. International telecommunication service traffic

termination and exchange

Note: these are not the actual titles of the Resolutions.

All are new. All old Resolutions, Recommendations, and the Opinion were suppressed.

Legal status• All Resolutions entered into force on 15 December

2012• New treaty enters into force in January 2015– Until then the 1988 treaty is valid

• After January 2015– New treaty binds countries that have agreed to be bound

(they are parties to the treaty)– Old treaty binds countries that have not agreed to be

bound by the 2012 treaty (non-parties)– Relations between a party to the 2012 treaty and a non-

party are governed by 1988 treaty– Unless a 2012 party denounces the 1988 treaty

Obligations of non-parties• The provisions of the new treaty do not apply to

countries that do agree to be bound by it. These provisions include:– transparency of mobile roaming prices– accessibility– energy efficiency and reduction of e-waste– cooperation to combat unsolicited bulk electronic

communications– Etc.

• Thus, the citizens of non-parties may not benefit from those provisions

Ways forward to avoid a split• Most countries agree to be bound by the ITRs• Most countries do not agree to be bound by the ITRs• Most countries implement the ITRs in a non-

controversial manner– Recognize that Preamble does not prevent suspension of

services or otherwise modify existing rights and obligations

– Recognize that there is no extension of the covered entities or of the scope

– Recognize that the security and spam provisions do not relate to content

– Recognize that Resolution 3 does not change the mandate of the ITU

Reasons given for not signing • Third paragraph of the preamble• ITRs apply to “authorized operating agencies”• Expansion of scope of ITRs• Article 5A– Security and robustness of networks

• Article 5B– Unsolicited bulk electronic communications

• Resolution 3– To foster an enabling environment for the greater

growth of the Internet

Paragraph 3 of the Preamble

• Is subject to Article 35 of the Constitution:– Any Member State can cut off communications

with any other Member State, for any reason whatsoever, provided it informs the Secretary-General

• So no new rights or obligations are created• It recognizes the rights of citizens, not just of

governments• Not really “unprecedented”

These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services.

Purpose and scope• Unchanged with respect to 1988– Application to AOA was decided in 1998, by a change

in the ITU Constitution (no. 38, article 6)– ITRs only apply to services offered to the public• not to purely private networks

– OAs (and AOAs) are entities that operate an installation intended for an international telecommunication service• so local ISPs would presumably not be included

• Nobody ever complained about the entities covered since 1998

• There is no extension of the scope of the ITRs

Article 5A (1/2)Security and robustness of networks

• Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public.

Article 5A (2/2)• Is subject to:– human rights obligations– article 1: “These Regulations do not address the

content-related aspects of telecommunications.”• Cannot be seen as addressing content– It is about measures that do not related to content

(see Recommendations ITU-T E.408 and X.805. )• Should lead to cooperation to implement best

practices that are already prevalent– should make it less likely that some country would

(perhaps unwittingly) adopt inappropriate security legislation

Article 5B (1/2)

• Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services.

• Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense.

Article 5B (2/2)• Is subject to:– human rights obligations– article 1: “These Regulations do not address the

content-related aspects of telecommunications.”• Cannot be seen as addressing content– It is about measures that do not related to content

(e.g. address filtering; see Recommendations ITU-T X.1231 and X.1240 )

• Should lead to cooperation to implement best practices that are already prevalent– should make it less likely that some country would

(perhaps unwittingly) adopt inappropriate spam legislation

Resolution 3 (1/2)• resolves to invite Member States– to elaborate on their respective positions on international

Internet-related technical,development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums including, inter alia, the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum, the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and ITU study groups;

– to engage with all their stakeholders in this regard,• instructs the Secretary-General– to continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active

and constructive role in the development of broadband and the multistakeholder model of the Internet as expressed in § 35 of the Tunis Agenda;

– to support the participation of Member States and all other stakeholders, as applicable, in the activities of ITU in this regard.

Resolution 3 (2/2)

• No expansion of ITU’s role and scope• Promotes multi-stakeholder consultations• Cannot modify or override WSIS outcomes

Who can lead the way forward?• Could Switzerland or ISOC-CH or ISOC– Recognize that Preamble does not prevent

suspension of services or otherwise modify existing rights and obligations?

– Recognize that there is no extension of the covered entities or of the scope?

– Recognize that the security and spam provisions do not relate to content?

– Recognize that Resolution 3 does not change the mandate of the ITU?

• And promote this message?

For more information• http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.

aspx • http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit

-12/highlights/dec13-14.html • http://www.scoop.it/t/wcit-12 • http://www.cullen-international.com/

ressource/4900/0/wcit-12-a-post-mortem-public-version.pdf

Backup slides

What is “telecommunications”?

• Defined in the ITU Constitution:– “Any transmission, emission or reception of signs,

signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems.”

• Many interpret this to include at least parts of “the Internet”– but this is not the case in all countries

ITU’s mandate

• Explicitly includes Internet matters– greater role in Internet governance– cybercrime– spam– respect for privacy and the protection of personal

information and data – etc.

This was agreed by consensus by all Member States

WCIT-12 key numbers

• 1,275 proposals from Member States• over 1,400 delegates from 151 Member States• 150 hours of official conference meetings

onsite • Final acts signed by 89 countries out of the

144 present and having authority to sign

The ITU Secretariat’s role is to bring the world together and facilitate their negotiations with an efficient support team to help delegates reach agreement.

ITU hosted many preparatory meetings, and translated over 450 contributions in 6 UN languages to facilitate negotiations

WCIT-12 was the most open and transparent treaty making conference ever held Decision-making sessions were publicly webcast There were social media and interactive briefings Stakeholders from government, private sector and

civil society were all represented in the negotiations Ultimately, it is ITU membership who negotiate, and the

treaty is their agreement

WCIT-12 procedure

151 countries in Dubai strong participation in negotiations richer, more representative and more powerful treaty

Discussions about Internet governance revealed the full complexity of this issue

Strong divergence on some topics During the preparatory process And in Dubai.

Government and market forces were represented at WCIT-12 This resulted in an extremely valuable exchange of views and

ideas Compromise outcome:

Signed by 89 governments out of 144 accredited to sign More are expected to join

WCIT-12: ITU as a global convener

Role of Member States (1/2)• Tunis Agenda (WSIS) paragraph 55:– “Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is

the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.”

• Resolution 102:– the role of governments includes providing a clear,

consistent and predictable legal framework, in order to promote a favourable environment in which global ICT networks are interoperable with Internet networks and widely accessible to all citizens without any discrimination and to ensure adequate protection of public interests in the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses

Role of Member States (2/2)• The ITRs are international law• National laws are agreed by parliaments– stakeholders do not participate in the formal

decision-making process in parliament– nut they are consulted prior to the decisions being

made• Similarly, in treaty-making conferences,

Member States make decisions, after national consultations– stakeholders do not participate in the formal

decision-making process at the treaty conference

WCIT multi-stakeholder involvement• In the WCIT preparatory process– open to all ITU members– ISOC submitted proposals

• WCIT public comment web site– few comments received

• Through national consultations– could be open to the public– documents could be made available to the public

• As members of national delegations– ITU places no restrictions on who can be included

• If ITU members, can attend WCIT as observers– could ask to speak, but none did

WCIT-12: proposals left out (1/2)• Cost-oriented charges for mobile roaming and

wholesale prices• General price transparency• Fair compensation for traffic carried/terminated• Restrictions on taxation • Restrictions on network neutrality• Routing transparency

But it was agreed to study further most of these matters

WCIT-12: proposals left out (2/2)• Extension of scope to Operating Agencies (OAs)• Restriction of scope to Recognized Operating Agencies

(ROAs)• Provisions on data protection, privacy, cybersecurity,

cybercrime– Even though these are in the mandate of the ITU pursuant to

Council Resolution 1305

• Making ITU Recommendations mandatory• Alternative dispute resolution on international

connectivity matters including Internet• Provisions regarding Internet• Purely liberalized approach to broadband deployment