[Chapter-delegates] New Blog: ITU Plenipotentiary 2014 Opens

Tue Oct 21 01:21:13 PDT 2014

SORRY: I hit the wrong button before, here is the correct version.

Dear Alejandro,

Secrecy (meaning privacy) of telecommunications has been a fundamental concept from the inception of telecommunications.  An article to that effect was included in the 1865 treaty that created the ITU and has been present in the ITU Constitution ever since.  At present, the article reads as follows:

ARTICLE 37 - Secrecy of Telecommunications

1 Member States agree to take all possible measures, compatible with the system of telecommunication used, with a view to ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence.

2 Nevertheless, they reserve the right to communicate such correspondence to the competent authorities in order to ensure the application of their national laws or the execution of international conventions to which they are parties.

You say "Traditionally it [ITU] has been the seat of authorized and then overarching pro-surveillance arrangements." 

Indeed "authorized" as provided in the Constitution, but I don't see any justification for "overarching pro-surveillance arrangements".  As we know from the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, current mass surveillance programs violate international law and thus are not justfied by any international instrument, much less the ITU Constitution.

However, I agree that the current language in the ITU Constitution is inadequate and should be improved.  Some concrete proposals to that effect have been made, see for example:

  http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/HCHR_report_final.pdf 

You say that overarching pro-surveillance arrangements "are deeply rooted in the ITRs, as is the kill switch".

Perhaps you have not read my legal analysis of the ITRs, published in the Oxford University International Journal of Law and Information Technology.  That analysis concludes the opposite. As does the more complete treatment found in my book on the ITRs.

So the only trend to reverse is the trend by some governments to think that privacy is a thing of the past.  And, to reverse that trend, we need multiple actions on multiple fronts.  The discussions in the UN General Assembly and in the High Commission for Human Rights have been helpful.  So it seems to me that a discussion in the ITU might also be helpful.

Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
Sent: mardi, 21. octobre 2014 03:37
To: Richard Hill
Cc: Wende Cover; ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New Blog: ITU Plenipotentiary 2014 Opens

Richard,

what would the ITU do regarding privacy and surveillance? Traditionally it has been the seat of authorized and then overarching pro-surveillance arrangements. They are deeply rooted in the ITRs, as is the "kill switch". What depth of reform would be required to reverse the trend? ITRs? WCIT? Convention? Constitution?

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

Thanks for this.  I would add one item to the list of groups of issues:

* How to address concerns regarding mass surveillance and privacy?  Several countries have made proposals to address these topics.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org]On Behalf Of Wende Cover
Sent: lundi, 20. octobre 2014 02:01
To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] New Blog: ITU Plenipotentiary 2014 Opens

Hello everyone – Sally Wentworth just posted a blog with insights on several key issues to watch at the ITU Plenipotentiary.  The blog is pasted below or you can read it on our website: 
http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2014/10/itu-plenipotentiary-2014-opens

Regards, Wende

ITU Plenipotentiary 2014 Opens
By Sally Wentworth, Vice President of Global Policy Development

The ITU Plenipotentiary Conference opens today, and I wanted to share some thoughts on several of the key issues that we’ll be watching over the next three weeks of debate.  Last week, our CEO, Kathryn Brown, outlined the Internet Society’s high level approach to the Conference and offered insights on the importance of collaboration within the Internet ecosystem. Today, I’ll get into a few more specifics.

An ITU Plenipotentiary Conference is a complex treaty-writing event held every 4 years where governments of the world debate a multitude of issues around how the ITU should function, who should lead the organization, what the ITU should be doing, and how much the ITU’s budget should be. While these are all important issues, the Internet Society’s focus will be on the host of Internet issues that will be considered and on how the decisions made will impact the broader Internet ecosystem.  

As of this writing, proposals are still coming in from regions and Member States but we do already have a general view of what some of the key Internet topics will be.  We are working hard to analyze the various proposals from the perspective of an open and accessible Internet and are keeping an issues matrix updated on our website: www.internetsociety.org/issuesmatrixpp14

In thinking about the Conference as it relates to the Internet, I see several groups of issues that governments will debate: 

• How the ITU does its work – should the work of the ITU be made more inclusive, more transparent and more collaborative?  This issue will be addressed via consideration of access to ITU documents, publications and meetings.  Thus far, we see divisions among countries emerging on this point.

• What is the ITU’s role in different aspects of the Internet?  This includes discussion of IP-based networks, Internet policymaking, security, Internet-of-things, and IP addressing. 

• What can the ITU do to expand connectivity and spur development?  There is keen interest to build on the success of the ITU Development conference earlier this year http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/WTDC/WTDC14/Pages/default.aspx and find ways to bring about the benefits of ICTs. 

• How to address the economic concerns of countries?  Several countries have made proposals to address topics around regulation of over-the-top services, interconnection rates and policies for alternative calling procedures.

Naturally, within any negotiation, there are opportunities for positive outcomes and also areas of deep concern.  While the bottom-up, collaborative model of development has proven itself when it comes to the Internet, not all countries are willing to accept greater inclusiveness and transparency. In some proposals, we see an emphasis on nation-state solutions in areas where greater cooperation would produce more robust results.   

The promise of the Internet to connect the unconnected, break down barriers, and transform lives depends on collaboration between all engaged and informed stakeholders. The Internet Society is committed to collaborating with partner organizations in every region of the world to increase access to the Internet to further spur economic and social development.  We look forward to a collaborative and productive dialogue in Busan and a positive outcome for the future of the Internet.

_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 