[Chapter-delegates] ISOC's perspectives on outcomes of WTSA-16

Wed Nov 23 13:20:32 PST 2016

Dear Elizabeth,

Thank you for this good report, and for the two reports from Petko and Verengai.  A few comments:

1) You state below “In ITU Conferences, speaking and voting rights are limited to Member States while Sector Members can participate only as observers (Ref: Article 3, ITU Constitution & Convention). “  

The provisions for Assemblies are not the same as the provisions for Conferences.  Art. 25.1 of the ITU Convention clearly specifies that Sector Members are admitted to Assemblies (including WTSA) as such, and not as observers.  

In Assemblies, Sector Members have the same speaking rights as Member States, but Sector Members do not have voting rights.  So the ISOC representatives could speak at WTSA, and, if I understand Petko’s report correctly, Petko did speak. Any other Sector Member attending in their own right could also request to take the floor.  

However, if a Sector Member attended as part of a national delegation, as opposed to in their own right, then they might have been restricted from speaking by the rules of the Member State under whose name they were participating.  That is, some Member States don’t allow the non-government members of their delegations to speak.

Regarding Conferences, Sector Members admitted as observers may be asked by the chairman to provide relevant information (that is, to speak), see PP Resolution 145, Annex 3, clauses I.4 and II.4.  While it is not specified in the Resolution, observers in Conferences can ask the chairman to allow them to speak.

2) Regarding the ITRs, I don’t believe that there will be consensus in the Expert Group, or in Council, or in the 2018 Plenipotentiary Conference to convene a WCIT. So I doubt that a WCIT would be convened before 2024 at the earliest.

3) In the Report on the Outcomes, you state “Furthermore, they [expanded mandates for some Study Groups] pave the way for governments to have an increased regulatory role across a broad range of emerging issues believed to have an economic impact on the revenues of legacy telecommunication operators.”

I think that I understand the thrust of the statement, but I would put it slightly differently: “Furthermore, they [the expanded mandates for some Study Groups] pave the way for discussions on proposals for international agreements that would result in governments having an increased regulatory role across a broad range of emerging issues believed to have an economic impact on the revenues of legacy telecommunication operators.” 

That is, the main effect of the expanded mandate will be to facilitate submission of proposals: the mandate does not per se condition the outcome of the discussions. And ITU-T Study Groups work bottom-up, on the basis of inputs (called contributions) from the membership: if there are no contributions on a topic, then nothing happens regarding that topic. 

I’ve added “international” because ITU-T only studies international matters (but a matter is considered “international” if there is consensus that it is “ international”: there is no external definition of the term).

Thanks again and best,

Richard

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Oluoch
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 19:26
To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC's perspectives on outcomes of WTSA-16

Dear Chapter Leaders,

The ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly 2016 (WTSA-16) meeting concluded just over 2.5 weeks ago where we had some time to reflect on the meeting in order to provide our perspectives on the some of the key outcomes. As such, our WTSA-16 Outcome report is available here:

https://www.internetsociety.org/doc/itu-wtsa-2016-outcomes-internet-society-perspective

Additionally, we invite you to read attached contributions from Petko Kantchev on the new WTSA-16 Resolution on “Studies concerning the protection of users of telecommunication/information and communication technology services” and Verengai Mabika on new WTSA-16 resolution on “Promoting the use of information and communication technologies to bridge the financial inclusion gap.” 

As a side note, ISOC was fortunate to have a very strong and diverse delegation comprised of ISOC staff and members that brought various expertise and strengths to the conference. In ITU Conferences, speaking and voting rights are limited to Member States while Sector Members can participate only as observers (Ref: Article 3, ITU Constitution  <https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/oth/02/09/S02090000155201PDFE.PDF> & Convention). At WTSA-16, the lack of technical expertise and substantive knowledge in some of the discussions was a chief drawback particularly when sector members were present but could not take the floor. Despite this limitation, the ISOC delegation was consulted at various levels and our information resources on our WTSA-16 section on the website referenced/highlighted by delegates in some of the more contentious proceedings. ISOC’s information was credited by several delegations as essentially shaping the discussion on one of the key WTSA-16 issues which resulted in a more favorable outcome on that issue.  The diversity of our delegation was an asset as delegates from various countries approached us and it is also where we could be most effective in shaping the discussions given the meeting constraints. Looking ahead to 2017 (WTDC) and also 2018 (Plenipotentiary), we will continue to consult and partner with our members in these preparations, so stay tuned. 

Finally, we welcome your questions/comments on any of the information that we circulated on WTSA-16. 