BT Submission to ITU Council Working Group on International Internet Policy

BT Submission to ITU Council Working Group on International Internet Policy

BT welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the CWG IIP, in response to the question “What actions are to be undertaken by governments in relations to each of the international Internet-related public policy issues identified in Annex 1 to Resolution 1305 (adopted by Council 2009 at the seventh Plenary Meeting)?”

BT believes that before assessing the issues identified in Annex 1 to Resolution 1305, it should be clearly outlined what other forums or bodies, if any, are already addressing these issues. Annex 1 to Resolution 1305 was agreed in 2009, nearly five years ago; it would be wise to also determine if the issues remain as relevant now as they were considered then.

To support the discussion of the issues, BT believes that the following principles should apply:

1)  Develop a process to identify whether there are discussions going on elsewhere relevant to the topics in Annex 1 to Resolution 1305, and the nature of those discussions (including which interested parties are participating)

2)  Identify the role that the ITU might have, within its existing responsibilities, in co-operating in such discussions in order to avoid duplication of effort and activity.

3)  Co-operate with other forums that have started discussions on these issues or that might have an interest in them.

4)  Take note of the work that has emerged under the auspices of the CSTD Working Group on enhanced co-operation (CSTD WG on EC) on identifying mechanisms that could be engaged in discussions on these issues. The ITU should liaise with the CSTD WG on EC to ensure 2) above is taken into account.

5)  The discussions at the CWG on IIP should be transparent and open to all. By its very nature the decisions of the CWG are Governmental only (as are all ITU decisions), but the discussions leading to the decisions should be fully transparent and open to all stakeholders.

In many of the cases it is not clear what the related public policy issue is, and further guidance should be provided regarding the exact nature of said issue. In addition the references in the Annex to the Council Resolution are out of date; this is indicative of the need to ensure each issue is clearly expressed and remains relevant. This is reflected in the following table.

Number / Policy Issue / Relevant ITU Mandate / Comment
1 / Multilingualization of the Internet Including
Internationalized (multilingual) Domain
Names / · PP. Resolution 133 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· WTSA Resolution 48 (Rev. Johannesburg, 2008)
· WTDC Programme 3 (Rev. Doha, 2006) / ICANN has undertaken significant efforts in establishing multilingualism domains. Work remains, for example facilitating the development of local content.
2 / International Internet Connectivity / · ITU-D Study Group 1, Question 12-2/1
· ITU-T Study Group 3 (Recommendation D.50) / There is evidence in existence that demonstrates the benefit of deploying Internet exchange Points as a means of promoting relatively cheaper internet interconnectivity. This has been known about in ITU T SG3.
3 / International public policy issues pertaining
to the Internet and the management of
Internet resources, including domain names
and addresses / · PP. Resolutions 101, 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· WTSA Resolutions 47, 49, 64, 69, 75 (Rev. Johannesburg,
2008)
· Resolution 1282 (Mod. 2008)
· Lead Facilitator of WSIS AL C6 (Tunis 2005) / This is a very broad category of issues and needs to be refined in order to assess what is to be discussed. As it is written, and because of the lack of clarity, no issue emerges that requires further consideration.
4 / The security, safety, continuity,
sustainability, and robustness of the Internet / · PP. Resolutions 102, 130 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· WTDC Resolution 45, Programme 3 (Rev. Doha, 2006),
· WTSA Resolutions 50, 52 (Rev. Johannesburg 2008)
· ITU-T Study Group 17, ITU-D Study Group 1
· PP. Resolution 71 – Strategic Goal 4 (Rev. Antalya, 2006) / This would appear to be an operational aspect of the Internet, and therefore would be the responsibility of, amongst others, Internet Service Providers and the IETF. If there is a public policy aspect to this issue then it needs better definition.
5 / Combating Cybercrime / · Lead Facilitator of WSIS AL C5 (Tunis 2005)
· WTDC Programme 3 (Rev. Doha, 2006)
· PP. Resolution 71 – Strategic Goal 4 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· ITU-D Study Group 1 / Crime is indeed a Governmental issue, and they define laws to reflect national social, political and cultural drivers. Cybercrime is no different and governments should be assisted to ensure that their national laws adequately reflect these national drivers to do with crime perpetrated using the Internet.
6 / Dealing effectively with spam / · Lead Facilitator of WSIS AL C5 (Tunis 2005)
· PP. Resolution 130 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· WTDC Programme 3, Resolution 45 (Rev. Doha, 2006)
· WTSA 50, 52 (Rev. Johannesburg 2008) / The IETF, as an example, has defined methods to combat SPAM. It should be an operational issue to implement such methods, in line with social, political and cultural drivers.
7 / Issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the
Internet / · Lead Facilitator of WSIS AL C5 (Tunis 2005)
· Resolution 1282 (Mod. 2008)
· WTDC Programme 3 (Rev. Doha, 2006)
· PP. Resolution 130 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· WTSA Resolutions 50, 52 (Rev. Johannesburg 2008) / This is a very broad category of issues and needs to be refined in order to assess what is to be discussed. As it is written, and because of the lack of clarity, no issue emerges that requires further consideration.
8 / Availability, affordability, reliability, and
quality of service, especially in the
developing world / · Lead Facilitator of WSIS AL C2 (Tunis 2005)
· Resolution 1282 (Mod. 2008) / Governments have a role to assist in the creation of a suitable environment to allow the deployment of the Internet eco-system within their national environment. Such deployment will adapt to meet relevant national with social, political and cultural requirements. The ITU, as well as other bodies, can assist those Governments that require assistance.
9 / Contributing to capacity building for Internet
governance in developing countries / · WTDC Resolutions 17, 20 (Rev. Doha, 2006)
· ITU-D Programme 3, ITU-D Programme 5,
· WTSA Resolutions 64 (Rev. Johannesburg 2008) / The sharing of information, in the form of best practice, perhaps adapted to meet national requirements, is an area where policy can be developed.
10 / Developmental aspects of the Internet / · WTDC Resolutions 17, 20 (Rev. Doha, 2006)
· WTSA Resolutions 64, 75 (Rev. Johannesburg 2008)
· PP. Resolutions 101, 102, 133 (Rev. Antalya, 2006) / This is a very broad category of issue and needs to be refined in order to assess what is to be discussed. As it is written, and because of the lack of clarity, no issue emerges that requires further consideration.
11 / Respect for privacy and the protection of
personal information and data / · PP. Resolution 130 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· Lead Facilitator of WSIS AL C5 (Tunis 2005)
· Resolution 1282 (Mod. 2008)
· PP. Resolution 71 – Strategic Goal 4 (Rev. Antalya, 2006) / The role of Governments should focus on defining what is and what is not permitted with regards to data protection and privacy, taking account of the outputs of the Human Rights Council (UNHCR?) as applied to their sovereign area.
12 / Protecting children and young people from
abuse and exploitation / · PP. Resolution 130 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· Lead Facilitator of WSIS AL C5 (Tunis 2005)
· PP. Resolution 71 – Strategic Goal 4 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)
· Resolution 1282 (Mod. 2008)
· ITU-D Programme 3, ITU-T Study Group 17