Home : Office of the Secretary-General : CSD

Consultation on ITU Resolution 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)

Back

Feedback from ITU Member States related to the Consultation on Resolution 102

ITU wishes to thank all Member States, Sector Members, Associates and Other Stakeholders for taking the time to fill in the questionnaire related to the consultation on Resolution 102.

The results of the survey, with all contributions submitted by ITU Member States are posted below.

Andorra
Brazil
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iran
Malta
The Netherlands
Portugal
Saudi Arabia
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America

Report on the Consultation carried out under Resolution 102 on ITU’s Role with regard to International Public Policy Resources Pertaining to the Internet and the Management of Internet Resources, Including Domain Names and Addresses: Draft report to WG-WSIS

See additional contributions from ITU Sector Members and Associates and Other Interested Parties

See the Draft analysis of responses to Resolution 102 questionnaire

Questionnaire Responses

Contribution from Andorra

Servei de Telecomunicacions d'Andorra

Question 1:

ITU should coordinate international initiatives on the management of Internet, ensuring that associations such as ICANN, CENTR (Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries), EIDQ (European Interworking of Directory Inquiry Services), are participating activally.

ITU should take care that the management of Internet domain names and addresses is developed correctly, tracking amb managing across the whole process, and ensuring that all stakeholders are present and that regulations are followed.

ITU should establish, manage and enhance a worldwide antispam regulation, ensuring that all actions are undertaken to apply to the regulation.

Question 2:

ITU should have a participating role in Intergovernmental organizations, and should propose new working groups and promote maximum participation.

ITU should ensure that all initiatives led by Intergovernmental organizations are coordinated with the policies of the Union, and accordingly with all participating members.

Question 3:

ITU should promote the constitution of working groups, in order to detect lacks of general policies and to manage the corresponding development.

ITU should ensure that interactions, coordination and working groups are developed with the agreement of all participating members.

Question 4:

ITU should ensure that all stakeholders and relevant organizations are involved and participating, with maximum equity and consensus.

Question 5:

ITU should have a active role in the working groups, that should be defined according to geographical zones.

ITU should also coordinate and develop a relevant role between participating members and working groups.

Question 6:

ITU should take a key role in promoting the development and deployment of IP version 6, ENUM.

ITU should take care that all stakeholders are participating in technical issues related to the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources, including service providers, vendors, etc.

ITU should manage and coordinate actions to make sure that technical criteria defined correspond to maximum homogeneity, coherence and consensus between all stakeholders

ITU should promote initiatives regarding technical issues related to the management of Internet domain names, by leadering these initiatives with most representative members, in accordance to the purposes and roles of the Union.

Question 7:

ITU should ensure and take care that all international and regional forums are organized and developed with equitative rules between all kind of countries.

ITU should promote pluralism regarding Internet policies and issues, by searching and applying mechanisms that ensure maximum participation in related forums and activities.

ITU should promote and enhance the exchange of information, allowing members to personalize their information access, in accordance to the access policies of the Union.

Question 8:

ITU should take a significant role in international discussions and initiatives on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources, taking care of the equitable participation of all members.

ITU should track and identify existing lacks in all areas of Internet policies and issues, having a leading role in the coordination and development regarding the related policies and documentation.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Brazil

Permanent Mission of Brazil in Geneva

The Permanent Mission of Brazil presents its compliments to the International Telecommunication Union and, with reference to communication DM-07/1008, dated March 29th, 2007, has the honor to forward Brazil’s responses to the questionnaire on Resolution 102 (REV. Antalya, 2006): “ITU’s role with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses”. The Permanent Mission of Brazil avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the International Telecommunication Union the assurances of its highest consideration.

Question 1:

ITU plays an important role in issues related to the management of Internet resources, as shown by the Strategy and Policy Unit (SPU) through the report “Activities Related to Internet Protocol”. In this context, the involvement of SG-2 in Internet related activities should be highlighted. The Brazilian Government considers that the ITU has an important role to play in the debates on Internet names and numbers. Considering on-going debates on the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) reform, ITU should – as provided by the Tunis Agenda (paragraphs 35, 68-71) – work in co-ordination with GAC and ICANN, as well as with other relevant bodies, in order to create an environment that enables governments, on equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.

ITU could play a facilitating role in the GAC. It could create mechanisms aimed at the promotion of wider participation in GAC meetings, particularly within developing countries. ITU technical support – by issuing technical reports on the relevant issues in preparation to GAC meetings and by providing assistance to delegations under request – would also be a significant contribution.

Question 2:

While avoiding duplicating the functions of the IGF (Tunis Agenda, paragraphs 72-78), ITU could act as a coordinating agency on Internet governance issues which do not fall within the scope of any existing body – such as SPAM and cybersecurity -, taking into account the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders (Tunis Agenda, paragraph 35). IN this regard, ITU could, in co-ordination with other relevant international organizations, promote meetings to foster the debate on global public policy aspects of Internet governance that have not been addressed by any other global forum.

Question 3:

ITU should have an active role in IGF and during its inter-sessional period, so as to stimulate the debate on issues that are relevant to the development of Internet and telecommunication sectors, such as the equitable distribution of the radio-frequency spectrum for wireless access purposes. The Brazilian Government would welcome ITU’s active participation at the 2nd IGF, in Rio de Janeiro, in particular in the debate related to Internet governance in the broad sense and the management of critical resources in particular. For these purposes, a specific structure in charge of interacting with the IGF and preparing background material, could be created within ITU-T.

Question 4:

By request of the United Nations Secretary-General, and under the supervision of the Commission of Science and Technology for Development of the Economic and Social Council (Tunis Agenda, paragraph 105), ITU could coordinate the process of enhanced co-operation for Internet governance (Tunis Agenda, paragraph 69-71) in all issues related to its mandate. ITU could also volunteer to give support to the GAC secretariat.

Question 5:

The participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles in Internet governance issues (Tunis Agenda, paragraph 35) requires that ITU adapts its internal procedures, decision-making processes and participation criteria to reflect the consensus views expressed by WSIS final documents. This could be a core issue for the Council’s agenda.

Question 6:

ITU could consider – possibly in the next TSAG, in December 2007 – the creation, within ITU-T, of a group that would be responsible for the co-ordination of all debates, related to Internet governance, including those that are already under way.

Question 7:

ITU could co-ordinate regulatory activities and the establishment of new for a devoted to the discussion of public policy issues in telecommunications, as well as help the creation of an environment that favours the debate – e.g., the structure proposed for the bureau in April, 2007. It could also encourage the participation of member-states in regional entities dedicated to the debate of Internet-related issues, and take advantage of the regulators symposium to widen the debate on the issue. ITU-D could also be stimulated to engage in the activities of other relevant international organizations, notably UNESCO.

Question 8:

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Canada

Government of Canada

Question 1:

In our view, the participation of the ITU as an observer in the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN provides a useful and constructive channel of interaction for both the ITU and ICANN. Furthermore, suitable working arrangements between both the ITU and the IETF, as well as the ITU and ISOC, are set out in a Supplement to an ITU-T A-series Recommendation. In this way, the ITU should continue to participate collaboratively, yet remain flexible about working arrangements, to reflect the manner of work of other parallel expert organizations and their respective roles.

The ITU should also contribute to the organization of and the multi-stakeholder discussions within the Internet Governance Forum, drawing upon ITU expertise in support of the themes identified for discussion within the Forum. In particular, the ITU should remain mindful of the cross-cutting theme of the IGF – “development and capacity-building”.

Question 2:

§ 35 d) of the Tunis Agenda refers to the role of intergovernmental organizations, in general, as having, “a facilitating role in the coordination of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet”. Resolution 140, which guides the work of WG-WSIS, instructs the Secretary-General of the ITU to “work collaboratively with other entities involved in WSIS implementation, and to promote a clear understanding of the roles of each, in order to avoid duplication of activities;” (§ 3 of instructs the Secretary General). This is a very appropriate principle to guide any ITU facilitation role in the coordination of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.

WSIS Tunis Agenda proposes the ITU as a lead facilitator for two Action Lines - C2 Information and Communication Infrastructure and C5 Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs. The ITU should interact as appropriate with other intergovernmental organizations on these and with regard to the other WSIS Action Lines. In keeping with the WSIS framework, the ITU’s facilitation role should feature an openness to the opportunities presented by collaboration with other relevant stakeholders.

Question 3:

The ITU should encourage the Membership to provide voluntary contributions in support of initiatives consistent with the ITU’s competencies in these areas.

The ITU should also continue development training in Internet-related subject-areas, where it has expertise, such as IPv6 implementation and in the creation of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). We also strongly support the ITU’s work in capacity development in the field of policy and regulatory approaches related to creating national frameworks that are conducive to expanding access to the Internet, by encouraging an environment that encourages investment and competition. Training activities must, however, reflect the ITU’s financial situation and draw upon its core competencies. Canada, along with other ITU Member States, has been a strong contributor to the ITU’s ability to offer training in these technical and policy areas.

Question 4:

ITU Council Working Group-Study should continue to consider the issue of participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union, related to Resolution 141.

As indicated in Canada’s response to Question 1 of this questionnaire, the ITU should continue to collaborate in the work of other relevant organizations, such as the IETF and ISOC, and should welcome the contributions of these organizations in the work of the ITU.

s indicated in Canada’s response to Question 3 of this questionnaire, the ITU can also contribute to the organization of and discussions within the Internet Governance Forum.

Question 5:

ITU WG-Study should continue to consider the issue of participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union, related to Resolution 141, as a means to establish an appropriate and productive way to enhance cooperation between all stakeholders and the ITU.

Led by the Coordination Committee, the ITU Secretariat should aim to enhance internal cooperation regarding the ITU’s role with respect to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses, so as not to detract from the ITU’s core mandate and activities and avoid unnecessary disruption of the mandate and activities of other stakeholders.

Question 6:

Drawing upon its recognized and long-standing technical expertise, the ITU-T should continue to participate collaboratively in the work of other relevant organizations, in the area of standards, in close collaboration with ITU-D. ITU-T should continue to conduct studies or workshops, where non-duplicative, to advance understanding, particularly in support of development. Such studies should be undertaken collaboratively with other Internet organizations, wherever appropriate, and taking into account respective roles.

Work conducted by ITU-T, concerning ccTLD issues, must be consistent with the agreed principle “ that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s ccTLD” (Resolution 102) and recognise the activities of other appropriate entities.

The ITU further provides important registry services in running the top level domain dot-int.

Question 7:

In ITU-D, taking into consideration the current resource situation, specific activities should be undertaken within the framework of the work programme of the BDT, the Doha Action Plan including its 6 programmes, as well as the objectives and priorities identified for ITU-D in the ITU Strategic Plan. In optimizing the use of financial and human resources, duplication of effort should be avoided, both within the ITU, and with external organizations competent in Internet-related matters.

Question 8:

In Canada’s view, there are a number of areas outlined in Resolution 102 where the ITU can and should make a positive contribution, working with appropriate stakeholders in the development of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. We welcome the statements from the Secretary-General setting out the path for the ITU and indicating positive priorities for the organization. The World Summit on the Information Society provides a framework that the ITU should work within. ITU efforts should now focus on making appropriate progress in the identified areas of work, taking into account the ITU’s core competencies and financial priorities as well as the continuing role of other organizations with regard to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses. Clearly, the ITU is not tasked by the WSIS with the management of key Internet resources. There is no need to reconsider the instruments, resolutions and decisions of the ITU, in this regard.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Czech Republic

Ministry of Informatics

Question 1:

ITU should participate actively in any relevant forum and organisation responsible for Internet Governance (IG).

Question 2:

To facilitate the coordination collecting and supporting sharing the information from/with the members would be very useful.

Question 3:

As all the major organizations dealing with IG issues (ICANN, ITU, WTO etc.) where invited to hold open forums and inform participants about their views and actions at every annual IGF meeting, ITU could follow up the suggestion to do that. In conjunction with the second question ITU could hold.

Question 4:

As the process has not been started by the UN Secretary General yet it is not possible to set up the the roles and specific activities of the prospective stakeholders.

Question 5:

The same as for the Q4.

Question 6:

It would be beneficial if ITU could clarify its mandate and role in the above mentioned areas.

Question 7:

Developing countries are the ones which have to say what they need and want to discuss.

Question 8:

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Denmark

National IT and Telecom Agency

Question 1:

Denmark believes that in order to continue to play a significant role in international discussions on Internet resource etc. ITU should, within its mandate, participate actively in the relevant fora as well as organizations that hold responsibilities for the management of Internet resources. Moreover, ITU should, within its mandate, actively support the work and activities of organs such as The Internet Governance Forum as well as other relevant organizations and fora currently responsible for issues related to the management of Internet resources.

Question 2:

For ITU to continue to play a facilitating role in the coordination of international public policy issues concerning the Internet and in order to be in line with § 35 d) of the Tunis Agenda, ITU could collect relevant information from its members in order to compile such material with a view to share it with stakeholders.

Question 3:

In order for ITU to make sure that the UN Secretary General is enabled to draw upon any appropriate resources from all interested stakeholders, it is recommended, that ITU arranges an open forum on internet governance to which all relevant major organizations and stakeholders should be invited. This could be arranged at the annual IGF meetings.

ITU could also participate in the various workshops related to the IGF and provide assistance to the workshop organizers. In addition, Denmark noted with interest that in the February consultations of the IGF it was suggested to hold best practice sessions. The ITU could continue the work on identifying best practice examples for this purpose.

Question 4:

Denmark holds the position that the UN Secretary General, within the mandate expressed in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda, should start the process towards enhanced cooperation, involving all relevant stakeholders.

Question 5:

Seen from a Danish perspective ITU should coordinate its internal processes with all relevant external fora and organisations with a view to ensure complementarity and avoid any duplication of activities.

Question 6:

The ITU member states need to further clarify ITU’s role and mandate in respect to the above-mentioned areas before specific activities are launched by ITU-T.

Question 7:

In our view, it is primarily for developing countries to indicate their priorities.

Question 8:

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Ecuador

Conatel

Question 1:

Identificar a todas las entidades tanto del sector público como privado, de los países Miembros, que se encuentran vinculados en la administración de nombres de dominio, direcciones y otros recursos relativos al uso de Internet, así como también tengan injerencia en la elaboración de políticas públicas con respecto a este tema y a la Sociedad Global de la Información. Establecer mecanismos y estrategias de cooperación internacional entre la UIT y todos sus

Estados Miembros de acuerdo con los fines de la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones establecidos en su Constitución, que pueden ser implementados a través del intercambio de buenas prácticas, organización de talleres que tengan relación a nombres de dominio y recursos de Internet.

Promover la armonización de los esfuerzos que realizan los países miembros en lo referente a la administración y regulación de los nombres de dominio o ccTLDS, direcciones y otros recursos. Apoyar y fortalecer grupos de trabajo conformados en las diferentes regiones, tales como el eLAC y la Red Gealc, que analizan el tema de gobernanza de Internet e incentivar la ejecución de sus estrategias e iniciativas.

Question 2:

Organizar foros de intercambio de experiencias entre los Estados Miembros y promover la armonización de las políticas públicas que cada país Miembro de manera soberana ha promulgado con referencia a Internet a fin de conjugar una política pública internacional.

Incentivar el intercambio de ideas, experiencias, criterios y necesidades entre los sectores público, privado y sociedad civil con respecto a la gestión técnica y la promulgación de políticas públicas de Internet a fin de que la adopción de las políticas como tales surjan de procesos multisectoriales y participativos.

Instar a los países miembros, el fortalecimiento de las entidades responsables del manejo de estos temas a fin de que la gestión óptima y eficaz de los recursos de Internet esté garantizado.

Debido a la importancia estratégica de los nombres de dominio para un país o Estado, tanto en el ámbito público como privado, es importante que la UIT promueva o apoye el uso de los nombres de dominio con código de país entre todos los Estados Miembros, de modo que todas las entidades correspondientes al sector público o privado tengan establecida su identidad en Internet.

Question 3:

"En el numeral 78 a) de la Agenda de Túnez para Sociedad de la Información, se establece que la Secretaría General de las Naciones Unidas debe obtener los recursos apropiados de todas las partes interesadas, incluida la experiencia probada de la UIT como se demostró durante el proceso de la CMSI y crear una oficina eficaz y rentable para soportar el IGF, asegurando la participación de las múltiples partes interesadas".

Dentro de este contexto, la UIT podría desarrollar las siguientes actividades: - Velar por que la coordinación del IGF cuente con los recursos necesarios para su óptimo funcionamiento.

Velar por que el IGF sea un espacio que de acuerdo a lo expresado en la Agenda de Túnez, permita el debate de temas de políticas públicas vinculados al Gobierno de Internet, con el objetivo de contribuir a la sostenibilidad, la solidez, la seguridad de Internet a la vez que facilite el diálogo entre organismos que se ocupan de políticas públicas internacionales relacionadas con Internet y facilitar la comunicación con las organizaciones intergubernamentales y otras instituciones en temas de su competencia. Entre otros de los puntos definidos en la Agenda de Túnez respecto al mandato del IGF, se encuentra el facilitar el intercambio de información y de prácticas eficientes, de modo que se pueda aprovechar las competencias de las comunidades académicas, científicas y técnicas. La UIT podría contribuir en la promoción del IGF como punto de intercambio de información y criterios.

Promover que los participantes del IGF, correspondan a los diferentes sectores de la sociedad de acuerdo a lo establecido en el numeral 78 a)

Promover que todos los productos generados dentro del IGF manifiesten la pluralidad de criterios, intereses e inquietudes de todos los sectores y

Velar por que los países especialmente los países en vías de desarrollo mantengan una posición sólida y coherente a través de la cual defiendan sus intereses comunes en lo referente al tema de Gobernanza de Internet.

Question 4:

"El proceso de incremento de la cooperación, que debe iniciar el Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, y en el que deben intervenir todas las organizaciones pertinentes a finales del primer trimestre de 2006, implicará a todas las partes interesadas en sus respectivos cometidos, se realizará lo más rápidamente posible teniendo siempre en cuenta los procedimientos legales y deberá tener en cuenta las innovaciones. Las organizaciones pertinentes deben comenzar un proceso para fomentar la cooperación en el que intervengan todas las partes interesadas actuando con la mayor rapidez posible y respondiendo de manera flexible a las innovaciones. Deberá solicitarse a esas mismas organizaciones pertinentes que elaboren un informe anual de actividades."(Numeral 71 Agenda de Túnez)

Entre las principales actividades:
Establecer una estrategia de cooperación multisectorial y participativa.

Apoyar y promover la elaboración de estudios comparativos en el ámbito regional, subregional y nacional con relación al estado de situación del tema de Gobernanza de Internet.

Realizar eventos de capacitación en torno al tema.

Establecer mecanismos de asistencia técnica en el tema de administración de dominios y recursos de Internet especialmente para países en vías de desarrollo.

Promover que el tema de Gobernanza de Internet, sea contemplado dentro de las Estrategias nacionales para el Desarrollo de Sociedad de la Información y que se establezcan planes de evaluación y seguimiento.

Question 5:

Identificar las barreras o impedimentos que no permiten una eficaz y óptima cooperación de la UIT con los estados Miembros y todos sus actores y proponer soluciones. Examinar los mecanismos y estrategias de participación multisectorial definidos en la UIT, y realizar una evaluación de su funcionamiento y cual es el rol de cada una de las partes, a fin de realizar correcciones y ajustes en los procedimientos de modo que sean efectivos para el cumplimiento de estos objetivos.

Question 6:

La misión definida para la UIT-T consiste en asegurar una producción eficiente y a tiempo de estándares de alta calidad que cubra todos los campos de las telecomunicaciones.

Considerando el actual desarrollo de IPv6, ENUM e IDNs y su importancia en la implementación de redes de nueva generación y para la prestación de servicios convergentes, es necesario que la UIT promueva grupos de estudio y de trabajo a través de los cuales pueda perfeccionarse su desarrollo promoviendo especialmente su interoperabilidad y normalización.

Question 7:

Recopilar la información necesaria requerida con respecto a las iniciativas, proyectos, programas necesidades y políticas públicas referentes a los recursos de Internet y Gobernanza de Internet, a fin de poder contar con la información base que permita realizar un análisis de situación y de necesidades de los países con respecto al tema.

Promover la incorporación de políticas que contemplen el multilingüismo y uso de recursos de Internet, a través de la vinculación de los grupos étnicos.

Question 8:

Es importante que la UIT promueva el desarrollo de Estrategias efectivas para la administración de Internet y de sus recursos en función de la realidad cultural, socioeconómica y política de cada país, coadyuvando en la propuesta de soluciones concretas a la problemática nacional de cada país y considerando que Internet es un recurso que puede ser usado de manera efectiva en la disminución de la brecha digital y el desarrollo de la población.

Contribution from Finland

Ministry of Transport and Communications, Government of Finland

Question 1:

ITU should, within its mandate, participate actively in and support the relevant fora and organisations responsible currently for the management of Internet resources. Such fora would include, inter alia, GAC where ITU has the status of an Observer, and IGF.

Question 2:

ITU should continue to play its WSIS-mandated role in the implementation of the action lines of the Geneva Action Plan, many of which are relevant to international public policy issues pertaining to internet, both as one of the leading facilitators, as the focal point of two action lines and as participant in further thirteen, taking into account Antalya Res. 140 that instructs ITU SG to "work collaboratively with other entities involved in WSIS implementation, and to promote a clear understanding of the roles of each, in order to avoid duplication of activities". One concrete possibility could be to further collect information from Members with a view to compiling and sharing them with other members, as e.g. with surveys on IDN implementation. ITU should also continue educational and outreach efforts (especially to developing countries) such as collecting, sharing and publicising good practices.

Question 3:

Open forums: In the February and May consultations of the IGF the idea was presented that all major organizations dealing with issues related to Internet governance, such as ICANN, ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, WTO, could be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF meetings. ITU might want to follow up this suggestion.

Best practice sessions: In the February consultations of the IGF it was suggested to hold best practice sessions. The ITU could identify best practice examples.

Secretariat: In view of the limited resources of the IGF Secretariat, ITU could be of great help by contributing to its operations and to the organization of the meetings.

Question 4:

This will depend on the action taken by the UN Secretary General who according to para 71 is requested to start the process towards enhanced cooperation. However, ITU should in any case develop enhanced cooperation through its own activities and, where invited to and within its mandate, help others to develop their contributions to enhanced cooperation.

Question 5:

ITU should coordinate internal processes with relevant external fora and organisations, such as for example ICANN and IETF, in particular with a view to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication.
In this connection, consideration of the issue of participation of all relevant stakeholders in the work of ITU, mandated by Antalya Res. 141 and begun in Geneva in May 2007, is of great importance.

Question 6:

ITU Members should seek to further clarify the ITU's role and mandate in respect to those areas.
In many of these areas there is already effective, private-sector management or coordination of resources. ITU should avoid duplicating work by other relevant international organisations on Internet domain names, the management of Internet Protocol addresses or internationalised domain names, but should look to how it can use its significant expertise to contribute to work in these areas. In this way, it can make best use of limited resources by focussing on activities where it can add most value.

Question 7:

Developing countries are themselves in the best position to tell in what area they need assistance. ITU-D should try to meet these requests in a cost-effective way within its resources and mandate.

Question 8:

We welcome the opportunity to provide input to the consultation about the ITU’s role in Internet governance in the light of Resolution 102 (rev. Antalya 2006). Resolution 102 clearly refers to issues “within the mandate of the ITU.” This is an important criterion, as it allows resources to be focussed on that limited number of issues associated with telecommunication aspects of the Internet, making the best and most effective use of skills, competence and networks. We welcome the statements from the Secretary General about ITU’s focus and priorities, and the need to avoid duplicating the work of other organisations and to build on ITU’s work in the development sector: this provides a good basis for targeting resources and ensuring value for money. These two core principles – the mandate of the ITU and its outreach through the development sector – provide the framework for ensuring that the ITU remains a key player in Internet governance.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from France

Ministere de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Emploi

Question 1:

ITU could bring its technical expertise and benefit of its extensive membership in order to study current subjects of interest such as the implementation of IPV6 (interacting with Icann, the ASO, the RIRs, …), the definition of standards for IDNs (interacting with Icann, UNESCO, …), and the international discussion on the management of Internet resources concerning the technological developments of the Internet (Object Name Service, for instance).

In addition, in line with §71 of the TAIS, the ITU could work in collaboration with the UN Secretary General to launch and implement the process of enhanced Cooperation, along with all relevant organizations.

Question 2:

Specific activities could include: contribution to IDNs working group with Icann and the UNESCO, studies on IPV6 implementation with Icann and the RIRs, ONS studies, actions in developing countries concerning Internet stability and cybersecurity.

Question 3:

Open forums:
In the February consultations of the IGF the idea was presented that all major organizations dealing with issues related to Internet governance, such as ICANN, ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, WTO, could be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF meetings. The ITU could follow up this suggestion.

Workshops: Due to its specific expertise in certain areas the ITU could participate in the organisation of workshops. It could provide assistance to workshop organisers in those cases where the organisers identify the lack of a certain angle to their topic which is being taken up by the ITU. It could also help workshop organisers in identifying experts in various areas. ITU should also present its work and activities achieved during the last year and introduce its work program for the following year. If other international and intergovernmental relevant organisations would do the same, it would allow identifying synergies between organisations.

In line with §72 of the TAIS, the ITU, through its workshops and Study Groups work could contribute, as appropriate to the work of the IGF, in identifying emerging issues (§72 g) and in addressing issues relating to Internet critical resources, present and future (§72 j).

Question 4:

See below, answer to question 5.

Question 5:

The ITU could set-up an “Internet Focus Group” that would coordinate all relevant ITU activities, contributions and initiatives on Internet (study groups, workshops...), in order to be more efficient in playing a facilitating role in the coordination of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and in the process towards enhanced cooperation.

This Internet Focus Group would be the focal point within the ITU, taking a leading role of all ITU Internet relevant activities, in coordination with different ITU different working groups and sectors, taking into account their respective mandate and domain of expertise. Having such a dedicated group on Internet issues would allow to attract new stakeholders (ISPs, Internet societies, registries, registrars, RIRs...) who are not used, until now, to participate in ITU activities, but who are crucial in building the Information Society, for implementing WSIS outcomes and for achieving Millenium Development Goals; this could also participate to incresase ITU membership.

This Internet Focus Group should interact with other organizations in order to avoid the duplication of the work, creating a common environment to promote the growth of the Internet and stimulating a secure and stable network. The Internet Focus Group could prepare propositions to be sent to the relevant organizations, including the IGF, the Icann/GAC, UNESCO, WIPO, … This Internet Focus Group could be, for example, a subgroup of the Working Group of the Council on WSIS.

The ITU could also identify a high level executive or appoint an elected official who would represent ITU in all the other relevant organisations where Internet issues are discussed.

Question 6:

On IPV6:
The ITU could contribute its technical expertise in accordance with Resolution 102 and paragraphs §70 and §71 of the Tunis SMSI Agenda and could participate in the processes of definition of policies for allocation of IPv6 Address Space, in the context of the ASO / ICANN /RIR bottom-up approach. As an Observer at the GAC, the ITU could also make contributions based on the documents produced by ITU, but also to the IGF and the Icann on that subject. The ITU could also conduct studies on the impact of implementation of IPV6 on routing tables, with other relevant organizations (including IAB, the IETF, ASO/ICANN/RIRs among others). A liaison with all the relevant organization should be put in place on IPV6.

On related technological developments:
IP addresses and domain names, among other elements, have a central and enduring role as internet resources. New naming or identification systems have also emerged, in some cases associated with specific applications, for which management methods and processes have not yet been finally established. For example, there is the Object Name System (ONS) and the Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) system. Some bodies, like ISO and EPC Global, or corporation like Verisign are already involved in these new developments. These new identifiers are of interest for more than one reason. Standardisation issues, the allocation of new resources, and security and privacy issues seem to be the main ones.

The ITU, and more specifically the ITU-T, could contribute its technical expertise in accordance with Resolution 102 and paragraphs §70 and §71 of the Tunis SMSI Agenda and could participate in the development of these new technologies.

Question 7:

As stated in considering e) of resolution 102, “ the management of the registration and allocation of Internet domain names and addresses must fully reflect the geographical nature of the Internet, taking into account an equitable balance of interests of all stakeholders”.

ITU-D could follow-up on that statement by contributing, with other relevant organizations, to the equitable balance of interests and resources. Some specific projects could be led in order to improve the geographical repartition of Internet Exchange Points in developing countries.

ITU-D could contribute to the establishment of best practices concerning the management of ccTLD registry; ITU-D could also contribute to the promotion of a culture of a cybersecurity in the developing countries.

Question 8:

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Federal Republic of Germany

Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology

Question 1:

ITU is dealing with technical issues related to IP-based networks including the Internet and the evolution to NGN. Therefore the ITU can play a positive role by participating actively in and supporting the relevant fora and organisations responsible currently for the management of Internet resources. The ITU can encourage discussions and disseminate information on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of the ITU.

Question 2:

§ 35 d) should be seen in connection with § 35 e) where it is stated that International Organizations should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. In this context one possibility could be to further collect information from Members with a view to compile and share them with other members, as eg with surveys on IDN implementation.

Question 3:

Best practice sessions:
In the February consultations of the IGF it was suggested to hold best practice sessions. The ITU could identify best practice examples.

Question 4:

This question can not be answered clearly at the moment since specific activities to be undertaken by the ITU will depend on the action taken by the UN Secretary General who according to para 71 is requested to start the process towards enhanced cooperation.

Question 5:

ITU should coordinate internal processes with relevant external fora and organisations in particular with a view to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication.

Question 6:

ITU should seek to further clarify the ITU\'s role and mandate in respect to those areas.

Question 7:

ITU-D should eg. continue to undertake activities based on the Resolutions and decisions taken at the WTDC ´06 in Doha and the Plenipotentiary Conference ´06 in Antalya within its mandate and within the financial limits.

Question 8:

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Greece

Permanent Mission of Greece to the Office of the U.N.

I am very pleased to address you on this special day for the ITU organization and for the Telecommunication and Information Society in total. For all of us this year, World Telecommunication Day carries added significance as 16 May has been identified by the Tunis phase of the World Summit on the Information Society as "World Information Society Day". From the birth of the telegraph, through radio and television broadcasting to satellite communications and the Internet, the work of ITU has played a critical role for harnessing the power of science and technology to fulfil basic human need for communication.

Given that not all people were sharing in the social and economic benefits that telecommunications creates, in 2003, the first ever World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva convened, which resulted in 175 countries endorsing a Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action that embrace the idea of universal and affordable access to ICTs. The second phase of the Summit, in November 2005 in Tunis, measured the progress we have made in fulfilling the special objectives of the Geneva phase and called on all stakeholders to transform the political will expressed into long-term commitments.

Looking ahead after Tunis, the true test of an engaged, empowered and equitable Information Society will be the extent to which today's powerful knowledge-based communications tools are able to connect different people across geographic, knowledge and information divides, especially in the most impoverished countries. Issues like the open character of Internet, the security, the cultural and linguistic diversity, the access and infrastructure improvements (especially for a major portion of the digitally illiterate), the capacity building and the emerging issues, the development of citizen's skills, and much more, are considered of great importance for the future developments on the area.

Under these ideas and foundations and according to the mandate of the Tunis convention, we were pleased to host in Athens, last November, the Inaugural Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a new forum for multi-stakeholders' (State, Private sector, society, Academic community, etc.) poliy dialog, in order to prioritize matters of public policy which derive from the discussion concerning Internet governance, thus, contributing to a common understanding and common vision.

The first IGF meeting was just a beginning, a successful beginning that laid the foundations for the continuity of this process. A process that we all, collectively, should support more intensively in the future in order to work together for solving all rising issues and assuring that ICT services and resources will be distributed among people and nations across all continents. In this respect, the ITU plays a critical role, for which Greece is and will continue to be strongly supportive.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Iran

Division for International Specialized Agencies; Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Question 1:

Resolution 102 of the Antalya Plenipotentiary Conference is deeply rooted in the WSIS final documents. It is an important attempt for operationalization of WSIS provisions. It, moreover, provides the opportunity for ITU to undertake its expected roles and responsibilities in accordance with such provisions, taking into account its proven areas of competencies. It also sets the stage for all governments and in particular developing countries to discharge their rights, roles and responsibilities in the area of Internet-related public policy issues. Important to note is that in the existing Internet Governance mechanisms, all governments but one only enjoy an advisory role in the decision making processes. Tunis Agenda for the Information Society has already acknowledged the deficiency of the existing Internet Governance mechanisms, in terms of, among others, lack of meaningful participation of all governments and in particular governments from developing countries in public policy related decision making processes related to the Governance of this important media. According to paragraph 35 (a) of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, “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.” Paragraph 68 of the same document, recognizes equal role and responsibility of all governments for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. To this end in paragraph 65 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, the Summit underlined “the need to maximize the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet governance, which should reflect their interests, as well as in development and capacity building.” World leaders in paragraph 52 of the Tunis Agenda for the information society, “in order to ensure effective participation in global Internet governance”, urged “international organizations, including intergovernmental organizations, where relevant, to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in policy decision-making relating to Internet governance, and to promote and facilitate such participation.” To that end, roles foreseen for the international organizations, including intergovernmental organizations and among them ITU, is very much in line with paragraph 35 (d) of the Tunis Agenda whereby “Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues.” The Tunis Agenda also, in its paragraph 51 highlights the need for building capacities in developing countries to engage meaningfully in such decision making processes. Resolution 102, thus, was a timely initiative to overcome some of the deficiencies in the existing Internet Governance decision making processes, full implementation of which is of utmost importance. ITU is indeed a truly important platform for international discussions and initiatives on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources. ITU’s contribution to the Internet Governance Forum is also crucial in this regard.

Question 2:

ITU should equip itself well, structurally and substantively in this regard. ITU is well placed to do among others worldwide coordination of technical as well as public policy aspects related to the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources. World leaders in paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda for Information Society recognized “the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues.” They in paragraph 70 of the same document agreed that “using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.” They in this regard called upon “the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles.” What makes ITU to try to assume its roles and responsibilities in this regard, is paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda, by which “relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports.” ITU should, through establishing required frameworks/mechanisms or assigning its existing structures, try to discharge such a responsibility.

Question 3:

In addition to the contributions of the ITU to IGF, ITU should through providing a platform for consultations, assist and enable all stakeholders from developing countries to be prepared to contribute meaningfully to the IGF proceedings. That includes assisting prominent experts from developing countries to be included in the IGF panels and its list of invited speakers.

Question 4:

ITU should play an active role in encouraging the UN Secretary General to fulfill the mandate accorded to him by paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. It should play a leading role in mapping the process, as well as setting the agenda and programme of work of the enhanced cooperation. To achieve that, ITU is encouraged to embark upon organizing regional and global conferences. Such conferences with the active participation of developing countries should take into account capacity building needs of the developing countries in the area of the Internet Governance aiming at ensuring their informed and meaningful participation in decision making processes.

Question 5:

What makes ITU to try to assume its roles and responsibilities in this regard is paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda, by which “relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports.” ITU should through establishing required frameworks/mechanisms or assigning its existing structures try to discharge such a responsibility.

Question 6:

See previous items.

Question 7:

Participation of developing countries in internet policy setting as stipulated in the WSIS final documents is crucial to ensuring engagement of all countries in developing and adopting appropriate international public policies. ITU-D plays an important role in this regard. It, among others, should develop and propose programs to foster capacity building, multilingualism, debate and involvement of developing countries.

Question 8:

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Malta

Malta Communications Authority

Question 1:

ITU should participate in existing fora providing its input on this and other topical public policy issues.

Question 2:

See 1 above. In addition ITU can perform an important data collection role by virtue of its mandate and disseminate information accordingly.

Question 3:

Thee may be value in ITU organising an open forum in IGF meeting. Additionally ITU can perform a useful role in capacity building initiatives including compilation of best practice.

Question 4:

This is dependent on initiatives instigated by UN Secretary General wherein IT is expected to actively participate.

Question 5:

Co-ordinate internal processes to ensure coherence of ITU inputs and avoidance of replication.

Question 6:

Ensure effective co-ordination and leadership within the parameters of ITU's designated role. The ITU may wish to clarify with its membership the nature of its role and continued relevance.

Question 7:

There are several bodies presently doing this resulting in a degree of replication and sadly achieving little by way of substantive results. The issues are universally acknowledged and there is no shortage of fora for deliberations on these. Unfortunately the debate is deficient in terms of structure and focus which accounts for the precious little progress in satisfactorily addressing these complex issues. If the ITU were able to strike a winning formula to address these issues, we should be encouraging this. It will however need to be an initiative that is different from existing once and focused on producing desired results.

Question 8:

The ITU has many priorities crying out for attention most particularly in the area of radio spectrum. As an organisation it is in dire need of devising a strategy for the future which will clearly identify its priorities. Its future involvement in Internet governance matters should thus be weighed in that context.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from The Netherlands

Ministry of Economic Affairs

Question 1:

Cooperate actively with and support relevant fora and organisations responsible currently for the management of Internet resources, such as ICANN.

For example: Develop outreach programmes for developing countries together with ICANN and other relevant organisations on the management of critical internet resources (IPv6,IDN's etc).

Another example: Contribute to issues related to internet security, including spam.

Question 2:

One possibility could be to further collect information from Members with a view to compile and share them , as eg with surveys on IDN implementation.

The organisation ( and preparation) of the fourth World Telecommunications Policy Forum in the first quarter of 2009 provides another opportunity.

Question 3:

Open forums: In the February consultations of the IGF the idea was presented that all major organizations dealing with issues related to Internet governance, such as ICANN, ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, WTO, could be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF meetings. The ITU might want to follow up this suggestion. ITU could present a report on its activities during the last year and its workprogramme for the coming year.

Best practice sessions: In the February consultations of the IGF it was suggested to hold best practice sessions. The ITU could identify best practice examples.

Question 4:

This will depend on the action taken by the UN Secretary General who according to para 71 is requested to start the process towards enhanced cooperation.

Question 5:

Coordinate internal processes with relevant external fora and organisations in particular with a view to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication.

Under the aegis of the CWG WSIS there could be a group which coordinates all the different activities within ITU on international public policy issues pertaining to the internet and on that basis would be able to interact effectively with other organisations.

Question 6:

See question 1: Cooperate with e.g. IETF,RIR's and ICANN.

Question 7:

The introduction of competition is equally important for developing countries as for developed countries in order to develop infratsructure.

This should also help to mobilise the necessary funding for investment in local internet exchanges that help to reduce the costs of internet traffic. Local traffic can be kept local etc. Activities to promote stability and security are also high priority for ITU-D.

Question 8:

Although resolution 102 does not specifically address spectrum issues a more flexible use of spectrum could improve the dispersion of internet eg in less populated areas (Wimax etc).

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Portugal

Anacom

Question 1:

In relation to this issue, we consider that ITU should support and have an active participation in the relevant fora and organisations responsible for the management of Internet resources.

Question 2:

We believe that one way to do so could be to collect information from Members in order to compile and share this data among Members. This could be done by issuing, for example, a survey on IDN implementation.

Question 3:

We believe that this objective (to contribute to the work of IGF) can be pursued through three different ways:

1. Open forums
Taking into account that in the February consultations of the IGF it was suggested that all major organizations dealing with issues related to Internet governance, such as ICANN, ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, WTO, could be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF meetings, it would be beneficial that ITU uses this opportunity.

2. Workshops
Due to its specific expertise in certain areas, we also believe that the ITU could participate in the organisation of workshops. The Union could provide assistance to workshop organisers in those cases where the organisers identify the lack of a certain angle to their topic which is being taken up by the ITU. It could also help workshop organisers in identifying experts in various areas.

3. Best practice sessions
Finally, ITU could identify best practice examples thus contributing to the work IGF is planning to develop in this regard, i.e. to hold best practice sessions.

Question 4:

Pertaining to this topic, it is our opinion that this will depend on the action taken by the UN Secretary General who is requested to start the process towards enhanced cooperation.

Question 5:

Concerning this question, we consider that it would be important that ITU coordinates its internal processes with the relevant external fora and organisations in particular aiming at ensuring complementarity and avoiding duplication.

Question 6:

As referred to in the appropriate responses within this questionnaire, also in order to define its role ITU should follow closely the discussion at ICANN and at the IGF. Presently, in light of the conclusion reached in Tunis during the World Summit on Information Society, as well as the more recent discussion with IGF, internally Portugal is analysing this issue, i.e. the clarification of ITU’s role and mandate. The results of this exercise will be transmitted to you in due time.

Question 7:

Concerning this matter, it is our opinion that it is primarily for developing countries to signal their needs.

Question 8:

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Saudi Arabia

Communication and Information Technology Commission

Question 1:

In addition to the significant role the ITU is playing in organizing the IGF and dealing with certain policy, technical and standardization issues related to the Internet, the ITU should perform worldwide coordination of technical and policy issues related to the management of Internet domain names and addresses, in a manner similar to the way it has successfully dealt with radiocommunications and other telecommunications resource allocation systems. More specifically this would include standardization, management and assignment of TLD's including ccTLD's, management and control of root zone servers, integration of numbering, naming, and addressing, international coordination activities with respect to internet resource utilization , handling international issues pertaining to use and misuse of internet resources , management and assignment of critical internet resources in an equitable manner, conduct studies aiming to global robustness of internet infrastructure create a specialized technical study group to handle technical and development issues of the internet.

Question 2:

In paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Tunis Agenda, the WSIS recognized that "internet governance includes many cross-cutting international public policy issues that are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms." The WSIS also stated its conviction that "there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector and international organizations, in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified, thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangements in order to synergize the efforts in this regard." We believe that the ITU should provide the required framework and mechanism, which would also be designed to fulfill the enhanced cooperation function envisaged by the WSIS. This could be achieved by creating a new Bureau, within the ITU, lead by a Director, reporting to the Secretary General, with the mandate to establish an Internet Governance Steering Group in which all governments and relevant intergovernmental organizations can be members, and with the participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles. Establishment of the Steering Group would also facilitate the required coordination with other concerned international bodies in the course of development of the international internet public policy issues eg WIPO, international legal authorities, UN. The Steering Group would, inter alia, have the mandate to define, discuss and recommend international Internet public policy on issues relating to the governance of the Internet, including, but not limited to, coordination and management of critical Internet resources, public policy for generic Top-Level Domain names, security and safety of the internet, spam, privacy, multiligualization and developmental aspects of the internet.

Question 3:

The ITU should conduct appropriate multi-stakeholder consultations to seek views about all issues relevant to the IGF. Coordinate areas of global common interest to be raised in the Forum. Handle all the logistical functions necessary to hold the annual IGF meetings, carry out overall evaluation of each event and introduce necessary improvement, take appropriate measures to ensure maximum participation in the forum activities, encourage participation of developing and least developed countries in the forum activities, allow maximum remote participation in the Forum discussions, provide a healthy environment for dialogue to allow exchange of ideas, views and experience. The ITU should also undertake an examination of the desirability of the continuation of the IGF, in formal consultation with participants, within five years of its creation, and make recommendations to the UN membership.

Question 4:

Establish a new high level global policy group to meet periodically and generate recommendations on international internet public policies, while observing and respecting lingual, cultural and religious differences. Conduct regional and global conferences focused on public policies to give the chance for multi-stakeholder dialogue on public policies recommended by the intergovernmental group in preparation for finalizing them. See also answer to Question 2.

Question 5:

Creation of a separate group headed by a Director reporting to the Secretary General, and supported by adequate administrative staff would provide a focal point to facilitate the required coordination with other concerned international bodies in the course of development of the international internet public policies. See also the answer to Question 2.

Question 6:

The ITU is already playing a significant and important role in addressing technical and standardization issues relating to IP-based networks and evolution to NGN, ENUM, Internationalized Domain Name and country code top-level domain. The ITU should, in a similar manner, expand its involvement in these technical and standardization fields to address issues such as IP version 6, multiligualization and other new and evolving Internet related technical and standardization issues. This can be achieved by establishing, as required, new specialized study groups concerned with internet technical and standardization issues. These study groups would prepare all required technical recommendations, handbooks, guidelines, and reports and would coordinate relevant issues with the other existing study groups to harmonize activities. With regard to policy issues pertaining to Internet domain names and addresses and other internet resources, please see our answer to Question 2.

Question 7:

The participation of developing countries in internet policy setting is key to ensuring appropriate international public policies are developed and are adopted by all countries. The ITU-D should develop and propose programs to foster capacity building, multilingualism, debate and involvement of LDC's. The ITU could leverage the IGF approach to organize regional Forums where policy issues of regional interest could be explained and addressed, so that regional positions can be developed and submitted to the ITU steering committee for consideration in the development of international policy.

Question8:

Since the Tunis Agenda was published in November 2005, there has been little or no perceptible progress toward the enhanced cooperation which is essential for the effective development of Internet related international public policy. The time has come to establish the mechanism or framework envisaged by the Tunis Agenda to spur active evolution of the current arrangement and to undertake the enhanced cooperation function. This function was also envisaged by the Working Group on Internet Governance. The ITU is uniquely positioned to undertake this role, and should be mandated to organize itself accordingly.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Sweden

Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications

Question 1:

ITU should, within its mandate, participate actively in and support the relevant fora and organisations responsible currently for the management of Internet resources. The ITU must respect the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders as stipulated by WSIS. Therefore ITU must be careful to respect that the role of ITU is not in the day-to-day management of Internet infrastructure or resources.

Question 2:

ITU should continue educational and outreach efforts such as collecting, sharing and publicising good practices.

Question 3:

ITU should continue educational and outreach efforts (especially to developing countries) such as collecting, sharing and publicising good practices. This could be done through for example workshops and open forums lead by or in cooperation with the organisations referred to in the WSIS documents and other relevant organisations.

The Tunis Agenda recognised the very real contribution that ITU could make to the success of the Internet Governance Forum, in particular by contributing to the operation of the secretariat and the organisation of the meetings of the IGF. The key feature of the IGF is that it is an open forum with multi-stakeholder participation on an equal footing. It provides an opportunity for the ITU to engage with organisations that would not normally work with the ITU.

Question 4:

To some degree this will depend on the action taken by the UN Secretary General who according to para 71 is requested to start the process towards enhanced cooperation. However, ITU should in any case develop enhanced cooperation through its own activities and, where invited to and within its mandate, help others to develop their contributions to enhanced cooperation.

Question 5:

ITU should coordinate internal processes with relevant external fora and organisations, such as for example ICANN and IETF, in particular with a view to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication.

ITU should increase cooperation with stakeholders: a Council Working Group has been charged to examine this issue. Among other issues, ITU should consider how to make it easier for new stakeholders to engage in its processes, how to make processes more transparent, and how to make discussion documents available to a wider audience. As an example, many Internet companies only have a limited interest in ITU activities, and the cost of sector or associated membership can be a barrier to their involvement in ITU work, even though the work of the ITU would benefit from their involvement.

Question 6:

In many of these areas there is already effective, private-sector management or coordination of resources. ITU should avoid duplicating work by other relevant international organisations on Internet domain names, the management of Internet Protocol addresses or internationalised domain names, but should look to how it can use its significant expertise to contribute to work in these areas. In this way it can make best use of limited resources by focussing on activities where it can add most value.

Question 7:

Developing countries are themselves in the best position to tell in what area they need assistance. ITU-D should try to meet these requests in a cost-effective way within its resources and mandate.

Question 8:

Resolution 102 clearly refers to issues “within the mandate of the ITU.” This is an important criterion, as it allows resources to be focussed on that limited number of issues associated with telecommunication aspects of the Internet, making the best and most effective use of skills, competence and networks.

We welcome the statements from the Secretary General about ITU’s focus and priorities, and the need to avoid duplicating the work of other organisations and to build on ITU’s work in the development sector: this provides a good basis for targeting resources and ensuring value for money.

These two core principles – the mandate of the ITU and its outreach through the development sector – provide the framework for ensuring that the ITU remains a key player in Internet governance.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Switzerland

BAKOM

Question 1:

ITU should, within its mandate, actively participate in and support the relevant fora and organisations currently responsible for the management of Internet resources. Such fora would include, inter alia, GAC, where ITU has observer status, and IGF.

ITU could help to establish a better exchange and flow of information and views between these relevant fora and organisations on the one hand and its members on the other hand, especially those who are not represented in these fora and organisations.

ITU could bring its technical expertise and extensive membership to the study of current subjects of interest such as the implementation of IPV6 (interacting with Icann, the ASO, the RIRs, …), the definition of standards for IDNs (interacting with Icann, UNESCO, …), and the international discussion on the management of Internet resources concerning the technological developments of the Internet (Object Name Service, for instance).

Question 2:

ITU should continue with its initiatives and partnerships especially with regard to the two action lines c2 (Infrastructure) and c5 (security)…

ITU could further collect information from Members with a view to compile and share them with other members, as eg with surveys on IDN implementation.

Specific activities could include: contribution to IDNs working group with Icann and the UNESCO, studies on IPV6 implementation with Icann and the RIRs, share of best practices examples on TLDs international public policy with Icann/GAC and WIPO, ONS studies, actions in developing countries concerning Internet stability and cybersecurity …

ITU should support the IGF (see Question 3)

Question 3:

Workshops:
Due to its specific expertise in certain areas the ITU could participate in the organisation of workshops. It could either organize workshops on issues of its expertise itself. Or it could provide assistance to workshop organisers in those cases where the organisers identify the lack of a certain angle to their topic which is being taken up by the ITU. It could also help workshop organisers in identifying experts in various areas and providing its own experts.

Best practice sessions:
In the February consultations of the IGF it was suggested to hold best practice sessions. The ITU could identify best practice examples.

Furthermore, In line with §72 of the TAIS, the ITU, through its workshops and Study Groups work could contribute, as appropriate to the work of the IGF, in identifying emerging issues (§72 g) and in addressing issues relating to Internet critical resources, present and future (§72 j).

Question 4:

This will depend on the action taken by the UN Secretary General who according to para 71 is requested to start the process towards enhanced cooperation.

In any way, in line with §71 of the TAIS, ITU could support the UN Secretary General in starting the process of enhanced cooperation, along with all relevant organizations.

Furthermore, ITU should in any case develop enhanced cooperation through its own activities and, where invited to and within its mandate, help others – especially developing countries - to develop their contributions to enhanced cooperation.

Question 5:

Coordinate internal processes with relevant external fora and organisations in particular with a view to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication. In this context, the consideration of the issue of participation of all relevant stakeholders in the work of ITU, mandated by Antalya Res. 141 is of great importance.

The ITU could set-up an Internet Focus Group that would coordinate all relevant ITU study groups and workshops, in order to be more efficient in playing a facilitating role in the coordination of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, in the process towards enhanced cooperation. To that end, the Internet Focus Group should interact with other organizations to avoid the duplication of the work, creating a common environment to promote the growth of the Internet and stimulating a secure and stable network.

The Internet Focus Group could prepare propositions to be sent to the relevant organizations, including the IGF, the Icann/GAC, UNESCO, WIPO, … This Internet Focus Group could be, for example, a subgroup of the Working Group of the Council on WSIS.

Whether and where ITU participates in relevant fora or not should not be dependent on the decision of a single ITU representative. Either the Council or such a Focus Group should define a list of organizations and fora (like GAC and others) in which ITU should actively participate.

Question 6:

ITU Members should seek to further clarify the ITU's role and mandate in respect to those areas. Such specific activities should be clarified in a spirit of enhanced cooperation between ITU-T, GAC/ICANN, IETF and others. Such a cooperation should avoid duplication of work by other relevant international organisations but should look how ITU can contribute to the work in these areas by using its significant expertise.

On IPV6: The ITU could contribute its technical expertise in accordance with Resolution 102 and paragraphs §70 and §71 of the Tunis SMSI Agenda and could participate in the processes of definition of policies for allocation of IPv6 Address Space, in the context of the ASO / ICANN /RIR bottom-up approach. As an Observer at the GAC, the ITU could also make contributions based on the documents produced by ITU, but also to the IGF and the Icann on that subject. The ITU could also conduct studies on the impact of implementation of IPV6 on routing tables, with other relevant organizations (including IAB, the IETF, ASO/ICANN/RIRs among others). A liaison with all the relevant organization should be put in place on IPV6.

In RFID, for example, there is the Object Name System (ONS) and the Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) system. In this case, some bodies, like ISO and EPC Global, or corporation like Verisign are already involved. These new identifiers are of interest for more than one reason.

Standardisation issues, the allocation of new resources and their implementation in networks, and security and privacy issues seem to be the main ones.

Question 7:

It's primarily for developing countries to signal what they need. As stated in considering e) of resolution 102, “ the management of the registration and allocation of Internet domain names and addresses must fully reflect the geographical nature of the Internet, taking into account an equitable balance of interests of all stakeholders”.

ITU-D could follow-up on that statement by contributing, with other relevant organizations, to the equitable balance of interests and resources. Some specific projects could be led in order to increase Internet Exchange Point in some developing countries.

Question 8:

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from the Syrian Arab Republic

Question 1:

It is proposed that the Secretary-General should create a geographically well-balanced group of Member States in order to identify the operational issues of relevant public policy which were identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) see Part III of the WGIG final report, available at: http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.doc

Question 2:

Question 3:

Call upon relevant Study Groups of the three Sectors to contribute as appropriate to the work of the next Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in particular ITU-T Study Group 3.

Question 4:

Call upon the group proposed in questions 1 and 2 above to identify those necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the process towards enhanced cooperation as requested by WSIS.

Question 5:

It is proposed that the Secretary-General should create a coordination group within ITU, involving the General Secretariat and the three Sectors, to be chaired by one of the elected officials, to propose specific activities regarding resolves to instruct the Secretary-General 5 of Resolution 102, based on their particular experiences on implementation of Resolutions 101, 102 and 133, and other relevant Resolutions, including Resolutions of the Sectors.

Question 6:

Pursuant to instructs the Directors of the Bureaux 1 of Resolution 102, it is proposed that the Director of TSB should prepare a contribution to the Council WG-WSIS regarding the topics mentioned in instructs the Director of TSB 1, 3 and 4 of Resolution 102.

Question 7:

Pursuant to instructs the Directors of the Bureaux 1 of Resolution 102, it is proposed that the Director of BDT should prepare a contribution to the Council WG-WSIS regarding his plans to implement the activities mentioned in instructs the Director of BDT 1 and 2 of Resolution 102.

Question 8:

The group proposed in questions 1 and 2 above should develop a plan for concrete actions to address the well-known public policy issues. In particular, steps should be taken to secure a proper role for governments in the governance of Internet, as outlined in Syria’s contribution WG-WSIS 8/15, available at: http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/Working_Group_on_WSIS/docs/Contribution%20from%20Syria2.doc Syria will may make additional contributions on these topics directly to the Council-WG WSIS, as in the past.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from Turkey

Telecommunications Authority of Turkey

Question 1:

As Turkey stated (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co56.pdf) during the work of the WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance) before the second phase of the WSIS in 2005, “…the international governance of the Internet should be multilateral, legitimate, transparent, accountable and participatory. This statement applies to all possible actions to be taken about the Internet governance during and after the WSIS process.” In order to flesh out this approach, there is a clear need to exchange ideas and continue international discussions. After the Tunis Summit, the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) is emerging as the major platform for discussions, and as seen in the IGF Informal Consultation Meeting within the WSIS Cluster of Events in May 23, 2007, many countries are attaching great importance to the IGF. It is the fact that the Member states make contributions to the internet-related international and regional forums including IGF both directly and through ITU and the nature of the contributions to these forums made by administrations are more or less the same. The current mandate of ITU is relating to technical issues of internet rather than governance of internet and public policy issues and these technical issues dealt with by the study groups. However, ITU through WGWSIS although its scope is wider than internet governance provides contributions to different internet related forums, on international public policy issues. Without adding extra burden on not only ITU but also on member states, a sub-group under WG-WSIS with specific mandate focusing on internet public policy issues.

Question 2:

First of all, taking into account the paragraph 110 of the Tunis Agenda, ITU can help avoid duplication of activities among different organizations, in which ITU plays important roles. Regarding the internet governance public policy issues, two of the sub-themes, “security” and “access”, that were elaborated at the IGF’s first meeting, fall vastly in ITU’s coverage. ITU can coordinate the discussions related to these sub-themes among intergovernmental organizations, and in return, can give feedback to the IGF, as appropriate.

Question 3:

In line with Answer 1 and 2, ITU’s contribution to the IGF’s future orientation would be a great benefit. In particular, ITU’s experience in “security” and “access” sub-themes would provide guidance to the IGF.

Question 4:

The specific activities will be undertaken by ITU on enhanced cooperation as expressed in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda could determine in the sup group of WG-WSIS proposing in Comment 1.

Question 5:

ITU is already undertaking WSIS-related activities however WGWSIS could produce the IGF-oriented contributions of ITU by sup group of WG-WSIS proposing in Comment 1. Commissioning reports and background documents to third parties, when necessary on voluntary basis”, would be another possible solution to balance the workload of ITU.

Question 6:

The study groups of ITU-T concerning the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU could work with the sup group proposing in Commnet 1 without adding extra financial burden on ITU budget.

Question 7:

BDT could provide guidance through the regional offices to the regions on the preparing to IGF. BDT could provide fellowship to the participants from developing countries for IGF and other internet related regional conference as well as sending its experts to such conference.

Question 8:

No other comments.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from United Kingdom

Department of Trade and Industry

Question 1:

ITU has a key role in the standardisation and coordination of international telecommunications networks. In addition, through the work of its development sector, ITU has considerable experience in capacity building in developing countries. ITU should build on this expertise, making best use of its resources.

Within this framework and where appropriate, ITU could cooperate with other relevant international fora and organisations responsible for the management of Internet resources, working within its mandate.

In building on its core expertise, ITU is ideally positioned to contribute as an effective partner in addressing issues where the standardisation and coordination of international telecommunications networks is relevant, but where other organisations are responsible for the work. Contributing to inter-organisation cooperation will be a major opportunity for ITU to continue to play a significant role in international discussions and initiatives on Internet governance.

The World Summit of the Information Society clearly highlighted the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders: in engaging with other relevant organisations, it will be important to show partners that the role of ITU is not in the day-to-day management of Internet infrastructure or resources.

Question 2:

ITU plays a positive role in the standardisation and coordination of international telecommunications networks.

In particular, ITU is able to contribute by helping other relevant international organisations engage with stakeholders in all countries, and in particular with developing countries, on telecommunications issues associated with the Internet.

Similarly, working with other international organisations, ITU could help collect information from ITU Member States and sector members, and commission studies, as well as cooperating with these organisations in the organisation of workshops, seminars and awareness-raising events and in publicising good practice.

Question 3:

The key feature of the IGF is that it is an open forum with multi-stakeholder participation on an equal footing. It provides an opportunity for the ITU to engage with organisations that would not normally work with the ITU.

At the February consultations on the IGF, it was suggested that all major organizations dealing with issues related to Internet governance, such as ICANN, ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, WTO, could be invited to hold open forums identifying key issues and activities over the previous year. The ITU might want to follow up this suggestion.

The ITU could participate in the organisation of workshops at the IGF. In addition, it could provide assistance to workshop organisers and respond to invitations from event organisers to contribute to the discussion in areas where the ITU has expertise or activities. It could also help workshop organisers identify experts who could contribute to the success of the workshop.

The February consultations also identified the possible benefit from sessions highlighting examples of best practice. The ITU could look at how to highlight best practice examples in the standardisation and coordination of international telecommunications networks, and could help in the process by contributing examples of good practice.

ITU could examine how it could promote participation in the IGF from developing countries.

Question 4:

ITU’s prime responsibility for developing enhanced cooperation is in its own activities (see question 5). Nevertheless, ITU should endeavour to play a positive role in the development of enhanced cooperation, for example by contributing constructively to the process in other international organisations when this is invited and it is appropriate for ITU participation.

Relevant organisations are already working on developing enhanced cooperation and very real progress is being made. Enhanced cooperation is one of gradual evolution: sharing understanding and experience will in this process.

Question 5:

(The answer to this question is specific to Internet governance issues and is no comment on the management of other ITU activities.)

This is a key issue for the ITU: the Working Group on Internet Governance report in July 2005 identified that organisations working on issues in Internet governance needed to be open to multi-stakeholder involvement, and this was recognised in the World Summit on the Information Society. Multi-stakeholder engagement will bring an increased breadth of awareness and improve information transfer.

Of particular importance is to identify how to engage with stakeholders: a Council Working Group has been charged to examine this issue. Among other issues, ITU should consider how to make it easier for new stakeholders to engage in its processes, how to make processes more transparent, and how to make discussion documents available to a wider audience. As an example, many Internet companies only have a limited interest in ITU activities, and the cost of sector or associated membership can be a barrier to their involvement in ITU work, even though the work of the ITU would benefit from their involvement.

Attention should be paid to making best use of resources: it would be useful to look at whether coordination with other relevant international organisations could identify areas where there are complementary activities where cooperation could reduce or eliminate duplication.

Question 6:

Question 7:

ITU should be open to requests for assistance and seek to respond to these in the most cost-effective way. As the remit includes issues where ITU is not the lead organisation, it will be important to engage relevant organisations in this work.

Many of the issues on this list are issues which the Internet Governance Forum will also address: it would be appropriate to use the IGF as the primary forum for the exchange of information, fostering debate and showcasing best practices on Internet issues, and ITU could take a significant role in ensuring that the needs of developing countries are taken into account and that key people are able to take part in these meetings.

Question 8:

We welcome the opportunity to provide input to the consultation about the ITU’s role in Internet governance in the light of Resolution 102 (rev. Antalya 2006).

These two core principles – the mandate of the ITU and its outreach through the development sector – provide the framework for ensuring that the ITU remains a key player in Internet governance.

Go back to list of countries

Contribution from United States of America

Department of State

The ITU has a wealth of technical knowledge to share, information to impart, and the ability to facilitate fora for discussion and collaboration. As highlighted by the consensus reached at the World Summit on the Information Sociaty (WSIS), the ITU is uniquely structured to coordinate action lines C2 (information and communication infrastructure) and C5 (building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) of the Tunis Agenda, and to contribute to work coordinated by other United Nations' agencies on other WSIS action lines. We would like to respond broadly to the questions raised in Annex A and to identify areas where we belive the ITU should continue its activities and identify areas where we believe the ITU can play a critical coordinating role.

Question 1:

We believe that the ITU should continue to facilitate meetings and provide a neutral Secretariat for meetings, should continue to participate in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN) Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and should conduct workshops on a variety of relevant Internet issues, coordinated closely with the membership and the three Sectors as appropriate, and other relevant organizations (i.e., ICANN, the Internet Society (ISOC), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)).

Question 2:

We believe that the ITU should continue to coordinate with IETF, the Wordl Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the OECD, and other relevant entities, by providing updates and information to these entities in order to facilitate greater coordination and avoid duplication of efforts.

Question 3:

We believe that the ITU should participate in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), providing an updated report from ITU-T Study Group 3 to the November meeting. The ITU may want to consider hosting a web-site that highlights what it and other U.N. organizations are doing to fulfill WSIS follow-up obligations.

Question 4:

We believe that the ITU can play a critical role through enhanced information sharing between and among U.N. agencies by providing access to information via a web-site as noted above about its own activities related to the Internet within existing budgetary resources. The ITU should continue to contribute the the WSIS portal for access on WSIS follow-up events, work-shops, and activities.

Question 5:

We believe that the ITU should designate internal ITU "leads" for WSIS action lines C2 and C5 and inform the membership and other interested WSIS stakeholders. The latter "leads" should help streamline ITU activities across sectors so that work is coordinated and so to avoid duplication of efforts. The Secretary-General should provide an annual update to Council on ITU WSIS action lines C2 and C5 activities and any coordinated activities that advance the work of other Tunis Agenda action lines where the ITU has been identified as a key participant (C1, C3, C4, C6, C7, and C11).)

Question 6:

We believe that the ITU should continue the good work that it is doing in ITU-T SG-2 on numbering and ENUM, in ITU-T Study-Group's 4 and 13 on Next Generation Networks, and in ITU-T Study-Group 17 on network security issues and internationalized domain names, collaborating with ICANN's GAC as noted above.

Question 7:

We appreciate the good work being done in ITU-D, Study-Group 2, on cyber-security issues, noting that the World Telcommunications Development Conference (Doha, 2006) focused on cyber-security and the importance on an informaed and educated membership. ITU-D should consider how best to maximize resources and prioritize regional workshops on cyber-security issues, coordinating with relevant ITU and technical experts. We applaud the initiatives being taken by the Secretary-General to provide key contact points in the Secretariat and in the Telecommunication Development Bureau on cyber-security matters. We also believe that the ITU should consider providing scholarships to ITU Member State participants to attend relevant WSIS follow-up workshops coordinated by the ITU within existing budgetary resources. The ITU could develop workshop modules on relevant topics related to Action Lines C2 and C5 to maximize regional training efforts.

Question 8:

We believe that the ITU should consider inviting regional telecommunications organizations to participate in and provide expert advice to regional workshops, focusing on access to infrastructure and access-options. In particular, the ITU could encourage regional internet registries (RIRs), the ISCO, and Internet Exchange Point (IXP) development experts to participate in regional workshops and upcoming WTPF.

The United States believes that the ITU's considerable strenghts lie in its core competencies along with the input of its Membership - Member States and Sector Members. The ITU's work contributes not only to cutting-edge standards-making, but also to a more inclusive and robust global debate on key issues like cyber-security in a rapidly changing networked world. We look forward to the consolidated report that will be submitted to Council 2007 as a result of this consultation on Resolution 102 (Antalya, 2006). We appreciate the diligence of the Secretary General through the General Secretariat in following-up on the work done in Antalya and look forward to Council 2007's review of this issue.

Go back to list of countries

Top of page

Sitemap

About

Contact us

Background Documents and Websites

Letter (DM-07/1008) announcing the 2007 Res. 102 Consultation
World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF) 2009

Resolutions

Resolution 101, Antalya, 2006

Resolution 102, Antalya, 2006

Survey Questions 2007

Q1: What specific activities should be undertaken for ITU “to continue to take a significant role in international discussions and initiatives on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU, taking into account future developments of the Internet, the purposes of the Union and the interests of its membership as expressed in its instruments, resolutions and decisions?”

Q2: What specific activities should be undertaken “to take the necessary steps for ITU to continue to play a facilitating role in the coordination of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, as expressed in § 35 d) of the Tunis Agenda, interacting as necessary with other intergovernmental organizations in these domains”?

Q3: What specific activities should be undertaken “in line with § 78a) of the Tunis Agenda, to continue to contribute as appropriate to the work of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)”?

Q4: What specific activities should be undertaken “to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the process towards enhanced cooperation as expressed in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda”?

Q5: What specific activities should be undertaken “to take the necessary steps in ITU’s own internal process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet as expressed in § 71 of the Tunis Agenda, involving all stakeholders, in their respective roles and responsibilities”?

Q6: What specific activities should be undertaken by ITU-T “to ensure that the ITU-T performs its role in technical issues .. related to the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU, such as IP version 6 (IPv6), ENUM and IDNs, as well as any other related technological developments and issues; and continues to play a facilitating role in coordination and assistance in the development of public policy issues pertaining to Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU and their possible evolution; and works … on issues concerning Member States’ ccTLDs and related experiences”?

Q7: What specific activities should be undertaken by ITU-D “to organize international and regional forums and carry out necessary activities … to discuss policy, operational and technical issues on the Internet in general, and on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other Internet resources within the mandate of ITU in particular, including with regard to multilingualism; to promote through ITU-D the exchange of information, fostering debate and the development of best practices on Internet issues, and to continue to play a key role in outreach by contributing to capacity building, providing technical assistance and encouraging the involvement of developing countries, LDCs and SIDS in international Internet forums and issues”?

Q8: Do you have any other contribution or comments, of a general or specific nature, on any other issues contained in Resolution 102, including the role of the ITU Secretariat and the three Bureaux?

Consultation on ITU Resolution 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2006)

Back

Feedback from ITU Member States related to the Consultation on Resolution 102

Sitemap

About

Contact us

Background Documents and Websites

Resolutions

Survey Questions 2007

ITU News Room

ITU Newslog