TDAG Working Group on Resolutions, Declaration and Thematic Priorities
30 June -1 July 2021, Virtual	
		
	Document TDAG-WG-RDTP/49-E	
	16 July 2021	
	Original: English	
Source:	Chairman, TDAG Working Group on WTDC Resolutions, Declaration and Thematic Priorities	
Title: 	Report of the 6th meeting of the TDAG Working Group on Resolutions, Declaration and Thematic Priorities, 30 June and 1 July 2021	
Summary
The TDAG Working Group on Resolutions, Declaration and Thematic Priorities (TDAG-WG-RDTP) held its sixth meeting on 30 June–1 July 2021, attended by 104 participants: 88 delegates representing 43 Member States, 15 participants from 12 ITU-D Sector Members and 1 participant from a regional telecommunication organization (RTO). In terms of gender representation, there were 54 women and 50 men. 
TDAG-WG-RDTP participants considered 13 documents, seven of which were contributions submitted by Member States and RTOs: one multi-country contribution from eight European countries, and various contributions from the African Telecommunications Union (ATU), the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission (CITEL), the Arab States, and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). 
The Telecommunication Development Advisory Group (TDAG), at its meeting on 24-28 May 2021, decided that TDAG-WG-RDTP and the TDAG Working Group on Strategic and Operational Plans (TDAG-WG-SOP) would continue their work and report to an extraordinary meeting of TDAG in November 2021. The decision was taken following the announcement that the World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) was likely to be postponed from 8-19 November 2021 to 6-15 June 2022. 
The following is a summary of the discussions. 
1.	Opening of the meeting
Dr Ahmad Reza Sharafat, Chairman of the TDAG Working Group on WTDC Resolutions, Declaration and Thematic Priorities, recalled the terms of reference his group: 
– 	To review WTDC resolutions, examine their number and subject matter, and consider streamlining, to avoid repetitions and duplication with the resolutions of the Plenipotentiary Conference. The streamlining should take into account that some Sector resolutions are integrations of Plenipotentiary Conference resolutions and therefore these resolutions should not be considered as repetition.
– 	To align the thematic priorities of the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D), proposed regional initiatives and proposed study group Questions, taking into account proposals of ITU-D study groups, outcomes of the regional preparatory meetings for the forthcoming WTDC, relating to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and taking into consideration the WSIS Action Lines for which ITU has lead responsibility.
–	To propose elements and make recommendations to ITU membership for the future draft Declaration.
– 	And, finally, to report its outcomes to TDAG in November 2021.
1.2 	On behalf of the Director of the ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT), Ms Doreen Bogdan-Martin, Mr Stephen Bereaux, Deputy to the Director of BDT and Chief of the Field Operations Coordination Department, welcomed the participants and thanked Dr Sharafat for the progress made so far. He then encouraged them all to continue the excellent efforts to ensure that WTDC produces impactful outputs that will assist ITU‑D to continue its great work. He mentioned that TDAG-WG-SOP will prepare the draft Addis Ababa Action Plan, following a decision of TDAG. So the outputs of TDAG-WG-RDTP will be critical in that regard, Mr Bereaux said, adding that under the guidance of Dr Sharafat and with the cooperation of all participants, TDAG-WG-RDTP would “produce valuable inputs that will ensure that the Addis Ababa Action Plan is a blueprint for global connectivity.”  
1.3	Ms Roxanne McElvane Webber (United States), Chairman of TDAG also joined the Director and the Deputy to the Director in thanking Dr Sharafat for his willingness to continue to serve in the heaviest part of WTDC and for his tenacity. She expressed the confidence that TDAG-WG-RDTP would continue to reach consensus on the matters before it. 
2.	Approval of the agenda
2.1 	The meeting approved the agenda in Document 41.
3.	Report of the previous meeting of TDAG-WG-RDTP
3.1 	The report of the fifth meeting (held on 9 April 2021), contained in Document 39, was noted and approved.
4.	ITU-D Thematic priorities 
4.1 	TDAG-WG-RDTP had, at its fifth meeting, reached broad consensus on the following four proposed thematic priorities for ITU-D, down from 10: Connectivity; Digital Transformation; Enabling Environment; Resource Mobilization and International Cooperation. And the proposal to include cybersecurity as a fifth thematic priority was still on the table. 
4.2 	Nigeria, on behalf of the African Telecommunications Union, presented Document 44 outlining the African common proposal on ITU‑D thematic priorities. The proposal is to include “building confidence, trust and security in the use of ICTs” as the fifth thematic priority (dropping the term cybersecurity). Africa sees this as a very important aspect to be considered, and points to the need to give it great attention. The focus of such a thematic priority would be to assist Member States on the technical and organizational aspects of building confidence, trust and security in the use of ICTs. 
4.3 	The United Kingdom, on behalf of a group of European countries (France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Czech Republic, Bulgaria), presented a multi-country contribution contained in Document 46. For these countries, the proposed four thematic priorities are stable and in line with the existing ITU‑D objectives. They recommend that this consistency be maintained in the draft strategic plan for 2024-2027. They then go on to highlight that aligning the thematic priorities with the ITU‑D objectives and the strategic plan is key in ensuring a common shared focus and direction for the valuable work of ITU-D. As a group, these countries do not support the proposal to add cybersecurity as the fifth thematic priority. While recognizing that cybersecurity is important, they believe it can be covered within the existing four thematic priorities. 
4.4 	With regard to the topics under each thematic priority, this group of countries are concerned that any list would inevitably be partial and may exclude other important work areas. They would not wish ITU-D to be constrained by such a list. They want Member States and Sector Members to be free to contribute on the topics and issues that are important to them without feeling constrained by topic lists. However, if the idea of topic lists is maintained, they suggest that it must be made clear that any topic list is not exhaustive. They then propose that the key topics within each thematic priority could be included in the relevant outcomes and outputs in the draft strategic plan for 2024-2027 and in the new Action Plan to be decided at WTDC. This, they say, would improve alignment between the strategic and Action Plans as called for in Resolution 71 (Rev. Dubai, 2018) of the Plenipotentiary Conference.
And, finally, they suggest that it may be useful to take some time to ensure that the draft thematic priorities and the topic areas are aligned with the draft Action Plan and strategic plan. They express the hope that there will be flexibility to circle back with the Action Plan and the draft strategic plan before anything is finalized to make sure everything is aligned.
4.5 	The United States, on behalf of CITEL, presented the Inter-American contribution on thematic priorities contained in Document 48. At the Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Americas in April 2021, CITEL had reflected on the discussions in TDAG-WG-RDTP on the thematic priorities. So, in this document CITEL considers the connection (link) between the strategic plan and the thematic priorities. As members are working towards achieving results‑based management in BDT and strengthening the focus on core deliverables and results, CITEL did a comparison of the strategic plan for 2020-2023 and the proposed thematic priorities and came up with the mapping shown in its Document 58. CITEL observed that “Inclusive Information Society”, Enabling Environment and Resource Mobilization have very useful connections between the objectives and the deliverables that members instructed BDT to work on in the current period. 
4.6 	CITEL agrees with CEPT that these thematic priorities are intended to be high level and to give a direction of the areas of focus without being all-inclusive on every topic. CITEL does not have an additional thematic priority and believes that the work on cybersecurity is represented in the Connectivity thematic priority and that having the four as the anchor for ITU-D work is the way the Americas region has been looking at this matter.
Comments and views from the floor
Connectivity: Thematic Priority 1
4.7 	The Russian Federation asked a range of questions. What outcomes should be expected from the thematic priorities? What will be their impact on the work of ITU‑D and of study groups in particular, and what will be the financial implications? All of these questions require more discussion because different regions and different administrations seem to have a different understanding of what should constitute thematic priorities. For the Russian Federation, the special emphasis placed on connectivity is understandable, but at the same time, digitization, the digital sector and digital economy are all key concepts to be borne in mind. 
4.8 	Saudi Arabia questioned the replacement by CITEL of “digital technologies” with “connectivity solutions”. 
The United States explained that in the Americas region, focusing on underserved and unserved populations and vulnerable populations is a priority. Yet the current text seems to focus only on new and emerging technologies, which are certainly an important component, but CITEL is looking at a range of solutions, new business models and new partnerships in order to help move connectivity forward meaningfully and in line with the WTDC theme of “Connecting the unconnected to achieve sustainable development”. 
4.9 	The Russian Federation, while agreeing that a focus on these populations is necessary, stressed that “connectivity solutions”, was perhaps not the right term and requested the Chairman and the secretariat to retain “digital technologies” when revising the draft.  
Digital Transformation: Thematic Priority 2
4.10 	The Chairman asked CITEL, the reason for replacing Digital Transformation with “Inclusive Information Society.” The United States responded that when looking to build linkages between the strategic plan and the proposed thematic priorities, CITEL observed that concepts about digital inclusion were under “Enabling Environment”, and thought it made more sense to move digital inclusion and accessibility-related issues under “Inclusive Information Society.” Algeria stressed that Digital Transformation is important and should not be replaced. 
Enabling Environment: Thematic Priority 3
4.11 	Under Enabling Environment, the United States explained that CITEL had made changes intended to strengthen the emphasis on an enabling environment for investment in infrastructure, this being an important element in terms of ensuring that members connect the unconnected. The Chairman, acknowledging this point, stated that it would be kept as broad as possible to include all issues pertaining to a flourishing and enabling environment conducive to enhancing and expanding telecommunication/ICT infrastructure and services.  
Resource Mobilization and International Cooperation: Thematic Priority 4 
4.12 	CITEL had moved the text on LDCs and developing countries to the thematic priority on Enabling Environment. Given that the other regions have kept the text on the needs of LDCs under Resource Mobilization and International Cooperation, CITEL was asked to reconsider its position. CITEL responded that LDCs are a cross-cutting priority. In addition, CITEL wanted to make sure that all developing countries are prioritized for these types of resources and not just LDCs.  
Building confidence, trust and security in the use of ICTs
4.13 	Algeria, on behalf of the Africa group, articulated the following arguments on why building confidence, trust and security in the use of ICTs should be a standalone thematic priority. The topic is enshrined in the strategic plan for 2020-2023 in Resolution 71 (Rev. Dubai, 2018) of the Plenipotentiary Conference and in ITU-D Objective 2 on “Modern and secure telecommunication/ICT infrastructure: Foster the development of infrastructure and services, including building confidence and security in the use of telecommunications/ICTs”. Moreover, the discussions taking place at TDAG-WG-SOP indicate the great attention being paid to subjects to be considered for the 2024-2027 strategic plan at a meeting that will take place in the Council Working Group on Financial and Strategic Plans in September 2021. In addition, discussions at the United Nations level on cybersecurity are gaining traction. Besides, the proposal is within the ITU mandate, and uses the specific wording of Resolution 130 (Rev. Dubai, 2018) on strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies. This resolution has 11 instructions to the Director of BDT.
4.14 	Jordan, followed by South Africa and Kuwait, expressed their full support for adding the fifth thematic priority and recalled that the Arab group, had from the outset of the discussions on thematic priorities, proposed to have a standalone thematic priority on building confidence and security in the use of ICTs for the reasons stated by Algeria. 
4.15 	Lithuania, recalling the many times the issue of cybersecurity had been discussed in previous meetings, commented that the intention is not to underestimate the importance of cybersecurity as a topic, as it is already covered under Connectivity. But is this topic broad enough to be made a standalone thematic priority? The work done so far to reduce the number of thematic priorities from ten to four is a very good step forward. TDAG-WG-RDTP has more or less agreed the on thematic priorities, and adding a fifth would be a step backwards, Lithuania stated, stressing that all should be encouraged to consider keeping the thematic priorities to four as indicated in the document.
4.16 	Canada, followed by the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, concurred with Lithuania. Recalling the many discussions on the ongoing work of ITU on cybersecurity, Canada cited Resolution 45 (Rev. Dubai, 2014) of WTDC, on mechanisms for enhancing cooperation on cybersecurity, including countering and combating spam; Resolution 50 (Rev. Hammamet, 2016) of the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA), on cybersecurity; ITU-D Study Group 2 Question on “Securing information and communication networks: Best practices for developing a culture of cybersecurity”; activities in the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), in particular Study Group 17, the lead study group on building confidence and security in the use of ICTs; and all the work already undertaken by BDT, ranging from assistance to develop national cybersecurity strategies to the programme on capacity building. For these reasons, Canada argued that it is not necessary to make cybersecurity a standalone thematic priority.
4.17 	Australia, supporting the comments of the delegates from Lithuania, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, emphasized that the thematic priorities are at high level and that cybersecurity, though an important issue, is more of a granular topic and it is covered under the Connectivity Thematic Priority.  
4.18 	The Russian Federation stated that adding a fifth thematic priority should not be such a big deal. On the question of whether cybersecurity is a big enough topic to be considered a thematic priority, the answer from the Russian Federation is yes, it is. When looking at the ITU lines of work, and more specifically those of ITU‑D, a myriad of activities are being carried out in the cybersecurity domain, including the Global Cybersecurity Index, which was launched on 1 July 2021; there is Child Online Protection, national cybersecurity strategy guides, cyber drills, and facilitating the creation of national computer incident response teams (CIRTs). Then there is WSIS Action Line C5 on building confidence and security in the use of ICTs for which ITU is sole facilitator. Therefore, it would make sense for ITU‑D to have a say. 
4.19 	Brazil, adding another perspective to the discussion, highlighted that while focus is necessary and important, from a management standpoint, synergies can help achieve better results. These synergies can be gained from combining existing thematic priorities that are interrelated. Thus, better results may be achieved if connectivity and cybersecurity are combined. But having the two as standalone priorities may result in some actions not being coordinated properly. That, Brazil said, is the rationale behind keeping security and confidence and other related aspects under Connectivity. 
4.20 	The good news, noted the Chairman, is that nobody disagrees with the fact that cybersecurity is an important topic. That in itself is consensus. The difference is not in the substance, but in the style. Those who want to highlight cybersecurity as a separate thematic priority and those wanting to treat it as a supporting component of the other thematic priorities.  
4.21 	The way forward: The meeting agreed that the Chairman and the secretariat would work overnight to revise the Chairman’s Proposal for ITU-D Thematic Priorities contained in Document 35 and produce two versions: one version featuring four thematic priorities and another version with five. Jordan, supporting this way forward, underlined that if there are going to be four thematic priorities, then the issue of confidence and security should be included in both the Connectivity and Digital Transformation Thematic Priorities, thus making it possible to tackle the issue of cybersecurity on the two fronts.  
4.22 	The Russian Federation commented that when talking about the work of ITU‑D, one is talking about three major pillars: access, use and skills. But the problem is, without cybersecurity, it is impossible to transition from access to use, meaning that all other thematic priorities will not flourish. In this sense, the Russian Federation expressed support for the notion of the delegate from Brazil that thematic priorities should have commonalities that mutually reinforce each other. The Russian Federation also noted that within the scope of WSIS, there are two Action Lines: C2 (Information and communication infrastructure) and C5 (Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) and that a closer look at C2 shows that there is no mention of security. Infrastructure and security are two separate matters in the WSIS action lines. 
Views and comments from the floor on the revisions made on 30 June (overnight)
4.23 	Overnight, the Chairman and the secretariat produced the following two documents reflecting the views and ideas: 
•	Document DT/18 Revised proposal for ITU-D Thematic Priorities - five Thematic Priorities
•	Document DT/19 Revised Proposal for ITU-D Thematic Priorities - four Thematic Priorities. 
After some debate, it was agreed to only consider Document DT/18. 
The document is structured in two parts. Part one is a box text of one paragraph describing each thematic priority, and below each priority are examples of possible supporting components. It should be noted that these examples are not exhaustive.
4.24 	Nigeria reiterated the position of ATU and Jordan that of the Arabic group to consider cybersecurity as the fifth thematic priority. If there is no agreement on this, the proposal can be placed in square brackets. Kuwait, echoing these comments, underlined that cybersecurity is a dynamic subject for the region and is becoming ever more important in this era of digital transformation. 
4.25 	The United States recalled that part of the exercise of reducing to fewer thematic priorities was to find synergies in the work of BDT, and so doing cybersecurity work in the context of the Connectivity was a good way forward. The delegation would therefore not agree with having the fifth thematic priority. Regarding Digital Transformation, CITEL’s goal was to find a more focused scope of action. But as the text stands, individual bullet point topics underneath this priority are potentially vast. For the thematic priority on Resource Mobilization and International Cooperation, CITEL’s goal was to ensure that the focus is not just on least developed countries (LDCs), but on developing countries as a whole so that projects and partnerships look at the needs across the regions and deliver regional priorities. Apart from LDCs, developing countries also include landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and small island developing States (SIDS). Moreover, the United States expressed concern over having data protection and privacy itemized in more than one place in the document, and thinks that this topic is not within the core mandate of ITU. Many other organizations are working in this area and emphasizing this topic in terms of the policy issues ITU is working on is problematic. 
4.26 	The Chairman of TDAG-WG-SOP, Ms Blanca González (Spain), announced that her group would be meeting on 4 October 2021 and will use the thematic priorities as the basis for the Draft Action Plan, and feed this Action Plan into the draft strategic plan for 2024-2027.  
4.27 	The Russian Federation commented that in the Connectivity Thematic Priority, a lot of emphasis is placed on cybersecurity, adding that while it is a very important topic, it is not the essence of connectivity. As that delegation understands it, the essence of connectivity is the digital divide, the infrastructure, and the pricing. The Russian Federation reiterated its opposition to the use of the term “connectivity solutions” and proposed to delete it and revert to the original terminology, which was “digital technologies”. Brazil suggested to keep both these terms for the sentence to read: “…utilizing existing as well as new and emerging digital technologies, connectivity solutions and new business models.” Jordan commented that the focus of the Connectivity Thematic Priority should be first and foremost on the development of modern available, secure, accessible and affordable telecommunication/ICT infrastructure and services and secondly on broadband. 
4.28 	Brazil emphasized the need to highlight how an Enabling Environment can foster investment, or even more concretely, foster infrastructure investment. The Russian Federation, supporting this proposal, added that it should be broadened to also refer to investment in ICTs in general. On the proposal of the Chairman, it was agreed to amend the text to read: “…foster investment in infrastructure and ICTs…”.  
4.29 	The Chairman of TDAG-WG-SOP pointed out that access to ICTs is very low in LDCs, despite Target 9.c of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which says: “Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020.” She asked that the problem of LDCs be emphasized under Resource Mobilization and International Cooperation. The Chairman of TDAG-WG-RDTP proposed to include “developing countries, particularly those of LDCs”. The Russian Federation, backing this proposal, suggested to add “countries with economies in transition” to be consistent with ITU usage. It was so agreed. 
Note: In this regard, the ITU resolutions that refer to developing countries* have a footnote saying: *“These include the least developed countries, small island developing states, landlocked developing countries and countries with economies in transition.”
4.30 	The Chairman of TDAG-WG-SOP further pointed out that there is no target for the rural divide in the current strategic plan. She suggested that this divide could be addressed in the supporting components, specifically referring to projects that bridge the gap between rural and urban areas. Brazil suggested that “…especially in rural and remote areas” should be added after divide. Canada underlined that there is more than one digital divide, so the way forward would be to refer to “digital divides” rather than “digital divide”.
4.31 	The United States agreed to the suggestion to place data protection and privacy in square brackets, but believes that this topic should be deleted altogether. In addition, some of the bullet points are too broad in their scope. Topics such as job market reengineering or trade seem very broad, and the United States has some concerns with having them in the list of activities. Listing security twice is also of concern to the United States, which had tried to consolidate some of the work of BDT into a single thematic priority. “Digital economy” and “security” were placed in brackets to allow for more discussion about their scope. The Chairman commented that these were just possible examples and that once the Action Plan and the strategic plan have been drafted, these examples can be revisited.  
4.32 	Proposed thematic priority 5 does not have any supporting components at present, as a decision is yet to be taken on this item.  
4.33 	Conclusion and way forward: There is only one major square bracket. The Chairman encouraged the different stakeholders to try to resolve their differences between now and the next meeting so that TDAG-WG-RDTP can quickly make a decision, one way or the other, on the remaining square brackets.
5. 	Draft Addis Ababa Declaration 
5.1	It cannot be emphasized enough that the declaration should be concise, short, focused, to the point and written in a way that is easily understood by people outside ITU. With this in mind, the meeting considered three contributions that had originally been submitted to TDAG-21 in May 2021.These membership proposals are also compiled in Document DT13.
5.2 	Kuwait presented Document 42, a contribution from the Arab group, on the draft Addis Ababa Declaration, proposing to capture in the declaration the following points: security and personal data protection; capacity building; conformance and interoperability of telecommunication/ICT equipment and systems; transparent and collaborative collection and dissemination of quality indicators and statistics that measure the information society; the role of ITU-D which should target its efforts in achieving the ITU-D contribution to the ITU strategic plan and the ITU-D Action Plan. 
5.3 	Nigeria presented Document 43, an African common proposal on Addis Ababa Declaration, pointing to the need to highlight in the declaration the plight of rural and remote areas. These areas, particularly in developing countries, lag behind in terms of access to high-quality broadband services. A mention of the underlying problem of lack of electricity and of backbone and backhaul broadband infrastructure would be important in understanding this plight. It would also be helpful, say the proponents, to highlight that effective radio-frequency spectrum and satellite orbit management are important for connecting the unconnected and eliminating the digital divide, including, facilitating the transition to digital television. 
5.4 	Lithuania presented Document 47, a proposal on the WTDC Draft Declaration from CEPT. In the “We declare” part, CEPT proposed to only refer to the 3.7 billion people that remain unconnected today. CEPT, believing that connectivity should first of all be universal, secure and affordable proposed to add these words in the following sentence. “In the digital era, universal, secure and affordable connectivity is indispensable.” CEPT further believes that ICTs should first be available, and then affordable, dependable… Accordingly, the text should be changed to read: “We recognize that available, affordable, dependable, and accessible ICTs when leveraged through adequate digital skills can provide powerful drivers for development.” CEPT called for LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS to be spelled out in full. In the “we commit” part, Paragraph b) should be made more forward-looking when referring to COVID-19, considering that the declaration will be adopted at least two years after the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. When talking of enhancing digital capacities and skills, CEPT proposed to include upskilling and reskilling, that are required in the online world, without which digital divides will continue to widen. 
5.5 	CEPT then proposed adding the following two points:
•	co-creating a secure and standard-based whole-of-society approach to designing and implementing generic digital public goods, which will reduce the costs, time, and resources needed for building human-centred digital government solutions. By simplifying the technology needed to build a digital society, countries can create digital solutions that empower individuals and businesses while improving social well-being.
•	Tackling environmental and climate change issues, notably the impact of telecommunication/ICT on the environment, as the ICT sector itself has a role to play in contributing to reach the Sustainable Development Goals, in collaboration with users and regulators. 
Comments and views from the floor
5.6 	Following these presentations, discussion revolved around vulnerable groups, digital inclusion, and digital transformation. The Arab States underscored the need to include in the text vulnerable groups that suffer from living in underserved areas. These groups include women, youth, children, indigenous people, older persons, and persons with disabilities, including age-related disabilities.
5.7 	The Africa group sought to emphasize the aspect of bridging standardization gap, believing that ITU‑D can play a facilitating role to access resources from the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) and the Radiocommunication Bureau (BR) within the scope of capacity building.
5.8 	The Chairman, underlined that digital inclusion, digital transformation and the realization of digital economies, should remain the focus of the paragraph covering these notions. Trying to inject unrelated details into that paragraph may well dilute it. Regarding the issue of bridging standardization gap, he advised that this would best addressed through a resolution.
5.9 	The way forward: The Chairman promised to work overnight with the secretariat to produce a revised text that would incorporate the suggestions from the meeting. It would have two parts, the “We declare” part, and the “We commit” part. Each part will have six paragraphs (as was in the original) to keep the text concise, short and readable. 
5.10 	The following day (1 July 2021), the Chairman submitted Document DT17: Draft Addis Ababa Declaration. Participants expressed appreciation for the revised text. Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa group, requested for more time to review and consult with colleagues from the region. The Russian Federation also suggested that participants should take the time to consult within their regions. Similarly, the United States indicated that CITEL had a regional proposal and would need more time to consult and get a regional position on the document for the meeting in September 2021. 
5.11 	Canada requested the secretariat to ensure that the terminology related to vulnerable groups is in line with ITU usage, and also asked the Chairman and the secretariat to reconsider the structure of the declaration, noting that previous declarations for WTDC Buenos Aires and Dubai do not use the language of “we commit to”.
5.12 	The Chairman recalled his earlier emphasis on studying very carefully recent declarations by international organizations before drafting the WTDC declaration. In this regard, he found out that the world had moved away from the conventional traditional way of writing declarations. There is a bold new movement and this group is, therefore, part of that bold new movement to have short declarations and to frame the declaration in such a way that when people outside ITU read it, they would be interested in joining the Union. 
5.10 	Conclusion and way forward: This is a draft declaration to be considered, and either adopted or amended by WTDC itself, based on the proposals of Member State administrations. 
6. 	Revision to WTDC Resolution 1
6.1 	The meeting considered proposed revisions to Resolution 1 (Rev. Buenos Aires, 2017) of WTDC, on the rules of procedure of the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector, the version currently in force. Document DT14, a compilation of membership proposals for Resolution 1, was the basis for review and discussion.
6.2 	But first, an African common proposal on modifications to Resolution 1, a contribution in Document 45 from ATU was presented by Nigeria, who thanked the Russian Federation for its work on Resolution 1, which served as a basis for the African common proposal. The Africa group is not in favour of the principle of working parties, noting the constraints such parties would present. For example, translation issues, as the meetings would be held exclusively in English; lack of participation, as some Member States have a limited number of delegates; and the financial impact on the BDT budget. Instead, the proposal encourages the creation of regional groups to discuss issues that require addressing at a regional level. To this end, it encourages collaboration with existing ITU regional offices and groups. 
6.3 	Presenting Document DT14, the Chairman recalled that a joint meeting of ITU‑D Study Groups 1 and 2, held in March 2021, had partially revised Resolution 1 and that there were square brackets, mostly on the proposal on working parties. The Russian Federation said that they would be flexible on the issue of working parties but, at the same time, made the observation that a number of RTOs were yet to provide their preliminary or final opinions on Resolution 1. To avoid opening and reopening discussions, it would be better to wait for contributions from each RTO. The United States, agreeing with these comments, stated that CITEL was working on its regional views so considering Document DT14 line by line would be premature, if administrations and RTOs later come back with different regional views. 
6.4 	The way forward: In order for the Chairman to gauge the main issues and to also get a sense of any progress that could be made, it was agreed to review Document DT14 point by point, with the caveat that any agreements reached during this meeting would be provisional. The meeting proceeded on this basis and reviewed Resolution 1 from the preamble right through the end of section 1 on WTDC. Apart from editorial changes, proposed changes that could not be agreed upon have been placed in square brackets, meaning that they will need to be revisited.  
6.5 	At the request of Kuwait, supported by the United States, it was clarified that all abbreviations and acronyms should be identified on first appearance in the body of the text, by spelling them out in full, followed by the abbreviation in brackets. Thereafter, the abbreviation would be used throughout the text, in line with ITU’s best practice. This is the case for example, for the World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC), the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D), and the Telecommunication Development Advisory Group (TDAG) in the preamble of the resolution. 
6.6 	Under section 1, of particular note is the proposal from the Russian Federation and ATU to delete the second half of 1.1. and replace it with a list of items stretching from “a” to “n”. The United States sought to know why the resolution was being made longer and more complicated with additional specifications rather than being shortened, as the exercise is to streamline resolutions? The Russian Federation explained that the proposed changes are intended to improve readability and understanding of the role of WTDC. 
6.7 	In 1.7, the Russian Federation and ATU are proposing to replace the current text with this text: [The chairmen of SGs, the chairman of TDAG and the chairmen of other groups set up by the preceding WTDC should make themselves available to WTDC and provide information on issues related to the groups they lead.]
6.8 	Conclusion and way forward: The meeting stopped at section 2, having covered the entire section 1. The next meeting (15-16 September 2021) will review the square brackets in section 1 and then continue from section 2. 
Closing 
The Chairman expressed his deep appreciation and gratitude to all participants for their time, patience, contributions, and lively and very candid discussions. He thanked the secretariat for their help and efforts. The next meeting will be held on 15-16 September 2021. “We made tremendous progress, and I am grateful to all of you and look forward to seeing you in September to continue our consideration of Resolutions 1 and 2 (Rev. Buenos Aires, 2017),” the Chairman said. 
______________