See contributions from ITU Member States and Other Interested Parties
 

Questionnaire Responses

Feedback from European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO)

The GAC function has significantly improved over the last months in order to be more directly engaged in Policy Development Processes at early stages, in close relation with the other ICANN structures. GAC’s priority is to be able to timely provide principles related to the wide ranges of issues that are considered by ICANN on domain names (gTLDs or ccTLDs) and on IP addressing. Two such examples of issues recently considered by the GAC, were the introduction of new gTLDs and gTLD WHOIS services, for which a set of principles were approved. There is no doubt that ITU expertise should be very helpful on these issues and on issues like Internationalized Domain Names. ITU should also play a key role in disseminating information and collecting information to and from organizations that are not able to participate directly to the ICANN work. Moreover, another group where ITU has a role to play is the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), whose mission is to link the ICANN Board of Directors and other ICANN entities with appropriate sources of technical advice on specific matters pertinent to ICANN activities. ITU is a member of the TLG with ETSI, W3C and the IAB. More than duplicating the work undertaken by ICANN, ITU should work within ICANN and help ICANN and the GAC to improve.
 

The development of public policy by governments must be done in consultation with all stakeholders. In this respect, ETNO believes that an important role of inter-governmental organizations like ITU is to cooperate with governments and other stakeholders in order to avoid over-regulation and to foster a stable and competitive environment, in which networks are interoperable and accessible. This environment is conducive to attract investors and to ensure benefits to users. Moreover, it is important that the ITU continues to work on its well developed areas of expertise and in full compliance with its mandate. In this respect, ETNO urges ITU to avoid duplicating efforts already taken by others and (to avoid) launching new ones outside its responsibilities. ITU should rather serve as a catalyst and a facilitator to reinforce existing efforts. As a matter of fact, ETNO insists it would be counter productive to reopen issues already handled or settled. Regarding the scope of initiatives, ETNO would like to repeat1 that it is of the utmost importance to discard any option likely to affect negatively the global connectivity, security or reliability of the Internet. The activities to be undertaken or maintained by the various parties should respect the responsibilities of the existing international private sector bodies, such as ICANN, IETF, etc., and those that fall within the scope of intergovernmental bodies, as could be the ITU, WIPO, WTO, etc. The responsibility of the IP addresses and Domain Names management as a technical activity under the responsibility of ICANN, which is in line with the idea expressed in §35, has to be maintained. ITU as an intergovernmental body which is a member of the GAC could, on one hand convey the common opinions of the Member States to the GAC and later on to the ICANN Board, and on the other hand could foster the participation of the governments (Member States of ITU) in such a committee. Moreover, ITU could strengthen its focus and facilitate international discussions and policies on electronic communications network standards, especially for Next Generation Networks. Also ITU could take international awareness and education initiatives, or collaborate with other international bodies in this direction. ETNO also supports ITU to continue its work in Action Line C5 (building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) where ITU-T is instrumental.
 

In this respect, ETNO recognizes that the ITU has an important role in the preparation of the work of the IGF, especially in reference to § 72 a), b), e), f), h) and I) of the Tunis Agenda. Also, the IGF annual meetings are a very suitable environment for ITU to present its activities and to disseminate knowledge developed within ITU.
 

1. That the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of the private sector

2. That enhanced international cooperation should facilitate a further expansion, in a non-discriminatory way, under applicable national laws, of e-business as well as consumer confidence in it

3. That the development of public policies implies consultations with all stakeholders

ETNO is in favour of enhanced cooperation which fosters productivity and sustainable growth. This must be compatible with a “business climate” in favour of investment and innovation, the best warrants for development. ETNO reaffirms the view that the objectives of such cooperation must remain in line with present and prospective market realities, in order not to destabilize or jeopardize the development of the Internet. This also means that cooperation with standardization bodies outside ITU-T should be enhanced and that ITU should continue to develop a spirit of coexistence with nongovernmental organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), W3C where Internet and web standards are developed. By all means, ETNO would like to stress that a sound and transparent process towards enhanced cooperation is of outmost importance.
 

Regarding ENUM, as this technology is based on specific usage of E.164 numbers, ITU's role as already agreed is essential to preserve the stability of the E.164 numbering plan.

Regarding policy developments, as described in response to Question 1, ITU should be engaged in these activities within ICANN and particularly at the GAC level.
 

Sound policy combined with an action oriented implementation plan that takes into account, where necessary, infrastructure deployment and capacity building, leads to more development. But development can’t take place in cyberspace without proper security and reliability of the Internet, which should be a key area of focus for ITU. ITU should also continue to discuss other issues of general interest, such as multilingualism, which are important to a large number of countries, especially in the developing world.

Finally, as it was stated before when referred to enhanced cooperation (Question 4), there is intent to improve the cooperation between the different organizations and stakeholders. In this respect ETNO would like to stress that the ITU resolutions that have been agreed to and the Council-approved work was intended to be educational in nature and be focused on collaboration with responsible bodies.
 

Go back to list

Feedback from International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

1. Recognize the important roles played by other organizations in this area and the need to focus ITU’s efforts consistent with its mandate that can support these efforts;

2. Ensure that the contributions provided by the ITU add value and do not duplicate work being done elsewhere; and

3. Effectively utilize the ITU’s available budget, which is necessary for greater financial stability.

It is vital that the ITU continue serving its membership by maintaining a focus on its core competencies, rather than reaching into operational, technical or policy areas for which it does not have a clear mandate, the necessary expertise, or the structure necessary to implement such work, such as the regulation, coordination or management of the Internet or (Internet Protocol) IP networks, including the management of domain names and addresses.

The ITU’s work with regulators to promote creation of enabling environments for investment and the growth of infrastructure is important and should continue. This can facilitate the continued expansion of the Internet and its benefits to more people particularly in developing countries.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an opportunity for all stakeholders to discuss Internet governance issues, exchange experiences and information, and ultimately empower more people to participate in Internet related issues at national, regional and international levels. The ITU should play a role, along with other intergovernmental organizations, international organizations, governments, business, the Internet community and civil society in contributing to this important dialogue at the IGF.

The call in the Tunis Agenda for “enhanced cooperation” that involves “all relevant organizations and “all stakeholders in their respective roles” has alerted all participants to the importance of improving their coordination with each other, and within their structures. Such cooperation must, of course, also be fully consistent with the WSIS mandate that Internet governance be “multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” Enhanced cooperation is already occurring and no formal process is necessary.

We welcome the ITU’s continued efforts with respect to planning seminars and identifying “best practices” for a successful transition to an (Internet Protocol) IP enabled environment, with particular emphasis on developing countries.

In response to the questionnaire, there are several principles that should guide the ITU’s implementation of Resolution 102. These are: (1) recognition of the important roles played by other organizations in this area and the need to focus ITU’s efforts consistent with its mandate that can support these efforts; (2) the importance of ensuring that the contributions provided by the ITU add value and do not duplicate work being done elsewhere; (3) effective utilization of the ITU’s available budget, which is necessary for greater financial stability. As a result, the ITU’s role may have the greatest impact if seen in terms of the responsibilities that it has already undertaken with respect to helping developing countries integrate into existing work being done in other fora, and furthering the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) implementation of the network security and ICT facilitation action lines.

We look forward to working closely with Secretary General Touré and his new team to develop concrete proposals that will enable the ITU and its Bureau to provide added value to the work already under way in other forums. As an example, we note that ITU-T participates in ICANN’s Technical Liaison Group (TLG), which provides technical information and guidance to the ICANN Board. This enables ITU-T to be one of three TLG members entitled to appoint a rotating member of the ICANN Board.

Consistent with the principles outlined above, any ITU implementation of Resolution 102 must clearly avoid duplication and focus on the core strengths of the ITU, particularly in respect to providing assistance for developing countries to participate as much as possible in international discussions on the issues covered in Resolution 102. Above all, it is vital that the ITU continue serving its membership by maintaining a focus on its core competencies, rather than reaching into operational, technical or policy areas for which it does not have a clear mandate, the necessary expertise, or the structure necessary to implement such work. The ICC and its members do not support the incremental expansion of ITU activities into the regulation, coordination or management of the Internet or IP networks, including the management of domain names and addresses.
 

- Developing telecommunications infrastructure technical standards, including those related to NGN (Next Generation Networks)

- Allocating and managing radio spectrum (which is a critical resource for the development of communications networks for both developed and developing countries)

- Ongoing training and information exchange with developing countries to take advantage of rapidly evolving communications technologies.

We also support the ITU’s continued leadership in the WSIS Action Lines C2 (information and communication infrastructure) and C5 (building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) and assistance in other areas, particularly with regard to C6 (enabling environment). In addition, we would expect the ITU’s work with regulators to continue, to promote creation of an enabling environment for investment and the growth of infrastructure, which can facilitate the continued expansion of the Internet and its benefits to people in developing countries.

In assessing whether a particular proposed work programme is appropriate for the ITU to undertake, we must -- first and foremost --ensure the effective and efficient fulfillment of its core mission related to telecommunications infrastructure and radio spectrum. We must also ensure that the ITU is not duplicating efforts elsewhere, and that its proposal is cost effective and efficient.
 

Experts work in a range of organizations on issues relevant to Resolution 102. In addition, most experts on these issues are not active in ITU Study Groups, but are heavily involved already in the existing private sector processes and open forums where the technical coordination and related policy work is done. ITU activities should therefore be careful not to expand into those areas where activities are already well under way in other organizations. Developing and maintaining cooperative relationships with other technical standards and other bodies, such as ETSI, ICANN, IETF and W3C, is critically important in this area since interoperability and quality are essential in supporting the Information Society. The ITU should make it clear that it supports close collaboration and cooperation with these bodies. In this regard, we welcome recent statements of Secretary General Touré. It is vital to communicate this clearly because in the past there was concern within other groups that certain initiatives emanating from the ITU inhibited cooperation, coordination and collaboration with other groups by not recognizing or respecting their ongoing work. Obviously, any efforts to take over activities and functions performed by others are counterproductive.
 

Go back to list

Feedback from Internet Society (ISOC)

The Internet Society (ISOC) is a sector member of the ITU and we have supported and contributed to the work of the ITU for many years. ISOC participated in the 2006 Plenipotentiary, the Telecom Hong Kong Forum and exhibition, the WSIS and a range of other meetings and conferences. We value our sector membership and look forward to a long working relationship with the ITU.

With regard to the questionnaire, we would recall that the WSIS (and particularly the Tunis Agenda) recognized the roles and responsibilities of the many organizations involved in Internet governance. Article 35 of the Tunis Agenda recognizes the truly multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet, its management and related public policy issues. This collaborative and multistakeholder nature of the management of the Internet has been one of the factors contributing to its phenomenal growth.

According to Para 64 of The WSIS Declaration: “The core competences of the International Telecommunication Union in the fields of ICT---assistance in bridging the digital divide, international and regional cooperation, radio spectrum management, standards development and the dissemination of information--- are of crucial importance for building the Information Society”. Similarly, the importance of organizations responsible for Internet resources – the RIRs, ICANN, IETF/IAB, etc. – is recognized in a number of instances in the WSIS process, such as Para 55 of the Tunis Agenda which states that: “We recognize that the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges.”

WSIS encourages organizations to reach out to each other and work together. It is in this context that we respectfully suggest that the most productive role that the ITU could play visà- vis the discussion on Internet resources would be to encourage its membership to participate in and contribute to the work of the existing organizations responsible for the management and administration of Internet resources, at the international, regional and national levels. Organizations such as ISOC and the RIRs and ICANN have open policy decision making processes that encourage multistakeholder participation, and ICANN has a specific mechanism through which governments can, and do, engage.

With regard to the ITU’s role in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), we believe that as with all stakeholders and organizations, the ITU has an opportunity to support the Internet Governance forum – as contributor, partner, participant, etc. The ITU should encourage its membership, and particularly developing nations, to participate and contribute. The IGF is a product of the WSIS and deserves the full support of all stakeholders and organizations that were involved in the multi-year process.

With regards to enhanced cooperation we would suggest that the ITU should 1) ensure that it is meeting the WSIS principles with regards to multi-stakeholder participation, and 2) cooperate with and not compete with the existing organizations responsible for Internet resource management. Para 69 of the Tunis Agenda notes that enhanced cooperation does not relate to the day-to-day management and operational matters related to the Internet.

Question 6 asks about the actions that the ITU T sector should take vis-à-vis Internet resource management issues. Again, we suggest that cooperation with existing organizations in the Internet resource management and standardization issues space is an important step to ensuring that there is no duplication of work and that available resources are put to good use. We note the joint submission of the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Task Force and encourage the ITU and its membership to support their roles and responsibilities.

We support the ITU-D’s work in disseminating information, highlighting best practices and building knowledge in developing countries. Such activities as they relate to Internet resource issues should be undertaken with relevant stakeholders and organizations.

We trust that these comments will be accepted in the spirit of the WSIS and will found to be useful and assist in guiding the ITU’s activities in this area.
 

Go back to list

Feedback from Nokia Siemens Networks

ITU should aim at good cooperation with these agencies, but not try to assume roles that are already filled by other players.
 

Go back to list

Top of page