WTPF Ends With Consensus Approval of Initial Report and IEG Opinions on Internet
​Delegates to the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) Thursday adopted by consensus a non-binding report by ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré and six opinions from the ITU-initiated Informal Experts Group (IEG) on Internet-related issues. That ended the conference after extensive debate on governments’ role in Internet governance. Delegates chose not to act during the conference on a seventh opinion, introduced by Brazil but also containing controversial Internet governance language from an earlier Russian Federation contribution, because they couldn’t reach a consensus in the allotted time. Touré told delegates at the end of the conference that he would send that opinion to the ITU Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy issues (CWG-Internet), which will decide on the best forum for continuing the debate.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The adopted versions of Touré’s report and the six IEG opinions were largely unchanged from the original drafts submitted prior to the conference (WID May 13 p1). Opinion 1, which dealt with promoting Internet exchange points as a “long term solution to advance connectivity,” passed in its original form. Opinion 2, which discussed “fostering an enabling environment for the greater growth and development of broadband connectivity,” passed. Added was the word “relevant” in its discussion of inviting member states and other stakeholders to “continue to work, as appropriate, in the activities of ITU, and in all relevant international, regional and national forums,” said WTPF Chairman Ivo Ivanovski’s final report on the conference (http://bit.ly/184sAU2). Opinions 3 and 4, which dealt with supporting the adoption and deployment of IPv6 (WID May 16 p2), passed in their original forms. Opinion 5, which supports “multistakeholderism” in Internet governance, passed in its original form. Opinion 6, which supports governments’ “enhanced cooperation” in Internet governance, passed with the revision of a paragraph to mention “relevant paragraphs” from the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. That agenda is a consensus statement adopted at the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society. The addition mentions paragraphs 35, 37, 55, 60, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 83, which all relate to enhanced cooperation.
Consensus on the opinions and report came after an extended debate on Opinions 5 and 6, as well as Brazil’s proposed opinion. Brazil’s opinion would encourage more government involvement in Internet governance, rather than governments-only involvement (http://bit.ly/19wNeep). The final version of the proposed opinion included language from the Russian Federation’s proposed amendment to Opinion 5. The language would, among other things, have invited national governments to “exercise their rights on Internet Governance to control distribution, appropriation and development of Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources and support the operation and development of the basic information and communication infrastructure, include the Internet, at the national level.” Russia agreed to attach the language to Brazil’s proposal to preserve the existing consensus on the IEG opinions.
Numerous countries said they were concerned there wasn’t sufficient time to develop a consensus version of Brazil’s opinion, including the U.S., Canada, China, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Arab Emirates and U.K., and civil society stakeholders like the Internet Society and ICANN. Argentina, Bahrain, Mexico and Russia urged further discussion on Brazil’s proposal, arguing it required action at WTPF. After Brazil chose to withdraw its proposed opinion from consideration at WTPF, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other supportive delegations argued a working group should develop a consensus version with eventual reintroduction at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in 2014. Touré said in his closing speech that he would refer Brazil’s opinion to the CWG-Internet in June for possible consideration at the Internet Governance Forum, the U.N.’s Commission on Science and Technology or other appropriate fora.
If CWG-Internet takes up Brazil’s opinion, civil society groups are hopeful that the working group will be opened up so “all other stakeholders will be afforded the opportunity to continue to participate fully in these discussions,” said Matthew Shears. The head of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Global Internet Policy and Human Rights project and member of the IEG spoke near the end of the conference. Shears said he was speaking on behalf of a group of civil society groups, including Access and Consumers International. “We thought that the clarifying comments and amendments from Brazil to their earlier proposal were a commendable articulation of the opportunity and challenge that governments face -- first, how to appropriately engage in the multistakeholder governance model and second, how to ensure that there are mechanisms to facilitate such engagement,” he said. “We are very sympathetic because we in civil society face some of the same challenges.” While civil society doesn’t view the IEG opinions as perfect, it’s satisfied with them and views them as “important texts that should help facilitate key development and governance goals,” Shears said.