post-wcit and wtpf discussion advisory council meeting presentation

www.internetsociety.org

Post-WCIT and WTPF discussion Where have we been, what did we learn, and where are we going?

Sally Wentworth

Internet Society, Public Policy

Post-WCIT March 15, 2013

WCIT Takeaways It’s the tip of the Iceberg for the Internet

•  Content: Heavily debated topic. ITR text

on Spam gives potential for further control

•  Resources: Misuse of numbering, naming and addressing elevated to treaty (this issue will keep coming back)

•  Security: ongoing concern with how to address and educate and manage risks

•  Technical: Routing, IP interconnection and QoS requirements

•  Economic: infrastructure investment questions (ETNO proposal) are still a concern

•  Role of the ITU: Resolution 3 instructs the ITU to take on Internet role beyond Res. 101, 102, 133

•  Divide: How to reconcile clear divisions between countries

2


Final day – Vote on Human Rights

3


WCIT - Signatories

4

Source: h*p://www.ipv.sx/wcit/


Outcome

89 countries signed the Final Acts

55 countries did not sign the Final Acts

§  This number could change

For countries that do not sign, the 1988 ITRs remain in force

For countries that do sign, the 2012 ITRs come into force on January 1, 2015

Conflict between signed / not signed? 1988 prevails.

5


Government motivations

•  Technology –  Changes in technology since 1988

•  Economics –  Revenue declines –  High cost of international connectivity –  Technical standards – relationship to national objectives

•  Security concerns –  Unwanted traffic – spam, fraud –  Cross-border cooperation

•  Role of government –  Control? –  Desire to participate in Internet decision-making –  What to do with old telecom regulations?

6


Lessons Learned

Focusing on divisions at WCIT is not helpful

Even among countries that signed the ITRs, there are countries that support the Internet model – how do we work with them?

More engagement, not less, is needed

7


Lessons Learned – what did we hear from governments?

Technical Resources

Participation and

Engagement Affordability and Access

8


Technical Resources

9

Policymakers want more technical information in key areas.

•  Standards – how do they work, how can they be deployed? Open Stand, Deploy360, work of the IETF

•  Numbering – how are IP addresses allocated, how to participate?

•  Security (technical and policy aspects) – DNSSEC, routing security, T&I, privacy activities, Internet Leadership collateral

•  Spam


Affordability and Access

10

Developing countries are looking at how to make smart investments, how to drive local content, and bring down the cost of connectivity.

•  ISOC’s overall Development Strategy

•  Interconnection and Traffic Exchange Activities – global and regional

•  cctTLD training – technical and policy assistance

•  Collateral, white papers, studies


Greater Engagement / More Participation

11

Enhancing communication between the I* community and governments

•  Internet Governance Forum

•  Internet Leadership Programs – IETF fellowships, IGF Ambassadorships, etc

•  Taking the message on the road – going TO governments and developing countries

–  ISOC Regional Activities


Internet Society Post WCIT Combating Spam Project Overview


WCIT-12: Content is Captured

•  SPAM – ITRs refer to it as “Unsolicited Bulk Electronic Communications” Article 5B.

•  41C Member States should endeavor to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services.

•  Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense.

•  Given the close association that SPAM has with the Internet, this will be an interesting issue to watch evolve.

13


Spam Project Objective

•  To demonstrate how the multistakeholder model can help to tangibly address a key concern of policymakers - spam

•  To bring governments together with industry, technical experts, and other partners to establish a sustainable relationship and on-going partnership to address the on-going mitigation of spam

•  To distribute high-quality technical and policy information (much of which already exists) so that the information can be shared and used among concerned policymakers to further their long term understanding

14


Core Principles

15

ISOC principles related to privacy, open standards, free flow of information will

form the core of this project


Spam Project – Technical and policy information •  Content used in this project will come from experts within the Internet

Society, externally from experts in the field and technical associations.

•  Content will be comprised of existing white papers, development of new white papers, videos and targeted subject matter videos.

•  All written materials will be translated at a minimum into English, French and Spanish.

•  The videos will either be acquired from existing organizations that have relevant material they are willing to contribute or produced by the Internet Society on targeted topics that are applicable to the project outcomes.

•  The videos and white papers will be used as an additional capacity building tool, a means to support alternative learning modes for the targeted audience and by other training organizations such as USTTI

16


Spam Project Structure – Policy Makers

Workshop Outline

•  Define what is spam to establish a common understanding

•  Discussion of the technical tools and mitigation processes used and under development by the technical community (open standards)

•  Discussion of the role of policy makers using legislation, regulation and enforcement examples from countries such as Canada, Australia and the Netherlands (privacy protection)

•  Discussion of the role of Industry and organizations formed to develop and exchange best practices, codes of conduct and other materials to combat spam

17


Spam Project Structure – Sustainable Partnerships

Developing Country Technical Community Expertise

•  Hold workshops in association with other technical meetings within developing country regions, e.g. AfriNic, LACNIC

•  Partner with others to facilitate the exchange of best practices and codes of conduct from other regions as examples of what can be used to address their spam issues

•  Establish outreach opportunities for leading universities doing spam research to connect with developing country universities as spam research partners

18


Spam Project Proposed Timeline

•  Finalize project plan and resource requirements - March

•  Identify existing materials and subject matter experts to contribute to the project – April

•  Complete development of new materials and videos to support the project – May

•  Launch of Workshops for Policy Makers dependent on colocation with existing regional policy meetings

•  Launch of Technical sessions June - dependent on colocation with existing industry technical meetings

•  Initially targeting Africa to launch program

19


Bringing Policymakers to the IETF

20


Public Policy Team [email protected] [email protected]

Sally Wentworth & Karen Mulberry

post-wcit and wtpf discussion advisory council meeting presentation

Documents