<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Forgot to mention that the views expressed on the article are also
very American centric. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Alice<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 29/11/2011 23:15, Alice Munyua wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4ED53D44.2000105@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<p><span>Dear all, </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Something for us to consider. </span></p>
<p><span>The International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs)
forms a binding international treaty under the International
Telecommunications Unions (ITU)</span><span lang="EN"> and go
back to the early days of the ITU when there were two separate
treaties, dealing with telegraph and telephone. The ITRs were
adopted, as a single treaty, at the World Administrative
Telegraphy and Telephone Conference held in Melbourne, 1988
(WATTC-88).</span><span> </span></p>
<p><span lang="EN">The ITRs can be amended through a World
Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), and the
next amendment is scheduled for 2012. Before then a process of
review of the ITRs, which began in 1998 continues. </span></p>
<p><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p><span lang="EN">The ITR comprise 10 articles, which deal with </span><span
lang="EN"><span> </span>definition of international
telecommunication services, cooperation between countries and
national administrations, safety of life and priority of
telecommunications and charging and accounting principles. The
adoption of the ITRs since 1988 is often taken as the start of
the wider liberalisation process in international
telecommuniactions and so a very important process for the ICT
sector. The ITU plenipotentiary approved a</span><span
lang="EN"> </span><span lang="EN-US">World Conference on
International Telecommunications (WCIT) and the Council
constituted an expert group (council Resolution 1312) to
pursue PP Resolution 146 (Antalya 2006) among others. </span><span><br>
While its quite a complex legal/political process, (well at
least to me) our liberalisation process has led to one of the
fastest growing ICT markets and wee therefore need to engage
in this process.</span><span lang="EN"></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN"><br>
Below is an interesting article from a legal perspective. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Alice </span></p>
<br>
<span lang="EN"><br>
</span>
<h2><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world-conference-international-telecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un-regulation-internet/">http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world-conference-international-telecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un-regulation-internet/</a><br>
</h2>
<h2>The 2012 World Conference On International Telecommunications:
Another Brewing Storm Over Potential UN Regulation Of The
Internet</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Ambassador David A Gross and Ethan Lucarelli of Wiley Rein LLP
consider the possible effects of the renegotiated UN
International Telecommunication Regulations.</p>
<div> <img src="cid:part1.07000907.00090207@apc.org"
alt="Ambassador David A Gross and Ethan Lucarelli, Wiley Rein
LLP">
<p>Ambassador David A Gross and Ethan Lucarelli, Wiley Rein LLP</p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>Once again, many companies in the telecoms and information and
communications technology (ICT) sector are facing the spectre of
a United Nations agency (in this case the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU)) regulating critically important
aspects of the internet as well as substantially expanding its
jurisdiction over the telecoms and ICT industries.</p>
<p>It is important that telecoms, technology, and ICT lawyers,
consultants, and advisers – both in-house and outside –
carefully monitor the domestic and international preparations by
governments leading up to this major international treaty
conference as it will potentially have a material impact on
companies throughout the entire sector.</p>
<p>Specifically, in December 2012, the ITU will be holding a major
treaty-writing conference in Dubai that many countries would
like to use to significantly expand the jurisdiction and legal
authority of the ITU, even potentially giving this United
Nations agency greater influence over internet governance as
well as major telecoms issues such as accounting rates and
termination charges for next-generation networks, data privacy,
cybersecurity, international mobile roaming, and equipment
specifications.</p>
<p>For more than two decades, the story of global economic policy
has been one of promoting competition and increasing
liberalisation across various industries, especially the
telecoms and internet sectors. Today, however, significant
government and civil society support is developing for a
different policy outlook. Driven largely by the global financial
troubles of recent years together with persistent concerns about
the implications of the growth of the internet for national
economies, social structures and cultures, some governments and
others are now actively reconsidering the continuing viability
of liberalisation and competition-based policies.</p>
<p>The ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications
(WCIT) could signal a shift in the regulatory paradigm on both
the international and national levels. At the conference, a
major 1988 treaty known as the International Telecommunication
Regulations (ITRs) will be renegotiated. Some within the ITU and
among its 193 member states would like to see major changes to
the treaty, particularly with respect to the internet as well as
wireless, IP-based, and next-generation networks, which have
historically been mostly free of intrusive economic and other
regulation. Stating his belief that a substantial expansion of
the scope of treaty is necessary, ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun
Touré recently asserted that “[w]e need updated ITRs because
without them we risk the collapse of the ICT networks which
underpin all communications technologies, including the
internet.” Other countries, however – notably, the United States
– believe instead that the WCIT should adopt only minor changes
to the ITRs as necessary to modernise the existing provisions of
the treaty, and that new provisions and authorities are
unnecessary.</p>
<p>Because of the ITU’s international visibility, decisions made
at the conference could signal to both domestic regulators and
other international intergovernmental organisations that a move
toward more intrusive economic and other regulation is
appropriate. It seems fair to say that the decisions made by
governments at WCIT will help define the international
regulatory environment for the internet and telecoms in the 21st
century.</p>
<p>THE ITU AND THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS</p>
<p>The ITU, established more than 100 years ago, is a specialised
agency within the United Nations that focuses on
telecommunications and ICT. The ITU allocates global radio
spectrum and satellite orbits, develops technical standards to
promote interconnection and technical interoperability, and
works to improve telecommunications access for underserved
communities. The ITU has historically disclaimed any authority
to regulate domestic telecommunications, clearly recognising in
the ITU Constitution the “sovereign right of each state to
regulate its telecommunication.”</p>
<p>While the ITU has a limited scope of regulatory authority over
international radio-communication issues, it also adopts
recommendations on a wide range of topics and facilitates the
adoption of international treaties. ITU recommendations do not
have the force of law, but rather set forth suggested
regulations and requirements for national regulatory
authorities. These recommendations address standardisation,
economic and technical issues. By distinction, international
treaties are generally binding law for all nations that are
signatories to the treaty.</p>
<p>The ITRs are a binding 1988 treaty that established important
general principles relating to international telecommunications
services and transport, interconnection and interoperability of
telecommunications facilities, and accounting and settlement of
international voice traffic between administrations. While the
ITRs provide a general framework for mutual agreements between
countries regarding the exchange of telecommunications traffic,
the ITRs also allow for private agreements between
non-governmental organisations (e.g., telecommunications
carriers). This is the typical method for most agreements for
the exchange of international traffic today.</p>
<p>THE WORLD CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS</p>
<p>Since the ITRs were adopted in 1988, the international
telecommunications marketplace has experienced rapid
technological change, the development of competitive and
liberalised markets, and the privatisation of national
telecommunication service providers. As a result, in December
2012, the ITU will host the World Conference on International
Telecommunications in Dubai to revise and modernise the treaty
for the first time since its adoption.</p>
<p>So far, there is no international consensus about the scope of
appropriate modifications to the treaty. For some governments,
the WCIT presents an opportunity to significantly expand the
jurisdiction and role of the ITU into previously unregulated,
lightly regulated or domestically regulated aspects of the
emerging digital economy. Some of the proposed changes to the
ITRs could position the ITU as a supra-national regulator and
require signatory nations to enact conforming domestic laws. ITU
Secretary-General Touré has asserted that the recent problems in
the financial and banking sectors were caused by “inadequate
regulation and regulatory supervision” and he has called for the
international community to agree to “a framework that will avoid
any catastrophe” in the telecoms sector.</p>
<p>Participation will be limited to representatives of national
governments. However, private sector entities generally have
opportunities to help inform the policymaking in advance of the
conference, such as through meetings with individual
governments, participation in working groups or preparatory
meetings, and appearances before international or regional
organisations. Many governments allow members of the private
sector to be on their national delegations to ITU conferences.</p>
<p>PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ITRS</p>
<p>Typically, international telecommunications issues such as
international mobile roaming, internet peering, and internet
governance are handled today through a combination of negotiated
agreements between private parties, bilateral and multilateral
trade agreements, and non-governmental technical or civil
society organisations. Some countries, however – particularly
within the developing world – object to the current situation on
the grounds that the system does not pay sufficient regard to
their economic and other needs, that it disproportionately
favours major international telecom and technology companies,
and that the United States government has too much direct
influence in decision-making. To address these perceived
inequities, several new provisions and modifications for the
ITRs have been proposed:</p>
<p><em>Internet management</em></p>
<p>Several countries have proposed to move oversight or “control”
of aspects of the internet and internet development from the
non-governmental multi-stakeholder mechanisms such as ICANN and
replace them with the ITU.</p>
<p><em>Internet charges</em></p>
<p>Some governments would also like the ITU to play a greater role
in regulating peering, termination charges for data traffic, and
other internet-related rate issues to, among other things,
potentially lower certain internet backbone costs and to capture
for domestic coffers some of the value of international VoIP
services entering their countries.</p>
<p><em>Mandated application of ITU recommendations</em></p>
<p>The ITU has issued non-binding recommendations on topics
ranging from accounting rates and tariff issues to the
construction, installation and protection of telecommunications
cables, to the power flux density of wireless transmitters.
While these recommendations are only advisory at the moment,
some proposals could transform some or all of these
recommendations into mandatory treaty provisions with the force
of law.</p>
<p><em>International regulation of roaming</em></p>
<p>The ITU currently does not have legal authority to directly
regulate either retail or wholesale international mobile roaming
rates, but WCIT could expand the ITU’s authority over
international roaming, especially regarding wholesale rates.</p>
<p><em>Cybersecurity</em></p>
<p>Some countries are seeking to include cybersecurity and
cybercrime provisions into this treaty so that the ITU can
impose new regulations and establish itself as the
organisational home for international cybersecurity
policymaking. Included within this could be broad new data
privacy, spam, and child protection regulations.</p>
<p><em>Developing country issues</em></p>
<p>Some developing world countries suggest that the ITRs be
modified to allow them to charge carriers from the developed
world higher rates. In addition, some countries also would like
to modify the ITRs to lower the costs for developing world
countries when they bargain with commercial carriers for
international telecoms and internet services, as well as to
ensure “transparency” for retail and wholesale prices and
quality of service.</p>
<p>These and the other changes proposed in the WCIT preparatory
process could greatly expand the scope of the ITRs and grant the
ITU substantial new regulatory powers, thereby radically
changing the regulatory landscape. The effects of these
revisions could affect the fundamental economic structure of the
entire ICT sector. For example, making the ITU Recommendations
mandatory would effectively supersede established industry
practice and domestic regulations with respect to core aspects
of equipment design and network operations. Similarly, proposals
related to how companies can collect and use customer data,
cybersecurity, or child protection would interject an
international intergovernmental organisation into the
relationship between service providers and their customers.
Additionally, the combined effect of the proposals would be to
bring under ITU authority the core functions of many established
and effective international non-governmental organisations such
as IEEE, ISOC, ICANN, and W3C, particularly with respect to the
design of systems and infrastructure, the development of
protocols, and the management of domain and numbering resources.</p>
<p><em>Other Proposals for Increased International Regulation of
the Internet</em></p>
<p>Perhaps even more significant than the specific reform
proposals being considered in the run up to the WCIT is what
these proposals represent in terms of the broader regulatory
paradigm. The outcome of the 2012 WCIT may signal to regulators
on both the international and national levels what the
appropriate role of government should be in the 21st century
regarding the internet and telecoms generally. Governments,
particularly in the developing world, could interpret the
introduction of new interventionist regulations through the ITRs
as signalling that increased regulation of the ICT sectors is
appropriate, which could ultimately hinder investment and
competition in these markets.</p>
<p>Indeed, discussions regarding international internet
policymaking are already gaining momentum within the UN and
various other international forums. Some of these proposals are
more specific than others, and they each have different
likelihoods of producing real results, but taken together, they
demonstrate the widespread attention these issues are receiving
by governments around the world. To illustrate:</p>
<p><em>India’s proposal for a new UN agency</em></p>
<p>In late October 2011, India submitted to the UN a proposal for
the establishment of a new mechanism for internet-related public
policy activities to be called the United Nations Committee for
Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). As proposed, the CIRP would
oversee the bodies responsible for operational functioning of
the internet and global standard setting, as well as crisis
management and international public policy matters.</p>
<p><em>International Convention on Cybercrime</em></p>
<p>Russia has long sought UN action regarding cybersecurity and
internet-transmitted information. In September 2011, Russia,
China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan submitted to the UN General
Assembly a proposal for the adoption of an International Code of
Conduct for Information Security. Among other things, this Code
would commit signatories to cooperating in “curbing the
dissemination of information that incites terrorism,
secessionism or extremism or that undermines other countries’
political, economic and social stability.”</p>
<p><em>World Technology Policy Forum</em></p>
<p>In 2013, the ITU will convene the 5th World
Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology
Policy Forum to discuss internet issues related to the ITU’s
involvement in internet-related public policy. Unlike the WCIT,
this Policy Forum will not create binding international treaty
documents, and therefore it may be a more comfortable forum for
some of these discussions.</p>
<p><em>London Conference</em></p>
<p>In early November 2011, the United Kingdom hosted an
international Conference on Cyberspace in London, which
emphasised the development of uniform international norms for
private and governmental behaviour online. This conference is
expected to become an annual forum for policy discussions among
high-level ministers and other governmental representatives,
with meetings already being planned for the next two years.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Despite the broad and dramatic scope of various governmental
proposals – which could affect core aspects of running an ICT,
telecoms, or internet-based business – the WCIT preparatory
process is not receiving sufficient attention from most
businesses and others. The WCIT could lead to new regulations
governing how these businesses are run and how such businesses
may interact with their customers, partners, and vendors, as
well as how they can innovate and provide new and improved
services. Moreover, because of the implicit attacks on
established mechanisms of internet governance, the WCIT has the
potential to destabilise and politicise standardisation
processes and the management of the internet architecture in a
way that could also hinder innovation and efficiency. Many
national delegations are interested in hearing the concerns of
industry and others. Interested companies and other groups
should take steps to monitor the conference preparatory
processes and should be on the lookout for opportunities to
inform and influence the debate.</p>
<pre>--
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet">http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</a>
Unsubscribe or change your options at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org">http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org</a>
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>