Briefing on WCIT-12
November 28, 2012
Inês Nolasco
Cullen International provides reports and cross-country benchmarks on regulatory developments in the
telecommunications, media, electronic commerce and smart energy sectors. Our services currently
cover Europe, Latin America, Middle East and North Africa. We are widely recognised and trusted for
our objectivity, accuracy and independence. Find out more about our services here.
WCIT-12: countries divided on approach to ITRs
Only a few days before WCIT-12, ITU member states are divided into those wanting only
minimal changes and countries wanting the ITRs to introduce detailed regulation:

Minimal changes: ITRs should remain high-level principles which do not change the
way the internet and traffic flows work today.

Detailed regulation: ITRs should potentially modify relationships in the internet value
chain and grant greater control over traffic flows.
These differing approaches are reflected in the 19 proposals which ITU member states have
so far presented to the December 2012 World Conference on International
Telecommunications 2012 (WCIT-12).
The proposals relate to a wide range of issues, developed from the points raised during the
preparatory phase, when ITU member states and industry (sector members) discussed and
presented some 124 submissions to the working group entrusted with preparing WCIT-12.
The issues include:

the commercial model for the internet;

differentiation of traffic management;

the setting and transparency of mobile roaming charges;

prevention of misuse of numbering resources;

prevention of international double taxation;

cooperation on cyber security;

the fight against spam; and

promoting energy efficiency and reducing e-waste.
There has been much discussion leading up to WCIT-12, notably on the issue of internet
governance and IP interconnection, which remain some of the most contentious and high
profile points.
BEREC was critical of proposals (such as that from ETNO) which aim to introduce new
charging mechanisms and quality of service (QoS) requirements, stating, “the internet has
developed well without regulatory intervention (...).the nature of services to be delivered
across the network, and the charging mechanisms applied to them, should continue to be
left to commercial negotiations among stakeholders.”
Similarly, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging EU member states to reject
changes to the ITRs which would "negatively impact the internet, its architecture,
operations, content and security, business relations, internet governance and the free flow
of information online".
© Cullen International November 2012
1
The ITU has tried to tackle criticism around the WCIT-12 process (namely the alleged lack
of transparency) by engaging civil society in briefing sessions, carrying out an open
consultation and making the results of the preparatory phase publicly available (draft of the
future ITRs).
The ITU has also tried to demystify “myths or misinformation” about the effect of what is
being proposed (see the ITU myth busting slide deck).
NB. Although the WCIT-12 proposals are only formally available to ITU members, some
proposals may be found on the internet, for example, on wcitleaks.
Background and next steps
WCIT-12 is an ITU-led forum which will consider the review of the International
Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), a treaty signed by 178 states which provides the
general framework for the provision and operation of international telecommunications.
WCIT-12 will take place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, between 3 and 14 December,
2012. Only ITU member states are full participants with the right to vote. Other ITU
members, including telecoms operators, and regional organisations and agencies, have
observer status.
ITU member states were advised to submit their proposals by November 3, 2012 (one
month before WCIT-12 takes place). But new contributions and/or modifications to existing
proposals can still be made during the forum.
All EU member states are also full ITU members. The European Union is an ITU sector
member, with no voting rights. The EU is preparing a common position, with the
Commission having made a proposal for Council’s consideration. What will be crucial for the
EU, in the Commission’s view, is to ensure that the ITRs are not extended in scope and that
what is agreed at WCIT-12 does not conflict with the EU acquis. If there is an agreed
common position, EU member states will coordinate their actions at WCIT-12.
NB. EU member states were also involved in the discussions which preceded the adoption
of a European regional position for WCIT-12 with other European countries in the
European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT).
While the outcome of the conference is uncertain, the nature of such international
discussions tends to lead to political compromise on a final text that all parties can agree on.
A. Proposals to WCIT-12 – divided views
The following member states have submitted proposals to WCIT-12:
Table 1 – Member states submitting proposals to WCIT-12
Member states
African States
Arab States
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Australia
Brazil
Cameroon
CEPT
Inter-American
Communications Commission
(CITEL)
Cuba
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Israel
Mexico
Paraguay
Regional Commonwealth in the
field of communications (RCC)
Russian Federation
Tunisia
USA
The topics covered by the member states’ proposals span a wide range of issues and, while
consensus seems achievable for some proposals, member states are divided on a crucial
point of principle.
Countries such as the African States, the Arab States, Cameroon and Cuba are among
those which defend more thorough regulation and the rebalancing of interests in the internet
and network ecosystem. The CEPT, USA, Australia and Israel have an opposite view,
wanting to see minimal changes to the ITRs and to the internet value-chain, with the review
focusing on promoting competition and liberalisation – the trigger for innovation and private
sector investment in telecommunications infrastructure.
© Cullen International November 2012
2
The table below summarises the main issues addressed in the member states’ proposals.
Table 2 – Proposals to WCIT-12 – main issues
Proposal on
Issues covered
Mobile roaming



Price levels
Transparency of prices
Cooperation in bordering zones to avoid inadvertent roaming charges
Misuse and
fraud



Prevent the misuse/hijacking of numbering resources
Combat fraud
Transmission of calling party identification and origin identification
Taxation

Prevent international double taxation
Routing


Transparency with regard to the routes used for managing international traffic
Determination of which routes to be used
Quality of
service


Transparency
Minimum quality of service ensured
Allowing
differentiated
traffic
management

Development of IP interconnection, providing both “best effort delivery” and
“end to end” quality of service delivery
New principles
on economic
issues



Transparency of prices
Cost orientation
Foster investment in high-bandwidth infrastructure and ensure adequate return
on investment
Allow for compensation for traffic carried/terminated

Cooperation on
cyber security/
other security
issues

Cooperation to
combat spam

Enactment of appropriate legislation, ensuring law-enforcement, development
of technical and regulatory best practices
Internet
governance

Member states have equal rights to manage the internet, implement internet
governance policies and regulate operators providing internet access or
carrying internet traffic
Other



Scope of the review
Make ITU Recommendations mandatory
Access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms on international
connectivity matters
Significant market power and abuse
Special measures for landlocked developing countries
Accessibility for persons with disabilities
Emergency services
Energy efficiency
Freedom of expression
Global telecommunications services/numbering resources








Development of technical standards and legal norms, harmonisation of national
legislation, jurisdictions and practices related to the investigation and
prosecution of cybercrime
Protection of data and privacy
Annex 1 of this report provides an overview of the key proposals with an indication of the
positions taken by different ITU member states.
B. Internet governance and IP interconnection
Prior to WCIT-12, many stakeholders have voiced their opinions on:

the threat of reversal of the current multi-stakeholder internet governance model;

proposals which aim to introduce compensation mechanisms for traffic carried and
terminated (said to be justified in order to foster investment in high-bandwidth
infrastructure and ensure adequate return on investment); and
© Cullen International November 2012
3

allowing for differentiated traffic management (development of international IP
interconnection providing both best-effort and end-to-end quality of service delivery).
NB. See for example ISOC’s paper and letter to ETNO, Google’s petition, BEREC’s
statement and the European Parliament’s resolution.
1.
The multi-stakeholder internet governance model
During the preparatory phase the Russian Federation suggested that at least some IP
addresses could be attributed by the ITU (contribution 40) – a proposal which fuelled fears
that the ITU “would take over the internet”.
This proposal was not followed up either by the Russian Federation or by any other member
state, although Russia’s final proposal defends that member states shall have:

equal rights to manage the internet “including in regard to the allotment, assignment,
and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources
and to support for the operation and development of basic Internet infrastructure”;

the right to implement internet governance policies (including international policies); and

the right to regulate the “national internet segment” and operators providing internet
access or carrying internet traffic.
However, several member states have overtly rejected any modification to the “architecture”
of the Internet (e.g. USA, CEPT, Israel).
2.
Interconnection of networks
The internet ecosystem could be affected by proposals (supported, for example, by the
African States, the Arab States, Cameroon, and Cuba) which aim at:

broadening and clarifying the scope of the ITRs (to clearly include data networks and
internet);

introducing compensation mechanisms for traffic carried and terminated; and

developing international IP interconnection, providing both best-effort and end-to-end
quality of service delivery (a proposal introduced during the preparatory stage by ETNO
and picked up by Cameroon).
Despite not advocating the application of the “sending party network pays” principle (also
introduced by ETNO during the preparatory phase), such proposals could lead to a
modification of the standard IP interconnection model, particularly the way that costs are
shared, thus affecting relations between network operators and content providers (such as
Google). This could ultimately affect the internet value-chain and impact on the way content
is made available.
This remains one of the most controversial topics, with several member states having
indicated that they wish no interference or regulation on IP interconnection issues (e.g.
USA, CEPT, Israel, Australia).
NB. The proposals on “fair compensation” essentially repeat the principles established in
Recommendation ITU-T D.50 that commercial agreements on international internet
interconnection take into account the possible need for compensation on the basis of
traffic flow, number of routes, geographic coverage and the cost of international
transmission.
C. Participation in WCIT-12
Only ITU member states are full participants with the right to vote. Other ITU members,
including telecoms operators and regional organisations, have observer status.
Member States are free to select their own delegations and were encouraged to engage
with a broad range of stakeholders from across industry and civil society to ensure that “all
voices are heard”.
© Cullen International November 2012
4
Companies such as Google, Verizon, Cisco, AT&T and Deutsche Telecom and
organizations such as ETNO, GSMA, ICANN and ISOC will also be present, with a total of
1,691 delegates expected in Dubai.
Contact the author:
Inês Nolasco
[email protected]
+32 81 25 75 75
© Cullen International November 2012
5
Annex 1 – Key proposals submitted to WCIT-12
Issue
ITRs - scope of the
review
ITU
Recommendations/
Standards
Proposal
Backed by
Keep as high-level principles
Minimal changes required
Australia
CEPT
CITEL
Israel
USA
Keep technology neutral
Australia (technical issues to be
addressed by Resolutions and ITU-T
Recommendations)
CEPT
Israel
USA
Exclude proposals on national/regional
services/transport
CEPT
Ensure compatibility/consistency with
the ITU Constitution and Convention
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Australia
CEPT
CITEL (avoid overlap with Radio
Regulations)
Mexico
USA (avoid overlap with Radio
Regulations)
Ensure compatibility with the EU acquis
CEPT
Not to override/consistent with
commitments made in the WTO, GATS,
(trade agreements)
Australia
CEPT
Israel
Internet/ICT to be left out of the ITRs
CEPT
Israel
USA
ICT included in the definition of
telecommunications
African States
Member states to ensure application of
ITRs/ITU Recommendations by
administrations/operators
African States
Cameroon
Regional Commonwealth in the field of
communications (RCC)
ITRs not to direct actions of private
parties or influence national regulatory
measures
Safeguard commercial, operational and
technology freedom
Australia
CEPT
Review to focus on promoting
competition and liberalisation
CEPT
Israel (privatisation and predictable
local regulation)
Voluntary
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Australia
Brazil
CEPT
CITEL
Israel
Mexico
USA
Voluntary (unless otherwise indicated in
the ITRs)
African States
Arab States (necessary compliance
with ITU Recommendations which
have policy/regulatory implications)
Cameroon
RCC
© Cullen International November 2012
6
Issue
Network security
issues
Combating spam
(e.g. cyber security,
spam, misuse of
numbering, naming,
addressing, fraud)
Naming, numbering
and identifications
resources
Routing
Quality of service
(QoS)
Proposal
Backed by
Member states to ensure compliance
with the ITRs by operators
Arab States
Recognise standards adopted through
other multi stakeholder organizations
Israel
Cooperation between member states
Addressed in the ITRs
African States
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Arab States
Brazil
Cameroon
India
Indonesia (but minimal changes to the
ITRs)
Cameroon
African States
Paraguay
RCC
Left out of the ITRs
CEPT
CITEL
Israel (cyber security)
USA
Cooperation on data protection/ privacy
related issues
African States
Cameroon
Controlled by Member states
Arab States (the resources used
within their territories for international
telecommunications)
Member states to ensure correct
transmission of call origination ID/calling
line identification
Arab States (implement features)
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Cameroon
India
Mexico
RCC
Member states to ensure related ITU
Recommendations are complied with
African States
India
Member states to ensure appropriate
use of numbering resources which are
under the responsibility/ remit of the ITU
CEPT
Member states to know how traffic is
routed
African States
Arab States
Cameroon
Mexico (in accordance with national
law)
RCC
Member states can regulate
international traffic termination
conditions at national level (to ensure
security and counter fraud)
Cameroon
Operators to agree freely on the
international routes to be used
Australia
CEPT (regulation is obsolete)
African States
Mexico
USA
Issues related to peering, routing or
transit are to be solved by market
mechanisms/ multi stakeholder
approach
Israel
Transparency on QoS
African States
Mexico
© Cullen International November 2012
7
Issue
Availability of
sufficient
telecommunications
facilities
Allowing
differentiated traffic
management
Internet governance
Proposal
Backed by
Ensure minimum QoS
Arab States
Australia
Brazil
Mexico
India (in line with ITU
Recommendations)
RCC (agreed QoS)
Ensure a satisfactory QoS (in line with
ITU Recommendations)
Arab States
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Australia
African States
Cameroon
CEPT (competition is the best way to
ensure this)
India
Mexico
USA
Ensure QoS above a minimum level
African States
Arab States
Cameroon
To be promoted/encouraged by member
states
African States
Arab States
Australia
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Brazil (in order to support public
education, health, financial inclusion)
CEPT/Israel
(by fostering liberalised/competitive
services)
Mexico
USA
Which is a result of implementing
regulatory regimes which lead to
liberalisation, promote competition and
stimulate private sector investment
USA
Member states to facilitate the
development of international IP
interconnection providing both
best-effort and end-to-end quality of
service delivery
Cameroon
(but best-effort to continue forming the
basis of international IP traffic
exchange)
Current QoS practices not to be
changed
CEPT
Israel
USA
Member states have equal rights to
manage the internet (including the
assignment of internet numbering,
naming, addressing and identification
resources ), implement internet
governance policies and regulate
operators providing internet access or
carrying internet traffic
Russian Federation
Member states to ensure cooperation at
national level on reliability and security
of the internet/infrastructure
Russian Federation
Internet governance to be left out of the
ITRs
Maintain status quo, reject proposals
which aim at modifying the architecture
of the internet (e.g. routing, quality of
service, numbering, naming, addressing)
CEPT
Israel
USA
© Cullen International November 2012
8
Issue
Mobile roaming
New principles on
economic issues
Proposal
Backed by
Member states to refrain from taking
unilateral and/or discriminatory actions
that could impede member states
access to the internet/internet websites
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Cuba
Ensure transparency of retail charges
(and conditions)
(several member states advocate for
information to be provided free of
charge)
African States
Arab States
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
CEPT
CITEL
Cameroon
India
RCC
USA
Ensure transparency on cost of
additional paid services/ option to
decline those services
RCC
Reasonable, competitive,
non-discriminatory retail charges
CITEL (regulation on charges to be
tackled at national level)
Cameroon
India
Encourage/ensure competition in the
provision of roaming services
Cooperation to reduce roaming charges
Cameroon
CEPT
India
Cost-oriented charges
African States
Ensure quality of service
CITEL
Cameroon
Cooperation in bordering zones to avoid
inadvertent roaming charges
Cameroon
CITEL
India
Ensure transparency of retail tariffs
African States
Arab States (info provided free of
charge)
Cameroon
CEPT (info provided free of charge)
India
Same retail tariff in a given
communication, independently of the
routes used
African States
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Brazil
Cameroon
Mexico
RCC
Avoid too great asymmetry between
charges in each direction of the same
communications
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Brazil
RCC
Cost oriented wholesale charges
African States
Cameroon
India (regulation imposed if necessary
but without hindering competition )
Wholesale charges agreed commercially
Australia
Brazil (on the basis of cost-orientation)
Israel
Mexico (member states to regulate
accordingly terms and conditions of
provision within their territories)
RCC (subject to national law)
USA
© Cullen International November 2012
9
Issue
Proposal
Backed by
Member states to foster investment in
(high-bandwidth) infrastructures
African States
India
USA (by fostering competitive and
liberalised markets)
Member states to ensure an adequate
return on investment in network
infrastructures (through market
mechanisms or other, if necessary)
India
Member states to encourage/ ensure
that operators negotiate agreements
foreseeing fair compensation for traffic
carried
African States
Arab States (reference to ITU-T D.50)
Cameroon (reference to ITU-T D.50)
Cuba
Member states to ensure that
agreements between network operators
and providers of applications and
services abide by the principles of fair
competition, innovation, adequate QoS,
security
African States
Member states to ensure that operators
have the right to charge providers of
applications and services access
charges based on the agreed QoS (to
balance revenues in the ecosystem and
ensure investment in high bandwidth
infrastructure)
African States
Addressed in the ITRs
African States
RCC
Left to commercial negotiations
Regulation in ITRs is obsolete
Brazil
Cameroon
CEPT (ITU-T Recommendations to
deal with particular arrangements)
Israel
Mexico
USA
Prevent international double taxation
Australia
Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
Cameroon
India
Mexico
RCC
USA
Fiscal issues not within the scope of the
ITRs
CEPT
Significant market
power/ abuse
Evaluation of significant market
power/abuse to take into account
international market shares/ international
market
Cameroon
Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR)
Access to ADR and to the national
regulatory and competition authorities of
the other party’s state
African States
Persons with
disabilities
Encourage the provision of services/set
international standards that ensure
accessibility to persons with disabilities
CITEL
Hungary
India
Landlocked
developing countries
Adopt special measures to ensure
access to international fibre networks
Cameroon (e.g. special rates)
CITEL
India (special interconnection rates)
Emergency services
Inform users of the emergency number
(e.g. when roaming)
African States
Cameroon
India
RCC
Fair compensation
for traffic carried
(e.g. on the basis of
traffic flows, number of
routes, cost of
international
transmission,
geographic coverage,
network externalities)
Accounting
Taxation
© Cullen International November 2012
10
Issue
Proposal
Backed by
Cooperation to introduce a single
number for calls to emergency services
globally
Cameroon
India
Cooperation to encourage international
energy efficiency standards and best
practices to reduce energy
consumption/e-waste
African States
Cameroon
Cooperation to avoid harm due to
disposal of e-waste
African States
Freedom of
expression
Privacy
Ensure protection
Tunisia
Global
telecommunications
services (GTS)
Global numbering
resources
Member states may implement GTS in
their national laws
Brazil
Cameroon
India
Energy efficiency
E-waste
NB. The list of proposals covers the main submissions and points raised but is not
exhaustive.
© Cullen International November 2012
11