By Maria Paz Canales and Sheetal Kumar.
In October, GPD was in New Delhi for the 2024 World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly (WTSA-24), the International Telecommunication Union Standardization Sector (ITU-T)’s quadrennial conference for the development of technical standards.
As we set out in our pre-event blog, this event sets the scope and priorities of the standardisation work to be conducted by ITU-T over the next four years, which can have significant impacts on the open, interoperable Internet which facilitates the exercise of human rights.
Going into WTSA-24, we had two principal concerns, all relating to the mandate of the ITU. First, a set of potentially expansive modifications proposed to the so-called “Internet Resolutions” (Res 47, 48, 50, 64 and 75), which could have provided the ITU-T with larger roles in relation to the management of the Internet’s critical resources. Second, a role for the ITU in ‘new technologies’ like the metaverse, digital identity systems and AI, which would risk not only duplicative standards but also decision making about such standards more confined to closed, multilateral processes.
Now that the dust has settled on WTSA-24, were these concerns realised or averted? Below, we offer some reflections and analysis on what took place, and some considerations for future civil society engagement in the ITU-T’s ongoing work.
What happened?
First, some positive news. Despite protracted and often tense negotiations – marked by geopolitical polarisation – none of the Resolutions we were concerned about were modified to facilitate mandate expansion. In the end, most were either left unchanged (such as Res 22 on Working Methods of ITU-T, Res 75 on WSIS and Res 47 on Country Code Top-Level Domain Names), with trivial changes that do not expand the ITU-T role on Internet resource management (Res 48 on Internationalized Multilingual Domain Names, Res 50 on Cybersecurity, and Res 64 on IPv6), or passed back to ITU Study Groups for further work (Res 90 on Open Source, OTT and digital identity systems).
Besides the Resolutions, other flashpoints for geopolitical tensions emerged around Russia’s efforts to be appointed to administrative functions within the ITU-T – for example, the Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) and chair positions for the Study Groups. Much of this relates to the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has many states questioning whether the Russian Federation can hold to basic commitments implied in the ITU-T mandate, or handle ITU-T discussions in a neutral way.
Elsewhere, the newly passed Metaverse Resolution marked the first time an ITU resolution has included express human rights language: “bearing in mind, that owing to the impact metaverse may have on people’s lives, it is necessary to develop technical standards that respect and promote fundamental human rights, such as security, privacy, inclusion, accessibility and protection”. This language came from the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) regional proposal that the UK delegation helped to shape, among others. We were pleased to see this rights-based approach winning out over the less robust “ethical concerns” approach proposed by other groupings.
Despite this encouraging landmark, delegations remain resistant to incorporating language referring directly to human rights into ITU-T texts, given that this is not in the traditional scope of the ITU-T’s expertise. However, we were encouraged to see space made for the first time at the Conference for critical, multistakeholder discussion around the integration of human rights considerations into technical standards, in the form of a side event jointly hosted by the OHCHR, ITU, and European Commission. The FOC’s new Joint Statement on Technical Standards and Human Rights in the Context of Digital Technologies was also verbally referenced at one of the Plenary sessions by the Netherlands, which asked to have it included as official input for the Conference. This statement joins one made last year by the Human Rights High Commissioner during the ITU World Standards Cooperation meeting. Both are important normative building blocks for human rights-based approaches to technical standards.
It was also heartening to see broad recognition across these discussions of the advancement in bridging the gender gap in technical standards participation. Several working groups and commissions at this WTSA were notably chaired by younger women, who were able, through effective and inclusive steering of COM 4 and ad hoc groups, to reach consensus on often contentious and intractable issues, like Res 50 on Cybersecurity and Res 75 on WSIS.
On some resolutions, the alignment of the African, Asia and Arab state groupings or of the larger and more powerful member states within these groupings (China, India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) with Russia led to protracted negotiations. In any case, it was a particularly prolific conference, with eight new resolutions and 45 resolutions updated.
Last but not least, we want to note that this WTSA saw the highest ever level of participation by civil society groups in its history, a landmark effort which GPD was honoured to contribute to and facilitate. This strengthened engagement was instrumental in securing the important wins for human rights enumerated above – enabling GPD and its partners to provide effective support to national delegations, monitoring and shaping the discussions to head off risks to Internet fragmentation and promote human rights within ITU-T workstreams.
Trendlines for civil society at the WTSA
In many senses, this WTSA was a positive demonstration of the ability to reach consensus, raising hopes that stakeholders can collectively and constructively shape the next four years of work. The anticipated points of tension were still present – from differences over the scope of the ITU-T mandate, to geopolitical visions about how technical standards should reflect national approaches to the role of technology in telecommunications networks and development. But despite this, its final outcomes are broadly positive from a human rights perspective. Compromises on key Resolutions on AI, Digital Public Infrastructure, cybersecurity, sustainable digital transformation and the metaverse mean that any immediate threats to human rights and the Internet governance model have, for now, been successfully averted in WTSA negotiations (though civil society will need to monitor their progression in Study Groups over the upcoming four year period).
While this WTSA yielded no great or alarming changes, we noted a few emerging dynamics and trends which merit attention from human rights defenders:
- Internet governance is increasingly intertwined with the work of the ITU, due to the growing complexity of the Internet and telecommunications sectors. ‘Traditional’ Internet governance processes at the UN today (like the WSIS, and now the Global Digital Compact) have clear connections to standards and technical work through the topics covered. This is in contrast to just a decade ago, when overlaps were limited. Back then, for instance, the UN might focus on closing the digital divide, with Internet standards the strict preserve of technical forums. By contrast, recent WSIS resolution negotiations included a proposal to encourage ITU-T Study Groups to further develop recommendations on the management of the internet, a clear sign of increasingly blurred lines between remits and spaces in the field.
- National standard-setting is impacting global standards: There are increasing attempts by larger economies and countries, China and India in particular, to utilise the ITU-T to promote national standards, especially in relation to new and emerging technologies. As we have previously observed, this poses risks of Internet fragmentation. While China was less dominant than expected in the WTSA discussions than, for example, Russia, this reflects its wider and strategic use of other standards bodies like the IETF, and its efforts through the Study Groups to embed its national standards into global supply chains. This underscores the critical importance of sustained civil society participation at the ITU-T, which serves to monitor and counter initiatives which risk Internet fragmentation and negative human rights impacts.
Final thoughts
Looking more broadly at the digital governance ecosystem, the increasing complexity and convergence of the Internet, mobile and traditional telecommunications technologies (AI, 5G, metaverse etc) means that mission creep among standards organisations and Internet governance bodies will be both more common and more difficult to track and monitor in coming years.
At the same time, civil society engagement will be all the more important in spaces like the ITU-T, as states, including some authoritarian regimes, strive to concentrate greater decision making power within the ITU – mirroring broader shifts, from multistakeholder Geneva to multilateral New York, that we noted from recent engagement in the Global Digital Compact process.
These trends will continue to present challenges to human rights and to the currently more open Internet governance model. At the same time, such moments of flux also present opportunities to embed human rights in a more holistic manner into the development and deployment of standards for digital technologies. GPD hopes to continue supporting the consistent engagement of civil society groups in ITU-T and other technical standards-setting bodies – taking advantage of openings to shape the discussions, helping to foster connections across different forums, and making the case for the multistakeholder and multidisciplinary approach which is our best hope of preventing Internet fragmentation and promoting human rights.