What’s at stake for human rights and the Internet at WTSA-24?
Over the next few weeks (15-25 October), we’ll be in New Delhi for the 2024 World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly (WTSA-24), the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)’s quadrennial conference for the development of technical standards.
As we explain in our recent Guide to Navigating the WTSA, the ITU-T produces standards which help define the global infrastructure of information and communication technologies (ICTs). These can have wide-ranging impacts on the ICT regulatory ecosystem and, by extension, the open, interoperable Internet which is so critical for the enjoyment of human rights.
The WTSA sets the scope and priorities of the standardisation work to be conducted by the ITU over the next 4 years, through a review of various Resolutions, both existing and new. While these Resolutions often appear very technical, their policy impacts can be concrete and material, since they implicate the basic features of how the Internet operates. New or altered standards can, therefore, work to facilitate or hinder the exercise of rights like freedom of expression and the right to privacy.
Our advocacy priorities at WTSA
As part of our efforts to counter Internet fragmentation and enable an Internet that promotes and protects human rights, GPD—alongside Data Privacy, Foundation for Media Alternatives, The IO Foundation, KICTANet and Paradigm Initiative—has analysed a range of draft Resolutions proposed by regional groups and Member States for discussion at WTSA, looking at whether they present threats to an open Internet or human rights. At the WTSA itself, we will seek, via our Member State delegation, to present this analysis and advocate for a human rights-strengthening outcome.
Our first focus is the potentially expansive modifications proposed to the so-called “Internet Resolutions”—referring to those Resolutions that most directly implicate the functioning of the Internet. These are Resolution 47 on Country Code Top-Level Domain Names, Resolution 48 on Internationalized (Multilingual) Domain Names, Resolution 50 on Cybersecurity, Resolution 64 on IPv6 Deployment, and Resolution 75 on WSIS. Here, our main concern is the risk of expanding the ITU-T’s work to acting actively in the “management of the Internet”—which could mean the ITU-T, a multilateral forum, encroaching on the work of other Standard Development Organisations (SDOs) with more multistakeholder approaches. Such an outcome would likely result in less openness, transparency and inclusion in the development of technical standards.
Another focus of our analysis is a range of newly proposed Resolutions on the metaverse, artificial intelligence, digital public infrastructure and digital identity. On the metaverse, proposals are coming from all six regions (APT, ATU, CEPT, CITEL, LAS and RCC)—an outgrowth of the Focus Group on Metaverse (FG-MV)’s prolific pre-standardisation work over the last two years. Here, our focus is ensuring that any ITU-T role on the metaverse aligns with the work already performed by other SDOs, to foster a secure, inclusive, accessible and sustainable metaverse with many stakeholders around the world. Contentious points include questions around which Study Groups (SGs) within the ITU-T will be assigned these standardisation duties, as well as the pace, remit and intensity of the ITU-T’s work on the metaverse. There is also an overarching question on the concrete value of the metaverse for future telecommunications and ICT applications and services, bearing in mind ongoing connectivity issues and digital divides for a significant part of the world’s population.
On AI standardisation, we’re examining proposals coming from APT, RCC and a multi-country proposal coming from Australia, Canada and the US. Here, our focus is on determining, from a human rights perspective, where standardisation activities related to ensuring AI safety and trustworthiness are best situated. Should they be considered as part of the ITU-T’s remit? And, if so, would this be in the SGs or with elsewhere within ITU-T? Finally, for proposed Resolutions on digital public infrastructure and digital identity proposals, there are concerns around security, privacy and protection of personal data. The proposals include references to digital wallets and age verification—issues which, while relevant to technical standardisation, also touch on regulatory aspects outside of the ITU-T remit. We’re also concerned that the proposed work could eventually conflict with or duplicate ongoing work on identity management conducted at ITU-T and other SDOs.
In a more overarching sense, we expect tensions among the different regional groups. Some are more inclined to expand the work of ITU-T related to new and emerging technologies like AI, with others continuing to support a narrower remit, standardising only the aspects of these technologies which directly implicate telecommunication and ICTs. One additional element of tension comes from efforts by some actors to make ITU-T a space where states push and promote their own nationally developed standards. This would threaten the current vision of a forum focused on ensuring the international interoperability of standards. If we want to avoid Internet fragmentation, it’s critical we resist this shift.
This is not an exhaustive account of the human rights-relevant elements of the Resolutions that will be under discussion at WTSA-24. It is intended to offer a flavour of what is at stake and where civil society groups will be allocating their attention and supporting government delegates to ensure that WTSA-24 outcomes enable an open, interoperable, reliable and secure Internet that promotes and protects human rights.
We will be reporting on the progress of the conference at the end of its first week, and following up with a full analysis of its outcomes.
For regular updates on the ITU and other SDOs, sign up for our monthly Digest.