VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0982/01 3231551
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181551Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7491
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 2866
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 5732
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 2820
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 3352

UNCLAS GENEVA 000982 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ITU AORC KUNR AMGT
SUBJECT: International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Working Group 
on Financial Regulations 
 
REF: Geneva 000825 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: USG maintained its positions at the Working Groups of 
ITU Council, which consisted of two meetings on terminology use at 
the ITU, two meetings on the World Summit on the Information Society 
(Geneva, 2003 and Tunis, 2005) (WSIS), and a meeting on financial 
issues.  The working groups will submit reports on their activities 
to the ITU Council November 12-21, 2008. END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  The Working Groups of ITU Council consisted of a series of 
meetings to prepare for the meeting of the ITU Council in November 
¶2008.  There are five Working Groups of ITU Council comprising 
groups on: 1) Security Definitions & Terminology: Use in ICTs (Sept. 
22-23); 2) Terminology: Use in the Constitution & Convention (Sept. 
23-24); 3) WSIS: Implementation of outcomes (Sept. 25-26); 4) WSIS: 
Participation of stakeholders in ITU Activities (Sept. 29-30); and 
5) Financial Regulations and other related Financial Management 
Issues (Oct. 1-2). This cable reports on meetings of the first four 
groups. The meeting of the fifth group was reported in reftel. 
 
WORKING GROUPS ON TERMINOLOGY 
 
¶3.  At the first meeting, on security definitions and terminology, 
the United States introduced its contribution stating that the 
United States supports the definition of Cybersecurity agreed by 
ITU-T Study Group 17 in ITU-T Recommendation X.1205, which is as 
follows: "Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity is the collection of tools, 
policies, security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk 
management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance 
and technologies that can be used to protect the cyber environment 
and organization and user's assets. Organization and user's assets 
include connected computing devices, personnel, infrastructure, 
applications, services, telecommunications systems, and the totality 
of transmitted and/or stored information in the cyber environment. 
Cybersecurity strives to ensure the attainment and maintenance of 
the security properties of the organization and user's assets 
against relevant security risks in the cyber eQronment.  The 
general security objectives comprise the following: availability; 
integrity, which may include authenticity and non-repudiation; and 
confidentiality." 
 
¶4.  There was no opposition to this position.  The Russian 
Federation offered an additional proposal, which they broached at 
the previous meeting of the group in January.  At the January 
meeting Russia indicated that it believed that, "in accordance with 
the para 36 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles and mandate of 
this Group (on Resolution 149) the subject of [the group's] 
discussion should include cybercrime, cyberterrorism and the use of 
ICT for purposes that are inconsistent with the objectives of 
maintaining international stability and security.  They added that 
these fields should be reflected in any security-related definition 
discussed by the group.  The Russian proposal for the September 
meeting included terms and definitions for information war, 
information weapons, international information crime, international 
information terrorism, and illegal use of information and 
telecommunications systems and information resources.  The group 
concluded (with the exception of the Russian Federation) that those 
terms were outside the purpose of the Union as stipulated in Article 
¶1.  After discussion, Russia agreed that the definition of 
cybersecurity contained in X.1205 to a certain extent covers some 
items of its proposals. 
¶5.  At the end of the meeting, the Syrian chair proposed several 
ways of going forward with the work of the group.  Two of his 
proposals involved including the word "security" or "cybersecurity" 
in the ITU Constitution and Convention (CS/CV).  The other options 
involved either drafting an independent resolution on the definition 
of cybersecurity, or modifying an existing resolution.  The United 
States stated "that the Constitution and Convention should be stable 
documents, and as such, we prefer other solutions, such as using 
Resolutions, over adding terms to the CS/CV.  We believe that 
changing the CS/CV may cause difficulty for national 
administrations; however, we do support the use of accepted 
definitions, such as the definition of cybersecurity established by 
SG 17.  These definitions are contextual and often "working" 
definitions, which make them flexible in the face of changing 
technologies.  The United States believes that putting the SG 17 
definition of cybersecurity in a Resolution is the appropriate 
response to Resolution 149."  Canada supported this approach. The 
Syrian chair strongly opposed this approach because Syria hopes to 
revise either Article 1 of the Constitution, which indicates the 
mandate of the Union, or the definitions contained within the Annex 
to the Constitution or the Annex to the Convention. 
 
¶6.  The debate on terminology continued in the second meeting, on 
terminology in the CS/CV.  In this meeting, the United States 
introduced a contribution stating that the U.S. continues to support 
no change to Article 1 of the CS/CV.  USG believes the purposes of 
the Union and associated definitions, including the definition of 
telecommunications (CS 1012), are sufficiently broad to meet the 
 
needs of the Membership and a changing telecommunications 
environment.  USG indicated that there are other ways to define 
terms in the ITU, such as in decisional elements.  Japan and Iran 
supported the U.S. position.  Russia and Syria opposed the U.S. 
position.  Russia and Syria proposed modifications to the definition 
of telecommunications.  Syria accused the United States of 
attempting to abrogate the rights of Member states to modify the 
Constitution and Convention.  The U.S. indicated, and the Emirati 
Chairman agreed, that this view was incorrect, because the United 
States only offered its position while suggesting alternative means 
to define terms within the ITU.  At this point no consideration is 
being given to adding any definitions to the CS/CV.   A Draft 
interim report of the WG-Terminology was distributed and submitted 
for discussion. In the course of the debate, the final version of 
the report to be submitted to Council was agreed by all 
participants. 
 
WORKING GROUPS ON THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY (WSIS) 
(Geneva, 2003 and Tunis, 2005) 
 
¶7. At the third meeting, on WSIS Implementation, the ad hoc group on 
Internet matters was convened by the French chair.  The French chair 
indicated that no contributions were received from Membership for 
the ad hoc group.  Syria opined that the Internet Governance Forum 
(IGF) served no purpose, and is not helpful to developing nations, 
and that the ITU does not play a role at the IGF.  The French chair 
stated that ITU plays a role at IGF, on the multi-stakeholder 
advisory committee, for example.  Syria indicated appreciation for 
the work of the Chairman, while also suggesting an evaluation of the 
usefulness of the IGF, and of the ITU's role at the IGF. 
 
¶8. During the regular session of the group, the Russian chair and 
Secretariat introduced multiple documents on WSIS implementation. 
Most of these documents lacked controversy.  One document suggested 
changing the name of the WSIS Action Line meetings, or organizing 
the meetings differently by themes as opposed to Action Lines. 
Egypt, Gabon, Kenya, and Syria opposed changing aspects of the 
Action Line meetings.  The U.S. (and the other Member states) 
agreed, because the Action Lines, and their related meetings, were 
carefully negotiated during the WSIS. 
 
¶9. At the fourth meeting, on WSIS stocktaking, the group discussed 
the questionnaire on participation distributed to WSIS-accredited 
entities after the previous meeting in January.  The group noted 
that the number of answers to the questionnaire sent to the 
Secretariat was very low, representing only 3.5 percent of Member 
States, less than one percent of ITU's Sector Members and Associates 
and less than 0.1 percent of WSIS-accredited stakeholders. The Group 
noted that additional contributions had been sent by Canada and the 
United States, and two more Sector Members, but these answers were 
never received by the Secretariat. 
 
¶10. The group agreed that due to the small number of answers and 
lack of clarity and coherence of those answers, the relevance of the 
result of the consultation would be questionable; however, they 
decided to continue discussion on the answers given by Member States 
and to provide conclusions for each of the Questions.  The Group 
also discussed the answers from Sector Members, Associates and 
WSIS-accredited stakeholders and had the opinion that, in most 
cases, the answers from Sector Members and Associates and to the 
lesser extent, the answers received from WSIS-accredited 
stakeholders, were normally consistent with the replies received 
from their Member States. 
 
¶11. The Group felt that it was not yet time to discuss a draft 
structure of the final report to Council 2009.  The Group asked the 
Chairman, in cooperation with the Secretariat, to present a proposal 
for a draft structure of the final report to be discussed at its 
coming meeting, to be ready one month before the meeting.  The Group 
encouraged Member States to contribute to the next Meeting of this 
Group, taking into consideration the output of the Council on the 
Report. 
 
TICHENOR#