On October 24, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) concluded its World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly or WTSA-24.

This otherwise obscure ITU meeting took special significance, as it was the first major UN event following the completion of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the Pact of the Future. The meeting, which establishes the standardisation agenda for the ITU through 2028, represented the first concrete opportunity for UN Member States to begin shaping the vision laid out in the GDC. 

For those of us especially interested in the evolution of Internet governance discussions, WTSA-24 offered a sneak preview of what we may expect to see going into the World Summit on the Information Society 20-year review (WSIS+20) in 2025.

Over the last two decades, non-democratic governments have repeatedly tried to get the ITU to play an active role in governing and creating standards for the Internet –eroding the role of ICANN, IETF and other multistakeholder venues. Advocates for the open, interoperable Internet have been resisting that for years.

WTSA-24, a potential dry run for the WSIS+20 review, went surprisingly well for like-minded delegations and organisations that support the global Internet. But these positive results were hard-won, and required to push back against a number of objectionable proposals. In addition, the conference has left ITU well positioned to take an active role in standardising emerging technologies, risking potential duplication of work currently being done in other venues. 

This blog summarises what happened at WTSA-24 and what it teaches us in preparation for the WSIS+20 review.

1. Positive progress (or no changes) to the Internet Resolutions

There are a number of resolutions that deal with issues closely related to the functioning of the Internet. These are:

• Resolution 64 on IPv6 transition and deployment;¹
• Resolution 75 on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS);
• Resolution 47 on country code Top Level Domains, or ccTLDs²; and
• Resolution 48 on Internationalised Domain Names, or IDNs.³

The result of negotiations was very positive for supporters of the open, interoperable Internet.

The IPv6 and IDNs resolutions were the only ones that reached consensus for updates. The IPv6 resolution enhanced the recognition of the Regional Internet Registries, known as RIRs, which are private-sector led, community organisations that allocate IP addresses. The resolution also introduced new language encouraging the consideration of IPv6 readiness in government procurement processes. This means that governments are encouraged to commit to the purchase and use of IPv6-enabled devices in publicly-funded networks, as a means to champion adoption.

The resolution on IDNs saw the inclusion of explicit references to UNESCO and to Universal Acceptance Day. In spite of ICANN still not being called out directly, there is now a reference to “relevant technical organisations.” 

The resolutions on ccTLDs and on the WSIS process –especially significant in light of the 20th anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society– remained unchanged.

This makes WTSA-24 seem rather uneventful. But these positive outcomes were in fact the result of intense negotiations and efforts to keep objectionable language off the resolutions. 

Proposals for modification that did not gain consensus included:

• Attempts to assert that the IPv6 transition is inherently insecure, calling for standardisation in ITU’s Study Group 17 that focuses on Security 
• The introduction of purposely vague language that seemed to call for the involvement of governments in the RIR’s management of Internet resources.
• Efforts to mandate ITU standardisation work across new or additional WSIS action lines
• A move to entirely suppress the resolution on ccTLDs which would have done away with an essential text that outlines for the role of Member States in ccTLD management – and therefore, the limited role of the ITU in this domain.

2. Introduction of a wealth of new resolutions: from AI to Digital Public Infrastructure

Another feature that set WTSA-24 apart was the sheer number of proposals for new resolutions. 

A number of these proposals focused on emerging technologies, primarily AI and Metaverse. These reflect the ongoing contest to establish which organisation gets to lead on the standardisation of new technologies – or at least who gets what part of the pie. 

Other new resolutions focused on Global South prerogatives and visions for a global digital future – very much in line with the GDC. These included, for example, new resolutions on Sustainable Digital Transformation (SDT) and Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI).

What do these resolutions mean for the ITU’s role?

The new resolution on AI establishes that ITU’s standardisation arm (also known as ITU-T) will work on applying AI to telecommunications and ICTs. The preamble even acknowledges the work of other SDOs. Negotiations managed to keep at bay attempts to instruct the ITU-T to work on AI safety and trustworthiness, and the creation of a new Council Working Group on AI.

The new resolution on the Metaverse is perhaps the most substantive one. ITU-T’s Focus Group on the Metaverse (FG-MV) – led by Asia Pacific Member States, including ITU-T heavyweights China and South Korea— has developed extensive research and pre-standardisation work. As a result, WTSA negotiations focused on how the FG-MV work would be funnelled into ITU-T.  

The agreement was that the Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) will centralise the work, instead of giving specific Study Groups autonomy to lead metaverse standardisation on their own. The resolution has also required formal coordination across study groups. This is important as it neutralises the influence of a given group —and that of respective chairs– making the production of metaverse standards a cross-union effort. 

From an Internet standards standpoint, while the metaverse work will allegedly not impact Internet design, the metaverse is already cited as a potential use case that could drive changes to networking and routing. Internet advocates will need to remain vigilant.

While Digital Public Infrastructure and Sustainable Digital Transformation are arguably issues for ITU’s Development arm (ITU-D) rather than its standardisation sector, WTSA saw perhaps the symbolic approval of two new resolutions. These contain minor instructions to the TSAG, with no explicit standardisation work being commissioned to specific study groups. Negotiations managed to deflect the introduction of an associated new resolution on Digital Identities.

Can’t give you a new resolution, but will you take a WTSA-24 Action Line?

Negotiations saw the use of WTSA-24 action lines as a compromise to reduce the number of new resolutions. In sum, when there was no agreement on going forward with a new resolution, these were turned into WTSA-24 action items.

WTSA action lines lack teeth as compared to actual resolutions, so in other words, negotiations managed to neutralise attempts to enhance standardisation work across certain areas. Examples of new-resolution-proposals turned action-lines include those on Post Quantum Cryptography, over the top media services (OTTs) and satellite systems. 

3. Geopolitics at play with a vote (versus consensus) on Study Group Leadership

While ITU prides itself for being a consensus-driven organisation, WTSA-24 featured a Member State vote.  

A vote is very unusual. In Internet Governance lore, it triggers flashbacks from the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in 2012. WCIT was the first ITU conference where a vote highlighted significant geopolitical splits on Internet issues –all of which have only deepened over the past decade or more.The vote came as a result of Russia blocking nominations from North America and Europe, as a response to these regions’ support for Ukraine and opposition to the appointment of Russian delegates.

The vote illustrates what happens when geopolitics seeps in. 

While UN bloc politics are feared to give non-democratic nations an edge, WTSA-24 scored a win for European and North American delegates which on average scored 82/92 votes and secured all appointments. Russian delegates, on the other hand, averaged 42/94 votes – meaning they did not secure any appointments.

While such success for the democratic nations defied predictions of how a UN vote may go down, it is likely that Russia and allies will be better prepared for WSIS+20 and not risk losing should an open vote take place again.

4. ITU-T’s Next Study Period: collaboration on trust and merged group for multimedia

WTSA is also where the scope of work for ITU’s standardisation study groups gets defined. 

Discussions on trust and IoT security which today have become scattered across Study Groups 13 (Future Networks), Study Group 20 (IoT and Smart Cities) and Study Group 17 (Security) will now be required to do formal coordination to ensure better streamlining.

Study Group 17’s next study period will now formally cover Public Key Infrastructure and Object Identifiers, and Study Group 20 will expand its focus to sustainable cities and digital twins. The latter might result in some overlap with Study Group 5 (Environment) which has to date led work on climate change and sustainability.

Study Group 16 and Study Group 9 have been merged into a single group that will do “Multimedia, Content Delivery and Cable Television.” This will likely be one of the leading groups taking on the mandate of the New Resolution on Metaverse.

Other interesting highlights  

• New (and highly effective) talent. Young, rising delegates from South Africa and Brazil managed to shepherd through some of the hardest resolutions: the Cyber resolutions and the new resolution on AI. At a time where geopolitics renders negotiations increasingly complex, new talent –particularly from middle-ground countries– may help diplomacy prevail. 
• The weight of the host. India exerted significant influence as host, both within Asia-Pacific Telecommunity (APT) negotiations and at WTSA itself. Saudi Arabia, forthcoming host for the UN Internet Governance Forum, is looking to replicate that recipe, pointing to the relevance of where events take place.
• Human Rights at WTSA. There have been extensive discussions about how to best bring human rights considerations into standards development. While this remains a hard nut to crack, WTSA featured a special session on this very matter, entitled “How can ICT standards ensure the respect of human rights in the time of new and emerging technologies?.” In addition, the Freedom Online Coalition published a joint statement on technical standards and human rights during WTSA-24.

Lessons for WSIS+20

WTSA-24 left us some valuable lessons going into the UN-facilitated, WSIS+20 negotiations in 2025. 

• New ideas work for influencing outcomes. The positive results achieved in the Internet Resolutions at WTSA-24 demonstrated the value of proposing new, constructive language that reflects the vision for an open, interoperable Internet. Positive language serves to nudge newly agreed text in the right direction, and, in contested negotiations, it also functions as a bargaining chip. While ITU negotiations have historically featured like-minded delegations blocking undesirable language, WTSA-24 proved that being an active proponent of ideas pays off.
• Be ready for a vote. WTSA showed that in multilateral settings, a vote is never out of the question. Working across regions to avoid a vote – as well as preparing for there to be one– will be an important strategy ahead of the WSIS review.
• “New” is where the party is at. Member States at WTSA-24 coalesced into two common areas of concern: new technologies, and our global digital futures. WSIS+20 will require active thinking around not just protecting the old, but thinking how we best cooperate in preparation for the new.
• No room for complacency. Replicating the successes of WTSA-24 at WSIS+20– that is, delivering positive language and curving attempts to introduce objectionable proposals– will require the continued, active engagement from both like-minded countries, and the broader Internet community. WSIS+20 will undoubtedly raise new challenges, so we must come prepared and remain vigilant.

______________________________________________________________

^{1- IPv6 is an IETF approved standard, and the successor of IPv4. IP addresses allow devices to connect to the Internet. The internet originally relied on IPv4 addresses which have now beenexhausted, requiring the transition to IPv6. For a comprehensive analysis on the current status of IPv6 transition, please see: https://blog.apnic.net/2022/05/04/the-transition-to-ipv6-are-we-there-yet/
2- ccTLDs are top level domain names reserved for sovereign states or dependent territories. For example, the .uk for the United Kingdom.
3-IDNs are domain names that use character sets outside the narrow range of a-z, 0-9 and the hyphen, and include Chinese, Arabic and Cyrillic script domains, as well as Latin script with accents and diacriticals.}