Czech Yearbook Vol. 4 2013

272 / 350

ANNELIES VRBOVÁ – MARKÉTA NOVÁKOVÁ – MARTIN BULÁNEK CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ
transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or
intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems”,2
it is clear that ITU follows only a part of such a complex international agenda. The
definition is the key to the scope of the ITU mandate and as shown later, it was also
one of the most controversial areas of the WCIT-12.
According to the Czech Republic’s point of view, any content is beyond
the mandate of the ITU, and that is why the WCIT-12 could discuss only the
infrastructure and services in telecommunications. This principle was the major part
of discussion from the very beginning till the end.
Due to time constraints arising from the procedural setting, the guiding principles
for the Czech delegation were formulated very generally: only such proposals that were
consistent with the needs of the Czech Republic and would not require additional
financial resources should be supported; any proposals for amendments or new
provisions that were not in line with CEPT, EU co-ordination and/or EU legislation,
and/or did not deal with telecommunications, for example regulation of content,
should be opposed.
The Czech Delegation supported the idea of creating a completely new version of
the ITRs, since it was ready to negotiate it in order to achieve a document that would
address as many important issues in the telecommunications of the developing
and least developed countries as possible that would, at the same time, promote
the development of the new generation of telecommunications networks, such
as fixed and mobile broadband networks, and as well as maintain the democratic
principles of liberalised telecommunications markets in the developed countries, in
particular a minimum level of state regulations aimed only at those companies that
have, from the EU point of view, significant market power. On the other hand,
the Czech Republic was not ready to accept any attempts to include regulatory
provisions, especially in conjunction with Internet security, such as online protection
against child pornography and terrorism, which are not covered by the Electronic
Communications Act (Act No. 127/2005 Coll.) of the Czech national legislation.
Other Member States of the EU have a similar attitude.
The last session of the preparatory ITU Council Working Group in Geneva,
held in June 2012, also touched upon, among other things, another controversial
point concerning the Article 10 – Final Provisions where entry into force was
not properly addressed.3 A great unknown, that excited a lot of emotion, was the
openness of the WCIT-12 to the public. This question was supposed to be solved
by the Conference itself. However, in spite of this fact, the Secretary-General of the
ITU, Dr Hamadoun I. Touré, in his introductory remarks, invited Member States to
accept the following approach towards openness: “In accordance with national laws
2 See page 2, Definitions, of the Final Actsofthe World Conference on International Telecommunications
(Dubai, 2012),
3 See the consolidated proposal of 3 December 2012 in Document No. S12-WCIT12-121203-TD-0001
athttp://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=en&parent=S12-WCIT12-121203-TD&PageLB=50.