What is ITU PP-26?
The International Telecommunication Union opens its 2026 Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha, Qatar, on 9 November. The meeting, known as PP-26, runs until 27 November and is the agency's highest policy-making body.
Delegations meet every four years to set the ITU's strategic and financial plans. They also elect the organisation's five top officials, including the secretary-general and the directors of its three sectors.
The conference also fills a 48-seat Council and chooses 12 members of the Radio Regulations Board. Those bodies approve budgets, work programmes and spectrum rules between conferences.
The ITU is the United Nations specialised agency for information and communication technologies. It has 194 member states and more than 1,000 companies, universities and other organisations.
It was founded in 1865 to manage international telegraph traffic. That history makes it the oldest agency in the UN family.
Its headquarters are in Geneva. Its work spans radio spectrum, satellite orbits, technical standards and development programmes. A telecom conference therefore attracts internet companies, civil society and governments alike.
Qatar's Ahmad Abdulla AlMuslemani, president of the country's communications regulator, is the chair-designate. Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin said the meeting would set the stage for a digital future. She described it as one where “human-centered technology drives progress and inclusion for everyone.”
Only governments vote. Companies, technical groups and civil society attend as sector members or observers, with limited speaking rights and no ballot. Contributions were due by 19 October, although late filings can still reach the plenary.
The conference can also amend the ITU's Constitution and Convention, the treaties that define its powers. The Internet Society expects no treaty changes in 2026, which makes resolutions the main battleground.
Why does a telecom meeting matter to the internet?
The ITU is best known for radio spectrum and satellite orbits, but its standards run through daily internet use. Its X.509 rules underpin public-key infrastructure, E.164 defines international phone numbers, and H.264 and H.265 encode most streamed video.
The internet's core plumbing sits elsewhere. ICANN coordinates the domain-name system, the IETF develops core protocols, and regional internet registries allocate IP addresses. These bodies use open, consensus-based processes in which governments are one voice among many.
That division is the heart of the debate in Doha. Some governments want the ITU to take a larger role in internet policy, standards and addressing. Others say the existing multistakeholder model already works.
The tension has history: in 2012, an attempt to revise the International Telecommunication Regulations ended in a split. China has pushed the ITU to study “New IP”, a proposed overhaul of internet protocol that the IETF manages.
In 2022, Russia and China backed a candidate for the ITU's top post. That candidate favoured a stronger role for governments and was not elected, showing how leadership votes can become proxies for deeper disputes.
The UN General Assembly's WSIS+20 review took place in 2025. It reaffirmed the multistakeholder model and made the Internet Governance Forum a permanent body. The forum has not met since, leaving open how much weight that endorsement carries.
Governments still have legitimate reasons to use the ITU, because spectrum, satellite constellations, submarine cables and emergency communications cross borders. So do spam, cybercrime and the costs of carrying traffic between networks.
Internet-related resolutions have accumulated at past conferences. They cover IP-based networks, the management of domain names and addresses, and multilingual names. OTT services and child online protection are also on the list.
Each revision is a chance to adjust the ITU's claim to a topic. The question is not whether the ITU has a role, but where technical coordination ends and public policy begins. It is also about which institution gets to decide.
What is the last-minute proposal about the ITRs?
On 7 November, two days before the conference opens, a group of African countries filed an amendment to Resolution 146. That resolution governs how the ITU reviews the International Telecommunication Regulations.
The ITRs are a treaty framework for telecom services and networks that cross national borders. They were written for an era of state-run telephone monopolies, and their relevance has become contested as internet traffic replaced telephony.
Resolution 146 sets up a periodic review, and an expert group examined the regulations and their continuing relevance. Its report was submitted ahead of the conference in October. A separate regional proposal on the same resolution was registered on 2 November.
The African filing concerns the review process, not the substance of the regulations. CircleID reported that it would not automatically give the ITU authority over domain names, internet addressing or technical standards.
That distinction matters because the ITRs are the closest thing the ITU has to internet-related treaty text. The 2012 revision ended in a split. The Internet Society now opposes convening a new World Conference on International Telecommunications.
A new WCIT could reopen that fight. The Internet Society warns it would create treaty-level rules for matters now handled through voluntary standards.
The case for a review rests on convergence, because voice, video and data now share networks. The Internet Society says reopening the regulations risks treaty-level rules on matters better addressed through multistakeholder processes.
A change to Resolution 146 would not settle that argument. It would decide how, and how often, member states revisit it.
Late filings are allowed if the plenary accepts them, so a proposal submitted after the October deadline can still shape the agenda. Delegations often table texts late to force a debate without giving rivals time to organise.
What else is on the table in Doha?
The Register counted 278 proposals before the meeting, ranging from routine budget language to contested questions about the ITU's scope. Any of them can be amended before a vote.
IPv6 is one cluster. Asia-Pacific countries proposed changes to Resolution 180, which promotes IPv6 adoption. Arab states filed a separate amendment to the same resolution on 26 October.
IPv6 offers a far larger address space than IPv4, which the internet has exhausted in most regions. Resolution 180 covers ITU assistance for deployment, technical cooperation and capacity building, so wording changes can shift resources.
Domain names are another cluster. China submitted changes to Resolution 133 on 29 October. That resolution covers the role of national administrations in managing internationalized domain names. The filing does not say whether China would expand or narrow those roles.
Several proposals address WSIS follow-up, and Asia-Pacific and African groups filed amendments to Resolution 140. It covers the ITU's role in implementing WSIS outcomes and the UN's sustainable development goals.
Artificial intelligence has its own resolution, 214. The Internet Society supports ITU studies on AI and quantum technologies, provided they stay within the ITU's technical remit.
Other texts cover over-the-top services under Resolution 206 and child online protection under Resolution 179. Cybersecurity sits under Resolution 130. Satellite constellations, submarine cable resilience and spectrum policy are also in scope. No settled view exists on which body should lead.
Cost-sharing is the sleeper issue: some proposals would make senders pay network operators for carrying their traffic. The approach, known as “sender pays”, worries the Internet Society. It argues that mandated payments could raise costs for smaller operators and users in developing countries.
Regional groups bundle national positions, which is why filings arrive in clusters from Asia-Pacific, Arab and African delegations. A single paragraph can therefore represent dozens of governments.
Cybersecurity proposals often sound technical but touch sovereignty. Resolution 130 covers confidence and security in ICT use, including spam and national computer emergency response teams. Expanding it can pull the ITU deeper into security policy.
Child online protection is less contested in principle. Resolution 179 sets out the ITU's role in protecting minors online.
What would the proposals actually change?
Very little on their own: PP-26 produces resolutions and decisions that guide the ITU's work. They are not domestic law and do not bind companies directly, and most are adopted by consensus. Texts can be amended, merged or dropped.
A resolution can still shape budgets, studies and technical assistance. It can also signal where governments intend to push next, including in other UN processes.
The ITR amendment is a good example. Revising Resolution 146 would change how the treaty is reviewed, not what it says. A substantive change to the regulations would require a separate conference and new negotiations.
The elections matter too, because a secretary-general and bureau directors set the agency's tone for four years. Council members approve budgets and work programmes between conferences.
Sector members can lobby delegations and speak in some sessions, but they cannot vote. That asymmetry is why technical groups publish detailed positions before the conference and track texts line by line.
Small wording changes can have long tails, creating study groups, mandates and budget lines. Those in turn give the ITU a seat at meetings where the topic is discussed.
That is what critics call mandate creep and supporters call keeping treaties current. The difference is often a single clause about which organisation leads.
The conference also approves the ITU's financial plan, and budget lines reveal priorities that plenary speeches obscure. They show which programmes gain staff and which are asked to do more with less.
National implementation is another limit, because even a strong resolution depends on member states adopting rules at home. It also depends on companies choosing to follow standards voluntarily.
Who is watching the talks?
The Internet Society published a background paper in August. It says the organisation is “actively challenging proposals that could affect the Internet's underlying technical architecture or increase fragmentation.”
ICANN told The Register that proposals expanding the ITU's role in “IP-based networks, the Domain Name System” raise concerns about overlapping mandates. It also warned of parallel processes that could affect the health of the internet.
Both organisations accept a role for the ITU in connectivity, capacity building and technical standards. They object to mandates that duplicate work done elsewhere.
The digital divide is the counterweight: the Internet Society says 2.2 billion people remain offline. Many of them are girls, women, Indigenous people and refugees. Governments point to that gap when arguing for a bigger ITU role.
That argument is genuine, but the dispute is over which institutions should deliver connectivity. It is also about whether coordination requires new authority.
The outcome will shape costs for telecom operators, cloud providers and content companies. Interconnection rules determine who pays for carrying traffic between networks.
Civil society groups also track the texts, because technical rules can enable or constrain political choices. The ITU's mandate is technical, but its decisions can still affect how networks are run.
Qatar's hosting role adds diplomatic weight, because this is the first conference since the WSIS+20 review. Governments want to show that the UN's digital processes can still deliver.
The Internet Society's paper also backs community-centred connectivity, affordability, digital literacy and local content. It argues that infrastructure alone does not close the gap if people cannot afford or use the service.
For ordinary users, the practical effects arrive slowly. Domain names, IP addresses and interconnection deals are managed by technical bodies, not by the ITU directly.
The risk is not a sudden takeover but a gradual overlap in which two forums issue competing guidance. Governments can then cite the one that suits them.
What happens next?
The conference runs from 9 to 27 November, with leadership elections and the strategic plan dominating the first week. Resolution negotiations usually run to the final hours.
Watch Resolution 146 first. If members agree only to extend the expert group's work, the ITR fight is deferred. If they call for a new WCIT, the 2012 split returns.
Watch the language on internet-related resolutions. Small edits to Resolutions 101, 102 or 178 can widen the ITU's claimed role in IP networks, domain names or addressing.
Watch the AI and satellite texts too, because both areas move faster than the treaty process. Both attract proposals that mix technical work with policy ambition.
The elections will signal the mood. A leadership team focused on connectivity would reduce friction with technical bodies; one focused on sovereignty would increase it.
The final acts will be published after the conference, and national delegations will interpret them differently. Early reporting often misses amendments made in the last 48 hours.
None of this will change how the internet works next week; the decisions set direction for four years. Their effects arrive through budgets, studies and national positions in other forums.
That is why the Doha meeting matters. It is a slow-moving contest over institutional authority, conducted through drafting, procedure and elections.
The Internet Governance Forum's first meeting as a permanent body will be another test. If it becomes a serious venue, pressure on the ITU may ease. If it stalls, governments may look to the ITU again.
For now, the safe conclusion is narrow. A last-minute treaty-review proposal and 278 texts are on the table, but nothing has been adopted yet.