Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day <[e-mail]>]

At 7:29 PM -0500 1/1/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter 
><<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> 
>wrote:
>
>I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT
>to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood:
>
>
>On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Day wrote:
>>  At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>>  On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day
>
>  >> 
><<mailto:<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> 
>wrote:
>
>...
>
>  >> MPs and Congressmen are elected decision makers. ITU participants can
>>>  make decisions but they are not binding on anyone and only have effect
>>>  if people like me choose to implement them.
>>
>>  This was my point. The standards part of ITU is just like any other
>>  standards organization. But there are other things it does which are not
>>  like this, e.g. spectrum allocation.  There are other aspects with
>>  respect to tariffs that are binding on signatories.
>
>Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of international
>regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented interconnection
>of leased lines**. This is an arcane point today, but if CERN hadn't been
>able to use its status as an international organization to bypass that
>restriction in the 1980s, it's unlikely that TBL and Robert Cailliau would
>ever have been able to propagate the web. It's even unlikely that Phill
>would have been able to access Usenet newsgroups while on shift as a grad
>student on a CERN experiment.
>
>
>I was never a grad student at CERN, I was a CERN Fellow. And I had 
>access to USENET from DESY but we were routing it through CERN at 
>first.
>
>Now it is an interesting question as to what might have happened if 
>the Web had not expanded as it did when it did. But one of the 
>reasons that it expanded was that there were a lot of parties 
>involved who were actively wanting to blow up the CITT tariffs and 
>establish a free market. That was HMG policy at any rate.
>
>

I have heard tell (dropping into the vernacular) that to many, the 
web was just another application like Gopher until NCSA put a browser 
on it.  The question is what would have happened had they put the 
browser on top of something else?

>
>Also, it is exactly because ITU was in charge of resource allocations
>such as radio spectrum and top-level POTS dialling codes that it was
>a very plausible potential home for IANA in 1997-8, before ICANN was
>created. Some of the ITU people who were active in that debate were just
>as active in the preparation for WCIT in 2012.
>
>
>When the big question facing DNS admin was legal liability in the 
>various domain name disputes that were proliferating, having a 
>treaty organization with diplomatic immunity actually had some 
>advantages.

Agreed but the treaty organization was the WTO and another one I 
can't remember right now! ;-)  As long as the problem was punted to 
them one was okay.  I just don't see how ITU has purview over *uses* 
of the network. (Nor am I willing to easily cede that.)

This is why it is not a good idea to go along with the ITU 
beads-on-a-string model.  By doing so, it already clouds the picture 
and gives up ground.

>
>But that was a very different time diplomatically. That was before 
>Putin was ordering assassinations on the streets of London with 
>Polonium laced teapots and before the colour revolutions rolled back 
>the Russian sphere of influence. And our side was hardly blameless, 
>it was the US invasion of Iraq that poisoned the well in the first 
>place.
>
>

True, but what effect does this have?  The US did burn up a lot of 
good will for no good reason and then botched the job on top of it.

>
>** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on
>use of leased lines:
><http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-E&type=items>http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-E&type=items
>
>The 1991 version is much less restrictive, but it remains the case that
>interconnections are all "subject to national laws" and that is the basis
>for all national limitations on the Internet today. Nevertheless, the 1991
>revision of D.1 was absolutely essential for the Internet to grow
>internationally.
>
>
>The idea of fixing the contract terms in an international treaty is 
>utterly bizarre.
>
>
>
>It would be foolish to imagine that the Internet is in some way immune
>to ITU-T regulations, which is why the effort to defeat the more radical
>WCIT proposals was so important.
>
>
>While technically true, I think your wording is misleading.

Why is this technically true?  Honest question.

>
>ITU-T has absolutely no control over the Internet unless member 
>governments decide to give it that power. The importance of the 
>protests was that they prevented the US and EU governments from 
>agreeing to cede that power.

Agreed.

>Within the US government there are different factions. What was 
>important was to ensure that the pro-control faction did not get the 
>chance to agree to give the store away.
>

My model here (for better or worse) is the origin of the US 
Constitution.  The Constitution does not create a hierarchical 
structure.  The States cede parts of their sovereignty to the Federal 
government. Those things better done across States, rather than 
individually:  Common currency, regulating interstate commerce, 
defense, etc.  The Federal government is alongside the State 
governments.  The EU is a confederation that is doing some of these 
as well.  The UN is a very weak confederation, so the question to 
consider is what aspects of *telecommunication*  (not defense or 
commerce or anything else) does it make sense that there should be 
international regulation (or binding agreements)?

So far, my list is pretty short.  In fact, there is wireless spectrum 
and that is it.  And even there, I would suggest only above certain 
transmitter power levels.

Actually, I would have to apply the same criteria to the FCC.  ;-)