Re: WCIT outcome?
Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com> Sat, 29 December 2012 10:43 UTC
Return-Path: <jmamodio@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB5421F854E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ky3N3Xmj3NiJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (mail-vc0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C5221F8521 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id f13so11470175vcb.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:43:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hoBNzPBBMRsUSOa8ndAJZTd7Olaqt7GD+LVES49c2Qg=; b=mo3CboWLk1isNswujUvC4DKQ8oTBMXPhXizloSoWfloPJSoccrDmfVhrZaotK/1ZXB oNM2S7PI73B7FWjjBTSIX7avk7YPE7R0wdzg5Yu0cLiFzMOhjD47tPIr18Bl9I7yl6aG cAFnvpFLh4pIZk430BOGb4O8/Eqe9GMqTXXhPaUJnHHnkxxHH05hahP9x/O/HNyU7Y8u Ce2wj2KEls6uVshumyX0hjf6Em5gHvuR4FuETu3sTkNBSH9PChbGVVM1Ji/cH/Iv5IRE IgwpuTxHNyYZFvH33Cdc4sLIAFveYxGWnCtjgIm4my/n2eV9qyAi4Th1dd8i7tOJatWN K8hw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.238.139 with SMTP id ks11mr54075550vcb.49.1356777789395; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.94.76 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:43:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 04:43:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMzo+1a0-90dnjnvs48a9DcNN9DY_edF5hH0__4XRuCaLHtL6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae9cfc84a2d117e04d1fb7274"
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:43:11 -0000
ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union before AG Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of telecommunications and the Internet puts ITU with its current behavior in the path of becoming obsolete and extinct, but you can't discount many positive contributions particularly from the standards section. As the multistakeholder model and its associated processes, which is far from perfect, continues to evolve, ITU must be part of the evolution. The issue is that as an organization they must accommodate and realize that now they are "part of it" and not "it" anymore. There is also a big confusion and still lack of a clear consensus on what "Internet governance" means or entitles, and many take it as "governing the Internet," hence governments want a piece of the action, and the constant and many times intended perception that the Internet is controlled by the USG and its development and evolution is US centric, which I believe at IETF we know since long time ago is not true. But many countries, and as you well say those where there was or still is a single telecom operator and controlled by government, see it that way. About the countries that signed, not many but most did it with reservations, and those that didn't sign probably represent 2/3 or more of the telecom market/industry. An interesting observation after spending countless hours following the meeting, some of the countries that were pushing the discussion for a reference to the universal declaration of human rights are the ones who don't care much about them, particularly in respect to women, and on the other hand others complaining about discrimination and restricted access to the Internet are the ones currently filtering on the big pipes and have the Internet as the first thing on their list to shutdown during internal turmoil. The same forces that pushed at WCIT will keep doing the same thing on other international fora to insist with their Internet governance agenda, the ITRs will become effective in Jan 2015, two years, which on Internet time is an eternity, and it will be only valid if those countries that signed ratify the treaty. Meanwhile packets keep flowing, faster, bigger and with more destinations, not bad for a packet switching network that was not supposed to work. (During WCIT I was wondering, could you imagine doing the webcast via X.25? ) I agree that it is not clear what the outcome of WCIT12 was, but something that is clear is that ITU needs to evolve, or as Vint characterized them, the "dinosaurs" will become extinct. Cheers, Happy Holidays and great start for 2013 Jorge http://about.me/jamodio On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>wrote: > We seem to have missed a discussion on the outcome of the Dubai WCIT > conference, or rather the lack of one. > > The end result was a treaty that 54 countries refused to sign. The > non-signatories being the major developed economies including UK, US, > Japan, Germany, Canada. Many of the signatories have signed with > reservations. > > Back at the dawn of the computer industry, IBM was a very late entrant but > it quickly came to dominate the industry by building on the commercial base > it had established in punchcard tabulator machines. There was a real risk > that ITU might have managed to pull off something similar by convincing > governments that there needed to be a global regulatory body for > communications and that the ITU should be that body. > > Instead they seem to have pulled off the equivalent of OS/@ and > microchannel architecture which were the marketing moves that were intended > to allow IBM to consolidate its hold on the PC industry but instead lead to > the rise of the Windows and the EISA bus clones. > > It now seems reasonably clear that the ITU was an accident of history that > resulted from a particular set of economic and technical limitations. The > ITU was founded when each country had exactly one telephone company and > almost all were government controlled. One country one vote was an > acceptable approach in those days because there was only one telephone > company per country. The telephone companies were the only stakeholders > needed to implement a proposal. > > The old telephone system is fading away. It is becoming an Internet > application just as the pocket calculator has become a desktop application. > And as it passes, the institutions it founded are looking for new roles. > There is no particular reason that this must happen. > > The stakeholders in the Internet don't even align to countries. My own > employer is relatively small but was founded in the UK, moved its > headquarters to the US and has operations in a dozen more countries and > many times that number of affiliates. The same is even more true of the > likes of Google, Cisco, Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc. > > A standards process is a two way negotiation. There are things that I want > other people to implement in their products and there are things that they > want me to implement in mine. The second one is actually rather more > important than the first. Having the process mediated by government > employees does not appear to add any value to the process to me and seems > to be a complete waste of time for them. > > What is not a waste of time for governments is to look at the control > points in the technology infrastructures the emerging economy depends on. > Radio spectrum and geostationary orbit slots are finite resources and no > country can afford to be locked out of the new economy because of the lack > of access to them. > > There are some control points in the Internet but they are rather less > critical than many imagine. IPv6 address space allocations, DNS zone > management and AIS numbers are arguably control points. > > If we can eliminate the control point nature of those resources then the > essential government needs in Internet regulation will have been met and > the need for the ITU to be involved will disappear entirely. There are > still concerns that an ITU-like body could usefully address. A treaty > baring cyber-sabotage would be an important and useful effort that demands > a diplomatic approach. > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ >
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jorge Amodio
- WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Victor Ndonnang
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Stewart Bryant
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dmitry Burkov
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Noel Chiappa
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? ned+ietf
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? David Morris
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Warren Kumari
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?) ned+ietf
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? t.p.
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) John C Klensin
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) Janet P Gunn
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- RE: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Eliot Lear