[governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]

[Ian Peter]

Jeanette, my understanding is that WSIS gave responsibility for
cybersecurity outcomes to ITU (rightly or wrongly)

If you look at the strategic direction proposed by ITU and their roadmap for
addressing the subject you would see a vast difference to any capabilities
IETF has in addressing the subject holistically

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
Sent: 13 December 2007 09:35
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]

So, do I understand this correctly, some countries have decided to go 
intergovernmental again for areas such as security stuff and use the ITU 
as their preferred platform to coordinate with other countries?

Why would they choose the ITU instead of other standard setting 
organizations such as the IETF? Because the ITU is now more predictable 
or more efficient regarding outcomes?

I get this idea that security is a topic I have neglected for too long 
and now need to find a window into. Very difficult to understand...
je

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> On 12 dec 2007, at 03.44, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> No, I was making an argument that governments and industry from around 
>> the world that can and do take actions of consequence plainly believe 
>> in the importance of and get involved in ITU, which seems a 
>> parsimonious explanation of why they spend a great deal of time and 
>> resources participating.
> 
> 
> one small anecdotal data point i have.  The S. Korean ministry of 
> information and tech in 2007 made a decision to focus its standards 
> making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence 
> architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research institute to 
> reassign everyone to IT work and to lay off contractors (that's me) who 
> were working on any other standards activity.  anyone who has been to 
> the ITU SG meetings lately wil have noticed this change of focus on 
> their part (several have pointed it out to me).  to have  substantial 
> indistrial player like S. Korea make suc a decsion is not a small thing, 
> especially if you look at how intertwined their Industrial R&D is with 
> Govt policy and research funding.
> 
> Yes, this is only a technical standards body in ITU-T and not one of the 
> more policy oriented bodies.  But one accepts any part of the thesis 
> that  technology and policy are tight coupled and that much of 
> technology represents hardened policy, then this is a significant data 
> point.  This can certainly be seen, one small example, in the way 
> various technological choices could facilitate the ability  to set 
> policies (in the sense of actions to be taken by a intermediate system 
> entity) for actions to be taken upon deep data inspection of the traffi 
> passing through a network.  Actions such as; drop, slow down, record ...
> 
> 
> I would argue that since the WSIS defeat, ITU has been strategically 
> picking its battles and cannot be safely counted as an insignificant 
> force for the future. And would argue that the decisions made there, 
> will have an effect on the nature on the Internet in the future.  So the 
> more that people who care can participate in all phases of heir 
> activities, the better.
> 
> I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS o 
> get involved.  It is enough the multivariate views of CS get expressed 
> and get expressed effectively and often for them to affect the 
> trade-offs made in the engineering/policy decisions on a decision by 
> decision basis.  Sure if there is a unified position CS an be stronger, 
> but we don't need to wait for that golden day.
> 
> a.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007
11:29
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007
11:29
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance