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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think a lot of the analysis below holds.  but it isn't the Telcos  
that are
making the decisions in the ITU SGs, but the sector members, i.e. the
vendors that make the stuff.  So it is a variant on the old model.
the sector members agree and then the governments rubber stamp.
Of course the govt's, some more then others, discuss all of the details
with the sector members along the way.  You find that in some countries,
the sector members drive the national delegations on such things  
(e.g. who
tells who what: Finland or Nokia, Sweden or Ericsson, ...), while in
others there is a different mix (In S. Korea it is a genuine govt- 
Industry
collaborative effort as far as I can tell).

As for the NGN replacing the unruly Internet, that is much a fantasy  
as IPv6
replacing IPv4.  Nothing goes away in the network, new things just  
learn to
coexist with the old and vice versa.

And the NGN is always just 10 years away in horizon time.

BTW: I though I was discussing not arguing.  I do not believe that  
the age of
the decentralised Internet is going away, though there will be many  
areas of the
Internet that have some degree of local control.    And there will  
always be some
services that for some period of time are at the core and which seem  
susceptible
to centralised take over. Personally I still believe it can't happen.

But more importantly, I think we should assume that it shouldn't  
happen and should
participate everywhere possible to make sure it doesn't, just in case  
i am wrong
about that.

a.




On 12 dec 2007, at 18.25, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> [South Korea] making investment on the ITU for the NGN convergence
>> architecture/protocols, which caused the leading research
>> institute to reassign everyone to IT[U] work and to lay off
>> contractors (that's me) who were working on any other standards
>> activity.
>
> Avri,
> your anecdote is interesting and highly relevant. But I see something
> perhaps a bit different in it than you do. To me, this is an  
> example of
> what I meant by the top-down paradigm. Yes, standardization  
> activity in
> ITU is "bottom up" in the sense that it is driven by consensus-based
> committees that are dominated by (a sector of) industry.
>
> However, many people in the ITU, including the So. Koreans, still seem
> to believe that we are in a pre-1997 world in which standards agreed
> upon by the telcos in intergovernmental fora really do define the
> direction of global digital media. I don't think that will be the case
> anymore. Standards dominance is very, very difficult to achieve these
> days, and when it does happen (Microsoft) it usually occurs through de
> facto market dominance, not through interogovernmental bodies.  
> There are
> a lot of players coming from a lot of different directions. The telcos
> would really, really like for a carefully defined "NGN convergence
> architecture" to supersede the unruly Internet. Maybe they will  
> succeed
> in that goal. But there are a lot of other powerful players, including
> consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet companies, technology
> companies.
>
> Let's not argue any more about this: You and Bill are certainly right
> that such activities should not be ignored. Maybe the age of
> decentralized internet is ending and this is the beginning of the end.
> Maybe not. As I said before, anyone who wants to get involved, feel
> free, I am not arguing against it. But before you do, do ask  
> intelligent
> questions about what is the best way to spend your time. And do ask
> whether your participation helps to legitimate activities that might
> best be criticized from the outside.
>
>> 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 ...
>
> But this is a danger regardless of what the ITU does. Deep packet
> inspection technologies, national laws such as the French one  
> requiring
> monitoring, U.S.-based alliances between IPR interests and cable
> infrastructure providers, broadcast flag in the digital transition,  
> all
> represent similar, and much more immediate threats. Are you sure,  
> do you
> feel really confident, that ITU is the best place to confront these
> issues?
>
>> 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.
>
> I would argue that ITU has been seeking some kind of niche, some  
> kind of
> toehold for gaining relevance and control over the internet, since
> 1995/6. The latest two are NGN and security. Most of the earlier
> attempts were failures. How much impact the decisions made there will
> have on the Internet remains to be seen, it is debatable.
>
> But it's good that someone (Bill) is monitoring these things at ITU.
>
>> So the more that people who care can participate in all phases of  
>> heir
>
>> activities, the better.
>
> Who can argue with this? My main points, which people keep not
> addressing, is: when the doors open, who walks in?  It is not  
> difficult
> to imagine scenarios in which you make things worse. Suppose the doors
> open and no one shows up, or no one is really equipped to navigate the
> negotiations in an effective way. Some very bad outcomes could be
> excused or legitimized. "Hey, don't complain that we are now  
> inspecting
> all of your packets and have implemented a digital identity system  
> that
> permits complete surveillance, working group SC-17(b)iii made this
> decision last month, and the civil society representative at the  
> meeting
> raised no objections." Who was this "civil society representative"?  
> Was
> s/he just asleep, overworked, bought off? Or simply didn't understand
> what was going on? Or outnumbered and ignored?
>
>> I would also argue that we don't need a unified front position in CS
>> to 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.
>
> See above. Whether CS is unified or not is a secondary issue, imho.
>
>

____________________________________________________________
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