Re: WCIT outcome?

[Eliot Lear]

Hi,

At its core, the value of the IETF is technical.  We must always make
the best technical standards we can possibly make, adhering to the
values of rough consensus and running code.  Everything else is
secondary or nobody (government or otherwise) will want to implement
what we develop.  It's easy to lose sight of this in this conversation. 
It's an advantage we have over organizations who vote by country, and we
will always have it so long as such votes are allowed and where the
majority of expertise is found in a minority of countries, or where the
voice of expertise is silenced through representation.  Because of
this approach, what happened at WCIT and at WTSA is likely to harm
developing countries more than anyone else, and that is truly unfortunate.

And so what do we need to do?

 1. Keep developing the best technical standards we can develop, based
on rough consensus and running code.
 2. Do not get overly consumed by palace intrigue in other
organizations.  It detracts from (1) above.
 3. While we cannot control others, we can and should occasionally
remind them when they're going to do something that when implemented
as specified would harm those who deploy the technology.
 4. Invite and encourage all to participate in our activities so that
the best ideas flourish and all ideas are tested.

The other thing we need to understand is that the IETF doesn't live
without friends or in a vacuum.  The RIRs, NOGs, other standards bodies,
and ISOC all are working at many different levels, as are vendors.  If
WCIT shows anything, it is that these organizations are being listened
to, at least by many in the developed world.  Why?  Because over 2.5
billion people are connected, thanks to the collaboration of these and
other organizations.  That's moral authority that should not be
underestimated.  Nor should it be taken for granted.  See (1) above. 
And we also shouldn't try to boil the ocean by ourselves or it will
surely impact (1) above.

Can we do a better job on outreach to governments?  Yes.  I'd even
venture to say that the IETF should be held – from time to time – in a
developing country, so that people can more clearly see who we are and
what we do.  But not too often, lest it interfere with (1) above.  If we
keep building the best stuff, they will continue to come, even if there
are bumps along the road.

Eliot

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Ted Hardie]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:

 Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of
 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).
 Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise power


Aside from the whole consent of the governed issue, this perspective
seems historically fairly short-sighted.  Fox's History in Geographic
Perspective: the other France lays out a fairly well-documented case for
modeling the trade networks of a country in geographic terms.  Some of
those are easily controlled by a nation states, river tolls being a great
example.  Others are not: the trade of ocean-going vessels left national
control then as now.  This set up an international network that had
enormous economic and cultural influences during the period he describes
(port city cultures in different trading nations often looked a lot closer
to each other than to the culture of the towns of the interior, for
example).

Yes, there were treaty-based efforts to set some common understandings.
Some of those were quite useful, but whenever they actually impinged on
workings of the real network you got smuggling.  In some cases, lots and
lots of it, with encouragement from some of the participating nations.   In
other words, some countries tried to control their participants in these
international networks very tightly.  Some were content to let their
merchants get fat off it instead.  There was no universal response.

I suspect someone much brighter than I am could write a similar analysis
for the Internet.  The network has changed what the boundaries are from the
traditional geographic boundaries of river basin, port, and railroad gauge
to a set of topologies instantiated in fiber networks and interconnects.
Where the network is entirely under the control of a nation-state, it will
find it easy to exercise sovereignty (whatever its reasons for doing so).
But it is very clear that this is not the only case.  *Whenever* the value
the network provides is derived from interconnects outside a single
nation's borders, that sovereignty is much harder to assert (or even
assess).  When the topology is relatively changeable, it is also hard to
use bilateral agreements to manage the relationship--when traffic from Den
Haag can move to Paris via the LINX instead of AMS-IX in an instant, a
Dutch-French bilateral agreement just doesn't do the trick.  It is even
trickier when the traffic from Den Haag to Haarlem goes via the LINX.

In this new effort at a multilateral framework, we are seeing a clash
between a desire for sovereign control of the Internet and a desire to reap
the benefits of open participation.  I think our role in that is to make
sure all involved understand:  the benefits of the Internet's network
effect; the risks in allowing nations through which traffic passes to
assert sovereignty over the flows, especially given both the pace and
chance of topological change; and the reality that entities outside of
governments control the paths that packets actual traverse.

That we already have some government who understand that is a good start,
but we have to keep working at it to avoid damage we can't route round.  I
personally want to thank Lynn and the Internet Society staff for all their
advocacy, as well as those IETF participants who were at WCIT with national
delegations.  It is, of necessity, arduous work, but well worth both the
effort and the thanks of our community.

regards,

Ted Hardie

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Patrik Fältström]

On 4 jan 2013, at 01:59, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:

 Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of
 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).

Because I do not think generalization is really a reasonable thing to do, and 
even dangerous when discussing governance issues, I disagree with this 
statement.

Governments want just like businesses success in whatever they do. That can in 
general be divided in two wishes. Short term, in the form of being re-elected 
(or not thrown out of their office) and long term, as in growth of the revenue 
of the country they govern.

They of course have pieces of their operation that belong to law enforcement 
agencies, but they also have those that are responsible of finding rules so 
that non-public sector can grow (to later increase for example tax revenue).

Because of this, I encourage people to not generalize per stakeholder group, 
but instead acknowledge that there are different *forces* that are orthogonal 
to each other, and calculating the correct balance between them is hard. Or 
rather, different people do for different reasons get different results when 
calculating what the for them proper balance is.

That is why I personally am against generalization that a stakeholder group 
have one specific view.

Specifically governments.

If when pushed to be forced to choose between two choices *all* governments 
wanted to have control, we would have had many more governments signing the 
proposed treaty that was on the table in Dubai.

Instead, when being forced to choose, they picked openness and multi 
stakeholder bottom up processes.

Just like what happened earlier during 2012 when in A/HRC/20/L.13 UN(*) 
concluded (http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/64/51/6999c512.pdf:

 1. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be 
 protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable 
 regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance 
 with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
 
 2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force 
 in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms;
 
 3. Calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet and 
 international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information 
 and communications facilities in all countries;
 
 4. Encourages special procedures to take these issues into account within 
 their existing mandates, as applicable;
 
 5. Decides to continue its consideration of the promotion, protection and 
 enjoyment of human rights, including the right to freedom of expression, on 
 the Internet and in other technologies, as well as of how the Internet can be 
 an important tool for development and for exercising human rights, in 
 accordance with its programme of work.

   Patrik

(*) Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia 
(Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, 
Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Djibouti, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Libya, 
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, 
Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Palestine, Peru, 
Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Republic of Korea, Romania, 
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay)

RE: WCIT outcome?

[Tony Hain]

 Ted Hardie wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
 Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature
of
 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).
 Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise power
 
 Aside from the whole consent of the governed issue, this perspective
seems
 historically fairly short-sighted. 

And that consent is based on information availability. Manage the
information, and you manage the consent.

 ...
 Yes, there were treaty-based efforts to set some common
 understandings.  Some of those were quite useful, but whenever they
actually
 impinged on workings of the real network you got smuggling.  In some
cases, lots
 and lots of it, with encouragement from some of the participating nations.
In
 other words, some countries tried to control their participants in these
 international networks very tightly.  Some were content to let their
merchants
 get fat off it instead.  There was no universal response.

Shipping Merchant / Harbor Master == ISP: As you see with the resolution
signatories, there is still no universal response.

 ...
 In this new effort at a multilateral framework, we are seeing a clash
between a
 desire for sovereign control of the Internet and a desire to reap the
benefits of
 open participation.  I think our role in that is to make sure all involved
 understand:  the benefits of the Internet's network effect; the risks in
allowing
 nations through which traffic passes to assert sovereignty over the flows,

As if professional information control practitioners do not understand the
risks of information control at a much deeper level than anyone in the IETF
could ever hope to ...  

 especially given both the pace and chance of topological change; and the
reality
 that entities outside of governments control the paths that packets actual
 traverse.

The entities that operate and control the paths do so at the pleasure of the
governments, just as the merchants and harbor masters did in your example
above. As long as governments are pleased, the operators can live in a
fantasy land where they are outside government control. The Dubai
discussions show what happens when a collection of governments are no longer
pleased ... If that noise level gets high enough the non-signers will have
to respond just to maintain some degree of cooperation on other matters they
care about.

Our role is to recognize that there are much bigger issues than the simple
process of bit delivery. Yes bit delivery is important, and dynamic, but it
is equivalent to laying the tracks. Standards must be maintained for
consistent interworking, but it is not the path that matters; just as with
rail cars, it is the content that provides the value. Being highly dynamic
makes things harder to control, but not impossible. Even in the 'open'
countries, a few changes in something as apparently disconnected as tax laws
would dramatically change the decisions and behaviors of the operators that
are 'outside of government control'. 
 ...


 Patrik Fältström wrote:
 On 4 jan 2013, at 01:59, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
 
  Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open
  nature of 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable'
ones).
 
 Because I do not think generalization is really a reasonable thing to do,
and even
 dangerous when discussing governance issues, I disagree with this
statement.

I agree there is danger here, but I believe the greater danger is embodied
in this thread due to the lack of acknowledgement that governments always
have control, even if the control points are not obvious.

 
 Governments want just like businesses success in whatever they do. That
can in
 general be divided in two wishes. Short term, in the form of being
re-elected (or
 not thrown out of their office) and long term, as in growth of the revenue
of the
 country they govern.

The second point (restated as 'prosperity for their constituency') is really
just a continuation of the first point.

 
 They of course have pieces of their operation that belong to law
enforcement
 agencies, but they also have those that are responsible of finding rules
so that
 non-public sector can grow (to later increase for example tax revenue).
 
 Because of this, I encourage people to not generalize per stakeholder
group, but
 instead acknowledge that there are different *forces* that are orthogonal
to
 each other, and calculating the correct balance between them is hard. Or
 rather, different people do for different reasons get different results
when
 calculating what the for them proper balance is.
 
 That is why I personally am against generalization that a stakeholder
group have
 one specific view.

I would agree that they all demonstrate a different calculation for the
importance of various aspects of controlling information flow. My primary
point here is that the IETF has to accept this as a 

RE: WCIT outcome?

[SM]

At 16:59 03-01-2013, Tony Hain wrote:

other. How long the IETF gets to stay independent of that will depend on how
responsive it is to meeting the needs of governments. If short-sighted
attempts at political maneuvering are exposed in the IETF, it will lose its
independence and finally bring that process under 'proper control'.


The IAB has a nominated a representative to the European 
Multi-Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation.  It also commented 
on the (U.S) Federal Participation in the Development and Use of 
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment 
Activities.  The government interaction is basically between the IETF 
and the E.U. or the U.S.  I do not recall any cases (in recent times) 
where the E.U. or the U.S. has pressured the IETF to support or 
oppose a decision.


The IETF used to be set up in such a way that putting it under 
proper control would be quite an effort.



It would be wise for the IETF participants to look at the countries that did
sign, and why. What is it that they are not getting that they need, and how
can that be resolved? To echo Day's point, it is the capability they
want/need, not the historical implementation. Some things that are business


Yes.

At 09:24 04-01-2013, Ted Hardie wrote:
In this new effort at a multilateral framework, we are seeing a 
clash between a desire for sovereign control of the Internet and a 
desire to reap the benefits of open participation.  I think our role 
in that is to make sure all involved understand:  the benefits of 
the Internet's network effect; the risks in allowing nations through 
which traffic passes to assert sovereignty over the flows, 
especially given both the pace and chance of topological change; and 
the reality that entities outside of governments control the paths 
that packets actual traverse.


A few years ago sourceforge.net blocked all users from a specific 
country from downloading files hosted on their site.  There was a 
case where a country had its say on one or more domain names through 
unusual means.  Some of that can be perceived as assertions of sovereignty.


Regards,
-sm 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Ted Hardie]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:

  Ted Hardie wrote:
  On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
  Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature
 of
  'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).
  Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise power
 
  Aside from the whole consent of the governed issue, this perspective
 seems
  historically fairly short-sighted.

 And that consent is based on information availability. Manage the
 information, and you manage the consent.


Possibly; the extent to which that management is obvious may, of course,
drive other behavior (cf. самизда́т [Samizdat] and similar efforts).



  ...
  Yes, there were treaty-based efforts to set some common
  understandings.  Some of those were quite useful, but whenever they
 actually
  impinged on workings of the real network you got smuggling.  In some
 cases, lots
  and lots of it, with encouragement from some of the participating
 nations.
 In
  other words, some countries tried to control their participants in these
  international networks very tightly.  Some were content to let their
 merchants
  get fat off it instead.  There was no universal response.

 Shipping Merchant / Harbor Master == ISP: As you see with the
 resolution
 signatories, there is still no universal response.


Given this, I am somewhat confused why you said Governments are
fundamentally opposed to the open nature of 'the Internet', and they always
will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).  If some governments approve open
harbors for shipping and (and its Internet parallel), how are those
governments opposed to the open nature of the Internet?  Did you mean Some
governments?


 ...
  In this new effort at a multilateral framework, we are seeing a clash
 between a
  desire for sovereign control of the Internet and a desire to reap the
 benefits of
  open participation.  I think our role in that is to make sure all
 involved
  understand:  the benefits of the Internet's network effect; the risks in
 allowing
  nations through which traffic passes to assert sovereignty over the
 flows,

 As if professional information control practitioners do not understand the
 risks of information control at a much deeper level than anyone in the IETF
 could ever hope to ...


The pace and chance of topological change are pieces that are commonly
misunderstood outside the world of Internet engineering.  The amount of
surprise you get when you explain to someone why a routing announcement can
pull all the traffic for your company through $RANDOM_COUNTRY seems
perennial.



  especially given both the pace and chance of topological change; and the
 reality
  that entities outside of governments control the paths that packets
 actual
  traverse.

 The entities that operate and control the paths do so at the pleasure of
 the
 governments, just as the merchants and harbor masters did in your example
 above.


This is not the point I was making.  The operator of an infrastructure may
do so at the pleasure of the sovereign power in whose borders that
infrastructure sits, but that does not guarantee that packets will flow
over that infrastructure at the pleasure of that sovereign power.  If I do
not wish my packets from Den Haag to Paris to flow through the LINX, for
example, I can ensure that they do not.  That works because there are
multiple paths over which I might send the flow.  Internet routing is not
as open as sea-born trade; there are  paths that provide choke points.
But single points of failure are not an advantage to Internet engineering,
and providing them to engage well with specific governments both harms the
Internet and, at least in some lights, harms the governments' interests as
well.  We can make sure that's understood and build out the infrastructure
to minimize the choke points as best as we can.


 As long as governments are pleased, the operators can live in a
 fantasy land where they are outside government control.


I don't think that this is a realistic characterization of operators'
attitudes.


 The Dubai
 discussions show what happens when a collection of governments are no
 longer
 pleased ... If that noise level gets high enough the non-signers will have
 to respond just to maintain some degree of cooperation on other matters
 they
 care about.

 Our role is to recognize that there are much bigger issues than the simple
 process of bit delivery. Yes bit delivery is important, and dynamic, but it
 is equivalent to laying the tracks. Standards must be maintained for
 consistent interworking, but it is not the path that matters; just as with
 rail cars, it is the content that provides the value.


I certainly believe that the value is in the content; packets with no
payload aren't terribly interesting, but I don't see how your conclusion
changes the aims of the IETF in this regard.



 Being highly dynamic
 makes things harder to 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Randy Bush]

 And that consent is based on information availability. Manage the
 information, and you manage the consent.
 Possibly; the extent to which that management is obvious may, of course,
 drive other behavior (cf. самизда́т [Samizdat] and similar efforts).

or, in the states, wikileaks.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/what-is-an-assange_b_2317824.html

randy

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Masataka Ohta]

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:


Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the 
world
has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation.


If you don't insist on allocating fixed bandwidths, CSMA/CA takes care 
of most of issues.


Masataka Ohta

Re: WCIT outcome?

[t . p .]

- Original Message -
From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:16 PM

 On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:

  At one point there was something that said one phone in each home
had to be
  directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a
regulation, a phone
  company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside
after
  Carterphone.

 May have varied by baby bell, but in Michigan, you could have as many
 jacks as you wished, but you had to lease them all from the telco.
There
 may have been a rule about having at least one hard wired phone, I
don't
 recall. In those days, the telco owned and was responsible for all
inside
 wiring.

  I certainly saw acoustic coupled equipment in use long after
Carterphone, but
  in my experience it was because of general intertia/unwillingness to
do the
  necessary engineering, not because of the lack of connectors.

 Probably more to do with portability of accoustic couplers and the
lack of
 provisioning in motels, etc. for jacks.

What a parochial discussion this has become!

Going back to the ITU-T (remember them:-), they, or their predecessors,
defined the interfaces, such as R, S, T, U, and it was then up to
individual governments to proscribe how far the national monopoly
extended.  The USA has a reputation for being liberal whereas where I
was, the monopoly PTT owned the wiring in my house, in my office and
everywhere else which, de facto, gave them a monopoly over the CPE.

One of the achievements of the EU (or its predecessors), perhaps its
only noteworthy achievement, was to pressurise member states to limit
the national monopoly, which in turn made the kind of telecommunications
we have now possible (outside America).

I suspect that large parts of the world have yet to get there.

Tom Petch

RE: WCIT outcome?

[Dearlove, Christopher (UK)]

It's really not that simple. If it were all the world would be doing it for 
everything.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, 
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England  Wales No: 1996687

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
Masataka Ohta
Sent: 03 January 2013 08:40
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?

--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.


Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

 Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the 
 world
 has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation.

If you don't insist on allocating fixed bandwidths, CSMA/CA takes care 
of most of issues.

Masataka Ohta


This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Masataka Ohta]

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

 It's really not that simple. If it were all the world would be doing it for 
 everything.

You should recognize that all the smart phones are working fine
(or even better than LTE) with Wifi and that Wifi support
prioritized packets.

Masataka Ohta

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Carlos M. Martinez]

My point was not about the need (or lack thereof) of spectrum
management, but rather the need (or lack thereof) of an international
office for handling spectrum slots.

The kind of allocation management you mention is an easier one to
tackle. Radio allocation for mobile networks is distance-restricted, it
only has to deal with local frequencies unless your are installing
mobile antennas in border towns.

If countries can be good neighbors you don't need an elephantine
international bureaucracy to manage these type of spectrum allocation.
Where I live this has been the case, all cross-border frequency issues
were fixed through peer to peer negotiation between operators.

As for spectrum sales, well, again it's not the ITU who's doing it, the
regulators are.

Large-scale, global, spectrum management remains an issue (i'm thinking
about talk radio, marine/aircraft/satellite communications, navigation
aids and similar applications), but, IMO, is a less demanding/critical
task than it used to be, and thus the workload for the ITU-R should be
less than it used to be.

cheers!

~Carlos

On 1/2/13 3:34 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
 Carlos M. Martinez 
 Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
 although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore),
 
 Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the 
 world
 has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation. It's still not 
 that long since
 the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer made over £20 billion from selling 
 spectrum, something
 possible since international treaties had agreed on its purpose for 3G 
 communications.
 

RE: WCIT outcome?

[Dearlove, Christopher (UK)]

Yes, all smart phones support Wi-Fi. In some unregulated (not actually 
entirely so) frequency bands, and with regulated powers, over a short range. 
But the main long range 2G/3G signals are TDMA or CDMA in regulated bands.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, 
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England  Wales No: 1996687


-Original Message-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] 
Sent: 03 January 2013 12:11
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?

--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.


Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

 It's really not that simple. If it were all the world would be doing it for 
 everything.

You should recognize that all the smart phones are working fine
(or even better than LTE) with Wifi and that Wifi support
prioritized packets.

Masataka Ohta




This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

RE: WCIT outcome?

[Dearlove, Christopher (UK)]

I'd like my mobile phone to work all round the world, as it does. It takes more 
than one band, but only a few. And that took international regulation, not just 
cross-border issues. And I'd like no one to spill interference into the GPS 
band. And ... It really isn't as simple as you suggest. Yes, of course it's 
national governments that sell off 3G spectrum, but only after international 
agreements established that they could do so.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, 
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England  Wales No: 1996687


-Original Message-
From: Carlos M. Martinez [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 03 January 2013 12:52
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?

--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.


My point was not about the need (or lack thereof) of spectrum
management, but rather the need (or lack thereof) of an international
office for handling spectrum slots.

The kind of allocation management you mention is an easier one to
tackle. Radio allocation for mobile networks is distance-restricted, it
only has to deal with local frequencies unless your are installing
mobile antennas in border towns.

If countries can be good neighbors you don't need an elephantine
international bureaucracy to manage these type of spectrum allocation.
Where I live this has been the case, all cross-border frequency issues
were fixed through peer to peer negotiation between operators.

As for spectrum sales, well, again it's not the ITU who's doing it, the
regulators are.

Large-scale, global, spectrum management remains an issue (i'm thinking
about talk radio, marine/aircraft/satellite communications, navigation
aids and similar applications), but, IMO, is a less demanding/critical
task than it used to be, and thus the workload for the ITU-R should be
less than it used to be.

cheers!

~Carlos

On 1/2/13 3:34 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
 Carlos M. Martinez 
 Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
 although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore),
 
 Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the 
 world
 has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation. It's still not 
 that long since
 the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer made over £20 billion from selling 
 spectrum, something
 possible since international treaties had agreed on its purpose for 3G 
 communications.
 



This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Masataka Ohta]

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

 Yes, all smart phones support Wi-Fi. In some unregulated (not
 actually entirely so) frequency bands, and with regulated powers,
 over a short range.

CSMA/CA can also work over a long range too and can, in a sense,
fairly arbitrate packets from different countries at border towns.

 But the main long range 2G/3G signals are
 TDMA or CDMA in regulated bands.

Forget them.

Masataka Ohta

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Carlos M. Martinez]

My only point is that it is not what is used to be. But we can agree to
disagree.

Happy new year all by the way.

~C.

On 1/3/13 11:21 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
 I'd like my mobile phone to work all round the world, as it does. It takes 
 more than one band, but only a few. And that took international regulation, 
 not just cross-border issues. And I'd like no one to spill interference into 
 the GPS band. And ... It really isn't as simple as you suggest. Yes, of 
 course it's national governments that sell off 3G spectrum, but only after 
 international agreements established that they could do so.
 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

$20 billion for the wireless spectrum in the UK was quite a chunk of
change. And the US government raised $19 billion in a later auction. So it
is hardly surprising that there is intense government interest in
communications technology.

But one of the reasons those auctions were originally proposed was to force
various military interests to stop hogging 95% of the available bandwidth
on the offchance they might have a use for it some day. Putting a price on
the resource forced the Pentagon and GCHQ etc. to explain why they really
needed the resource which in most cases they didn't.

There are certainly a lot of political issues surrounding communications.
It is not an accident that the West German TV system was compatible with
the East German system so that East German sets could receive West German
signals. That is how the cold war was won.

But that does not change the principle that a technology that depends on
government regulation to work properly has a design error and a technology
that depends on inter-government regulation is worse.

Wireless spectrum interference was a consequence of broadcast technology.
Telephone monopolies were the consequence of the limited capabilities of
electromagnetic relay switch gear. We do not need to resort to either

There is a government interest in preventing the accumulation of monopoly
power through technical lock in. Europe has done a much better job of that
than the US. But modern wireless devices are simply a DSP connected to a
bit of wire. Adapting to pretty much any band is merely a matter of
software.


Dean Acheson once said that Britain has lost an empire and is looking for a
role. The ITU has the same problem. The technical limitations that made it
necessary to regulate communications through inter-governmental agreements
have largely disappeared. So now the only constituency the chair can find
is the governments who want to regulate communications because they are
afraid that their political institutions are fundamentally unstable.



On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) 
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:

 I'd like my mobile phone to work all round the world, as it does. It takes
 more than one band, but only a few. And that took international regulation,
 not just cross-border issues. And I'd like no one to spill interference
 into the GPS band. And ... It really isn't as simple as you suggest. Yes,
 of course it's national governments that sell off 3G spectrum, but only
 after international agreements established that they could do so.

 --
 Christopher Dearlove
 Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
 Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
 BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
 West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
 Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
 chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
 Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
 Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
 Registered in England  Wales No: 1996687


 -Original Message-
 From: Carlos M. Martinez [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com]
 Sent: 03 January 2013 12:52
 To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
 Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; IETF Discussion Mailing List
 Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?

 --! WARNING ! --
 This message originates from outside our organisation,
 either from an external partner or from the internet.
 Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
 Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
 for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
 

 My point was not about the need (or lack thereof) of spectrum
 management, but rather the need (or lack thereof) of an international
 office for handling spectrum slots.

 The kind of allocation management you mention is an easier one to
 tackle. Radio allocation for mobile networks is distance-restricted, it
 only has to deal with local frequencies unless your are installing
 mobile antennas in border towns.

 If countries can be good neighbors you don't need an elephantine
 international bureaucracy to manage these type of spectrum allocation.
 Where I live this has been the case, all cross-border frequency issues
 were fixed through peer to peer negotiation between operators.

 As for spectrum sales, well, again it's not the ITU who's doing it, the
 regulators are.

 Large-scale, global, spectrum management remains an issue (i'm thinking
 about talk radio, marine/aircraft/satellite communications, navigation
 aids and similar applications), but, IMO, is a less demanding/critical
 task than it used to be, and thus the workload for the ITU-R should be
 less than it used to be.

 cheers!

 ~Carlos

 On 1/2/13 3:34 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
  Carlos M. Martinez
  Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
  although

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Masataka Ohta]

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

 But one of the reasons those auctions were originally proposed was to force
 various military interests to stop hogging 95% of the available bandwidth
 on the offchance they might have a use for it some day. Putting a price on
 the resource forced the Pentagon and GCHQ etc. to explain why they really
 needed the resource which in most cases they didn't.

If they are winning, they need the resource not inside but outside,
of their border.

If they really need them inside their border, they are loosing a
war, which authorizes them to preempt all the already assigned
bandwidth within their border.

Anyway, there can be no inter-border coordination by ITU-T
between fighting countries.

Masataka Ohta

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Dale R. Worley]

 From: John Day jeanj...@comcast.net
 
 No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic 
 couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain 
 to unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to 
 connect.

In the 1970s, in the US, and for inter-state use, you either had to
rent the modem from the phone company, or rent a data-access
arrangement device to connect your modem to the network.  The DAA
cost about as much as the modem, so there was little in the way of
independent modems.  Acoustic couplers got around that rule.

Also, in those days, there was a large four-pronged plug that could be
used for phones.  It was sometimes used when people wanted to move
phones around.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4prongplug.JPG

Dale

RE: WCIT outcome?

[Dearlove, Christopher (UK)]

I think at this point we have parted company with the real world, so I will 
drop out of this discussion.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, 
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England  Wales No: 1996687


-Original Message-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] 
Sent: 03 January 2013 13:39
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?

--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.


Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

 Yes, all smart phones support Wi-Fi. In some unregulated (not
 actually entirely so) frequency bands, and with regulated powers,
 over a short range.

CSMA/CA can also work over a long range too and can, in a sense,
fairly arbitrate packets from different countries at border towns.

 But the main long range 2G/3G signals are
 TDMA or CDMA in regulated bands.

Forget them.

Masataka Ohta



This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

RE: WCIT outcome?

[Tony Hain]

 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

 ...
 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.


 Fred Baker wrote:

 ...
 If you want something to fade away, making a fuss about it isn't a useful
 approach. The IETF's practice in the past has been to improve the
Internet; I
 tend to think that's as it should be.
 
 That said, I'm also of the opinion that preventing a police force from
 conducting a proper criminal investigation is not a path to success. We
like to
 say that the Internet routes around brokenness; so do police forces and
 legislative bodies. They define brokenness as anything that prevents
them
 from doing their job, the same way we do. What I would far rather see is a
 set of technical mechanisms and supporting law that facilitate legitimate
 criminal investigations and expose the other kind.


 Brian E Carpenter wrote:

 ...
 That depended on how the various national monopolists chose to interpret
 the rules. In Switzerland we were particularly affected by the fact that
the
 PTT monopoly was a specific line item in the federal Constitution. In the
US,
 you had the benefit of Judge Greene.


 John Day wrote:

 ...
 Also, I would agree with Fred's comment on helping the police.
 Although as we all know that can be hard call and one has to hope that the
 proper controls are on them as well.  The problem as I see it is that it
is not a
 good idea to try to constrain a new technology to behave like the old
 technology.  It is the capability they want it shouldn't imply how.


Subject thread RE: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?)
 John C Klensin wrote:

 ...
 That approach and position was contemporaneous with national regulations
 in many countries that one could run all of the TCP/IP services one wanted
as
 long as they were run over the national X.25 profile and sometimes as long
as
 one claimed they were transitional until OSI Connection-mode stabilized.
 There might be a useful lesson or two in that bit of history.


This entire thread(s) missed the point that about why the governments
control / restrict telecom. The national PTT's didn't come into existence
because the governments were better at operating those facilities than
private enterprise. Even the acronym hints at the evolutionary consolidation
and control over the flow of information. The fact that we are not already
operating as a collection of PTT(I/W) has more to do with the pace and
direction of global government agreements than it does with any special
characteristics of the inter-web standards process. Paraphrasing Klensin's
point 'use any bit pattern you want as long as it transits the regulated
infrastructure', is a case in point about consolidating and controlling the
flow of content. 

The IETF can't get into the realm of defining legitimate criminal
investigations, because defining legitimate is the role of governments.
The only thing the IETF can / should do is recognize that governments have a
role, so facilitating basic information like identity and connection-point
is required.  Content control is out of scope for any particular government
related discussions, but is required by private enterprise so the IETF does
get involved, and those results will get used in unintended ways by
governments. Attempts to thwart that unintended use will only instigate more
explicit attempts at oversight and control over the standards process. 

Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of
'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).
Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise power (even the
'open' ones use managed leaks to the free press to influence opinion).
Assuming that the standards process can be used to mitigate their exercise
of power is naive at best. The ITU will continue to exist, if nothing more
than a unified voice for the governments to state requirements of each
other. How long the IETF gets to stay independent of that will depend on how
responsive it is to meeting the needs of governments. If short-sighted
attempts at political maneuvering are exposed in the IETF, it will lose its
independence and finally bring that process under 'proper control'. 

It would be wise for the IETF participants to look at the countries that did
sign, and why. What is it that they are not getting that they need, and how
can that be resolved? To echo Day's point, it is the capability they
want/need, not the historical implementation. 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Victor Ndonnang]

Dear all,

I have been following this discussing since and I'm learning a lot. Many 
thanks to all contributors and special Thanks to

Phillip Hallam-Baker who initiated it.
Happy and Prosperous New Year 2013 to the IETF Family!
Best Regards,
Victor Ndonnang.

On 02/01/2013 02:11, John Day wrote:

Re: WCIT outcome?
At 7:29 PM -0500 1/1/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter 
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com 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:jeanj...@comcast.net
mailto:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.net
mailto:jeanj...@comcast.net 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=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=items

http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S%21%21PDF-Etype=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

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote:
...

 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**.
 
 But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed
 national boundaries would not fall under that rule?  Actually neither
 would a VPN operating over a couple of carriers that crossed national
 boundaries, would it?

That depended on how the various national monopolists chose to
interpret the rules. In Switzerland we were particularly affected
by the fact that the PTT monopoly was a specific line item in the
federal Constitution. In the US, you had the benefit of Judge Greene.

 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.
 
 ;-) Actually what they don't know won't hurt them.  ;-) We were moving
 files from CERN to Argonne in the 70s through the 360/95 at Rutherford
 over the ARPANET.   Not exactly the way you want to do it but 15 years
 later I am sure it was upgraded a bit.

This would probably have counted as a store-and-forward network,
which was exempted in many countries.

 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.
 
 Yea, this one is more dicey.  Although I think there is an argument that
 says that you need ccoperation among providers about assignment, but I
 don't see why governments need to be involved.  When phone companies
 were owned by governments, then it made sense.  But phone companies are
 owned by governments any more.
 
 That doesn't leave much does it?  (Not a facetious question, I am asking!)

Indeed. But I think you'll find that in general, the countries that signed
the WCIT treaty are those that still have some semblance of a government-
controlled PTT monopoly.

On 01/01/2013 18:36, Alessandro Vesely wrote:

 Was D.1 to ease wire tapping?

No. It was all about preserving the lucrative PTT monopolies.

On 01/01/2013 22:13, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:

 In the early eigthies, after consulting with the telecom authorithy
 in the Netherlands we got the green light to move data for third
 parties, and thus the (then uucp based) EUnet was born.

Exactly, and EARN (European BITNET) was just the same.

 The green
 light was given in the anticipation of the libiralization of the
 EU telcom market. 

Exactly, and the 1988 revision of regulation D.1 was closely related
to the general move toward telecom liberalization.

As I said - this stuff *matters* for the Internet (both historically
and for the future).

Brian

Re: WCIT outcome?

[SM]

At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over.  Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have 
a consensus.  This


There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has 
its own meaning for that word.


;-)  Why is that daunting?  ;-)  I hear that excuse often.  If we 
had had that attitude when we started this effort 40 years ago.  We 
would still be patching the PSTN.  There would be no Internet. Do 
you think the Internet was a success because we convinced IBM and 
ATT it was a good idea?!!  I am sorry to see that the younger 
generation is so faint of heart.  Can't take a little challenge!


Nowadays it is called being pragmatic.  The little challenge might be 
taking on the legacy.  I wonder how many fairy tales are part of the 
legacy. :-)


At 16:29 01-01-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
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.


That might explain the the press releases about the WCIT discussions.

At 17:11 01-01-2013, John Day wrote:
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)?


Y.2001 covers topics which affect commerce (I am ignoring other 
angles).  There is leeway for expanding the scope beyond a narrow 
definition of telecommunication.  Everybody will lobby for their pet 
project as there is an opportunity to do so.


Regards,
-sm 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day]

At 9:03 AM + 1/2/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote:
...


 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**.


 But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed
 national boundaries would not fall under that rule?  Actually neither
 would a VPN operating over a couple of carriers that crossed national
 boundaries, would it?


That depended on how the various national monopolists chose to
interpret the rules. In Switzerland we were particularly affected
by the fact that the PTT monopoly was a specific line item in the
federal Constitution. In the US, you had the benefit of Judge Greene.


I could see it being viewed as commerce and subject to tariffs.  (Not 
that I think tariffs are a good idea.)





 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.


 ;-) Actually what they don't know won't hurt them.  ;-) We were moving
 files from CERN to Argonne in the 70s through the 360/95 at Rutherford
 over the ARPANET.   Not exactly the way you want to do it but 15 years
 later I am sure it was upgraded a bit.


This would probably have counted as a store-and-forward network,
which was exempted in many countries.


;-)  I of course was joking. But I remember being told that it was 
illegal, or maybe it was that no one was sure (we were all pretty new 
to this stuff back then) and figured asking was not a good idea!  ;-)


(In several reports at the time, our node was the highest user of the 
Rutherford, probably of nodes on the net at the time.)





 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.


 Yea, this one is more dicey.  Although I think there is an argument that
 says that you need ccoperation among providers about assignment, but I
 don't see why governments need to be involved.  When phone companies
 were owned by governments, then it made sense.  But phone companies are
 owned by governments any more.

 That doesn't leave much does it?  (Not a facetious question, I am asking!)


Indeed. But I think you'll find that in general, the countries that signed
the WCIT treaty are those that still have some semblance of a government-
controlled PTT monopoly.


I was wondering about that and guessing that it might be the case. 
Thanks for the data.


Also, I would agree with Fred's comment on helping the police. 
Although as we all know that can be hard call and one has to hope 
that the proper controls are on them as well.  The problem as I see 
it is that it is not a good idea to try to constrain a new technology 
to behave like the old technology.  It is the capability they want it 
shouldn't imply how.


Of course, the other problem which really wasn't present before (just 
because of cost and/or availability) is that if the user chooses to 
encrypt everything they send, the network provider can provide the 
data but that  is it.

Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day]

At 4:33 AM -0800 1/2/13, SM wrote:

At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over.  Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have 
a consensus.  This


There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has 
its own meaning for that word.


No, it isn't that.  I have been in too many meetings like this.  The 
reason it is done is because of what the chair wants.  I remember one 
standard where the stack of comments on the document was two feet 
high.  Normally a tenth that many comments would have had the 
document going for a second ballot rather than progressing.  Since 
most wanted it to progress even if it was probably severely flawed 
after all those changes, it was done.


No, this is not a case of different groups having different rules. 
It is a case of chair getting what he wanted.




;-)  Why is that daunting?  ;-)  I hear that excuse often.  If we 
had had that attitude when we started this effort 40 years ago.  We 
would still be patching the PSTN.  There would be no Internet. Do 
you think the Internet was a success because we convinced IBM and 
ATT it was a good idea?!!  I am sorry to see that the younger 
generation is so faint of heart.  Can't take a little challenge!


Nowadays it is called being pragmatic.  The little challenge might 
be taking on the legacy.  I wonder how many fairy tales are part of 
the legacy. :-)


Nice rationalization for your inaction.  It has been used a lot 
throughout history.  That doesn't change the facts. (BTW, a close 
inspection reveals that the legacy is all fairy tale.)



At 16:29 01-01-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
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.


That might explain the the press releases about the WCIT discussions.

At 17:11 01-01-2013, John Day wrote:
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)?


Y.2001 covers topics which affect commerce (I am ignoring other 
angles).  There is leeway for expanding the scope beyond a narrow 
definition of telecommunication.  Everybody will lobby for their pet 
project as there is an opportunity to do so.


Could you expand on this?

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Carlos M. Martinez]

Hi!

On 12/29/12 4:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
 
 
 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com
 mailto:jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 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.
 
 
 The original purpose was to stop consumers from reducing their telegraph
 bills by adopting codes. 

Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore), and one of
the task the ITU actually has performed very well, being a positive and
constructive player.

I don't know if it's true, but I've read in the past that one of the
first events that brought up the need for spectrum regulation, and thus
ushered in the role of the ITU in it was the Titanic disaster.

 
  
 
 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.
 
 
 ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an
 end. There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its
 own sake. 
 

+1. I do believe the ITU still has a lot of potential for good, but
sadly, the debate within the ITU has been hijacked by those who claim to
defend human rights and fairness while their actual actions say otherwise.

 
 
 Many parts of the world do not understand the difference between a
 standard and a regulation or law. Which is why they see control points
 that don't worry us. I do not see a problem with the US control of the
 IPv6 address supply because I know that it is very very easy to defeat
 that control. ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can
 obviously pass laws that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address
 blocks that would reach certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al.
 say to the contrary. But absent a deployed BGP security infrastructure,
 that has no effect since the rest of the planet is not going to observe
 a US embargo.

+1.

 
 I can see that and most IETF-ers can see that. But the diplomats
 representing Russia and China cannot apparently. Which is probably not
 surprising given the type of education their upper classes (sorry
 children of party bosses) receive.

Here I don't agree. I believe they play dumb but actually according to
their interests.

 
Warm regards,

~Carlos

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:33 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:

 At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:

 jumped all over.  Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have a
 consensus.  This


 There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has its
 own meaning for that word.


  ;-)  Why is that daunting?  ;-)  I hear that excuse often.  If we had had
 that attitude when we started this effort 40 years ago.  We would still be
 patching the PSTN.  There would be no Internet. Do you think the Internet
 was a success because we convinced IBM and ATT it was a good idea?!!  I am
 sorry to see that the younger generation is so faint of heart.  Can't take
 a little challenge!


 Nowadays it is called being pragmatic.  The little challenge might be
 taking on the legacy.  I wonder how many fairy tales are part of the
 legacy. :-)


I think the reason is rather different. Back in 1970 the only way to get
things done was to ignore the regulations that prohibited what you want to
do. I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' because
connecting it directly to the phone line was illegal. Many of those
regulations came from the authorities attempting to maintain wiretap
capabilities and passive eavesdropping capabilities. Plessey System X used
in the UK was designed to allow any telephone handset to be used to bug the
room it was in which is why the UK authorities made it illegal to buy a
non-Plessey phone and plug it in.

Today the Internet has quite a few supporters that have a place at the top
table of government. Tim Berners-Lee can pick up the phone and talk right
to the top of the UK government, that is what being a Companion of Honor is
actually about.

That does not mean that regulations have to be considered binding. It does
however mean that ignoring them is not necessarily the only or the best
option.



 At 16:29 01-01-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

 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.


 That might explain the the press releases about the WCIT discussions.


That and Microsoft being on the warpath after the NSA hacked their internal
PKI with a cryptanalytic attack to deploy the Flame malware.



 At 17:11 01-01-2013, John Day wrote:

 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)?


 Y.2001 covers topics which affect commerce (I am ignoring other angles).
  There is leeway for expanding the scope beyond a narrow definition of
 telecommunication.  Everybody will lobby for their pet project as there is
 an opportunity to do so.


There are government interests in telecommunications, not all of them are
illegitimate.

Maintaining the ability to crack other governments confidential
communications now seems to me to have far more downsides than up. Using
the technology developed to break the Enigma codes to compromise
communications of other governments might have been a good thing if it had
only been used against the Warsaw pact (East Germany used actual Enigma
machines right up to the point the story was made public). But they didn't
limit themselves to that and the main business of the NSA from 1952 through
1976 or so was breaching the communications systems of US allies so that
they could engineer a coup when it suited them. It is probably not an
accident that the coups stopped happening in the mid 70s right around the
time electronic cipher systems replaced the mechanical ones.

But beyond the illegitimate concerns, there are some important legitimate
ones. In particular a country like France has to be concerned that if it
gets into a trade dispute with the US that the US administration can't
force it into submission by threatening to cut off its connection to the
Internet or any other essential communication technology.

This is not a theoretical consideration. The reason that there is no
central repository for RFID product identifiers is that the French
government decided that the proposals on the table would give the US the
ability to control the sale of French products by ordering the maintainer
of the registry not to publish them. That would effectively make it
impossible to sell them through the electronic supply chain. So they made
sure that the registry did not happen.


Ensuring that no country establishes a technological control point like
that is a legitimate government interest and an essential one. That is the
real reason that there is so much politics surrounding ICANN.

So one option would be for ITU-T to refocus its energies on protecting the
legitimate government interest of preventing domination. But it is not
necessarily the best one. A better option 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Stewart Bryant]

On 02/01/2013 13:44, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:


Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore), and one of
the task the ITU actually has performed very well, being a positive and
constructive player.

I don't know if it's true, but I've read in the past that one of the
first events that brought up the need for spectrum regulation, and thus
ushered in the role of the ITU in it was the Titanic disaster.


Yes, there was chaos until the CCIR (ITU-R) process of international
radio regulation came into being.

However it remains to be seen what will happen as the various
computerized dynamic forms of frequency co-ordination
(in all their forms) replace the essentially static frequency co-
ordination method that has prevailed over the past 100 years,
and as SDR deployment allows radios to use more dynamic/
agile waveforms than were the possible up until quite recently.

Just as the Internet has challenged the ITU-T model of operation,
the computerization of radio (with the help of the Internet) will
to some degree or other challenge the ITU-R model of operation.

- Stewart

Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day]

Interesting as always.

At 9:14 AM -0500 1/2/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:33 AM, SM 
mailto:s...@resistor.nets...@resistor.net wrote:


At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:

jumped all over.  Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have 
a consensus.  This



There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has 
its own meaning for that word.



;-)  Why is that daunting?  ;-)  I hear that excuse often.  If we 
had had that attitude when we started this effort 40 years ago.  We 
would still be patching the PSTN.  There would be no Internet. Do 
you think the Internet was a success because we convinced IBM and 
ATT it was a good idea?!!  I am sorry to see that the younger 
generation is so faint of heart.  Can't take a little challenge!



Nowadays it is called being pragmatic.  The little challenge might 
be taking on the legacy.  I wonder how many fairy tales are part of 
the legacy. :-)



I think the reason is rather different. Back in 1970 the only way to 
get things done was to ignore the regulations that prohibited what 
you want to do.


Huh?  The ARPANET was not ignoring any regulations.  Nor was the work 
at NPL or IRIA.


I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' because 
connecting it directly to the phone line was illegal.


No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic 
couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain 
to unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to 
connect.


Ever see the French equivalent of RJ-11?  Good grief.  The French 
phone system must have carried a 100 amps!


It may have been illegal in some countries but certainly not in the US.

Many of those regulations came from the authorities attempting to 
maintain wiretap capabilities and passive eavesdropping 
capabilities. Plessey System X used in the UK was designed to allow 
any telephone handset to be used to bug the room it was in which is 
why the UK authorities made it illegal to buy a non-Plessey phone 
and plug it in.


Today the Internet has quite a few supporters that have a place at 
the top table of government. Tim Berners-Lee can pick up the phone 
and talk right to the top of the UK government, that is what being a 
Companion of Honor is actually about.


That does not mean that regulations have to be considered binding. 
It does however mean that ignoring them is not necessarily the only 
or the best option.


While interesting, I am still not sure what this response has to do 
with the topic.






At 16:29 01-01-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

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.



That might explain the the press releases about the WCIT discussions.


That and Microsoft being on the warpath after the NSA hacked their 
internal PKI with a cryptanalytic attack to deploy the Flame malware.




At 17:11 01-01-2013, John Day wrote:

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)?



Y.2001 covers topics which affect commerce (I am ignoring other 
angles).  There is leeway for expanding the scope beyond a narrow 
definition of telecommunication.  Everybody will lobby for their pet 
project as there is an opportunity to do so.



There are government interests in telecommunications, not all of 
them are illegitimate.


Maintaining the ability to crack other governments confidential 
communications now seems to me to have far more downsides than up. 
Using the technology developed to break the Enigma codes to 
compromise communications of other governments might have been a 
good thing if it had only been used against the Warsaw pact (East 
Germany used actual Enigma machines right up to the point the story 
was made public). But they didn't limit themselves to that and the 
main business of the NSA from 1952 through 1976 or so was breaching 
the communications systems of US allies so that they could engineer 
a coup when it suited them. It is probably not an accident that the 
coups stopped happening in the mid 70s right around the time 
electronic cipher systems replaced the mechanical ones.


Errr, there were several coups last year.  Do you mean US initiated 
coups?  Are you sure there haven't been any? ;-)  I really doubt that 
that was the reason that they seem to fall off.  The success rate of 
the ones they did do was not exactly great and the fallout was often 
not worth the trouble.


Treaties on these sorts of things are pointless.  Agencies like NSA 
or NKVD aren't going to be bound by them anyway.




But beyond the illegitimate concerns, there are some important 
legitimate 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:46 AM, John Day jeanj...@comcast.net wrote:

 **
 Interesting as always.

 But beyond the illegitimate concerns, there are some important legitimate
 ones. In particular a country like France has to be concerned that if it
 gets into a trade dispute with the US that the US administration can't
 force it into submission by threatening to cut off its connection to the
 Internet or any other essential communication technology.

 This is not a theoretical consideration. The reason that there is no
 central repository for RFID product identifiers is that the French
 government decided that the proposals on the table would give the US the
 ability to control the sale of French products by ordering the maintainer
 of the registry not to publish them. That would effectively make it
 impossible to sell them through the electronic supply chain. So they made
 sure that the registry did not happen.



 Then the RFID folks had written a lousy standard.  It is pretty easy to
 design a decentralized name space methodology, such that no one can control
 the whole thing.  Regulating to protect stupidity interferes with Darwin.
 ;-)


Which was my on-topic conclusion.

If IETF wants to avoid government level politics then we have to design the
technology in such a way that we eliminate or mitigate any control points.

The WebPKI has been successfully deployed precisely because it has
sufficient hierarchy to  be scalable without establishing a single control
point like the PEM proposal.

I don't think we will see DNSSEC or BGPSEC being allowed to propagate
unless attention is paid to the legitimate interest of states to avoid
technology capture.


DNSSEC does not replace the WebPKI, nor does BGPSEC. But we need all three
security layers if we are going to achieve a comprehensive security
solution for the Internet. Each technology has a very specific purpose:

BGPSEC: Prevent/mitigate Denial of Service attacks through bogus route
advertisement

DNSSEC: Distribute security policy information tied to the Internet naming
system

WebPKI: Establish accountability of the parties at the Internet end points.


At the moment we have a broken system because DNSSEC is being sold as a
'free' replacement for WebPKI which is a losing proposition as (1) the cost
of deploying DNSSEC is many times the cost of buying a domain validated SSL
certificate (2) the real purpose of the WebPKI is to establish
accountability which requires a stronger credential than merely having
bought a DNS name.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Dmitry Burkov]

On Dec 29, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

to be honest I prefer don't comment your emails - but this time I changed mu 
rules...

 
 
 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  
 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.
 
 ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an end. 
 There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its own sake. 
 
 Tim Berners-Lee has on numerous W3C AC meetings reminded people about the 
 X-Windows consortium that did its job and then shut down.

X-Windows was dead from the beginning - we lost more regarding patents and html 
is still under- or overdeveloped:)
But the key point was not attack against ITU - but test the idea to replace 
Yalta agreements (it means - first test to replace UN)
 
 
  
 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.
 
 Many parts of the world do not understand the difference between a standard 
 and a regulation or law. Which is why they see control points that don't 
 worry us. I do not see a problem with the US control of the IPv6 address 
 supply because I know that it is very very easy to defeat that control. ICANN 
 is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws that 
 prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach certain 
 countries no matter what Crocker et. al. say to the contrary. But absent a 
 deployed BGP security infrastructure, that has no effect since the rest of 
 the planet is not going to observe a US embargo.
 
 I can see that and most IETF-ers can see that. But the diplomats representing 
 Russia and China cannot apparently. Which is probably not surprising given 
 the type of education their upper classes (sorry children of party bosses) 
 receive.

Don't think so - that these diplomats were so  stupid that they knew nothing 
about real situation :) Another issue - how clever they were in concrete event?

 
 
  
 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? )
 
 Two years may be longer than some of the unstable regimes have left. I can't 
 see Syria holding out that long and nor it appears can Russia. The next 
 dominoes in line are the ex-Soviet republics round the Caspian sea where 
 having the opposition boiled alive is still considered an acceptable means of 
 control.

You are  absolutely wrong when put Syria in one line...  And I think that 
nobody can garantee absolute stability - be careful with such predictions. 
History showed us that the most stable leading countries can be easily dropped 
down...


 
  
 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.
 

I think that first of all - Vint also should estimate himself and  Tony ( of 
course) - who are these dinosaurs? :)

 I think that what we should be doing is to help the ITU become extinct by 
 eliminating the technical control points that would make ITU oversight of 
 Internet governance necessary.
 
 This does not need to entail a great deal of technical changes but does 
 require that we accept that they do have a valid interest.
  
 

dima

 -- 
 Website: http://hallambaker.com/

RE: WCIT outcome?

[Dearlove, Christopher (UK)]

Carlos M. Martinez 
 Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
 although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore),

Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the 
world
has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation. It's still not that 
long since
the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer made over £20 billion from selling spectrum, 
something
possible since international treaties had agreed on its purpose for 3G 
communications.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, 
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England  Wales No: 1996687



This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Dale R. Worley]

 From: John Day jeanj...@comcast.net
 
 No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic 
 couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain 
 to unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to 
 connect.

In the 1970s, in the US, and for inter-state use, you either had to
rent the modem from the phone company, or rent a data-access
arrangement device to connect your modem to the network.  The DAA
cost about as much as the modem, so there was little in the way of
independent modems.  Acoustic couplers got around that rule.

Also, in those days, there was a large four-pronged plug that could be
used for phones.  It was sometimes used when people wanted to move
phones around.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4prongplug.JPG

Dale

Re: WCIT outcome?

[ned+ietf]

  From: John Day jeanj...@comcast.net

  I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' because
  connecting it directly to the phone line was illegal.
  No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic
  couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain to
  unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to
  connect.
  ...
  It may have been illegal in some countries but certainly not in the US.

 Huh? Remember the Carterphone decision?

Absolutely. Too bad the FCC didn't see fit to extend it to wireless.

 The one that overturned FCC Tariff Number 132: No equipment, apparatus,
 circuit or device not furnished by the telephone company shall be attached to
 or connected with the facilities furnished by the telephone company, whether
 physically, by induction or otherwise.

 Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for
 _post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal
 to connect directly (other than AT+T/WE supplied equipment).

I'm skeptical about this last part. Prior to the advent of RJ-11 Bell System
line cords used a large polarized four pin jack. After Carterphone all sorts of
stuff started to appear to accomodate these, including extension cords,
plug-jack passthroughs, and even cube taps.

At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be
directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a regulation, a phone
company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after
Carterphone.

I certainly saw acoustic coupled equipment in use long after Carterphone, but
in my experience it was because of general intertia/unwillingness to do the
necessary engineering, not because of the lack of connectors.

Ned

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Dave Crocker]

On 1/2/2013 1:34 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:

Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for
_post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal
to connect directly (other than AT+T/WE supplied equipment).


I'm skeptical about this last part. Prior to the advent of RJ-11 Bell System
line cords used a large polarized four pin jack. After Carterphone all sorts of
stuff started to appear to accomodate these, including extension cords,
plug-jack passthroughs, and even cube taps.


Acoustic couplers date back farther than the 4-pin plugs.

As I understood the ATT claim, they asserted a need to protect their 
network from misbehaving electronics and so required all interfacing to 
be through the handset that they provided.


Hence the overlay hack of an acoustic coupler.  Not unlike MIME...



At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be
directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a regulation, a phone
company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after
Carterphone.


It was usually enforced rigorously.  A given field tech might choose to 
overlook a local mod, but they were authorized to remove such things.


So in my apartment, I installed a shutoff switch to the line, to be able 
to sleep through attempts by my boss to call me in to work an additional 
shift as a computer operator, at UCLA, around 1970 -- if I answered, I 
was required to come in.  Remember there was no caller ID in those days.


The tech who needed to work on my phone service was very clear that he 
was supposed to remove it.  After checking that I had handled the wiring 
acceptably, he looked at me and said so if I remove this, you'll 
probably just reinstall it, right?  He then left it in place.


d/

--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: WCIT outcome?

[David Morris]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:

 At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be
 directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a regulation, a phone
 company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after
 Carterphone.

May have varied by baby bell, but in Michigan, you could have as many 
jacks as you wished, but you had to lease them all from the telco. There
may have been a rule about having at least one hard wired phone, I don't
recall. In those days, the telco owned and was responsible for all inside
wiring.

 I certainly saw acoustic coupled equipment in use long after Carterphone, but
 in my experience it was because of general intertia/unwillingness to do the
 necessary engineering, not because of the lack of connectors.

Probably more to do with portability of accoustic couplers and the lack of
provisioning in motels, etc. for jacks.

Re: WCIT outcome?

[SM]

Hi John,
At 05:11 02-01-2013, John Day wrote:

Could you expand on this?


The question (asked in a previous message) used the word 
telecommunication.  If one goes by the definition in Y.2001 it may 
not fit everybody's view of what telecommunication should 
mean.  The objectives in Y.2001 are broad.  They can be interpreted 
in various ways.  People will argue about what are important 
considerations and which of them should be subject to international 
regulations.  Does security, for example, affect commerce?  Should 
security include lawful interception?  Each question can raise other 
questions.  It's a slippery slope.


Regards,
-sm 

Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?)

[ned+ietf]

On 1/2/2013 1:34 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
 Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for
 _post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal
 to connect directly (other than AT+T/WE supplied equipment).

 I'm skeptical about this last part. Prior to the advent of RJ-11 Bell System
 line cords used a large polarized four pin jack. After Carterphone all sorts 
of
 stuff started to appear to accomodate these, including extension cords,
 plug-jack passthroughs, and even cube taps.



Acoustic couplers date back farther than the 4-pin plugs.


Of course. However, we're talking about post-Carterphone here. Carterphone was
1968, and I'm sure four pin plugs were in use by then.

Also keep in mind that ATT fought the Carterphone decision for many years.
They got some state regulators to issue their own restrictions, but the FCC
nixed them all. Then they said a special protection device had to be used. The
FCC shot that down too. They also tried fees, but for that to work people had
to tell ATT to charge them, which of course didn't happen.


...



 At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be
 directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a regulation, a phone
 company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after
 Carterphone.



It was usually enforced rigorously.  A given field tech might choose to
overlook a local mod, but they were authorized to remove such things.



So in my apartment, I installed a shutoff switch to the line, to be able
to sleep through attempts by my boss to call me in to work an additional
shift as a computer operator, at UCLA, around 1970 -- if I answered, I
was required to come in.  Remember there was no caller ID in those days.



The tech who needed to work on my phone service was very clear that he
was supposed to remove it.  After checking that I had handled the wiring
acceptably, he looked at me and said so if I remove this, you'll
probably just reinstall it, right?  He then left it in place.


A line mod was probably against the rules irrespective of Carterphone in those
days. But had you bought your own phone with a ringer switch and hooked that
up, that absolutely would have been covered by Carterphone. Of course you would
then have had to convince ATT of that - see above.

Ned

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Brian E Carpenter]

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:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.net 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.

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.

** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on
use of leased lines:
http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=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.

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.

   Brian

Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day]

Thanks Brian, That helps clear up a few things.  See below for a 
couple of questions:


At 8:31 AM + 1/1/13, Brian E Carpenter 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:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.net 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**.


But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed 
national boundaries would not fall under that rule?  Actually neither 
would a VPN operating over a couple of carriers that crossed national 
boundaries, would it?



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.


;-) Actually what they don't know won't hurt them.  ;-) We were 
moving files from CERN to Argonne in the 70s through the 360/95 at 
Rutherford over the ARPANET.   Not exactly the way you want to do it 
but 15 years later I am sure it was upgraded a bit.




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.


Yea, this one is more dicey.  Although I think there is an argument 
that says that you need ccoperation among providers about assignment, 
but I don't see why governments need to be involved.  When phone 
companies were owned by governments, then it made sense.  But phone 
companies are owned by governments any more.


That doesn't leave much does it?  (Not a facetious question, I am asking!)

Take care,
John



** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on
use of leased lines:
http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=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.

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.

   Brian

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Alessandro Vesely]

On Tue 01/Jan/2013 09:31:28 +0100 Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 
 ** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on
 use of leased lines:
 http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=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.

Was D.1 to ease wire tapping?  By example, I, as a mail server operator
who is not a telecom, am not required by my country's laws to provide an
instrumentation whereby authorized investigators can obtain a list of a
user's correspondents on the fly.  Yet that kind of data is said to be
essential for police operations.  OTOH, SMTP doesn't consider that kind
of facilities, and fashionable implementations don't provide them.  What
am I missing?

Perhaps, as the old telephone system is fading away, the institutions
that founded it --local governments' branches-- should change their
mindset or just fade away as well...  Should the IETF or other SDOs help
such transition?

On Sat 29/Dec/2012 07:26:56 +0100 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
 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.

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Dave Crocker]

On 1/1/2013 12:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

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.



Just to avoid any misconstruction here:

 While there might have been a plausible case to be made, for 
having the ITU house the IANA functions, I believe there was no 
(serious) pursuit of that alternative at the time.


Around that time, the ITU did have a representative who participated in 
the ill-fated pre-ICANN IAHC effort (of which I was a part, including 
editor of its proposal).


But the IAHC only had the very narrow scope of suggesting a few gTLDs to 
add.  It had no formal part in the much larger question of finding a 
home for IANA.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day]

Dave,

I was thinking about that after I sent my email.  I actually don't 
think there is an argument for ITU holding the IANA function.  The 
assignment of addresses should be done in such a way as to facilitate 
routing.  This requires agreements among providers, but not 
governments.  Going back to governments no longer own the networks, 
then there is no reason for it be in the purview.


Domain names I guess would follow since there are merely macro 
strings for network addresses.


So I see no argument for ITU to be involved.

Take care,
John

At 10:46 AM -0800 1/1/13, Dave Crocker wrote:

On 1/1/2013 12:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

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.



Just to avoid any misconstruction here:

 While there might have been a plausible case to be made, for 
having the ITU house the IANA functions, I believe there was no 
(serious) pursuit of that alternative at the time.


Around that time, the ITU did have a representative who participated 
in the ill-fated pre-ICANN IAHC effort (of which I was a part, 
including editor of its proposal).


But the IAHC only had the very narrow scope of suggesting a few 
gTLDs to add.  It had no formal part in the much larger question of 
finding a home for IANA.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Dave Crocker]

On 1/1/2013 10:52 AM, John Day wrote:

I was thinking about that after I sent my email.  I actually don't think
there is an argument for ITU holding the IANA function.


And just to make sure my own message was clear:  I wasn't commenting on 
the merits of the view, but merely trying to report the facts of what I 
recall taking place at the time.




Domain names I guess would follow since there are merely macro strings
for network addresses.


While this is a topic serving more as a discussion black hole than 
likely to engender intellectual opportunity, I'll point out that domain 
names are -- and I think always have been -- quite a bit more than 
merely being macros for network addresses.


The mapping to network addresses has (always?) been the primary use, but 
they are a discrete name space with social as well as operational uses. 
 That is, the social aspects serve as distinct from the mapping aspects.


For that matter, the operational uses have extended considerably beyond 
mapping to addresses.  Given my own activities with DKIM, the obvious 
exemplar is mapping to security parameters.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

It is of course all history, but allow me some remarks (in line).

Thanks Brian, That helps clear up a few things.  See below for a 
couple of questions:

At 8:31 AM + 1/1/13, Brian E Carpenter 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:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.net 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**.

But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed 
national boundaries would not fall under that rule?  Actually neither 
would a VPN operating over a couple of carriers that crossed national 
boundaries, would it?

In the early eigthies, after consulting with the telecom authorithy
in the Netherlands we got the green light to move data for third
parties, and thus the (then uucp based) EUnet was born. The green
light was given in the anticipation of the libiralization of the
EU telcom market. And yes, first this was indeed first using (nearly
only) dial-up connections but soon some leased lines and of course
TCP/IP etc. game into play.

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.

;-) Actually what they don't know won't hurt them.  ;-) We were 
moving files from CERN to Argonne in the 70s through the 360/95 at 
Rutherford over the ARPANET.   Not exactly the way you want to do it 
but 15 years later I am sure it was upgraded a bit.


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.

Yea, this one is more dicey.  Although I think there is an argument 
that says that you need ccoperation among providers about assignment, 
but I don't see why governments need to be involved.  When phone 
companies were owned by governments, then it made sense.  But phone 
companies are owned by governments any more.

[The RIPE was born out of necessity for coordination of the IP number space].

That doesn't leave much does it?  (Not a facetious question, I am asking!)

Take care,
John


** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on
use of leased lines:

http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=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.

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.

Brian


It seems that this document was already unaware about what was really happening
in practice.

jaap

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter 
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com 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:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.net 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.



 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.

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.



 ** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on
 use of leased lines:

 http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=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.

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.

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.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day]

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:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.combrian.e.carpen...@gmail.com 
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:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.netmailto:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.net 
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=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=itemshttp://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=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 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Fred Baker (fred)]

On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:

 Was D.1 to ease wire tapping?  By example, I, as a mail server operator
 who is not a telecom, am not required by my country's laws to provide an
 instrumentation whereby authorized investigators can obtain a list of a
 user's correspondents on the fly.  Yet that kind of data is said to be
 essential for police operations.  OTOH, SMTP doesn't consider that kind
 of facilities, and fashionable implementations don't provide them.  What
 am I missing?

In most countries, wiretap laws apply to public facilities. An enterprise mail 
server isn't a public facility.

 Perhaps, as the old telephone system is fading away, the institutions
 that founded it --local governments' branches-- should change their
 mindset or just fade away as well...  Should the IETF or other SDOs help
 such transition?

If you want something to fade away, making a fuss about it isn't a useful 
approach. The IETF's practice in the past has been to improve the Internet; I 
tend to think that's as it should be.

That said, I'm also of the opinion that preventing a police force from 
conducting a proper criminal investigation is not a path to success. We like to 
say that the Internet routes around brokenness; so do police forces and 
legislative bodies. They define brokenness as anything that prevents them 
from doing their job, the same way we do. What I would far rather see is a set 
of technical mechanisms and supporting law that facilitate legitimate criminal 
investigations and expose the other kind.

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Randy Bush]

 In most countries, wiretap laws apply to public facilities.

laws do not seem to have much relation to government spying.

randy

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Masataka Ohta]

SM wrote:

 What people say and what they actually do or mean is often a very 
 different matter.  An individual may have principles (or beliefs).  A 
 stakeholder has interests.  There was an individual who mentioned on an 
 IETF mailing list that he/she disagreed with his/her company's stance.  
 It's unlikely that a stakeholder would say that.

That's how the global routing table has bloated so much because
of requests from ISPs as stakeholders even though it is harmful
to not only end users but also ISPs, which is fallacy of
composition.

ITU did it better for phone numbers.

Masataka Ohta

Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day]

Phillip,



The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for 
the US representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions 
of Comcast and Google, it is no more practical for one person to 
represent the position of Cisco or Microsoft.


Then I take it from this comment that you believe that all forms of 
representative government (and reaching agreements) are ridiculous?


Surely you don't believe that pure democracy will work?  That myth 
had been dispelled 250 years ago.


The process of a representative form for creating agreements seems to 
be (as flawed as it is) about the best we have come up with.


Wrt its application in standards outside the ITU it works the same 
way.  When a voluntary standards organization organizes by country, 
it is to give voice to the small companies as well as the Ciscos and 
Microsofts.  The big guys can send 10s of people (which represents a 
different problem) to meetings all over the world.  The little 
companies can't afford that but they have an interest.  Providing the 
means for them to agree on what their interest is and to make it 
heard is equally important.


It sounds like you are arguing for the hegemony of the robber barons 
moved to the 21stC.




Where the problem comes in is when you have a proposal that requires 
the active support and participation of stakeholders like VeriSign. 
When I told the IETF that DNSSEC would be deployed in 
http://dot.comdot.com if and only if the opt-in proposal was 
accepted, I was stating the official position of a stakeholder whose 
participation was essential if DNSSEC was going to be deployed.


It was a really minor change but the reason it was blocked was one 
individual had the crazy idea that blocking deployment of DNSSEC 
would cause VeriSign to lose dotcom. He was not the only person with 
that idea but he was the only person in a position to wreck all 
progress in the IETF if he didn't get his way.


For projects like IPv6 the standards development process needs to be 
better at identifying the necessary stakeholders and ensuring that 
enough essential requirements of enough stakeholders are met. 
Otherwise we end up with yet another Proposed Standard RFC that 
everyone ignores.


I would disagree slightly.  It is not task of the SDO to identify the 
necessary stakeholders but to ensure all of the stakeholder are 
represented at all levels.  The problems you describe above result 
from breaking that rule.




The main fault of IETF culture is the idea that the Internet is 
waiting to receive everything that we toss over the wall. That is 
not how I view the utility of the process. If I want to have fun 
designing something I invite at most five people to the 
brainstorming session then one person writes it up. The only reason 
to have more then five people is to seek buy-in from other 
stakeholders.


Wrt some of your previous comments, I would agree.  When phone 
companies were owned by governments (remember this was often both the 
provider and manufacturer parts of the business) , there might have 
been a reason for ITU to be a treaty organization.  I can see that 
for wireless government involvement is still necessary.  However, 
given that providers are now private (often international) businesses 
it is hard to see wrt standards setting how the topics covered by ITU 
is any different than any other voluntary standards organization.


Over the 30+ years I have been involved in standards it is pretty 
clear that the bottom-up nature of standards creates standards bodies 
among like-minded groups of people.  This seems to be the natural 
occurrence.  I see no problem with this.  There seems to be a 
like-minded group of people who gravitate toward the kinds of 
problems the ITU has traditionally dealt with. Fine.  The market will 
decide whether or not it wants to use them as it does with all 
standards.


The question is what, if anything, is there left relating to wireline 
communication that requires agreement among *governments*?  I can't 
think of much.


One other note:  We are very sloppy in our use of the term 
Internet. And the ITU hierarchy and their allies have been 
skillfully using this.  We are not distinguishing clearly between the 
internet itself and the *users* (or is it uses?) of the Internet.  It 
appears that most of what they want to regulate or constrain is the 
uses.  This is equivalent to saying that they want to regulate what 
is said over the phone.  Clearly outside their purview.  But *we* act 
like it isn't.  By not clearly distinguishing between the two in the 
discussions, we have already given up considerable ground.


Take care,
John Day



--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/http://hallambaker.com/

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day jeanj...@comcast.net wrote:

 **
 Phillip,


 The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for the US
 representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions of Comcast and
 Google, it is no more practical for one person to represent the position of
 Cisco or Microsoft.


 Then I take it from this comment that you believe that all forms of
 representative government (and reaching agreements) are ridiculous?


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.

Representative democracy without the elections part has neither.

And it may have escaped your notice but pretty much every government in the
developed world tries to limit the scope of their authority these days.
They have discovered that they prefer to concentrate their influence on a
narrow scope and thus maximize it.



 Surely you don't believe that pure democracy will work?  That myth had
 been dispelled 250 years ago.


I lived in Switzerland for two years. They have a government that passes a
budget. How is yours doing?



 The process of a representative form for creating agreements seems to be
 (as flawed as it is) about the best we have come up with.


ITU is not a democratic organization, nor does it aspire to be. So it is
not representative in the slightest. Reciting slogans does not mean they
are applicable



 Wrt its application in standards outside the ITU it works the same way.
 When a voluntary standards organization organizes by country, it is to give
 voice to the small companies as well as the Ciscos and Microsofts.  The big
 guys can send 10s of people (which represents a different problem) to
 meetings all over the world.  The little companies can't afford that but
 they have an interest.  Providing the means for them to agree on what their
 interest is and to make it heard is equally important.

 It sounds like you are arguing for the hegemony of the robber barons moved
 to the 21stC.


I deal with the world as I find it. It is very difficult to change the
Internet without the support of a Microsoft or a Google or a Cisco. There
are a ten billion endpoints deployed. The real obstacle is the hegemony of
the installed base.

Where the problem comes in is when you have a proposal that requires the
 active support and participation of stakeholders like VeriSign. When I told
 the IETF that DNSSEC would be deployed in dot.com if and only if the
 opt-in proposal was accepted, I was stating the official position of a
 stakeholder whose participation was essential if DNSSEC was going to be
 deployed.


 It was a really minor change but the reason it was blocked was one
 individual had the crazy idea that blocking deployment of DNSSEC would
 cause VeriSign to lose dotcom. He was not the only person with that idea
 but he was the only person in a position to wreck all progress in the IETF
 if he didn't get his way.

 For projects like IPv6 the standards development process needs to be
 better at identifying the necessary stakeholders and ensuring that enough
 essential requirements of enough stakeholders are met. Otherwise we end up
 with yet another Proposed Standard RFC that everyone ignores.


 I would disagree slightly.  It is not task of the SDO to identify the
 necessary stakeholders but to ensure all of the stakeholder are represented
 at all levels.  The problems you describe above result from breaking that
 rule.


I think the idea that the stakeholders want to participate is a mistaken
one. VeriSign particpates in IETF. Some of the backbone providers do. But
many do not.

So the frequent result is that IETF develops a widget and the deployment
showstoppers are only discovered during deployment.

It can get really lonely pointing out to a group of people with some idea
their are bursting to implement that they need to at least talk to the
application providers they need to adopt their idea.

The question is what, if anything, is there left relating to wireline
 communication that requires agreement among *governments*?  I can't think
 of much.


They need to come to an agreement to ban cyber-sabotage like they have
banned chemical and biological weapons.

Right now we have a group of US, Russian and Chinese military types all
looking to make their careers at the forefront of the new cyber arms race.
The military managed to piss away trillions of dollars in wealth with their
cold war, now they want to do the same in cyber. The cold war was
ultimately won because the youth of East Germany simply walked away from
the regime.

Like chemical weapons, cyber weapons are far more bark than bite and what
bite there is can hit the attacker. Stuxnet and Flame were crafted to
attack Iran, the vectors were repurposed and targeted at the US days after
they were discovered. We also have the interesting precedent that the UK
has launched a cyber 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day]

At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day 
mailto:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.net wrote:


Phillip,



The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for 
the US representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions 
of Comcast and Google, it is no more practical for one person to 
represent the position of Cisco or Microsoft.



Then I take it from this comment that you believe that all forms of 
representative government (and reaching agreements) are ridiculous?



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.




Representative democracy without the elections part has neither.


Neither of what?



And it may have escaped your notice but pretty much every government 
in the developed world tries to limit the scope of their authority 
these days. They have discovered that they prefer to concentrate 
their influence on a narrow scope and thus maximize it.


That also was my point, if you had read to the bottom.  In fact, I 
would suggest that the delegations of the developed world made a 
mistake assuming that the scope of the ITU was the same as it always 
had been.  By doing this, they gave up ground they didn't need to.






Surely you don't believe that pure democracy will work?  That myth 
had been dispelled 250 years ago.



I lived in Switzerland for two years. They have a government that 
passes a budget. How is yours doing?





I am sorry but I am not sure what Switzerland has to do with this 
discussion.  Last time I looked they had a republic (representative) 
form of government not a pure democracy.  No one every claimed it was 
efficient.




The process of a representative form for creating agreements seems 
to be (as flawed as it is) about the best we have come up with.



ITU is not a democratic organization, nor does it aspire to be. So 
it is not representative in the slightest. Reciting slogans does not 
mean they are applicable


No one claimed it was.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I claimed it 
was organized as a republic form, which does what it is members vote 
on.  It turns out its members are countries.  (As I indicated below, 
I am not sure in the changed circumstances this is appropriate.) 
Actually one thing you seem to have missed, which I thought you would 
have jumped all over.  Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to 
have a consensus.  This time they went with a simple majority.  I 
would have thought this would have created a fair amount of 
consternation.





Wrt its application in standards outside the ITU it works the same 
way.  When a voluntary standards organization organizes by country, 
it is to give voice to the small companies as well as the Ciscos and 
Microsofts.  The big guys can send 10s of people (which represents a 
different problem) to meetings all over the world.  The little 
companies can't afford that but they have an interest.  Providing 
the means for them to agree on what their interest is and to make it 
heard is equally important.


It sounds like you are arguing for the hegemony of the robber barons 
moved to the 21stC.



I deal with the world as I find it. It is very difficult to change 
the Internet without the support of a Microsoft or a Google or a 
Cisco. There are a ten billion endpoints deployed. The real obstacle 
is the hegemony of the installed base.


;-)  Why is that daunting?  ;-)  I hear that excuse often.  If we had 
had that attitude when we started this effort 40 years ago.  We would 
still be patching the PSTN.  There would be no Internet. Do you think 
the Internet was a success because we convinced IBM and ATT it was a 
good idea?!!  I am sorry to see that the younger generation is so 
faint of heart.  Can't take a little challenge!


Actually, it isn't the ITU that is in the way.  It is the structure 
of the IETF that gives the big players such power.




Where the problem comes in is when you have a proposal that 
requires the active support and participation of stakeholders like 
VeriSign. When I told the IETF that DNSSEC would be deployed in 
http://dot.comdot.com if and only if the opt-in proposal was 
accepted, I was stating the official position of a stakeholder 
whose participation was essential if DNSSEC was going to be 
deployed.



It was a really minor change but the reason it was blocked was one 
individual had the crazy idea that blocking deployment of DNSSEC 
would cause VeriSign to lose dotcom. He was not the only person 
with that idea but he was the only person in a position to wreck 
all progress in the IETF if 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:25 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:

 At 10:19 29-12-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

 ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws
 that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach
 certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al. say to the contrary. But
 absent a deployed BGP security


 :-)


 At 14:46 29-12-2012, Patrik Fältström wrote:

 In the new world, governance is no longer by decree, by legislation
 or similar. In the new world we use the word collaboration, and that is
 done via policy development processes that are multi stakeholder and bottom
 up. Like in the RIRs (for IP addresses


 What people say and what they actually do or mean is often a very
 different matter.  An individual may have principles (or beliefs).  A
 stakeholder has interests.  There was an individual who mentioned on an
 IETF mailing list that he/she disagreed with his/her company's stance.
  It's unlikely that a stakeholder would say that.


The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for the US
representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions of Comcast and
Google, it is no more practical for one person to represent the position of
Cisco or Microsoft.

Where the problem comes in is when you have a proposal that requires the
active support and participation of stakeholders like VeriSign. When I told
the IETF that DNSSEC would be deployed in dot.com if and only if the opt-in
proposal was accepted, I was stating the official position of a stakeholder
whose participation was essential if DNSSEC was going to be deployed.

It was a really minor change but the reason it was blocked was one
individual had the crazy idea that blocking deployment of DNSSEC would
cause VeriSign to lose dotcom. He was not the only person with that idea
but he was the only person in a position to wreck all progress in the IETF
if he didn't get his way.

For projects like IPv6 the standards development process needs to be better
at identifying the necessary stakeholders and ensuring that enough
essential requirements of enough stakeholders are met. Otherwise we end up
with yet another Proposed Standard RFC that everyone ignores.

The main fault of IETF culture is the idea that the Internet is waiting to
receive everything that we toss over the wall. That is not how I view the
utility of the process. If I want to have fun designing something I invite
at most five people to the brainstorming session then one person writes it
up. The only reason to have more then five people is to seek buy-in from
other stakeholders.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Jorge Amodio]

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 hal...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Masataka Ohta]

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

 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.

You miss the most important stakeholders, the end users aligning
to countries.

Masataka Ohta

PS

Of course, countries acting as representatives for telephone
companies are just as bad as countries acing as representatives
for ISPs.

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:


 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.


The original purpose was to stop consumers from reducing their telegraph
bills by adopting codes.



 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.


ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an end.
There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its own
sake.

Tim Berners-Lee has on numerous W3C AC meetings reminded people about the
X-Windows consortium that did its job and then shut down.




 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.


Many parts of the world do not understand the difference between a standard
and a regulation or law. Which is why they see control points that don't
worry us. I do not see a problem with the US control of the IPv6 address
supply because I know that it is very very easy to defeat that control.
ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws
that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach
certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al. say to the contrary. But
absent a deployed BGP security infrastructure, that has no effect since the
rest of the planet is not going to observe a US embargo.

I can see that and most IETF-ers can see that. But the diplomats
representing Russia and China cannot apparently. Which is probably not
surprising given the type of education their upper classes (sorry children
of party bosses) receive.



 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.


Funny thing about treaties is that the governments that signed the UDHR
with great cynicism sixty years ago started to actually discuss it a
generation later. Now two generations on it is what the entire political
class has grown up with and it is accepted as something the country has
committed to.

A similar thing happened with the first ban on chemical weapons which
actually preceded the first large scale use in WWI. But in the aftermath
the victors realized that breaking the ban could be used as the basis for a
war crimes prosecution. Almost a century later the ban is pretty effective.
The UK is currently hearing a case in the high court arising from the use
of torture in Kenya. Pinochet was put on trial for his crimes in the end.



 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? )


Two years may be longer than some of the unstable regimes have left. I
can't see Syria holding out that long and nor it appears can Russia. The
next dominoes in line are the ex-Soviet republics round the Caspian sea
where having the opposition boiled alive is still considered an acceptable
means of control.



 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 

Re: WCIT outcome?

[Patrik Fältström]

On 29 dec 2012, at 19:19, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:

 ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an end. 
 There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its own sake. 
 
 Tim Berners-Lee has on numerous W3C AC meetings reminded people about the 
 X-Windows consortium that did its job and then shut down.

There are, IMHO, two major differences between the old world and the new 
world:

In the new world, there are many different SDOs that are, in combination, 
bringing whatever standards are needed to the table. In the old world, there 
was only one.

In the new world, governance is no longer by decree, by legislation or 
similar. In the new world we use the word collaboration, and that is done via 
policy development processes that are multi stakeholder and bottom up. Like in 
the RIRs (for IP addresses etc), like in ICANN (for domain names) or locally 
for the various (successful) ccTLDs that are out there. And of course in the 
various industry consortia that bring so many valuable specifications to the 
table.

This is, I claim, ratified in the UN context in the outcome we call The Tunis 
Agenda and it has come back over and over again. In various formats, using 
slightly different wordings, but always the same theme.

Sometimes, I do though think also IETF participants should think a bit more 
about what the basic principles are for them. Why they fight for their views. 
What could make them give up. What the values are that they think are 
essential. That they are ready to really fight for.

   Patrik Fältström
   Chair of ICANN SSAC
   Former member of IESG, IAB etc and delegate of the Swedish Delegation at 
WCIT-12

Re: WCIT outcome?

[SM]

At 10:19 29-12-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
ICANN is a US corporation and the US government 
can obviously pass laws that prevent ICANN/IANA 
from releasing address blocks that would reach 
certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al. 
say to the contrary. But absent a deployed BGP security


:-)

At 14:46 29-12-2012, Patrik Fältström wrote:
In the new world, governance is no longer by 
decree, by legislation or similar. In the new 
world we use the word collaboration, and that 
is done via policy development processes that 
are multi stakeholder and bottom up. Like in the RIRs (for IP addresses


What people say and what they actually do or mean 
is often a very different matter.  An individual 
may have principles (or beliefs).  A stakeholder 
has interests.  There was an individual who 
mentioned on an IETF mailing list that he/she 
disagreed with his/her company's stance.  It's 
unlikely that a stakeholder would say that.


The collaboration is less about process and more 
about culture.  In some parts of the new world 
governance is still by legislation, etc.  That 
could be attributed to cultural or other 
factors.  The WCIT outcome might be highlighting the fracture.


Regards,
-sm