[Chapter-delegates] ITU Followships for the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, April 2009, Lisbon, Portugal

[borka at e5.ijs.si]

Dear all,

My two cents to this debate:

I fully agree with Olivier and Alejandro  observation.
My viewing
is very similar  - there is a big rush in ITU
and similar organization as they are obviously
loosing the ground - the old telecom model
of telecommunication (and everything relied to it -
the telecommunication models used) is dying.

They are looking for what is happening within the
Future Internet activities (taking
place in U.S, EU, S.Korea and Japan)
and the forums developing
the NGN which is certainly using the good exepriences
of Internet development and the Internet model.

I was recently approached by one "national" industry member
in one of many SG groups of ITU to provide to  him the
"requirements for the NGN - the definition"
beeing worked and designed
within Future Internet activities in EU
(He said that he was asked to look around the
R&D efforts in his environment).
What a nonsense -
no one is ready now to specify accurately all  NGN requirements in
order stanadrdization effort to be applied within ITU!

Other parties (The FIA - Future Internet Assembly of EU
and the EU Technological platforms (ETP - mainly
consisted of telecom industry and academia)  NESSI, NEM and
eMobility) have recently published (January 2009)
very good document entitled " Future Internet - The Cross-ETP Vision 
Document (can be reached www.future-internet.eu) where
they clearly say:

"It is hopeless for the Telecom players to compete with
Internet players keeping Telecom model for applications"

and further:

"Governance of Future Internet will be beyond Internet Name and addresses, 
issues dealt today by ICANN.  It will include other significant public 
policy issues  such as  critical Internet resources, security and safety 
and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet"

We all are aware that  this is a matter of discussion within IGF and
similar forums and certainly not ITU.

Shall ISOC people help ITU in loking for NGN specification
in order they to start standardizing and later selling their CDs?

With regards,

prof.dr.Borka Jerman Blazic
ISOC-Slovenia and ISOC-ECC


On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> wrote:
>
>> my two cents re ITU/WTPF:
>> 
>> It is worthwhile to read through the ITU documents to which Constance and 
>> the ITU pages point to.
>
> Of course, this is only possible when either having a TIES account, something 
> provided free only to ITU members (defined as Member States, Sector Members, 
> and Associates).
> Sector membership stands at 63,600 Swiss Francs and you can choose an 1/8 or 
> 1/4 of the contributory unit, except if you're a sector member from a 
> developing country in which case you can contribute 1/16 of a unit.
>
> This is absolutely technocrat talk and is, as it currently stands, and as it 
> was in the 80s and 90s (which is the time I was part of an organisation which 
> had "oh miracle" access to a TIES account), a gigantic paper-producing 
> machine - now probably even worse because the people producing the 
> e-paperwork don't even get ashamed when they see the CD/DVD of their work. In 
> the past, they used to get ashamed when seeing the piles of yellow, green and 
> white papers amounting to more weight than substance.
>
> In Cairo, Dr. Touré was confronted about this aberration. How can he promise 
> an integrative management of processes and the free participation of the 
> public to ITU processes when barriers exist everywhere and the complexity of 
> the organisation is such that it seems *impossible* to make it more 
> transparent and accountable?
>
>> 
>> The key one is the Secretary General's letter, which last I read was in its 
>> third draft.
>> 
>> For ISOC members there are several salient points:
>> 
>> 1. the definition of NGN's or New Generation Networks.
>>
>>  a. The definition is broad, in evolution, and subject to strongly 
>> disagreeing viewpoints;
>>  b. In general the definition of IP-based networks for all, converged 
>> purposes and services sounds like "very Internet-like" and pleasing but is 
>> fraught with the paradigm of "owned networks" and can also be seen as 
>> big-telco-plus-government paradigm recovery;
>>  c. NGNs are seen as the opportunity to regain control over networks.
>
> d. entertain ambiguity so as for each listener to make up his/her own mind.
>
> Discussions have been going on at the IGF & other governance forums as to 
> what this really meant.
> They ended up in circular arguments.
>
>> 
>> 2. A very telling point is the relationship between NGNs and the Internet. 
>> For many in ISOC the only point, or surely the main one, for a new build of 
>> IP-based networks is to enable access to the Internet with its full rainbow 
>> diversity of contents and services, not for creating controls and choke 
>> points.
>>
>>  Or, caricaturally if you wish, to allow more use of Skype, not to restrict 
>> it further or make money from it.
>
> And this is said whilst the exact opposite is said from ITU "members". I have 
> a growing fear that they either have no clue what an NGN should be or there 
> is a strong disagreement within ITU and between its members about this.
>
>> 
>> 3. Thus other issues of interest, like Network Neutrality in some of its 
>> versions, may be questioned.
>> 
>> 4. Veni points to issues related to Internet Governance and I think he is 
>> right that the writings of the WTPF have discrepancies with the WSIS 
>> agreements. Sometimes in explicit language and sometimes in a more cryptic 
>> form they endorse a view that is not the same multi-stakeholder, 
>> problem-solving view that most in ISOC and other of the Internet's own 
>> organizations are working on. And, certainly, other related events and 
>> expressions reinforce this view.
>>
>>  One of them is the set of expressions by the SG of the ITU, Dr. Hamadoun 
>> Toure, about the Internet Governance Forum (calling it a waste of time and 
>> apparently impatiently circumventing it with the WTPF, which is 
>> intergovernmental in nature in spite of allowing some - limited, 
>> controlled, and pre-filtered - non-governmental attendance.
>
> Frankly, I do not know what ITU's bottom line is. Frankly I don't know if 
> they know. Does anybody here know?
> Calling the IGF a waste of time is offensive to the good people who have 
> participated in the IGF. I don't understand the reason for such a statement.
>
>> 
>> I believe that a vigorous discussion about the WTPF's agenda and documents 
>> among chapter delegates and ISOC's membership is necessary and, given the 
>> date, urgent. I hope to be kicking off some of it with the above.
>> 
>
> The question I have is: do they know what the agenda is? With so many I am 
> increasingly confused by it all.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>