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

[Franck Martin]

I think Scott Bradner in one of his presentations put it well. The difference between NGN and IPv6 is that NGN is licensed.

There has been a paper recently in the NY-Times about a clean slate Internet, where people would be indetified, you loose freedom for better security... And you know the old saying: "people who forgo freedom for security will have neither"

Recently I was looking at ITU initiative on SPAM: http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/ as you can see the page as not been updated since 2006. They did Naming, went nowhere, standards are made by IETF and IEEE not ITU, So here are they, they move from topic to topic till they find their "raison d'etre". The last "marmotte" they have is Internet Security, what next?


----- Original Message -----
From: borka at e5.ijs.si
To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: "ISOC Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 February, 2009 6:13:50 PM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ITU Followships for the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, April 2009, Lisbon, Portugal

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