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

[Rudi Vansnick]

Correct link is : http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_FutureInternet3.pdf

Rudi Vansnick



Hakikur Rahman schreef:
> I could not able to go to the page:
> http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Future_Internet.pdf
>
> Anything wrong!
>
> Best regards,
> Hakik
>
> At 06:51 AM 2/17/2009, borka at e5.ijs.si wrote:
>
>> The study I know (see the PEW report on the Future Internet
>> from December 14, 2008:
>> www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Future_Internet.pdf) where about 1150
>> people
>> were asked for opinions (both known leading experts (50%) and
>> ordinary Internet users) shows that the clean slate design has no
>> real footing
>> at least for the next 10-15 years (is too risky and the current models
>> is too widespread). NFS is certainly funding the clean slate
>> research within GENI  and similar programmes but so far .....
>>
>> In the PEW report 76% of experts and 81% of users responded
>> that the Internet will evolve and the  R&D will be focused on the
>> improvement of the current Internet. the same applies to the security,
>> HIP protocol is being deployed in EU and U.S and IPv6 if fully
>> implemented
>> introduce good security on network level.
>>
>>
>> With regards,
>>
>> Borka
>>
>> ISOC Slovenia
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1956 - Release Date: 02/16/09 18:31:00
>
>