[Chapter-delegates] Discussion Paper: An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the ITU-T

Wed Apr 29 16:15:58 PDT 2020

Olaf

We agree on the main issues here, but we need to do a much more effective
job to win here.

tl/dr unless the issues are important to you.

 I learned how to win policy issues through 20 years watching silver
tongues like AT&T's legendary lobbyist Jim Cicconi. They approach the
battle by researching carefully "what arguments will persuade the people we
need to reach and they will believe." On telco control, which is the issue
here, we have great pocketbook issues you've noted in your paper.
Complexity and control drive up costs enormously. That's a great reason to
stick with IP - it does a brilliant job adapting. Bob and Vint work is
extraordinary, not just historic.

   Something like this needs support from far more people than might be
persuaded by *anything* we might say about governance. Very few people care
about ITU vs ICANN or IP vs Non-IP. "Internet governance" issues are so
obscure even tech reporters rarely get them right. No politicians
understand this stuff and 9 out of 10 won't accept some geeks educating
them. As our board member Pepper (bcc'd) often says, "DC doesn't understand
anything that won't fit on a bumper sticker."

    We need to take a simple, clear position that non-experts will respond
to.

   - We need to stop referring to "New IP," the Chinese proposal. Instead,
   We should talk about "European Non-IP and Chinese New IP." Otherwise, our
   positions can easily be confused with the U.S. battle with China and we
   will immediately lose much of the audience we need to reach to be
   effective. Someone we both respect in a private note recently said the
   U.S.  can't lead effectively here because it will be dismissed as "more
   anti-China rhetoric" He's right. We need to make clear this is more than a
   U.S. China issue. That's why I'm putting the Europeans first.

   Even better, we need to find a way to "frame the issue" that will
   advance our goals by getting wider support. To win this, we need to define
   the debate.  Very few people care about ITU vs ICANN or IP vs Non-IP.
   "Internet governance" issues are so obscure even tech reporters rarely get
   them right.
   No politicians understand this stuff and 9 out of 10 won't accept some
   geeks educating them. As our board member Pepper (bcc'd) often says, "DC
   doesn't understand anything that won't fit on a bumper sticker."

   Currently, the telcos and suppliers are doing a good job convincing some
   very intelligent people QoS is crucial for things like telemedicine and
   autonomous cars. (The best telecom economist in DC, for example.) It also
   appears obvious to a non-expert that better network control would bring
   down costs. I think those are dead wrong, but people are echoing the
   arguments. How do we answer them?

For example, I'm writing this as the "*Telcos want to take over the
Internet and charge more.*" Also, the complexity will make the system too
expensive  That's not quite good enough. I care about these issues as they
affect the cost of access, particularly for the less affluent.

   - We need multiple participants at ITU and ETSI. At the first meeting of
   FG2030 in New York, there were something like 20 from China and maybe half
   a dozen from the U.S. and a similar number from Europe. After the New York
   meeting, the ratio probably got worse. Hamadoun at the 2014 Plenipot
   publicly urged Kathy to send more people.
   Incidentally, at that meeting I was the only person to raise anything
   beyond technical issues like how to deliver holograms. Brazil and India
   then backed my proposal, that one of the "use cases" for 6G in FG2030
   should be delivering systems inexpensive enough for everyone.
   ITU needs civil society and actively encouraged us. ETSI was very
   positive about ISOC in a private conversation.
   We lose if this is perceived as U.S. and allies, especially if Europe is
   split. Remember, at least 65% of the Internet (by almost everyone's
   definition except AS) is not in the US and allies. The BRICS by most
   measures now have more connections than the U.S. and Western Europe
   combined. Our work on this should visibly come from a group with Africans
   and Asians prominent. Our board members Olga Cavalli (Argentina)  and Walid
   Al-Saqaf (Yemen) have the right experience. India now has 400 million 4G
   connections, more than the U.S. has people. They would be a crucial swing.
   I can think of an extremely eloquent Indian advocate for Free Software but
   I think the recommendations should come from our Indian chapters.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:59 AM Olaf Kolkman via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Colleagues
>
> There were some requests for a public and archived space for discussion of
> this paper. We set up a list that doesn’t require ISOC membership to
> discuss this paper (and potential future discussion papers).
>
> Hence a friendly amendment to the text below:
>
> We welcome any feedback on “An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the
> ITU-T”. Contact the authors directly using newIP-discussion-paper at isoc.org
> or post to the discussion-papers at elists.isoc.org mailing list, which is
> public and archived.
>
> —Olaf
>
> On 28 Apr 2020, at 10:22, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> With the usual cross-post apologies[*].
>
> In the run up to the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly
> (WTSA-20) later this year there has been some discussion about a proposal
> called the “New IP”. It is positioned as a top-down architecture to solve a
> number of use cases that are currently been developed in the ITU-T’s Future
> Network 2030 Focus Group.
>
> The Internet Society is carefully following the developments in the run-up
> to WTSA-20. We are trying to understand if and how the New IP works with
> the Internet as we know it, if it actually solves problems that cannot be
> solved in the Internet, and, if the ITU-T is developing standards, where
> other standards development organizations (SDOs) have change control.
>
> In order to get a sense of the environment we commissioned a discussion
> paper, “An analysis of the ‘New IP’
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/>
> proposal to the ITU-T.” The paper helps inform us and the broader community
> whilst the public debate around these proposals shapes up. It also aims to
> inform and shape the discussion from the Internet’s Society’s perspective.
> Eventually the debate around it will inform our position and the potential
> further evolution of the discussion paper itself. Note that the paper
> documents the Internet Society’s emerging opinion, but does not represent a
> final Internet Society position. Instead, we intend it as a means to gather
> information and insight from our community on the topic.
>
> We welcome any feedback on “An analysis of the ‘New IP’
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/>
> via the email address NewIP-Discussion-Paper at isoc.org
>
> —Olaf Kolkman
>
> [*] This mail has been sent to various relevant mailing lists and featured
> as a blog on the Internet Society website.
> ------------------------------
>
> Olaf M. Kolkman Tweets as: @kolkman
> Principal - Internet Technology, Policy, and Advocacy
> Internet Society https://www.internetsociety.org
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
> Olaf M. Kolkman
> Principal - Internet Technology, Policy, and Advocacy
> Internet Society <https://www.internetsociety.org/> Tweets as: @kolkman
> <https://twitter.com/@kolkman>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>

-- 
Editor, https://Fastnet.news <http://Fastnet.news> https://wirelessone.news
<http://wirelessone.news>
Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200429/35f7bc5a/attachment.htm>