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

Wed Jul 15 06:28:43 PDT 2020

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:46 AM Dave Burstein via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

If non-experts are the focus of this exercise,  then please show it all in
pictures and moving images.  What is European Non-IP ? What is Chinese New
IP? And for context, what is precisely the US battle with China?  How does
Europe differ from the US? To the extent that I understand, Europeans and
Americans wear the same clothes and speak the same English.

>
>    - 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."
>
> That is right.  "frame the issue", yes, but frame the issue in colorful
pictures, for at-a-glance understanding.

>
>    - 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.*"
>

+1 (that would be an excellent way of reaching the common man and the
non-technical policy makers.)  Lynn St-Amour usually explained it by
contrasting the way the Internet works with Cable-Telecom pricing model.

> 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.
>

Pricing 'Plan's ?   'bundles' ?  Monthly minimum ?  Connectivity or 'Air'
time charges ?  Value Added Service Charges ?  Premium Services?

>
>
>    - 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.
>
>
India can be a great ally, if some one can speak to India in good, clean
English that the phone companies are trying to impress Governments
everywhere with rosy jargon.

>
>    -
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200715/d9289828/attachment.htm>