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

Fri May 1 07:43:29 PDT 2020

Hello Andrew!

My interpretation of Dave's comments, which I fully support, is to leave a
paragraph or 2 for the tech-challenged but never the less interested, to
understand and participate in the process. As dumb as we are, in the end we
pay our broadband bills every month and participate voluntarily I'm this
process. Just a tiny little opportunity, if possible. Sometimes we serve as
bridge to out local tech-challenged politicians who do have a direct say in
the ITU (which is, I guess the reason ISOC approached me and gave good
arguments as long as I was on Government).

Happy first day of May.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 17:37 Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> What is it you want us to do that you think we’re not doing?
>
> A
> —
> Andrew Sullivan
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums
>
> On Apr 29, 2020, at 19:16, 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.
>
>    - 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200501/266e56e7/attachment.htm>