[Chapter-delegates] Discussion Paper: An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the ITU-T
borka at e5.ijs.si
borka at e5.ijs.si
Fri May 1 09:49:16 PDT 2020
+ 1
Borka
On Fri, 1 May 2020, Carlos Raul via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 17:16 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’ 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’ 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
> Tweets as: @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 https://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/
>
>
>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list