At 15:52 10-08-2012, Eric Burger wrote:
that the ITU-T wants to write Internet standards. The proposal being
put forth is that ONLY ITU-T standards will be the *legal* standards
accepted by signatory nations.
Phillip posted the following comment previously:
"The strength of the IETF negotiating position comes from the fact that
we cannot dictate terms to anyone. The consensus that matters is not
just consensus among the people developing the specification document
but consensus among the people who are expected to act on it."
If one accepts the above principle signatory nations would still use
some IETF standards for systems and equipment and push back on
competing standards proposed within another organization. The
sweetener in what was proposed is that developing nations would be
provided with assistance to evaluate product compliance.
A significant number of these nations do not understand what is the
IETF and how it works. This does not affect the IETF as long as
there isn't an alternative standard developed within an organization
which these nations consider as reputable.
The difference here is some countries may take their ITR obligations
literally and ban products that use non-ITU protocols. Could one go
to jail for using TCP/IP or HTTP? That has an admittedly small, but
not insignificant possibility of happening. Worse yet,
It is highly unlikely that someone would be sent to jail for using
the protocols mentioned above.
having treaties that obligates countries to ban non-ITU protocols
does virtually guarantee a balkanization of the Internet into open
and free networking and controlled and censored networking.
Some of issues which the organization seeks to address are:
- cybercrime
- spam
It has been mentioned within the IETF that the walled garden service
model simplifies a number of issues. I don't think that some nations
would consider network control to solve these issues as censored
networking. Whether these issues could be solved without a strong
regulatory regime is another question.
At 20:09 10-08-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The real problem is that many of the smaller countries have lost tax
revenue that used to be collected on international telephone calls and
I would describe it as a motivation to support a change which might
bring in more revenue for these countries. The end user will get
fleeced but that's just a matter of detail.
There is a big difference between aspirational and necessary goals.
The SCO countries aspirational goal is control of the net. Their
necessary goal is to ensure that undue US influence over Internet
governance might lead policy makers to believe that they could impose
a digital blockade. Now I am pretty sure that the technology does not
That debate has been going on for years.
allow them to do that but what really matters is what the policy
makers believe and there are some individuals who could well be in
very senior policy making positions who clearly think it does.
Yes.
Regards,
-sm