Re: /. ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection
On 05/12/2012 2:11 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-12-05 14:01, Tom Taylor wrote:
I'm seriously not clear why Y.2770 is characterized as "negotiated behind closed doors". Any drafts were available to all participants in the ITU-T, on exactly the same terms as drafts of other Recommendations. As an example, the draft coming out of the October, 2011 meeting can be seen at http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG13-111010-TD-WP4-0201/en. (I have access delegated by a vendor to whom I have been consulting, by virtue of their membership in the ITU-T.)
So, how exactly can most people on for instance this list access that URL? You yourself would not be able to access it where it not that you found some loophole setup.
... Agreed that the ITU-T is a membership organization, but the Questions and Study Group work programs are open to view (Q. 17/13 specifically covers DPI, and has more documents coming down the pipe). If you want to follow some Question you can probably get access through your government (State Dept. in the US, Dept. of Communications in Canada). The membership rules don't apply so stringently to Rapporteurs' meetings, so you can get in touch with the Rapporteur of a Question you are interested in and find out where to get copies of documents contributed into those meetings. All this is by the by -- you are more likely to be affected by the IETF than by anything coming out of the ITU-T.
On Dec 5, 2012, at 15:07 , Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/12/2012 2:11 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-12-05 14:01, Tom Taylor wrote:
I'm seriously not clear why Y.2770 is characterized as "negotiated behind closed doors". Any drafts were available to all participants in the ITU-T, on exactly the same terms as drafts of other Recommendations. As an example, the draft coming out of the October, 2011 meeting can be seen at http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG13-111010-TD-WP4-0201/en. (I have access delegated by a vendor to whom I have been consulting, by virtue of their membership in the ITU-T.)
So, how exactly can most people on for instance this list access that URL? You yourself would not be able to access it where it not that you found some loophole setup.
... Agreed that the ITU-T is a membership organization, but the Questions and Study Group work programs are open to view (Q. 17/13 specifically covers DPI, and has more documents coming down the pipe). If you want to follow some Question you can probably get access through your government (State Dept. in the US, Dept. of Communications in Canada). The membership rules don't apply so stringently to Rapporteurs' meetings, so you can get in touch with the Rapporteur of a Question you are interested in and find out where to get copies of documents contributed into those meetings.
All this is by the by -- you are more likely to be affected by the IETF than by anything coming out of the ITU-T.
I am affected by ITU-T every day. I use telephones. I am a Ham radio operator. I am a pilot. I use international digital circuits. All of these things are affected by ITU-T. Yes, anyone willing to expend enough effort and/or resources can get behind many of the closed doors for a non-participatory role in ITU process. To become participatory, you must be a government or invited by a government as part of their delegation. Contrasting this to the openness of the IETF, ICANN, and the RIRs, I think there is a pretty strong case to be made that the ITU is a closed-door process by comparison. Owen
On Dec 5, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:
Agreed that the ITU-T is a membership organization, but the Questions and Study Group work programs are open to view (Q. 17/13 specifically covers DPI, and has more documents coming down the pipe). If you want to follow some Question you can probably get access through your government (State Dept. in the US, Dept. of Communications in Canada). The membership rules don't apply so stringently to Rapporteurs' meetings, so you can get in touch with the Rapporteur of a Question you are interested in and find out where to get copies of documents contributed into those meetings.
The above is not exactly what I would call an ideal process for ensuring that standards receive broad input from subject matter experts, regardless of where they're located or who they might know in their central governments. In any event, the point of the original blog post was not to criticize closed membership organizations per se, it was to point out the shortcomings of making standards mandatory (as some proposed changes to the ITRs would do) when they are generated by such membership organizations. Alissa
participants (3)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Owen DeLong -
Tom Taylor