not at all... the WCIT 2012 concluded without agreement. Hardly the same thing. /bill
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:41:48AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: ---end quoted text--- Yep. _Gloriously_! The US walked out, followed by bunchty others. <http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020469/opponents-say-itu-treaty-threatens-internet-freedom.html> -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
On Dec 14, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Mike A <mikea@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
Yep. _Gloriously_! The US walked out, followed by bunchty others.
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020469/opponents-say-itu-treaty-threatens-internet-freedom.html>
At current count, to the best of my incomplete knowledge, approximately 85 countries, led by China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Cuba, have backed the ITU, while approximately 55 countries, led by the OECD countries, have backed the Internet. Yes, this is a radical simplification. The main unfortunate outcome is that the ITU has managed to get Study Group 3 approved to try to figure out how to override peering agreements with government-imposed settlements. Again, a radical simplification. Happy to discuss in more detail if people like. PP23 of http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0065!!MSW-E.pdf if you want to read it for yourself. -Bill
Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
The main unfortunate outcome is that the ITU has managed to get Study Group 3 approved to try to figure out how to override peering agreements with government-imposed settlements.
Do you have any citations for that? I thought they had given up on trying to interfere with Internet peering and settlement. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.
On 19/12/2012 14:25, Tony Finch wrote:
Do you have any citations for that? I thought they had given up on trying to interfere with Internet peering and settlement.
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/lists/questions.aspx?Group=03&Period=15 ETNO is very keen on introducing sending-party-pays, and recently brought out an opinion piece on their intentions to bring this idea forward at the ITU: http://www.etno.eu/datas/itu-matters/etno-ip-interconnection.pdf
ETNO has introduced its views in Contribution C 109 submitted to the last meeting of the ITU Council Working Group to prepare for 2012 WCIT. ETNO’s proposal concerns: [...] ‐ the economic background, advocating for an adequate return on investment based, where appropriate, on the principle of sending party network pays;
The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (i.e. the representative body of all the EU national comms regulators) came out with the following statement:
http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2012/11/BoR(12)120rev.1...
... where they noted among other things: "ETNO’s proposed end-to-end SPNP approach to data transmission is totally antagonistic to the decentralised efficient routing approach to data transmission of the Internet." It's pretty unusual to get language this strong from a regulatory body. Nick
Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 19/12/2012 14:25, Tony Finch wrote:
Do you have any citations for that? I thought they had given up on trying to interfere with Internet peering and settlement.
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/lists/questions.aspx?Group=03&Period=15
Looks vaguely ominous. Do they have a document which gives their definition of "international telecommunications services" and "NGNs"? Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.
On 19/12/2012 15:17, Tony Finch wrote:
Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 19/12/2012 14:25, Tony Finch wrote:
Do you have any citations for that? I thought they had given up on trying to interfere with Internet peering and settlement.
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/lists/questions.aspx?Group=03&Period=15
Looks vaguely ominous. Do they have a document which gives their definition of "international telecommunications services" and "NGNs"?
dunno - they look intentionally vague to me. Nick
You can look at the final outcome yourself (no password needed), at http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf RESOLUTION PLEN/5 on page 27 (by PDF count, out of 30 pages) describes work to be done by Study Group 3 and cooperating members. Note that the resolution is not part of the preceding treaty text. On 19/12/2012 9:25 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
The main unfortunate outcome is that the ITU has managed to get Study Group 3 approved to try to figure out how to override peering agreements with government-imposed settlements.
Do you have any citations for that? I thought they had given up on trying to interfere with Internet peering and settlement.
Tony.
On 14/12/2012 19:51, Mike A wrote:
Yep. _Gloriously_! The US walked out, followed by bunchty others.
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020469/opponents-say-itu-treaty-threatens-internet-freedom.html>
The ITU didn't implode and that article gives a ridiculously misleading impression of what happened. The BBC gives a more balanced viewpoint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20717774 There's some stuff up on some US news channels (ABC, etc), but some of the larger players (CNN, NY Times + others) haven't actually woken up to the extent of this tech/political landgrab, and have no recent articles on the outcome or the political importance of it. What actually happened is that the ITU ignored their previous promises not to have a vote on the ITRs. When a vote was finally called because it was apparently that there was no general consensus on the articles, 77 countries voted in favour and 33 voted against, causing the treaty to start the process of becoming legally binding in those countries which voted in favour. The current positions are here: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0066!!MSW-E.pdf http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0067!!MSW-E.pdf Many countries are formally sitting on the fence, including pretty much every country in Europe which didn't walk out - also enjoy the spat in declarations #4 (argentina) and #93 (UK). Now that this landgrab has succeeded in large chunks of the world, the ITU's position has consolidated, although not nearly to the extent that had originally been envisaged in the draft ITRs. I don't forsee this debate dying any time soon. Nick
WCIT-12 was but one exchange. The next one is WTPF-13: "The World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology Policy Forum (WTPF) is a high-level international event to exchange views on the key policy issues arising from today's fast changing information and communication technology (ICT) environment. WTPF 2013 will take place in Geneva, Switzerland in May 2013." Then there is Plenipotentiary in Busan, Republic of Korea from 20 October to 7 November 2014. "The Plenipotentiary Conference is the key event at which ITU Member States decide on the future role of the organization, thereby determining the organization's ability to influence and affect the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) worldwide. The Plenipotentiary Conference is the top policy-making body of the ITU." The ITU is not going away that soon. The game goes on. Gordon
On 12/14/2012 12:32 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I don't forsee this debate dying any time soon.
What some of us have been saying since at least 2003 (if not earlier) is that it will _never_ die. Free speech, and the opportunities that an open Internet provide to the people who live in repressed regimes are the most dangerous things in the world to said regimes, and they will do everything in their power to eliminate them. I'm certain that most of you have already noticed how cutting off the Internet is now on page 1 of every country's list of "Things to do when there is an uprising ..." Doug
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:20:57PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm certain that most of you have already noticed how cutting off the Internet is now on page 1 of every country's list of "Things to do when there is an uprising ..."
In Egypt, this may actually have led to the opposite of what the regime in place expected. Not the best source, but to illustrate: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2011/01/egyptian... It was argued that because there was no access to the net, and no other way to find out what was really going on, Egyptian citizens got off their couches and down into the street, which in some cases got some people to take sides and join the protests. Case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't, as far as censorship goes. Phil
On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:20:57PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm certain that most of you have already noticed how cutting off the Internet is now on page 1 of every country's list of "Things to do when there is an uprising ..."
In Egypt, this may actually have led to the opposite of what the regime in place expected. Not the best source, but to illustrate:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2011/01/egyptian...
It was argued that because there was no access to the net, and no other way to find out what was really going on, Egyptian citizens got off their couches and down into the street, which in some cases got some people to take sides and join the protests.
Case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't, as far as censorship goes.
Or, "Freedom routes around brokenness." :)
See also: http://www.ipv.sx/wcit/ On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
participants (12)
-
Bill Woodcock -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Doug Barton -
Gordon Lennox -
Mike A -
Nick Hilliard -
Phil Regnauld -
Randy Bush -
Richard Barnes -
Tom Taylor -
Tony Finch -
Warren Bailey