———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seth Johnson <[protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Subject: Fwd: IPP: Hip Pocket Analysis of Res 1305: Internet-Related Public Policy
To: “[protected]” <[protected]>, “Minard, Julian E” <[protected]>
Attached please find the below commentary in Word and PDF formats
along with the original Resolution 1305. With my apologies, please
use these copies instead of the ones I sent within the last hour.
Notes on Annex to Res 1305
(Revisions in a couple of places reflect my preference to use careful
language treating the types of networks more even-handedly.)
Seth
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Seth Johnson <[protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, there are actually a good many more “mandate” sources that one
> could list in the Res 1305 Annex’s second column. But I don’t think
> adding those would do much to add insight to the IPP group’s efforts.
>
> In the following, I offer comments on the IPP areas that can serve as
> the “hip pocket” analysis Paul suggested you’d want to bring. I’ll
> turn this into a pdf tomorrow, but for now, use the following text
> version.
>
> The following points are meant to present the point that the CWG may
> undermine their own purposes if they proceed to present this list of
> policy areas without recognizing the distinction between competing and
> interoperating providers creating an Internet, and networks that may
> be IP-based but are governed by a core authority that sets common
> policy across routers that it controls.
>
> The policy areas in the Annex fall into three sets:
>
> I) Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are all cybersecurity-related. They
> cover security, safety, continuity, sustainability, and robustness,
> cybercrime, spam, misuse of the Internet, privacy and personal
> information, and protecting children online. These emphases reflect
> the points of Geneva Action Line C5, on “Building confidence and
> security in the use of ICTs.”
>
> The Cybersecurity resolutions generally speak in terms of “ICTs” and
> “telecommunications/ICTs,” and only refer to the Internet, IP-based
> networks or Next-generation networks in a few instances. They use the
> term Internet in relation to spam and child online protection and in
> reference to these various areas as being Internet-related public
> policy areas within the scope of ITU, including Council Resolution
> 1305, which I am analyzing.
>
> Spam, child online protection, and general categories of concerns such
> as security, safety, continuity, sustainability, robustness, and
> misuse of the Internet, whether related to Internet resources such as
> domain names and addresses or more general concerns related to the
> Internet, can arguably be addressed by approaches that accord
> responsibility to end users or individual networks. Enforcement of a
> policy by a central authority across networks may have effects on the
> autonomy and liberty of end users and network providers and the
> flexibility of the platform produced when they interoperate.
>
> WTSA 50 and PP 130 refer to work being undertaken by ITU-T Study Group
> 17 on “National IP-based Public Network Security Centers.” IP-Based
> networks constituted of routers that are under a core policy or
> authority can implement security measures in ways that are very
> different from the kinds of approaches that may be taken among
> autonomous, competing providers interoperating through the use of IP.
> If confidence and security policies depend on forms of oversight like
> those available within a managed service framework, the platform that
> results will be subject to those policies rather than relying on the
> participants in the network providing for the same purposes
> themselves.
>
> No distinction is made in the ITU framing documents between these two
> types of networks. Proceeding with implementing public policy for
> confidence and security without recognizing the nature of the Internet
> as distinct from an intranet that may transmit packets in specialized
> ways among the routers it controls, will not only impact the nature of
> the platform, but it will affect numerous WSIS goals.
>
>
> 2) Items 2, 8, 9 and 10 are more “developmental.” Items 9 and 10, on
> “Developmental aspects of the Internet” and “capacity building for
> Internet governance in developing countries,” both reference WTDC
> Resolutions 17 and 20. Given that WTDC 17 is cited by Plenipotentiary
> Resolution 137, which promotes “next-generation network deployment in
> developing countries,” we can easily see that failing to distinguish
> the special characteristics of the Internet while addressing policy on
> “developmental aspects of the Internet” will easily encourage the
> implementation of NGNs without recognizing the difference. WTDC 20
> addresses non-discriminatory access to telecom facilities and
> applications as well as the pursuit of partnerships, and is referenced
> by WTDC Resolutions in the areas of the enabling environment, capacity
> building and digital inclusivity and ICT applications in general.
> While non-discriminatory access is a critical value, competition among
> autonomous providers can serve these same purposes through a flexible
> and open Internet platform, supporting infrastructure development,
> empowerment of communities and sustainability and diversity of
> applications on a stronger basis. Non-discrimination policy is more
> applicable to intranet offerings or a vertically integrated
> telecommunications context, and cannot offer the advantages of real
> competition among independent providers producing an Internet
> platform.
>
> Item 2, on International Internet Connectivity, does not list WTDC 23
> under the ITU mandate column. This should be added and it should be
> pointed out that the provision under “recognizing” should add language
> that recognizes that not all commercial practices to reduce costs are
> associated with the general purpose transmissions of packets that
> enable independent networks to interoperate. Connectivity to the
> broader international Internet does not necessarily mean the network
> at the national level supports general purpose internetworking between
> autonomous network providers:
>
> Adding one paragraph to WTDC 23
> (internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_23/ )
>
> recognizing
> a) that commercial initiatives by service providers have the
> potential to deliver cost savings for Internet access, for example
> through the development of more local content and the optimization of
> Internet traffic routing patterns in a manner that provides for a
> greater proportion of traffic to be routed locally;
>
> b) that charging principles for international Internet
> connectivity must recognize that some commercial initiatives by
> providers of international connectivity to the broader Internet may
> take the form of practices within their networks that must be
> distinguished from Internet connectivity, notwithstanding cost
> advantages of these practices, since they are not consistent with the
> flexible mode of interoperability among competitive, autonomous
> Internet providers that the Internet protocols make possible,
>
>
> Item 8, on “availability, affordability, reliability, and quality of
> service, especially in the developing world,” references values that
> are often offered as advantages that managed or specialized service
> network frameworks make possible. The ITU will easily misrepresent
> the nature of the open Internet platform if it does not distinguish it
> from specialized service offerings.
>
>
> 3) And Items 1 and 3 fit are “more technical,” addressing
> internationalized domain names and international public policy issues
> pertaining to Internet resources such as domain names and addresses.
> Under this heading, WTSA 47 and 48 note in connection with ccTLDs and
> IDNs that intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue
> to have a role in coordination of Internet-related public policy
> issues, and that international organizations have had and should
> continue to have a role in development of Internet-related technical
> standards and relevant policies. WTSA 49, on ENUM, valorizes
> convergence in reference to the integration of telecommunications and
> the Internet. WTSA 64 refers to IP addresses as fundamental resources
> key to the development of IP-based networks and the world economy.
>
> For these resolutions, we simply note that networks do not necessarily
> afford the key characteristics and advantages of the Internet simply
> by dint of their using IP addresses, and it is critical to recognize
> that the Internet addresses the problem of interoperating between
> autonomous networks, while other types of IP-based networks seek to
> implement functions that do not use the Internet Protocol in this way.
>
>
> That’s it! I didn’t go into specific impacts on WSIS purposes so
> much, but the point should be plain: that it doesn’t serve the ITU or
> the WSIS project well to fail to recognize how the Internet is unique.
> The oversight can be shown to directly undermine numerous values that
> the WSIS ostensibly supports.
>
>
> Seth