{"id":1207,"date":"2013-11-26T20:13:18","date_gmt":"2013-11-27T01:13:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/?p=1207"},"modified":"2020-09-09T13:03:00","modified_gmt":"2020-09-09T17:03:00","slug":"to-state-dept-cybersecurity-ict-apps-ip-based-networks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/11\/26\/to-state-dept-cybersecurity-ict-apps-ip-based-networks\/","title":{"rendered":"To State Dept: Cybersecurity, ICT Apps, IP-Based Networks"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Click here for blog post version<\/a> of this commentary)<\/p>\n

———- Forwarded message ———-
\nFrom: Seth Johnson
\nDate: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM
\nSubject: WTDC\/Plenipot: 2) Cybersecurity, ICT Apps, IP-Based Networks: Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
\nTo: “ITAC@LMLIST.STATE.GOV” , “Zoller, Julie N”<\/p>\n

Hello Julie, ITAC, and all:<\/p>\n

As promised, here are parts 2 and 3 of my analysis of ITU Resolutions.
\nThis constitutes a comprehensive view of the implications of the
\nfailure of the WSIS project and the ITU to recognize the key
\ncharacteristics that make the Internet unique. It is focused on WTDC
\nresolutions and is organized in terms of the WTDC Action Plan, but
\nalso covers PP and WTSA Resolutions.<\/p>\n

Part 2: Cybersecurity, ICT Applications and IP-Based Network Issues:
\nhttps:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/11\/25\/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Part 3: the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building and Digital Inclusivity:
\n https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/11\/25\/enabling-environment-capacity-inclusivity-understanding-impacts-on-the-internet\/<\/a><\/p>\n

This analysis has guided my contributions since at least April,
\nallowing me to prioritize the revisions needed and address the
\napproach of the US Delegation as the WTDC approached.<\/p>\n

Only a few WTDC resolutions require revisions, and the most important
\nof these are attached to this email and the next.
\nBroadband Study Question 2 – ID Edits<\/a>
\nWTDC 45 – ID Edits<\/a>
\nWTDC 63 – ID Edits<\/a><\/p>\n

The important part of the analysis turns out to be the relationship of the WTDC resolutions to a set of core PP Resolutions that present the key terms IP-based Networks, Internet and Next-generation Networks in a confused manner. I have placed commentary on this aspect under “IP-based Network Issues” at the above link for Part 2.<\/p>\n

Also as promised, you may find my comments on identifiers under that
\nheading as well, which relates to several resolutions in Parts 2 and
\n3.<\/p>\n

Contributions:<\/p>\n

I am attaching a number of contributions I have offered since the
\nUS began its approach to the WTDC, both in the form of revisions to
\nWTDC resolutions and in the form of revisions to other inputs the US
\nDelegation is providing to the WTDC, notably those on Broadband and
\nConformance and Interoperability.<\/p>\n

The US Delegation’s contributions on the topics of Broadband and
\nConformance and Interoperability are matters of great concern. With
\nthe broadband contribution, the US is encouraging the implementation
\nof ICT applications for the Information Society under the term
\n“broadband,” by reference to the ITU’s work on 3G\/4G, the managed
\nservice framework used by wireless providers. With the conformance
\nand interoperability resolution, the US is promoting the certification
\nof ICTs under concepts of conformance and interoperability that may
\neasily be applied in concert with managed service frameworks to
\nimplement policy, rather than in terms of more flexible and open forms
\nof interoperability made possible by the Internet Protocol.<\/p>\n

The last thing we want to do is roll out next-generation networks
\nall over the world, without recognizing the tradeoffs brought by these
\ntypes of networks as compared to the open Internet platform — and
\nthen to place that under a conformance and interoperability
\ncertification regime that fails to recognize the difference.<\/p>\n

The US proposal on broadband might be placed under the heading of
\nICT Applications in general, so I attach it to this email. Conformance
\n& Interoperability can be addressed in relation to Capacity Building,
\nso I attach it to my next email, under Part 3.<\/p>\n

Below I describe the purposes of all the revisions to WTDC resolutions
\nI am attaching.<\/p>\n

Seth<\/p>\n

Further notes:<\/p>\n

The following covers resolutions related to Programme 2 of the
\nHyderabad Action Plan, in the areas of “Cybersecurity, ICT
\nApplications and IP-Based Network Issues.” My next email will cover
\nProgrammes 3 and 4, on “the Enabling Environment, Capacity Building
\nand Digital Inclusivity.” The analysis covers WTDC, WTSA and PP
\nresolutions, while focusing on revisions to WTDC resolutions that are
\nneeded at the upcoming WTDC.<\/p>\n

You can find the first part of this analysis, on the Conformance and
\nInteroperability initiative, here:
\n https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/<\/a>
\n. I determined early on it is not necessary to address the Regulators
\nForum.<\/p>\n

Also as promised, you may find my comments on identifiers under
\n“IP-based Network Issues” in Part 2 here:
\ninternetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/09\/09\/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet\/#Identifiers<\/p>\n

On the Analysis:<\/p>\n

Only a few WTDC Resolutions need revisions in terms of their usage
\nof the terms IP-based Networks, Internet, Next-generation Networks,
\netc. (though plenty of PP and WTSA resolutions do).<\/p>\n

The key part instead turns out to be the relationship of the WTDC
\nresolutions to the core PP Resolutions that have guided the ITU’s
\nactivities since 2010. I address these core resolutions under the
\n“IP-Based Network Issues” heading here:
\n https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/09\/09\/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet\/#ITUInternet<\/a>
\n. There I describe the confusion in the key terms IP-based Networks,
\nInternet and Next-generation Networks that PP 101, 102 and 133 convey,
\nand the fact that PP 137 is much more explicit about the commitment by
\nthe 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference to deploying Next-generation
\nNetworks to developing countries.<\/p>\n

The remaining parts of the analysis end up being placeholders for
\nimportant notes, listing PP, WTSA and WTDC resolutions in the
\nHyderabad Action Plan Programmes and commenting on them, but noting
\nonly a few WTDC Resolutions needing edits. Among these notes are
\ncomments illustrating how the failure to recognize the nature of the
\nInternet in the Information Society project impacts both the Internet
\nand the goals of the Information Society project itself, as expressed
\nin the Geneva Action Lines.<\/p>\n

Not yet in place are some comments on the core resolutions on
\nbridging the Digital Divide and the Standardization Gap, PP 139 and PP
\n123. I have already presented these points however, in the
\nConformance and Interoperability analysis:
\n https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#DigitalDivide<\/a>
\n https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#StandardsGap<\/a><\/p>\n

Describing the Revisions:<\/p>\n

On this email you will find attached my contributed revisions on
\nWTDC 45, WTDC 63, and the US’s Broadband proposal.<\/p>\n

On the next email you will find my contributed revisions on WTDC
\n23, WTDC 13, WTDC 30, and WTDC 47, and the US’s Conformance and
\nInteroperability proposal.<\/p>\n

I describe the purposes of each revision below, along with other
\nresolutions that need to be revised:<\/p>\n

US Proposal for a study question on Broadband:
\nRevisions to recognize other modes besides wireless, in
\nparticular addressing the Internet platform created on the basis of
\ncompetitive access by autonomous, interoperating providers to
\ninfrastructure installed in the public right of way.<\/p>\n

US Proposal for a study question on Conformance and Interoperability +
\nWTDC 47 (Conformance and Interoperability):
\nRevisions to recognize different types of conformance and
\ninteroperability relevant to different types of networks, including
\ngeneral purpose interoperability among autonomous networks and
\ninteroperability by the application of a common policy across routers
\nsubject to a core authority.<\/p>\n

WTDC 13 and WTDC 30 (Funding Mechanisms and Partnerships):
\nRevisions to recognize that funding mechanisms and partnership
\nschemes must be developed to support contexts providing competitive
\naccess at the physical layer, that funding and partnerships in
\nvertically integrated telecommunications contexts may differ markedly
\nfrom those that would serve to support competitive access at the
\nphysical layer, that public-private partnerships that incorporate
\nexplicit recognition of the role of public oversight may better
\nsupport competitive access to the physical layer, and that recognizing
\nthe distinction between the open Internet platform and specialized or
\nmanaged services allows for clear understanding of when practices,
\npolicies and technologies may affect the Internet and its unique
\ncharacteristics and advantages.
\n(WTDC 52 and WTDC 71 may also be revised similarly)<\/p>\n

WTDC 23 (International Internet Connectivity):
\nRevised to recognize that connectivity to the broader
\ninternational Internet does not mean there is an Internet at the
\nnational or lower levels, and particularly noting that the commercial
\ninitiatives to deliver cost savings that the resolution suggests might
\naddress the resolution’s concern for pricing of international
\nconnectivity for developing countries are not necessarily compatible
\nwith the general purpose form of connectivity of the Internet.<\/p>\n

WTDC 45, WTDC 63, WTDC 47 (Identifiers):
\nRevisions to acknowledge that policy associated with
\nidentifiers may affect the flexibility and openness of the Internet
\nunless recognition of its basic nature is incorporated:<\/p>\n

WTDC 45 (Cybersecurity): Cryptographic measures may serve as
\npart of an implementation of security-related policy in infrastructure
\nin ways that may impact the free flow of information, ideas and
\nknowledge and the flexible modes of interaction with and collaborative
\nuse of information the Internet makes possible.<\/p>\n

WTDC 63 (IP Address Allocation and IPv6 Deployment): Revisions
\nrecommending that the ITU Council support both the open Internet
\nplatform and specialized services networks in its approval of the BDT
\nDirector’s guidelines for changes in organizational frameworks and
\npolicies necessitated by migrating to IPv6.<\/p>\n

WTDC 47 (Conformance and Interoperability): Revisions to
\nrecognize different types of conformance and interoperability may
\nsuffice to address concerns regarding use of identifiers for
\nenforcement of policy that may be implied in references to
\ncounterfeiting in this resolution<\/p>\n

(WTDC 22 may also be revised similarly)<\/p>\n

WTDC 64 (Consumer Protection):
\nRevisions to assure that consumers are able to recognize the
\ndifference between Internet connectivity and other types of
\nconnectivity.<\/p>\n

WTDC 37 (Digital Divide):
\nRevisions to recognize the role of the Internet’s special
\ncharacteristics in bridging the digital divide, including its
\nempowerment of end users and independent providers, and to assure that
\nreferences to pro-competitive policies and regulatory contexts
\nrecognize the role of competitive access to the physical layer in
\nproducing the Internet platform among autonomous providers, and in
\nincentivizing infrastructure development.<\/p>\n

WTDC 15, WTDC 20 (Technology Transfer and Non-discriminatory Access):
\nRevisions to assure references to partnerships should
\nrecognize the inherently public nature of publicly-funded research and
\nshared infrastructure, and to assure that the value of
\nnon-discriminatory access does not substitute for recognition of the
\nadvantages of competition among providers.<\/p>\n

The Upshot:<\/p>\n

In developing my contributions, I have been able to prioritize and
\nfocus on parts that needed addressing in terms of the approach of the
\nUS Delegation. The analysis should now serve others in understanding
\nwhere the defects are in the ITU Resolutions that need to be
\ncorrected.<\/p>\n

However, proceeding in a manner that continues to follow through
\naccording to the process the ITU has laid out will not correct the
\nbasic problem in the approach, which simply reaffirms WSIS goals
\nwithout adding the critical insights needed to understand what the
\nInternet adds to the equation. It will not only undermine the
\nInternet to continue to pursue the Information Society project the way
\nit has been, but establishing a form of Internet Governance at the
\ninternational level in this way presents the distinct prospect of
\nundermining efforts within the US to place the Internet back on a
\nsound foundation by recourse to the law.<\/p>\n

The US needs to act at the WTDC to correct the oversight regarding
\nthe Internet in the WSIS project. The US needs to recognize the
\ndifference between a truly competitive Internet and the types of
\nspecially tailored services that are offered within individual
\nnetworks — whether they may be individual wireless providers or
\nincumbents in other modes who enjoy a privileged status in relation to
\ninfrastructure — and in the course of the next year help enable those
\nengaged in furthering the Information Society project to receive a
\nproper understanding of its status in those terms.<\/p>\n

Seth<\/p>\n

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Minard, Julian E wrote:
\n> ———- Forwarded message ———-
\n> From: Seth Johnson
\n> Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM
\n> Subject: WTDC\/Plenipot: 1) Conformance and Interoperability:
\n> Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep)
\n> To: “ITAC@LMLIST.STATE.GOV”
\n> Cc: “ITAC-D@LMLIST.STATE.GOV”
\n>
\n>
\n> At the link below is an analysis showing where the Conformance and Interoperability resolutions open up the risk of the Information Society undermining the Internet. I have pasted the introductory text below, including general concerns and some key points.
\n>
\n> The analysis is designed to contribute to upcoming proceedings such as the WTPF, the WTDC and High Level WSIS Review in April 2014, preparing the way to the Plenipotentiary Meeting in October\/November 2014, where the necessary actions can be taken.
\n>
\n> The full analysis is here:
\n>> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/<\/a>
\n>
\n> Please take it into account on the next WTDC Prep, general ITAC, and Council calls.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Click here for blog post version of this commentary) ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Seth Johnson Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM Subject: WTDC\/Plenipot: 2) Cybersecurity, ICT Apps, IP-Based Networks: Understanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for WTDC Prep) To: “ITAC@LMLIST.STATE.GOV” , “Zoller, Julie N” Hello Julie, ITAC, and all: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1207","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1207","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1207"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1207\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1837,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1207\/revisions\/1837"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1207"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1207"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1207"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}