{"id":1222,"date":"2014-01-14T17:19:33","date_gmt":"2014-01-14T22:19:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/?p=1222"},"modified":"2020-09-09T13:43:50","modified_gmt":"2020-09-09T17:43:50","slug":"followup-to-conformance-inter-americas-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2014\/01\/14\/followup-to-conformance-inter-americas-proposal\/","title":{"rendered":"Followup to: Conformance and Interoperability Inter-Americas Proposal"},"content":{"rendered":"

———- Forwarded message ———-
\nFrom: Seth Johnson
\nDate: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM
\nSubject: Followup: Seth’s Edits on C&I
\nTo: “Chip Sharp (chsharp)” , Doreen McGirr , “Elizabeth Bacon (EBacon@ntia.doc.gov)” , “ITAC-D@LMLIST.STATE.GOV” <\/p>\n

Attaching my edits on WTDC 47 and the C&I Study Question, as promised.
\nWTDC 47 – ID Edits<\/a>
\nConformance & Interoperability Study Question – ID Edits<\/a><\/p>\n

Much easier to use than my explanations, also forwarded below. But
\nyou should be able to appreciate the importance of these edits more
\nand find answers in these comments originally sent this morning.<\/p>\n

Seth<\/p>\n

———- Forwarded message ———-
\nFrom: Seth Johnson
\nDate: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:35 AM
\nSubject: My Notes — Re: [ITAC-D] WTDC ITAC prep meeting Tuesday
\nJanuary 14 2-4:30PM
\nTo: Julian Minard
\nCc: “ITAC-D@LMLIST.STATE.GOV” <\/p>\n

A note regarding problems with this study question that I have already noted.<\/p>\n

My comments on Conformance and Interoperability from back in April:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/<\/a><\/p>\n

also\/more particularly:<\/p>\n

On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of Interoperability:
\nhttps:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#LikelyInteroperate<\/a><\/p>\n

On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service:
\nhttps:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#QOS<\/a><\/p>\n

Also note concerns about Identifiers here:
\nhttps:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/11\/25\/cybersecurity-ict-applications-ip-based-impacts-on-the-internet\/#Identifiers<\/a><\/p>\n

Some notes:<\/p>\n

Conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis to promote (and enforce) new types of networks (and related technology), without understanding how they might impact the Internet, even replacing the Internet without bothering to recognize the tradeoffs in doing so.<\/p>\n

This is particularly the case since this study question is geared toward ITU-T recommendations, which deal with identifiers in numerous ways and which may serve as a basis for technical approaches to policy
\nenforcement. This is clearly the case given C&I’s connection to the Technical Barriers to Trade treaty.<\/p>\n

This version of the C&I question also phrases things in terms of the
\n“need for confidence,” which doesn’t get to the point that conformance
\nand interoperability assessment can serve to support confidence by
\npolicy (of some legal standing) as well as by technical compatibility
\nin an open Internet context. The Internet already supports confidence
\nin interoperability across networks on the basis of technical
\ninteroperability.<\/p>\n

At the above links I address this concern in terms of specialized
\nfunctions like QOS that work within networks but not so well (on the
\nbasis of technical interoperability) between networks. They could be
\naccomplished, of course, by enforcing policy of some legal status.
\nThis point also applies much more generally from the perspective of
\nthe role of identifiers as I point out at the last link above, which
\ncan enforce numerous types of policies. In the context of current
\nactivities in updating copyright (a new proposed “right to make
\navailable”), and initiatives such as the proposal for a broadcasting
\ntreaty, the need to be explicit when we’re talking about technical
\ninteroperability and when we’re talking about new legal policies
\nbecomes important.<\/p>\n

Pulling out a couple of passages:<\/p>\n

On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of Interoperability:
\nhttps:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#LikelyInteroperate<\/a><\/p>\n

“WTSA 76 asserts that an increase in confidence in ICT equipment
\nconformance with ITU-T Recommendations will increase the probability
\nthat equipment from different manufacturers will interoperate across
\nnetworks from end to end. This is reflected in an observation in
\nGuadalajara 177 that the conformance assessment regimes that it
\ninvites Member States to adopt can lead to a higher probability that
\nequipment, services and systems will interoperate.<\/p>\n

“Information Society initiatives for conformance and interoperability should recognize that confidence in end-to-end interoperability is already enabled for the Internet based on general purpose packet transmissions. However, for specialized functions that are not as readily supported across the autonomous networks that make up the Internet, these Resolutions appear to be designed to enable providers and manufacturers to certify their compatibility with particular specialized functions that may be supported by particular types of networks. These specialized functions, and the types of networks that support them, should be distinguished from the Internet. While conformance testing would help increase the likelihood of interoperability for networks supporting specialized functions on the basis of increased confidence, it also can support interoperability on the basis of fulfilling policies backed by an intergovernmental authority. As the Information Society contemplates the establishing of an intergovernmental framework for policymaking that may touch on the Internet, it is critical that a basis is established for identifying when policies would impact the Internet deleteriously, by distinguishing networks supporting more specialized functions from the Internet.”<\/p>\n

On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service:
\nhttps:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#QOS<\/a><\/p>\n

“Guadalajara 177 includes a particular note that conformance
\nassessment regimes adopted by Member States will lead to better
\nquality of service\/quality of experience. Quality of service is a
\ncharacteristic often sought to be implemented as a specialized
\nfunction in networks that treat IP packets specially according to
\ntypes or categories. Providing for quality of service in this way
\ngenerally can only be readily implemented across routers within a
\nnetwork governed by a core authority and\/or policy, rather than across
\nthe routers of independent internetworking providers. A conformance
\nand interoperability regime that recognizes the nature of the Internet
\nshould address quality of service not only in these terms, but also in
\nterms that recognize the role that the actual capacity of networks
\nplays in quality of service.”<\/p>\n

Original email forwarded below.<\/p>\n

Seth<\/p>\n

———- Forwarded message ———-
\nFrom: Seth Johnson
\nDate: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM
\nSubject: WTDC\/Plenipot: 1) Conformance and Interoperability:
\nUnderstanding Impacts on the Internet (was: Re: Critical Notes for
\nWTDC Prep)
\nTo: “ITAC@LMLIST.STATE.GOV”
\nCc: “ITAC-D@LMLIST.STATE.GOV” <\/p>\n

(Reposting, revised to paste only part of the rather extended text
\nhere in the email. — Seth)<\/p>\n

At the link below is an analysis showing where the Conformance and
\nInteroperability resolutions open up the risk of the Information
\nSociety undermining the Internet. I have pasted the introductory text
\nbelow, including general concerns and some key points.<\/p>\n

The analysis is designed to contribute to upcoming proceedings such
\nas the WTPF, the WTDC and High Level WSIS Review in April 2014,
\npreparing the way to the Plenipotentiary Meeting in October\/November
\n2014, where the necessary actions can be taken.<\/p>\n

The full analysis is here:
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Please take it into account on the next WTDC Prep, general ITAC, and
\nCouncil calls.<\/p>\n

You can see two general concerns and a set of key points here:
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#TwoConcerns<\/a>
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#KeyPoints<\/a><\/p>\n

I will move on to the other development-related topic areas I
\ndescribed in the last ITAC call next: the enabling
\nenvironment\/inclusivity; cybersecurity, ICTs and the Internet; and
\nmeasures\/results analysis.<\/p>\n

There are a number of reports being prepared to be presented at upcoming proceedings that also need to incorporate this concern: ITU Council Reports to the Plenipotentiary Conference on Conformance and Interoperability\/Guadalajara Resolution 177, on Bridging the Digital
\nDivide\/Guadalajara Resolution 139, and on Bridging the Standardization
\nGap\/WTSA Resolution 44; the BDT Report with lessons learned to WTDC re Conformance and Interoperability\/WTDC Resolution 47; and the TSB
\nReport to the Plenipotentiary Conference (and future WTSAs) on
\nBridging the Standardization Gap\/WTSA Resolution 44. Additional
\nreports like these will become relevant as I address the other topics.<\/p>\n

The commentary gives a picture of how the fact that the Information
\nSociety leaves out a proper treatment of the nature of the Internet
\nplays out, by analyzing the subset of resolutions that relate to the
\ntopic of Conformance and Interoperability. While the implications are
\ndiverse, the actual revisions called for would be straightforward.
\nThey mostly entail adding onto some references to general terms like
\nICTs or telecommunications\/ICTs, additional phrases like “including
\nthe Internet” or “including both general purpose internetworking and
\nnetworks supporting various specialized functions,” etc. Then one
\ngeneral resolution might be issued to which others could refer,
\n“Resolution XX on Internet Key Characteristics and Properties.”<\/p>\n

I will need to look at the US position on conformance and
\ninteroperability, the action plan, and more of the plenipotentiary
\nresolutions. I also need to know how the conformance and
\ninteroperability regime relates to the “interoperability rules” that
\nthe FirstNet Board is apparently going to be issuing. Other items
\nthat will need to be reviewed are listed in my blog analysis here:
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#ReviewCI<\/a>
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#ReviewDD<\/a>
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#ReviewSG<\/a><\/p>\n

See introductory text below or at the blog link.<\/p>\n

Seth<\/p>\n

Conformance and Interoperability: Understanding Impacts on the Internet<\/p>\n

> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Contents:<\/p>\n

Introduction: Background, General Concerns, Key Points, Relevant Resolutions<\/p>\n

Conformance and Interoperability
\n WTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA Resolution 76
\n On Conformance Assessment and Quality of Service
\n On Conformance Assessment, Confidence and the Likelihood of
\nInteroperability<\/p>\n

Bridging the Digital Divide
\n Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to the Digital Divide
\n No Mention of Internet Empowerment of End Users and Providers
\n On Interoperability, Interconnection and Global Connectivity
\n On Pro-Competitive Policies and Regulatory Contexts for Expanding Access<\/p>\n

Bridging the Standardization Gap
\n Lack of References to the Internet in Relation to Bridging the
\nStandardization Gap
\n Strategic and High Priority Issues in Standardization
\n Regional Group Terms of Reference and Mobilization Programs<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) harbors a
\npotential of undermining the Internet platform. Its framing documents
\nand resolutions use general terms such as \u201ctelecommunications\/ICTs\u201d
\nand make very little reference to the Internet or its special
\ncharacteristics, thus providing no basis for recognizing when the
\nInternet may be affected by its initiatives.<\/p>\n

Among these framing resolutions are those that cover development
\ninitiatives and provide the frame for the next World Telecommunication
\nDevelopment Conference (WTDC) to be held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt
\nfrom March 31 to April 11, 2014. The WTDC and the High-Level WSIS
\nReview event taking place in April 2014, along with the
\nPlenipotentiary meeting in October-November 2014, represent the key
\noccasions to assure that the appropriate resolutions are issued or
\nrevised to enable the impacts that WSIS development initiatives may
\nhave on the Internet to be readily recognized.<\/p>\n

The WTDC Resolutions related to the Conformance and Interoperability
\ninitiative represent one thrust that indicates where revisions are
\nneeded to enable us to recognize when the Information Society\u2019s
\ndevelopment initiatives may affect the Internet. This commentary
\nidentifies the resolutions related to Conformance and Interoperability
\nand analyzes them in light of this concern.<\/p>\n

We begin with two general concerns, followed by a set of key points
\ncovered with more specificity in the commentary.<\/p>\n

Two General Concerns:<\/p>\n

The first general concern here has to do with the prospect
\nthat conformance and interoperability testing might become a basis for
\nenabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of
\nnetworks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without
\ndistinguishing them from the Internet or recognizing the tradeoffs
\nthese types of networks bring as compared to the advantages of the
\nInternet. This could be a problem if these standards work against
\nconnectivity in the form the Internet makes possible, or if their
\npromotion allows something different to be called Internet.<\/p>\n

The other general concern here has to do with applying
\nconformance and interoperability certification in connection with a
\nrange of public policy issues with which the Information Society is
\nconcerned. If we set up a standardization process under the ITU, and
\nif it fails to recognize the key characteristics of the Internet while
\nit is connected to these public policy concerns, we could easily end
\nup normalizing, in the name of public policy concerns, forms of
\ntelecommunications and related policies that are detrimental to the
\nadvantages of the Internet, without recognizing that impact.<\/p>\n

Some Key Points:<\/p>\n

The conformance and interoperability framework should reflect the distinction between the general purpose form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes possible between independent networks, and connectivity that supports specialized functions that are not as readily supported by general purpose internetworking.<\/p>\n

Capacity building in conformance and interoperability testing
\nshould incorporate recognition of the empowerment of independent
\noperators and end users made possible by the general purpose internet
\nplatform as well as recognizing other types of networks supporting
\nspecialized functions.<\/p>\n

Conformance and interoperability should address quality of
\nservice not only as a specialized function in networks that treat IP
\npackets specially according to types or categories, but also based on
\nrecognition of the role that the actual capacity of networks plays in
\nquality of service in general purpose internetworking.<\/p>\n

The conformance and interoperability initiative should
\nrecognize that confidence in end-to-end interoperability is already
\nenabled for the Internet based on general purpose packet
\ntransmissions. While the likelihood of interoperability for other
\nkinds of networks or specialized services will increase on the basis
\nof confidence derived from conformance assessment, conformance
\nassessment can also support interoperability through the upholding of
\npolicies backed by an intergovernmental authority, a prospect with
\nimplications that should be understood and addressed.<\/p>\n

The resolutions on bridging the digital divide make no mention
\nof the empowerment of end users and independent providers made
\npossible by the Internet, or of how those factors drive development<\/p>\n

The references to interoperability, interconnection and global
\nconnectivity in the resolutions do not necessarily mean connectivity
\nin terms of what we understand as the Internet platform, but are used
\nin ways that could easily support policies imposing connectivity in
\nother forms, without clearly recognizing their impact on the Internet<\/p>\n

General references to pro-competitive policies and regulatory
\ncontexts in relation to expanding access should be adapted to
\nrecognize the general purpose Internet platform made possible by
\ninteroperation among autonomous, competing providers at the physical
\nlayer, and should not characterize the policy and regulatory context
\nsolely in general terms that may support other types of networks
\nwithout specifically recognizing the Internet as well.<\/p>\n

Recognition of impacts on the Internet should be identified as a high-level objective and priority in standardization, and strategic and high priority issues in standardization should distinctly recognize end user and independent provider empowerment as a result of the Internet as particularly important concerns for developing countries, along with standardization initiatives that may be geared toward other types of networks.<\/p>\n

The advice of proponents of increased competition among
\nindependent providers at the physical layer within the US should be
\nrecognized and applied by TSAG as an explicit consideration within its
\nmandate to coordinate standardization topics.<\/p>\n

For the purposes of commenting on the revisions needed in this area,
\nit\u2019s most useful to group the relevant resolutions under three related
\ntopic headers \u2014 Conformance and Interoperability, Bridging the Digital
\nDivide, and Bridging the Standardization Gap. Click below to see the
\nrelationships among all the resolutions making up the overall
\nconformance and interoperability thrust.<\/p>\n

Click here for Resolutions Related to Conformance and Interoperability:
\n> https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/2013\/04\/28\/wsis-impacts-conformance-interoperability\/#RelatedResolutions<\/a><\/p>\n

Commentary:<\/p>\n

Conformance and Interoperability<\/p>\n

WTDC Resolution 47, Guadalajara Resolution 177, and WTSA
\nResolution 76 fit under the general heading of conformance and
\ninteroperability.<\/p>\n

A conformance and interoperability framework that recognizes the
\nnature of the Internet needs to draw a clear distinction between
\ncertification of conformance and interoperability in relation to the
\ngeneral purpose form of connectivity that the Internet Protocol makes
\npossible between independent networks, and certification for
\nspecialized functions that are not as readily supported by general
\npurpose internetworking across autonomous routers.<\/p>\n

WTDC Resolution 47<\/p>\n

WTDC Resolution 47 instructs the Director of the Telecommunications Development Bureau to assist developing countries in building their capacity to perform conformance testing of equipment and systems and to follow up on implementation, including a periodic report to the T-DAG and a report on lessons learned to the WTDC in 2014. It invites Member States and Sector Members to enhance knowledge and effective application of ITU-R and ITU-T Recommendations in developing countries, and to introduce best practices in applying these recommendations. It says nothing about Internet, but does talk about fiber optics, broadband networks, and next-generation networks, inviting Member States to introduce best-practice application of ITU Recommendations in those areas through training and workshops in developing countries.<\/p>\n

This resolution needs to reflect the above distinction in the
\nidentification of best practices that it calls for: best practices in
\napplying recommendations for interoperability by general purpose IP
\ntransmissions among autonomous networks, versus best practices in
\napplying recommendations related to networks that provide specialized
\nfunctions among routers implementing specialized treatment of packets.
\nThe list list of example topics mentioned above should be extended to
\ninclude specific mention of Internet networks as well.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Julian Minard wrote:
\n> We confirm that we will hold an ITAC adhoc on WTDC preps Tuesday January 14,
\n> BUT IT WILL BE FROM 2-4:30PM. Recall that FCC is hosting this meeting as
\n> follows:
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n> Federal Communications Commission
\n>
\n> 445 \u2013 12th Street, SW
\n>
\n> Room 2-B516
\n>
\n> Washington, DC 20554
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n> We will have a conference bridge and draft agenda on Monday, but it will
\n> address the draft US contribution and the proposed new question on C&I. The
\n> draft C&I text is attached herewith; the draft Contribution will be out as
\n> soon as possible, probably sometime Monday.
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n> Julian Minard, secretariat<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

———- Forwarded message ———- From: Seth Johnson Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM Subject: Followup: Seth’s Edits on C&I To: “Chip Sharp (chsharp)” , Doreen McGirr , “Elizabeth Bacon (EBacon@ntia.doc.gov)” , “ITAC-D@LMLIST.STATE.GOV” Attaching my edits on WTDC 47 and the C&I Study Question, as promised. WTDC 47 – ID Edits Conformance & Interoperability […]<\/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-1222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222","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=1222"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1843,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222\/revisions\/1843"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internetdistinction.com\/wsisimpacts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}