Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all former DNSO GA members of other interested parties,

  Perhaps you are not aware that recently on the IETF Poised list
which I am CC'ing in this particular instance, a thread was started
"Stopping independent publications (Re: Comments on IESG
charter and guidelines drafts)".  This would indicate that some
"Cliques" within the IETF and especially the IESG, are not interested
in "All interested Parties" participating in any fashion that does not
"Fit" their particular modus oprendi.  Hence I was a little puzzled
Richard, in that part of your comments/remarks below.  Although
I support them if seriously meant.  However given some of the past
history of the ITU in respect to the early days of ICANN, and from
one that experienced those days myself, I must be just a little bit
circumspect.  Hence I can fully understand Marc's concern as well.
Remember Richard, many of us have been around a long time and
some of us have long and exacting memories, along of course with
documentation that may no longer be available on the web or any
other Internet reference...

richard.hill@itu.int wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@fuchsia.bijt.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, 06 March 2003 19:44
> > To: richard.hill@itu.int
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga]
> > ALAC comments
> > on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, at 09:46 [=GMT+0100], richard.hill@itu.int wrote:
> >
> >>The above
> > brought up one question to which I have no answer. How would
> > the ITU be
> > able to deal with a network that is designed in a totally
> > different way
> > than the one it already knows so well for a hundred (?)
> > years, vid. the
> > telephone?
>
> Actually today's telephone network is switched by computers, using protocols
> (SS7) developed within ITU that have absolutely no relation to the
> mechanical switching that was used 100 years ago, so the today's telephone
> networks, and the issues that ITU handles, are quite different from those of
> 100 years ago.
>
> ITU as an institution deals with issues in much the same was as IETF, or
> ISO, or IEEE, or any other standards-making body.  It organizes forums for
> discussion, in which experts meet to exchange views and to agree on
> solutions.  The agreed solutions are published.  The forums can be
> face-to-face meetings, electronic meetings, e-mail discussion lists, etc.
>
> So the way that ITU would deal with any issues that its members would like
> it to deal with is to invite members to express their views, and then
> facilitate the formation of a consensus for how to proceed.
>
> The issues that are being discussed in ITU today obviously are very
> different from those that were being discussed 10 years ago, and even more
> different from those that were discussed 100 years ago.
>
> >
> > The variety of devices and the relative dumbness of the network they
> > connect to are two sides of the one coin we call the internet. Is an
> > organization like the ITU suitable to take over (some of)
> > ICANN's roles,
> > since it has such a venerable tradition in coordinating a
> > very different
> > sort of network, where the intelligence is in the network and
> > not in the
> > machines, and open standards are _less_ important, or cannot
> > be allowed
> > even for they will ruin the network?
>
> As I've stated elsewhere, in my opinion discussions are only productive when
> they involve  all concerned parties, and people with expertise in the
> subject matter.  I would hope that any discussions in ITU would meet those
> criteria.  In some cases, that would imply greater participation in ITU by
> people who currently don't participate that much.
>
> In my opinion, if you get the concerned parties and the experts together,
> you can find solutions.
>
> >
> > I would hope that if ICANN is ever replaced, completely or in
> > part, that
> > it will be by a better organization. In my view that means _less_
> > regulation, a more open DNS. (Minimal requierements for new
> > TLDs, and only
> > of a technical nature. No business plans and 13 appendices.)
> > Would this be
> > possible 'under' the ITU?
>
> ITU only does what its members ask it to do.  The ITU staff (such as me)
> don't write any Recommendations.  We just facilitate the process.  The
> Recommendations are written by our membership, mostly by people from
> industry (Sector Members).
>
> If you will allow an analogy to telephony, no telephone operator sends its
> business plans to ITU and we have no mandate to look at how they operate.
> National regulators may have such mandates, that depends on national laws.
>
> ITU does not have contracts with telephone operators (except of course for
> the contracts we need to get telephone service for our premises).  What ITU
> does (for example, my administration of the telephone country codes) is
> specified in detail in a Recommendation (E.164.1 for the telephone codes).
> I follow the instructions in the Recommendation.  That service is provided
> at no cost.
>
> ITU-T Recommendations are of two types.  Most are technical standards, such
> as modems, xDSL, X.509 (used in PKI), etc.
>
> Some tell the ITU staff (like me) what they are supposed to do to support
> global interoperability.  Those services are provided free of charge.  No
> contracts are required between the ITU and the users of the services.
>
> Most people don't know about it, but there are actually non-national
> telephone country codes.  These are assigned (by me, in accordance with
> Recommendation E.164.1), on the basis of what I would call minimal technical
> requirements.  No business plans are required for an assignment.
>
> Best,
> Richard
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html