<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)
Dear Marilyn,
Your remarks on the R and T Sectors vs the "I Sector" are well made. The
response to that problem should be a very simple modelization showing
fthese three sectors as both R and T blocks covered by the I block. I is
value-added over R and T which participate into the interests of I.
Now, the difficulty Karl pointed out is that there is a missing U Sector
(Users).
Let understand this, as I do not probably see it exactly the way Karl sees
it. When I mean Users I do not mean the senders or receivers of bytes :
they are the same as the telephone users, TV watchers or Media producers. I
mean the actual owners, developers and managers of the added-value layers.
The same way Nokia, Thomson, etc. are for equipment, the same way IETF is
for standard.
So the real model is probably R and T as first layer. I as a second layer
and U as a third layer (U being quite diverse).
R and T are providing the Internet bandwidth.
I is to manage that bandwidth - basically the IANA functions.
U is to coordinate among the users of that bandwidth - the mission creep
and @large.
Today, ICANN tries to curb the U Sector and to look like an acceptable I
Sector manager. That cannot work. It has to clarify about the I Sector
manager (the lean model) and one of the U sector partners.
IMHO, it can be both, if it differentiates well the issues, does not want
to be autocratic in I Sector and monopolistic in U Sector. This is what ERC
could have lead to (intermediary report).
Let take the ITU-T example. It manages Telephone (basic service). But it is
also as such the largest TLD Manager as managing the telephone naming plan;
so a participant into the I sector.
Many telephone companies as well as start-up, VCs, Media or TV groups are
active in the U Sector. Katho is an as good rep of @large as Karl. And Karl
would not be a good @large rep without a technical understanding far
superior to the average icannatlarge.com Members.
So there is no dispute, but a simple need for a correct modelization with
its resulting economical model. This means only the ICANN to get real:
investigating what could be done, testing it until everyone agrees on how
to make it, and transform the test into reality (that scenario is fully
described in ICP-3; except that the testing is to be technical, societal
and governance oriented, what the document does not make fully clear, but
the daily life of the mission creep shows a necessity).
If ICANN BoD can quickly elect knowledgeable people with no other agenda
than the global service of the network, however biased the ERC will have
been good and we will probably reach that target. Otherwise ITU will have
to take over, hopefully reaching that model too. But it will probably have
to be helped through a real @large organization (not the ALAC confusing alibi).
jfc
On 21:29 08/03/03, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP said:
>Richard, I read your response to Marc Scheiders, which seems to be an
>explanation of the ITU's operations
>and functional responsibilities, and suggest that there is a need for
>clarification in a few areas. You are undoubtedly describing part of the
>activities of the ITU, but for those who are not fully informed of its
>core mission and responsibilities, it may not be actually factually
>helpful since it omits so much in your undoubtedly very well intentioned
>effort to be brief.
>
>I suggest, for instance: the use of the word "no cost" in regard to
>services available...
>
>First, for the record, AT&T is a sector member of the ITU, and greatly
>values its role in telephony and related convergence issues and areas.
>I've said this publicly many times, and do want it clear that we are
>strong supporters of the role of the ITU in its areas of core competency.
>However, we are also involved in other organizations mentioned in your
>email, and I suggest that it is possible that some may misunderstand some
>of the comments you made.
>
>First, you seem to be saying that there is "no charge" for some of the
>services of the ITU :-) This could imply "free". I think you mean that
>the particular service is subsidized by member fees and that there is not
>a specific charge for it. BUT, your comment could imply that the service
>is "free" and indeed that the workshops are "free". Your careful use of
>the words "no charge" are factual. All services of the ITU, like services
>of any organization, are paid for by someone.
>
>It's important to be clear. All who read your response should understand
>that "no charge" does not mean "free" but that the core budget of the ITU
>bears the subsidy. And that of course, with the financial status of the
>ITU and indeed all organizations and even corporations these days, changes
>may occur in the ability to provide such subsidies. Some may not be
>familiar with the ITU's financing, nor its reliance on unit contributions
>by countries, and sector member fees, etc. Nor, perhaps fully informed of
>the rather substantial budget shortfall faced by the ITU, as described at
>the ITU Plenipot '02. The Council of ITU is charged with addressing this
>substantial -- as I recall, somewhere around $23m sf -- budget shortfall
>and determining how to address this. The financial stability of the ITU
>was a significant focus of the ITU Plenipot '02, as all know who kept up
>to date by reading the excellent announcements by the ITU staff on the ITU
>site which described the work of the!
> Plenipot '02.
>
>Secondly, while you are describing some of the ways in which the ITU
>interacts with interested parties, via workshops, forums, etc., you made
>no mention of the way that voting takes place in the governing bodies of
>the ITU. The description below didn't include a factual portrayal of how
>decisions are actually taken in the policy bodies and treaty conferences
>by the member states of the ITU, where, of course, only member nations
>vote and where the sector members or observers have no to extremely
>limited presence or voice. And, again, at Plenipot '02 significant
>discussion did take place by member nations regarding whether there should
>be any change in the ability of sector members to participate more directly.
>
>Perhaps it is more helpful to be clear that your response below seems to
>focus primarily if not solely on the workshops
>and forums which the ITU hosts, and does such a good job of providing in a
>variety of areas related to telephony and
>convergence, and international standards in those areas. Again, as you
>state, the costs for sponsoring these are borne by the ITU core budget
>[supported by unit fees to member nations and sector member fees], and no
>registration fees for attendance are charged.
>
>Folks on this list have a wide range of familiarity with the ITU, and its
>core purposes. You and I have discussed this many times, and you and I
>are in agreement that the concerned parties related to the coordination of
>the technical aspects of the global Internet do not work at the ITU on
>these issues. There are many reasons for that, of course.
>
>And, of course, there are working relationships between some of the groups
>where this work is underway and various entities of the ITU, where there
>may be convergence issues or the need for coordination.
>
>Of important acknowledgement, with the support of the GAC, and the wide
>set of global private sector parties, many do work at ICANN. I think it
>very important to note to all that the ITU is a member of the GAC at ICANN
>and has a significant influence and voice in the role of governments and
>itself through that participation.
>
>Perhaps it is useful to note for the GA list that the GNSO council in fact
>recently voted strong support for a resolution, which restated the
>Council's support for the role of governments, and multi-lateral
>inter-governmental organizations, such as the ITU, WIPO, and others, to
>work effectively and supportively of ICANN via the GAC. This resolution
>was forwarded by Council to the ITU workshop just held as a contribution
>and is available both on the GNSO council site, and on the ITU's site as a
>workshop contribution. As a member of Council, I was pleased to support
>that resolution and its contributing to the Workshop.
>
>However, Richard, I do wish to call your attention to a concern I have
>with your email below. You rely on telephony examples in how you explain
>the role of the ITU via telephony and related convenience examples. This
>is quite appropriate, because the ITU is and has been such a significant
>contributor in the international standards areas of telephony and in
>working to bring teledensity to developing economies, through the
>important work of the D sector. And, of course, the important work of the
>R Sector is well known and well respected, as is the T Sector's role in
>international telecommunications standards. However, you seem to imply
>[perhaps I misunderstand] that this extrapolates to the Internet.
>
>I am not sure that your efforts to extrapolate from telephony into the
>Internet are quite a "fit". I know that it is often done for expediency
>sake particularly by those more comfortable with the telephony world or
>even as a means to try to bridge the two worlds. I fear that relying on
>explaining the Internet from a telephony perspective does in fact a
>disservice to not only users, but policy makers. All of us should strive
>for new and better analogies, while respecting the concerns and
>experiences of others. And since I trust that you truly want to be helpful
>in "decoding" some of these issues, I suggest that this is a mutual
>challenge, and that we should all strive for better analogies, rather than
>relying on extrapolations from telephony.
>
>A better approach for all would be to continue to talk about the Internet
>technical coordination, where the private sector has been the lead, not
>governments, and not governmental entities. And, to start from and
>continue from that perspective, and to discuss the important, even
>critically important, supportive role of governments and intergovernmental
>organizations in advisory and supportive activities.
>
>I continue to hope that the ITU will participate in a supportive manner in
>support of ICANN, through the
>GAC. Certainly the resolution passed by GNSO Council and forwarded to the
>just past ITU Workshop endorsed strong support for that participation by
>the ITU in the GAC, and in support of ICANN. Accordingly, I trust that you
>will attend the ICANN meeting at Rio and look forward to seeing you there.
>
>Finally, I offer one point, which others more expert than I must validate.
>My understanding is that at the IETF, that one participates as an
>individual, and that in fact, all documents are publicly available. Of
>course, at the ITU, there are both public documents, and then, there are
>the documents which are available under subscription as a member. And, of
>course, during the course of treaty conferences, many documents are not
>available at all until they are finalized.... One simply shouldn't confuse
>the ITU, a treaty organization, with the responsibilities of such an
>organization and the realities of its treaty responsibilities, with any
>other kind of organization. Probably in your interest of being brief and
>concise in your communication below, some of that wasn't clear. But I
>trust that it was an effort by you to support the ITU's work at the GAC
>in support of ICANN.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marilyn Cade
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: richard.hill@itu.int [mailto:richard.hill@itu.int]
>Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:55 AM
>To: marc@fuchsia.bijt.net
>Cc: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
>comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)
>
>
>
>
> > -----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
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|