<html>
<body>
I thought this article may be of interest for us, esp. that it's not very
often when defenders of the self-management of the Internet dare to speak
freely:)) <br><br>
<font color="#333333">Ross Wm. Rader is the Director of Innovation &
Research at Tucows Inc. and has written articles on software, domain name
registrations, and domain name policies for Boardwatch, Web Hosting
Magazine, and various other publications. He has also spoken at various
industry events on freeware and shareware, domain name registrations, and
domain name policies.</font> <br><br>
<br>
<h2><b>Internet to ITU: Stay Away from My
Network</b></h2><font color="#666666">
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/channel/index/C0_1_1">Dec 21, 2004 |
>From CircleID Internet Governance</a><br><br>
By
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/members/profile_view_ind.php?id=25"><b>
Ross Wm. Rader</a><br><br>
<br>
</b></font>An ITU document entitled
"<a href="http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/Geneva3_04/intgov-contribution-wg-wsis.doc">
Beyond Internet Governance</a>"<sup>1</sup> crossed my desk earlier
this week. Given that I had absolutely nothing better to do, I decided to
give it a read.<br><br>
The audacity of the ITU Secretariat is nothing less than
shocking.<br><br>
It has been a long while since I read such a self-serving, narrow-minded
and inaccurate document.<br><br>
The backbone of the ITU's contention rests on the premise that something
called the Next Generation Network and the contention that this network
will act as one big bug fix for all the problems created by current
inter-networking technology.<br>
<dl>
<dd>"More recently, substantial standards and resource investment
are being made by all major operators and equipment manufacturers in what
is referred to as Next Generation Networks (NGN). NGN can be seen as a
logical progression from separate PSTN- and IP-networks to a unified
telecommunications network for electronic communications based on
IP."<br><br>
<br>
</i>
</dl>The ITU is under the impression that their involvement in overseeing
global Telecommunications infrastructure entitles them to some stake in
managing the internet. They see embracing next generation development as
a way to make this happen. After all, if they have a central role in the
development of this network, it only stands to reason that they are the
best qualified to manage it.<br><br>
Unfortunately, this misses a key point. In order to be a competent
manager, basic qualifications must be met. In this case, these
qualifications include developing a basic understanding of precisely what
is being managed. The definition put forward by the ITU clearly
demonstrates how completely they've missed the mark.<br><br>
The internet works because there are clear separations between transport
technology, interconnection technology and application technology. The
ITU version of this blurs these boundaries and takes us a step backwards
into a centrally controlled, centrally managed, "more than good
enough" network -- administered, of course, by the ITU.<br><br>
This level of control and coordination is precisely what the internet
successfully avoided. This is why the internet is successful. The
internet works because it is almost trivial to interconnect heterogeneous
networks in a near seamless manner, and by extension, every single other
inter-connected network on the planet. It doesn't matter what the
transport mechanism looks like -- GSM, PSTN, smoke signals, pigeons --
all of these can be used as the basis for an IP-enabled network.<br><br>
Let's not forget what the internet actually is -- a combination of
privately and publicly owned (mostly private nowadays) and independently
controlled networks that interconnect using a common protocol. Inherent
in this is a big implication that sometimes gets taken for granted, but
nonetheless represents the foundation of the internet:<br><br>
<div align="center">The network at your place of business belongs to your
company. The network at the library belongs to the library. The network
in my house *IS MY NETWORK*. These are my wires, my machines and my rules
and they don't need to be centrally coordinated, converged or subject to
same vague benefits that I might get from your notion of quality of
service.<br><br>
</i></div>
The phone company, and therefore the ITU, is in the business of
interconnect -- moving bits from my network to yours -- because the PSTN
and associated telco interconnects provide the most convenient form of
interconnect. But this doesn't mean that they own those interconnects, or
by extension, control of the internet because of the distinction between
the transport, data, interconnect and application layers. Let me rephrase
-- the only reason that the phone company is involved in the business of
interconnect is because a customer, like me or you, has requested that
they provide us with the physical infrastructure necessary to implement
the interconnection. In most cases, when they s**** this up, there are
other choices available that does not include the telco, and by extension
the ITU. Radio, satellite, microwave, cable - there are a multitude of
almost perfect substitutes that we can avail ourselves of.<br><br>
But back to my point. The ITU aspires to a network management and
oversight role. Thus far, the ITU has really only been involved,
tangentially, in the business of managing interconnects. They seek to
expand this role by exerting influence over the development of what they
characterize as NGNs in a transparent ploy to claim management rights
over this NGN.<br><br>
The problem is, NGNs are anything but "...a logical progression from
separate PSTN- and IP-networks to a unified telecommunications network
for electronic communications based on IP." In fact, the notion of
the NGN as conceived by the ITU runs completely contrary to what made the
internet successful in the first place. This is much less than a
technical evolution and most certainly a power grab of epic proportions.
The ITU is playing very dangerous games with a very precious
resource.<br><br>
Convergence of the PSTN and the IP networks is patently ridiculous and
unsupported by current market dynamics. Convergence to the degree implied
by the ITU eliminates transport independence. This is a patently
dangerous notion. Most disappointing, the logic used to justify this
power-grab is borderline silly.<br><br>
Take this for example -- "...growing infrastructure vulnerabilities,
fraud, spam, phishing, security flaws, and cybercrime, will lead to a
slow steady decline and dwindling confidence in the medium by users,
unless they are addressed vigorously and rapidly. ...one of the
significant drivers of the extensive standardization work on NGN is
dealing with some of these public infrastructure
vulnerabilities."<br><br>
</i>In and of itself, this truth of this statement is self-evident. Mom
and apple pie that no one disagrees with. After all, who doesn't want to
do something about spam, phishing and all of these other ills. But take a
closer look at the underlying message.<br><br>
<div align="center">The fundamental design of the internet is flawed and
we can fix it.<br>
If you let us fix it, we will create a perfect environment for you in
which no one will be able to do wrong.<br>
No more spam, no more phishing, no more intellectual property
infringement.<br><br>
</b></div>
This pronouncement comes to you from the same organization that oversees
that world telecommunications infrastructure. The same infrastructure
that facilitates billions of dollars of fraud per year. The same
infrastructure that allows
<a href="http://www.cdg.org/news/events/CDMASeminar/031211/10-Fair%20Isaac%20Roaming%20Fraud.pdf">
international thieves to skim up to 3% of each cellular carriers
revenue</a> [PDF] every day. The same infrastructure that helps
<a href="http://www.state.ct.us/dob/pages/boilerm.htm">boiler room
fraudsters bilk millions</a> from unsuspecting seniors. The same
infrastructure that makes it easy for a con artist to
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-272024.html?legacy=cnet">re-route
my modem calls to Moldova</a> at the cost of dozens of dollars per
minute!<br><br>
This pronouncement is a threat, made by the ITU, that represents a clear
and present danger to the sovereignty and autonomy of this union of
networks. A threat that must be dealt with quickly and decisively. Next
Generation Networks, as defined by the ITU, are anything but NGNs - they
are not the natural successor to the current generation of
internetworking technologies. They are not an excuse to take a second
crack at building your information superhighway.<br><br>
The NGN is a fascist vision of a centrally managed fix for precisely what
isn't broken.<br><br>
--- <br>
1</sup> For an organization that likes to fly the
"inclusiveness" and "digital divide" banners so
prominently, they produce far too many documents in proprietary formats
that require hundreds of dollars of software to decode and read. It's too
bad that this is precisely the type of service that we can look forward
to on their NGN.</i> </body>
</html>