Re: national security - proposed follow-up

On 03:13 06/12/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
> Jefsey,
> which "we" are you speaking on behalf of?
>
> --On 27. november 2003 23:20 +0100 jfcm <info(_at_)utel(_dot_)net> wrote:
> > While parallel issues start being discussed and better understood at 
> > WSIS, we have next week a meeting on Internet national security, 
> > sovereignty and innovation capacity.
Dear Harald,
Sorry only sent to you by mistake. Question was public. Response must also be.

I was asked and documented that and invited people interested and having 
French to join or to ask for the preparatory document. This is of lesser 
interest now: the outcome are. They will probably published with the 
engaged actions after the next meeting we have early January. I was writing 
you a mail when I received yours. I will swicth to it now.
___

My vision of the network and international relations is NOT the vision of 
ICANN, IAB, IETF. Everyone in here understood that. In a way, it is the 
vision that 189 Govs are going to publish in Geneva next week, giving 
responsiblity to ITU (unless the whole preparatory documents are scrapped).
I welcome this. But with a big if. If an "I" sector is created for the 
Information/Internet (highest) layers.
I started an action six months ago (http://i-sector.org) to create an ITU 
Focus Group that will use the inter-WSIS period (2004-2005) to make that 
Sector voted by the second Submit. This is not a small target, but the 
processus is simple : to write, document and propose a charter (or ToRs: 
Terms of Reference) for a Focus (Working) Group to Mr. Zao. The letter is 
to be signed by one Member. This permits us (internet community) to keep 
the initiative. Or we will be discussed as part of ITU-T by Govs.  This 
kind of thing takes time and do not call for mails, but for work, personal 
direct links, time.
Such a Focus Group will be open to everyone serious and work on the reasons 
why to have an I-Sector and how. It should start with a preparatory meeting 
in Geneva on the aftermath of the WSIS and gather the largest number of 
members from the Internet governance (you may object but no to participate 
to that kind of effort would be a mistake). To set-up a professionnal, Gov 
accepted, industry trusted, civil society supported, world wide governance 
for the WSIS network to develop and get approved.
The important point is to understand what is IETF in this, where IETF wants 
to fit (and ICANN) and which support it may get and credentials it may provide.
This is going to hurt many one's pride: we are to accept that WSIS 
declarations are the World's Project Description and the World's Network 
Specs for the World's higher layers system. You may dispute it, but this is 
what it is and this is the way it is going to be plaid. These loayers 
currently uses the IETF solutions and the ICANN network management. But it 
is to be renewed and the decision is, de facto, delegated to a "users" 
consensus advized by ITU. So IETF/ICANN have two tasks:
1. to make the current system better work along the customer's requirments 
to keep in tune,
2. to win the customer's trust and approval for an evolution of the system 
towards a total redesign that the US and other Govs or Corporations have 
otherwise already decided and engaged.
To try to add some last minute competitve edge to IETF (sometimes works), 
in having the resolutions made more favorable, I started the "National 
Security" thread (something they could fully understand) and made sure that 
people I know, who could make a few words changed in the final 
declarations, would get a daily copy from it. So they might build by 
themselves an opinion on IETF and ICANN, from the horse's mouth.
Today, due to the importance of the matter for our "customer", I suggest we 
start a specialized WG with a clean shit study charter. What to propose to 
transition to a clearly modelized and standardized open secure network 
technology that will internet with every communications systems and support 
a world wide continuity of services to the users and to the users 
relations. Under terms of quality, stability, innovation capacity, 
operational standard, costs, etc. that will match their expectations and 
win the trust of banks, industries, critical infrastructure managers, 
defense, airlines, police, cities, users from 189 countries, with 
a  governance formula respecting the digital sovereignty and independence 
of each participating Gov and nation.
If we do not do it in here, now, competitively, I am sorry, but we should 
all understand that it will be carried elsewhere. We know the IETF 
competition: it is also on this list.
jfc