Re: /. ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection

[Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com>]

        Perhaps because you are addressing to a bunch of Internet engineers
that (we) are used to create standards in open forums where everybody
have a say.

        For the new Internet world "available to all participants in the ITU-T,
on exactly the same terms as drafts of other Recommendations" is not
longer valid.

Regards,
as

On 05/12/2012 17:01, Tom Taylor wrote:
> I'm seriously not clear why Y.2770 is characterized as "negotiated
> behind closed doors". Any drafts were available to all participants in
> the ITU-T, on exactly the same terms as drafts of other Recommendations.
> As an example, the draft coming out of the October, 2011 meeting can be
> seen at http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG13-111010-TD-WP4-0201/en. (I have
> access delegated by a vendor to whom I have been consulting, by virtue
> of their membership in the ITU-T.)
>
> I should mention that the "Next Generation Network" within the context
> of which this draft was developed is more likely to be implemented by
> old-line operators than by pure internet operations.
>
> Tom Taylor
>
> On 05/12/2012 4:34 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/05/0115214/itu-approves-deep-packet-inspection
> >
> >
> > ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection
> >
> > Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 04, @08:19PM
> >
> > from the inspect-my-encryption-all-you'd-like dept.
> >
> > dsinc sends this quote from Techdirt about the International
> > Telecommunications Union's ongoing conference in Dubai that will have an
> > effect on the internet everywhere: "One of the concerns is that decisions
> > taken there may make the Internet less a medium that can be used to
> > enhance
> > personal freedom than a tool for state surveillance and oppression.
> > The new
> > Y.2770 standard is entitled 'Requirements for deep packet inspection
> > in Next
> > Generation Networks', and seeks to define an international standard
> > for deep
> > packet inspection (DPI). As the Center for Democracy & Technology
> > points out,
> > it is thoroughgoing in its desire to specify technologies that can be
> > used to
> > spy on people. One of the big issues surrounding WCIT and the ITU has
> > been
> > the lack of transparency — or even understanding what real
> > transparency might
> > be. So it will comes as no surprise that the new DPI standard was
> > negotiated
> > behind closed doors, with no drafts being made available."