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."
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
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
[201-WP4] Output ITU-T Recommendation Y.dpireq "Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in NGN" for determination. (I have access
delegated by a vendor to whom I have been consulting, by virtue of their
membership in the ITU-T.)
I suspect people mean that trying to download anything off that broken
itu website gets you a page with:
"If you have a TIES account, please login:"
not the document you wish to download... as compared to the other (one
other) 'internet standards body' website full of
'draft/proposed/finalized' standards and discussions there-of:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/>
which links to the:
o open discussion mailing list(s)
o open meeting minutes
o current drafts and finalized standards
o charter and etc...
open not 'open*' as the itu site is...
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.
hurray?
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
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 [201-WP4] Output ITU-T Recommendation Y.dpireq "Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in NGN" for determination. (I have access delegated by a vendor to whom I have been consulting, by virtue of their membership in the ITU-T.)
Correct… All ITU Drafts and Recommendations are developed behind closed doors.
(If something is developed in a process which is not open to non-members, then, it is by definition developed behind closed doors. Why is this difficult to understand?)
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.
You say that as if we're supposed to think it is a good thing. To many of us, it is one of the many reasons we're not so thrilled by ITUs sudden interest in exercising greater authority over internet operations.
Owen
...
Agreed that the ITU-T is a membership organization, but the Questions and Study Group work programs are open to view (Q. 17/13 specifically covers DPI, and has more documents coming down the pipe). If you want to follow some Question you can probably get access through your government (State Dept. in the US, Dept. of Communications in Canada). The membership rules don't apply so stringently to Rapporteurs' meetings, so you can get in touch with the Rapporteur of a Question you are interested in and find out where to get copies of documents contributed into those meetings.
All this is by the by -- you are more likely to be affected by the IETF than by anything coming out of the ITU-T.
I am affected by ITU-T every day.
I use telephones.
I am a Ham radio operator.
I am a pilot.
I use international digital circuits.
All of these things are affected by ITU-T.
Yes, anyone willing to expend enough effort and/or resources can get behind many of the closed doors for a non-participatory role in ITU process. To become participatory, you must be a government or invited by a government as part of their delegation.
Contrasting this to the openness of the IETF, ICANN, and the RIRs, I think there is a pretty strong case to be made that the ITU is a closed-door process by comparison.
Owen
The above is not exactly what I would call an ideal process for ensuring that standards receive broad input from subject matter experts, regardless of where they're located or who they might know in their central governments.
In any event, the point of the original blog post was not to criticize closed membership organizations per se, it was to point out the shortcomings of making standards mandatory (as some proposed changes to the ITRs would do) when they are generated by such membership organizations.
Alissa
So is it recommended now to go over all the NGN core routers and restore them to default with: no lawful-intercept disable cmd? 
adam