December 2012 - isoc - Skunkworks Site

Kibaki set to launch Konza City in January 23, 2013
by Grace Githaiga 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

The groundbreaking ceremony of Kenya’s first techno city is scheduled for next month setting the stage for the development of the Sh850 billion project. http://www.nation.co.ke/business/news/Kibaki-set-to-launch-Konza-City-in-Ja…

1 0

Fw: [Itu2012chapters] WCIT - outcome
by Davis Onsakia 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

FYI Regards and many thanks, Davis M Onsakia 'The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for.' - Maureen Dowd ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Sally Wentworth <wentworth(a)isoc.org> To: itu2012chapters <itu2012chapters(a)elists.isoc.org> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:43 PM Subject: [Itu2012chapters] WCIT - outcome Hi all! Greetings from the closing plenary of the WCIT. The WCIT concluded today with revised ITRs. 89 countries signed the treaty and at least 55 thus far have indicated that they will either not sign the treaty or will have to consult further in capital. There were a number of contentious issues that remained open until the final evening plenary on Thursday. After much debate, a vote took place on the motion to include text relating to states' rights to access international telecommunication services. Following the vote, several countries spoke to indicate that they will not sign the revised ITRs. Once this happened, the remaining issues were sorted rather quickly. You can download the treaty here: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf Some key issues for the Internet Society: -- the issue of scope remains somewhat ambiguous and it will be important to monitor actual implementation of these regulations to determine whether some countries apply the treaty provisions to a broader group of providers than were previously subject to the 1988 treaty. -- the treaty explicitly states that “these Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications”. -- References to ITU-T Recommendations do not give those Recommendations mandatory status -- Treaty definitions of Telecommunications and International Telecommunications were not changed. New term ICT was not included -- Numbering provisions in the ITRs are limited to references to “numbering resources specified in ITU-T Recommendations” and do not extend to naming, numbering and identification resources. -- Quality of Service provisions are open to interpretation and their impact will depend on the interpretation of scope. -- Member States are given responsibility to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunications services -- Member States are given responsibility to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications. -- Accounting Rate principles for international telecommunication services do not apply to commercial agreements. -- Resolution (non-binding) entitled “To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet” selectively quotes from the WSIS Tunis Agenda and seems to expand the role of the ITU rather than encouraging greater participation in the multistakeholder Internet governance model as envisioned by the WSIS. -- Resolution (non-binding) entitled “International telecommunication service traffic termination and exchange” opens the issue of private commercial agreements for international telecommunications traffic and suggests a role for Member States. It also calls for further work of the ITU-T in this area. -- Issues related to competition, liberalization, independent regulation, transparency received relatively little attention at the conference which is unfortunate. More to come. Kind Regards, Sally Sally Wentworth Internet Society +1 703 439 2146 wentworth(a)isoc.org www.isoc.org _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

1 0

Fwd: [Itu2012chapters] WCIT - weekend report
by Barrack Otieno 10 Dec '12

10 Dec '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sally Wentworth <wentworth(a)isoc.org> Date: Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:07 PM Subject: [Itu2012chapters] WCIT - weekend report To: itu2012chapters(a)elists.isoc.org Hi everyone, This is a report from the WCIT discussions over the weekend. I think that the weekend can be summarized as a plethora of ad hoc groups the result of which is a LOT of square brackets (see the last report for a description of the process and of square brackets). As you'll recall from the last mail, the plenary session on Friday was a difficult discussion amongst Member States both in regards to a perceived lack of progress as well as a persisting disagreement about the scope of the treaty - will the treaty extend beyond telecom to include the Internet or not? As of Sunday, this question is unresolved. You may also have seen references to a "compromise text" which aims to reflect the views of a few member states and/or regions. This was mentioned in Friday's plenary and has led to many corridor discussions, rumors and a few press articles. As of Sunday evening, this proposal has not been formally tabled at the Conference. Despite the fact that the threshold issues of scope and application have not yet been solved, the ad hoc groups continued negotiation over the weekend. Below is a brief summary of those discussions: - Security: debate on security has a number of different dimensions. 1) should the treaty use the term "security" or "robustness" or "resiliency". Use of the term "security" in the treaty is strongly opposed by several countries. 2) should this issue be a stand-alone article? 3) Given the commercial ownership of networks, what is the role of Member States vs Private enterprise in ensuring security, robustness, etc? - Routing: Some gov'ts want the ability to know the routes that their traffic is taking as needed. Plenty of debate over whether this is a) technically possible, b) economically feasible, c) consistent with the legal regimes of countries. The threshold question of whether this relates to telecom networks or IP networks is unresolved. - Accounting Rates: Debate here is at 2 levels. First is the need to update existing accounting rate language. Second is the question of the extent to which the ITRs should regulate commercial agreements between carriers, including pricing. Threshold question of to whom the accounting rates apply remains open - should they continue to apply only to Recognized Operating Agencies or to a broader scope of providers, including application providers? - Spam: Very heated discussion, particularly given earlier agreements in the conference not to include content in the treaty. The basic question over whether a) to include spam anywhere in the ITR text; b) to include spam explicitly in the treaty; or c) to include spam in a Resolution only. For some countries, spam raises economic concerns as well as cybersecurity issues (fraud, consumer protection). For other countries, this is a core issue that implicates free speech and free flow of information. Ad hoc groups met all weekend on these topics to try to consolidate text. There continues to be significant divergence of views and the text going back to Committee is in multiple square brackets, indicating lack of consensus. Tomorrow is going to be a busy day - the ad hoc groups will report back to the Working Groups. Those, in turn, will report up to Committee 5. Finally, the plenary will meet tomorrow night for 3 hours. We expect most of the work to be done in plenary after tomorrow evening. Once again, some sessions are being webcast. Best we can tell, these are Committee 5 meetings and full plenaries. For the webcast, go to: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/webcast.aspx. The program for the meeting is here: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/programme.aspx In the meantime, we are all in a sea of square brackets, trying to find our way out. Cheers, Sally Sally Wentworth Internet Society +1 703 439 2146 wentworth(a)isoc.org www.isoc.org _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

News from dotAfrica
by Grace Githaiga 07 Dec '12

07 Dec '12

----------------------- News from dotAfrica ----------------------- Dear Friends of dotAfrica, It has been a very busy month and year for dotAfrica. These are some of the highlights from the past few weeks: * We presented at the African Internet Governance in Cairo and the Internet Governance Forum in Baku, both very well received. * We were represented at a number of events within the African continent by our African Liaison, Koffi Djossou. * Our dotAfrica application received no Early Warnings from the ICANN GAC. * We received our 41st letter of support from the government of Seychelles. * Our dotAfrica application is going from strength to strength. Read the complete newsletter online here ----------------------------------------- http://tinyurl.com/b8j6oj6 ----------------------------------------- 1. Note from the Editor 2. Main story 3. Technical news 4. Features: "From our African liaison" 5. Profile: Andrew Mack 6. More news from dotAfrica

2 1

Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Standard Behind Closed Doors, Ignores Huge Privacy Implications
by Barrack Otieno 06 Dec '12

06 Dec '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jean Robert Hountomey <jrhountomey(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:19 PM Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Standard Behind Closed Doors, Ignores Huge Privacy Implications To: africann(a)afrinic.net by Glyn Moody ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Standard Behind Closed Doors, Ignores Huge Privacy Implications from the and-they-want-us-to-trust-them? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121203/07493221209/itu-approves-deep-pac… Techdirt has run a number of articles about the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) currently taking place in Dubai. 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. Against that background, a story published by the Center for Democracy & Technology about the ITU's work in the area of standards takes on an extra significance: The telecommunications standards arm of the U.N. has quietly endorsed the standardization of technologies that could give governments and companies the ability to sift through all of an Internet user's traffic -- including emails, banking transactions, and voice calls -- without adequate privacy safeguards. The move suggests that some governments hope for a world where even encrypted communications may not be safe from prying eyes. More here http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/workprog/wp_item.aspx?isn=7082 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/06/dpi_standard_leaked/ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2229964/itu-approves-deep-packet-i… _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

MINUTES OF ISOC KENYA CHAPTER MEMBERS MEETING HELD ON 1ST DE
by Liz Orembo 06 Dec '12

06 Dec '12

Listers, Kindly find the minutes of the last meeting attached. -- Best regards.

2 1

CYBER SECURITY
by kelvin githira 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

Below is the link to the program http://www.cybersecurityafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl… -------------------------------------------------- The East Africa Cyber Security Convention 2012 Theme: "Combating Cyber Crime threats in East Africa" Venue:Laico Regency Hotel Nairobi Kenya Dates: 4th - 5th December, 2012 Website: http://www.cybersecurityafrica.com

2 1

Re: [ISOC_KE] WCIT DAY 1: Internet Users Shouldn’t Have to Pay the Price of This International Treaty
by Sally Wentworth 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

Many thanks! I'm glad you like it - hard to translate the ITRs to real life so I'm glad to hear that the example worked. Cheers, Sally Sally Wentworth Internet Society +1 703 439 2146 wentworth(a)isoc.org www.isoc.org On Dec 4, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Davis Onsakia wrote: > Dear Grace, > > This is a very nice piece done in a nice and easy to understand way explaining ITRs and clearly demonstrating (through a running example) the import of whatever might happen in Dubai. > > Great piece Sally! Very insightful indeed. > > Regards and many thanks, > Davis M Onsakia > > 'The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for.' - Maureen Dowd > From: Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga(a)hotmail.com> > To: "kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke" <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>; "isoc(a)lists.my.co.ke" <isoc(a)lists.my.co.ke> > Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:28 AM > Subject: [ISOC_KE] WCIT DAY 1: Internet Users Shouldn’t Have to Pay the Price of This International Treaty > > An op-ed by Sally Shipman Wentworth, Internet Society (ISOC) > > "Contrary to some headlines: The UN is not trying to “take over the Internet.” > But this treaty could fundamentally alter the way traffic flows across the Internet, and may even create new barriers to access. This is because some of the signatory nations have suggested the treaty not be limited to telecommunications traffic but should be expanded to include regulations for Internet traffic. In this case, the WCIT presents an opportunity for governments to reintroduce old regulations and maybe apply a more centralized nation-based order to the Internet.". > > http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/internet-users-shouldnt-have-to-pay-th… > > _______________________________________________ > isoc mailing list > isoc(a)lists.my.co.ke > http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc > >

1 0

WCIT DAY 1: Internet Users Shouldn’t Have to Pay the Price of This International Treaty
by Grace Githaiga 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

An op-ed by Sally Shipman Wentworth, Internet Society (ISOC) "Contrary to some headlines: The UN is not trying to “take over the Internet.”But this treaty could fundamentally alter the way traffic flows across the Internet, and may even create new barriers to access. This is because some of the signatory nations have suggested the treaty not be limited to telecommunications traffic but should be expanded to include regulations for Internet traffic. In this case, the WCIT presents an opportunity for governments to reintroduce old regulations and maybe apply a more centralized nation-based order to the Internet.". http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/internet-users-shouldnt-have-to-pay-th…

1 0