This week saw a valiant attempt by the Internet Society to regain the initiative on IPV6 from the ITU whose committees have been setting the pace on the standards of the future on behalf of those, like the Chinese, who need not only the additional addressing capability but also the added functionality and security for a world of ubiquitous high speed broadband. The news cover is narrowly techie or luke warm
Is ISOC too late, given the way that “vulnerability exploitation” tools like Flame are being used to exploit the weaknesses of the higgledy-piggledy “security” overlays necessitated by the address limitations of IPV4? Do ISOC, ICANN and the Internet Governance Forum still have the political backing necessary to see off the ITU and win the coming cyberwar ?
Given the failure of the EU and UK (DCMS, BIS et al) to take IPV6 seriously and given their failure to distinguish between electronic addresses, electronic identities and electronic signatures I fear not. The latest plans for a European “regulation” on electronic identities appears sympomatic of a fundamental failure of vision. They are at arms length from the Commission’s bid to also regulate the Internet of Things . Meanwhile the DCMS has kicked the overdue Communications Green Paper into touch, launching instead a series of seminars to discuss the issues of the past while those of the future, including the City of Things are determined elsewhere. I fear that, on current form, “elsewhere” may well be an unreformed ITU.