Re: OECD http://www.oecd.org/news_and_events/release/nw96-46a.htm

[Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>]

Ms. Kamata wrote:
>>The process of drafting the OECD Cryptography Policy Guidelines will
>>continue at an experts meeting in June and is due for completion in
>>early 1997.

Cryptography policy is a matter of vital public interest;
while I assume that actual participation will be limited by the
need for a small enough group to actually get work done,
the World-Wide Web makes it easy to publish working papers,
meeting agendas, drafts, and participant contact information
so that the public can keep track of what's being done.
There's a lot of broad-level material on your web site (I enjoyed the 
perspective of http://www.oecd.org/dsti/iccp/legal/top-page.html),
but it would be a substantial benefit to the community to
provide the in-depth material as well.

At 08:39 PM 6/6/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote, replying to Ms. Kamata's
press release:
>>OECD EXPERTS BEGIN DRAFTING CRYPTOGRAPHY GUIDELINES 
>>Many governments are under pressure within their own countries to
>>develop a national position on cryptography, 
>
>If anything, it's exactly the opposite:  It is the GOVERNMENTS and
>those who hold government jobs who are doing the "pressuring."   
>I haven't seen more than a trickle of desire for a 
>"national position on cryptography."  What Internet-people want is the 
>ELIMINATION of a "national position on cryptography," I think.

Most governments already have a "national position", restricting
cryptography in ways that violate free speech by their citizenry
and interfere with commerce to varying degrees.  The US has been
one of the more egregious violators in this case, since US companies
and products dominate the software industry, and national police organs
have been strongly opposing the industry's attempts to provide decent
security for communications.  Industry, on the other hand, has been
pressuring government to allow at least enough security to prevent
massive fraud and theft and protect proprietary business communications;
some parts of industry are willing to compromise if they get this much
(perhaps with the added bribe of government contracts to make up for
lost opportunities in the free market), while other parts (especially
smaller companies, where the costs of bureaucratic compliance 
have more effect, and where proprietors can speak for the company)
take a far stronger view, that freedom of speech cannot be compromised.

>>But the needs of global technologies and applications require an 
>>international --rather than a strictly national -- approach to 
>>policymaking.  The fast-paced development of the Global Information 
>>Infrastructure adds an element of urgency.

The global characteristics of technology render strictly national
policymaking increasingly obsolete, because any individual in a free
or semi-free computerized country can develop software like PGP
which can at most be blocked by vigorous local government action.
There are two added forms of urgency - the critical need for security for
electronic commerce, which is growing rapidly and increasingly in conflict
with nationalist military policies, and the increasing deployment of
technology which reduces government control.

>>The private sector is closely involved in drafting the Guidelines,
>>with business representatives from the Business and Industry Advisory
>>Committee (BIAC) participating at the meeting. 
>>The OECD meeting, which took place on 8 May, was hosted by the US
>>Department of State in Washington DC.

Was the meeting announced to at least the public in advance?
The schedule on the web page mentioned the 8 May meeting,
at least after the fact, but does not list any of the following
meetings, and there's no identification of your BIAC committee's
members or even the member governments participating.

                Thanks!
#				Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# http://www.idiom.com/~wcs
#				Rescind Authority!