Thus spake Dan Kolis:
The general idea surely of the ITU came about exactly in the context of
limited frequencies and power, etc. So, fine. Coordination of this is
reasonable.
Well, when a nation makes laws and treaties obliging both its citizens and
itself to follow certain rules and standards, the nation expects a certain
degree of control over the development of said rules and standards. The
structure of the ITU (and ISO) is a reasonable design for that scenario.
By and large, compliance with Internet standards is voluntary and
self-motivated; this requires (allows?) a very different organizational
structure. However, in passing S. 877, the US Congress has for the first
time referenced "Internet Engineering Task Force Standards" (Sec 11.2) in a
law. For now, it is only as a suggestion to the FTC for rulemaking, not
directly mandating compliance, but if this is a sign of things to come...
Thus spake Franck Martin
Well to come back to my original comment, is that IETF, IANA and
ICANN by being "individual members" organisations do not have the
front of ITU, which is unfortunate as the Internet is not being done in
ITU.
Governments have to understand that and for that dissociate themselves
from the old telco concept...
If the Internet _were_ done in the ITU, it would look like the phone system,
and we'd still be stuck in the 1970's.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking