ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WCIT outcome?

2013-01-02 07:19:10
At 4:33 AM -0800 1/2/13, SM wrote:
At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have a consensus. This

There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has its own meaning for that word.

No, it isn't that. I have been in too many meetings like this. The reason it is done is because of what the chair wants. I remember one standard where the stack of comments on the document was two feet high. Normally a tenth that many comments would have had the document going for a second ballot rather than progressing. Since most wanted it to progress even if it was probably severely flawed after all those changes, it was done.

No, this is not a case of different groups having different rules. It is a case of chair getting what he wanted.


;-) Why is that daunting? ;-) I hear that excuse often. If we had had that attitude when we started this effort 40 years ago. We would still be patching the PSTN. There would be no Internet. Do you think the Internet was a success because we convinced IBM and AT&T it was a good idea?!! I am sorry to see that the younger generation is so faint of heart. Can't take a little challenge!

Nowadays it is called being pragmatic. The little challenge might be taking on the legacy. I wonder how many fairy tales are part of the legacy. :-)

Nice rationalization for your inaction. It has been used a lot throughout history. That doesn't change the facts. (BTW, a close inspection reveals that the legacy is all fairy tale.)

At 16:29 01-01-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
ITU-T has absolutely no control over the Internet unless member governments decide to give it that power. The importance of the protests was that they prevented the US and EU governments from agreeing to cede that power.

That might explain the the press releases about the WCIT discussions.

At 17:11 01-01-2013, John Day wrote:
doing some of these as well. The UN is a very weak confederation, so the question to consider is what aspects of *telecommunication* (not defense or commerce or anything else) does it make sense that there should be international regulation (or binding agreements)?

Y.2001 covers topics which affect commerce (I am ignoring other angles). There is leeway for expanding the scope beyond a narrow definition of telecommunication. Everybody will lobby for their pet project as there is an opportunity to do so.

Could you expand on this?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>