Hi!
On 12/29/12 4:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:jmamodio(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union
before AG Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of
telecommunications and the Internet puts ITU with its current
behavior in the path of becoming obsolete and extinct, but you can't
discount many positive contributions particularly from the standards
section.
The original purpose was to stop consumers from reducing their telegraph
bills by adopting codes.
Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore), and one of
the task the ITU actually has performed very well, being a positive and
constructive player.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read in the past that one of the
first events that brought up the need for spectrum regulation, and thus
ushered in the role of the ITU in it was the Titanic disaster.
As the multistakeholder model and its associated processes, which is
far from perfect, continues to evolve, ITU must be part of the
evolution. The issue is that as an organization they must
accommodate and realize that now they are "part of it" and not "it"
anymore.
ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an
end. There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its
own sake.
+1. I do believe the ITU still has a lot of potential for good, but
sadly, the debate within the ITU has been hijacked by those who claim to
defend human rights and fairness while their actual actions say otherwise.
Many parts of the world do not understand the difference between a
standard and a regulation or law. Which is why they see control points
that don't worry us. I do not see a problem with the US control of the
IPv6 address supply because I know that it is very very easy to defeat
that control. ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can
obviously pass laws that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address
blocks that would reach certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al.
say to the contrary. But absent a deployed BGP security infrastructure,
that has no effect since the rest of the planet is not going to observe
a US embargo.
+1.
I can see that and most IETF-ers can see that. But the diplomats
representing Russia and China cannot apparently. Which is probably not
surprising given the type of education their upper classes (sorry
children of party bosses) receive.
Here I don't agree. I believe they play dumb but actually according to
their interests.
Warm regards,
~Carlos