On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Seth Johnson
<seth(_dot_)p(_dot_)johnson(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think one key aspect will be that the
activity has to cover ground that the other activities not only aren't
covering, but can't easily expand to cover.
A lesson learned. But for all of us, the good thing is at least that
now there's a new chance to proceed properly. NMI had to discover
this piece of hubris for itself. (Of course it's not clear yet we will
proceed in a better way.)
The core problems are representation and accountability. To understand
whose interests any proposed body would represent have to understand who
would appoint and dismiss them.
The problem with communications governance is that the politicians are the
principal party that the people need protection from. And not just in the
third world either. Google 'Elm Guest House Monday Club' to see one example
why.
It is not widely known but the ITU has its origins in a cartel of telegraph
companies who were anxious to stamp out the use of 'codes' to shorten
messages in the days when you paid by the word. Not only has it never
represented the interests of the users, it was set up for precisely the
opposite reason.