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?