Hi! On 12/29/12 4:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:jmamodio@xxxxxxxxx>> 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