nanog mailing list archives
Re: De-funding the ITU
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred () cisco com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:04:41 +0000
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
Please learn a little more about the ITU before doing so. There is more to the ITU than the dysfunctional ITU-T, and the political fallout from the US being seen as a big rich bully taking its wallet and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved.
On that I would agree. ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work. ITU-T does reasonable work, for the most part, in regulatory matters, which neither the IGF nor the IETF address. Frankly, if the ITU gets shut down, ITU-R, ITU-D, and the regulatory component of ITU-T will have to be re-created to accomplish those roles. Where we have travelled in circles with the ITU is in conflicting technical standardization and in the desire of ITU-T staff to take over certain functions from ICANN and the NRO. Shutting down the ITU would be in effect discarding the baby with the bathwater. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/pages/default.aspx http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Pages/default.aspx
Current thread:
- De-funding the ITU Bill Woodcock (Jan 12)
- Message not available
- Re: De-funding the ITU james jones (Jan 12)
- Message not available
- Re: De-funding the ITU bmanning (Jan 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: De-funding the ITU John Levine (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Fred Baker (fred) (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Bill Woodcock (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU bmanning (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Bill Woodcock (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Barry Shein (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Owen DeLong (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU John Levine (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Nick Hilliard (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Wayne E Bouchard (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Eliot Lear (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Fred Baker (fred) (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Owen DeLong (Jan 14)
