[159508] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: De-funding the ITU
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker (fred))
Sun Jan 13 00:06:04 2013
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:04:41 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20130113041722.50261.qmail@joyce.lan>
Cc: "<nanog@nanog.org>" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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 re=
asonable 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 accomp=
lish those roles. Where we have travelled in circles with the ITU is in con=
flicting 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=
