Having very recently visited the ITU in Geneva, I am now absolutely certain that it is a purely administrative body with no power or desire to participate materially in technical matters and no technical capability to contribute. The organization's definition of due diligence is to run meetings, maintain registries, and execute the recommendation process. The lack of due diligence rests strongly with Study Groups and Working Parties. There is, in my opinion, no way to affect outcomes by working through the ITU directly.
To me this means working with and helping delegations from Canada, the UK, etc., that have objected to the proposed change. Since few of the ITU member countries serve on SG7, we might also try to educate other delegations that can still contribute to the final judgement. I asked how stakeholders could challenge SG leadership assertion that concerns were not technical and therefore not eligible for consideration. The answer was that there is no way, and, as I reported, an SG chairman can forward anything after two failures to achieve consensus. This is the equivalent of the Polish Sejm in the early 16th century. The wealthy Magnates established Szlachta, the privilege of liberum veto. The king was selected generally from outside Poland. His privileges were severely limited, and the monarchy was not hereditary. Any Magnate could alone diminish the common good with overpowering, peremptory veto. Dave Finkleman Senior Scientist Center for Space Standards and Innovation Analytical Graphics, Inc. 7150 Campus Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80920 Phone: 719-510-8282 or 719-321-4780 Fax: 719-573-9079 Discover CSSI data downloads, technical webinars, publications, and outreach events at www.CenterForSpace.com. -----Original Message----- _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
