> > Both ETSI and ITU fullfill these criteria that were discussed in
> > POISSON already sometime ago.
>
>The criteria are rigged. ETSI and the ITU are being made part of the
>PSO because they are signatories to the gTLD/MoU. The PSO is nothing
Michael,
They conveniently overlooked some things. The MoU has the
following requirements:
Open international voluntary standards bodies are defined as
international organizations that plan, develop or establish
voluntary standards.
An organization shall be considered open and international if
its standards and/or specifications development process is
open to any person or organization of any nationality on equitable
terms. It shall be considered voluntary if it makes no claim to
compel use of its standards and specifications."
The ITU as an intergovernmental organization, only allows
member governments to participate "of right." Everyone
else must follow certain procedures in Art. 19 of the ITU
Convention. Only governments have a final say on standards.
There is no mechanisms for any person to participate, and
the terms of participation require annual payments that are
so great as to effectively preclude the participation of even
small companies. In addition, the ITU requires that to
participate, the national administration having jurisdiction
over the organization must approve.
ETSI's requirements are not quite is rigorous, but participation
is hardly open, and I'm not aware in any case, it's open to persons;
and the financial requirements are significant.
In the case of the ITU, the International Telecommunication
Regulations - a treaty instrument in force - compels that
"administrations* should comply with, to the greatest extent
practicable, the relevant CCITT Recommendations." See Art. 1
para 1.6. In many countries, the ITU standards are obligatory.
Similarly, many of ETSI's standards are obligatory in many
European Union jurisdictions. For that reason, neither body
has ever in the past been regarded as a "voluntary" standards
body.
But these are just additional examples of ICANN violating
their basic instruments and IETF conveniently looking the
other way. It's misfeasance to matter how you cut it.
--tony
