On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:49:59PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work.
>
> Care to try to cite an example? R we can't pull out of because NRO needs its
> slots. I'm not sure that constitutes "good work." It's minor
> ledger-keeping, and that's why it's excluded from the petition.
beside the NRO (the real one), DoD and the FCC and NTIA are all
invested in a working ITU-R - there is
something to be said for products that work outside the US borders as
well as within.
>
> > Shutting down the ITU would be in effect discarding the baby with the
> > bathwater.
>
> You're being awfully naive, Fred. It's a 147-year-old, $180M/year baby with
> a serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down so that it
> can go back to doing things the way it was before we all showed up. I expect
> you think you're being sophisticated and taking a nuanced view or some such,
> but you aren't. Note that the _entire_ congress disagrees with you. Not a
> single vote in favor of the ITU in S. Con. Res. 50 or H. Con. Res. 127. And
> if you think that any of the Internet agrees with you, you should take a look
> at Reddit sometime.
it is true that among the public, congress has a lower approval rating
than cockroaches (at least according
to NPR). I understand a little of your vitriol, but since it is
possible to fund -by sector-, there is
no good reason to tar the entire Union with the same brush.
> -Bill
/bill
