On 14/01/2013 22:42, Owen DeLong wrote:
Those countries that have done so have largely done so because they
got lucky with visionary regulators that were motivated more by doing
right by the country and its citizens rather than maximizing personal
immediate gains. In many cases, this was the
The regulatory side of ITU-T is responsible for much of the damaging legacy
Telecom attitude of revenue entitlement.
I think defunding that and seeing what is developed in its place might well be
a good thing.
Owen
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On
On Jan 13, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
Even if there were no ITU we'd have to invent one, to paraphrase
Voltaire's quip about God.
There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee
international settlements and other, similar, regulations.
Why?
There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee
international settlements and other, similar, regulations.
Why? The internet has operated just fine without such for quite some time
now.
The Internet is held together with spit and duct tape, and sucks for
connections that need a
On 14/01/2013 15:27, John Levine wrote:
The Internet does what it does surprisingly well, but it's not the
same kind of network as the phone system. We all know of the abuses
that can come with mandatory interconnection and settlements, but the
solution is not to cut off the poor countries.
I'm of the camp that says that, in large measure, the only beneficial
elements of international telecommunications agreements have been to
define an international band plan for the radio spectrum. That was,
afterall, the principal reason these treaties were signed, to prevent
chaos within the
A point of clarification:
On 1/14/13 7:46 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
I'm of the camp that says that, in large measure, the only beneficial
elements of international telecommunications agreements have been to
define an international band plan for the radio spectrum. That was,
afterall, the
On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:27 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee
international settlements and other, similar, regulations.
Why? The internet has operated just fine without such for quite some time
now.
The Internet is held
On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:27 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
The solution is not to cut off the poor countries.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe that defunding the ITU would
cut off the poor countries.
Quite the
On 14/01/2013 19:23, Bill Woodcock wrote:
The ITU bleeds poor countries dry, by keeping communications costs
exorbitantly high,
Whoa. What bleeds poor countries dry is bad management of national
resources, coupled with inherent kleptocracy, massive corruption and
stifling regulation. In
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 14/01/2013 19:23, Bill Woodcock wrote:
The ITU bleeds poor countries dry, by keeping communications costs
exorbitantly high,
Whoa. What bleeds poor countries dry is bad management of national
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:27 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee
international settlements and other, similar, regulations.
Why? The internet has operated just fine without such for quite some time
now.
The Internet is held
1. I generally agree that the Internet has too much spit and duct tape, however;
2. Siccing the ITU on that problem - or allowing them near it - would
be a disaster of a magnitude not often seen in human affairs.
No disagreement there. The Internet isn't designed to be a phone network.
On 1/14/13 11:23 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
... The ITU ...
How shall states determine what harms are lawfully attempted, and what
harms are not lawfully attempted? Shall there be a treaty concerning
cyber strife between states, or shall cyber strife between states
be without treaty based limits?
On 1/12/2013 11:07 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
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.
Relative to the $2M/year
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:49:59PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com 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
and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved.
Trivial to whom? Is $11M/year trivial relative to the $181M/year ITU
budget? Relative to the $2M/year IETF budget? Relative to the
$600K/year budget of NANOG?
Trivial to the US government, who's appropriating the
On Jan 13, 2013, at 7:54 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Since it is possible to fund -by sector-, there is no good reason to tar the
entire Union with the same brush.
Bill, please read the petition before attempting to comment on it.
Again, the petition specifically excludes ITU-R,
On 1/12/2013 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work.
-R is excluded from the petition. (From a number of postings, it appears
that many folk haven't noticed that.)
I don't know anything about -D.
In the interest of adding some core information to the
On 1/13/13, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
If I were trying to think of a way to totally destroy the effectiveness of
the IETF, loading it up with millions of dollars that come with political
strings attached would be about the best one I could imagine. Congrats.
Yes, please redirect
Even if there were no ITU we'd have to invent one, to paraphrase
Voltaire's quip about God.
There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee
international settlements and other, similar, regulations.
And it would probably end up being about the same because who'd be
involved but
On 1/12/13 10:49 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
... serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down ...
Bill,
I don't accept the premise that (a) the settlement free peering model
as modernly practiced can not also be characterized as problematic,
and that (b) the intents (note the
Some people have asked about the ITU-D. The -D stands for
Development, but it could also stand for Discuss. This is the arm
of the ITU that does capacity building and outreach of various sorts.
There are four programs in D, including one that focuses on operational
aspects and another on
Please consider signing this petition:
http://DeFundTheITU.org
…so we can stop paying for both sides of this idiotic fight. Note that if the
U.S. pulls its funding from the ITU, that's 10%, and if all of the countries
that stood with us at the WCIT do so, that would be 74% of the ITU's
On Saturday, January 12, 2013, james jones wrote:
And done!
On Saturday, January 12, 2013, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Please consider signing this petition:
http://DeFundTheITU.org
…so we can stop paying for both sides of this idiotic fight. Note that
if the U.S. pulls its funding from the
Please consider signing this petition:
http://DeFundTheITU.org
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
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine jo...@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
its not that black/white. The ITU-R is actually -very- useful and does a
really good job of coordinating spectrum
use and has for many years. The ITU-T, however is questionable. It is
possible to fund by sector, so a blanket
defunding for the entire ITU, as outlined in this petition, is a
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:59 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
its not that black/white. The ITU-R is actually -very- useful
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that, but we can't withdraw from it, which
is why it's called out as an exception in the petition.
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com 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
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
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.
Trivial to whom? Is $11M/year trivial relative to the $181M/year ITU
31 matches
Mail list logo
