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 th
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 limi
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.
Regard
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:27 AM, John Levine 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 togeth
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Nick Hilliard 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
> resources, cou
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 shor
On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:27 AM, John Levine 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 contrary, actually. I bel
On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:27 AM, John Levine 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 toge
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
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 spect
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
>> 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 ne
On Jan 13, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Barry Shein 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? The internet
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) wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2013, a
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 tra
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 p
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 abo
On 1/13/13, John R. Levine 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 from ITU-T t
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 thre
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
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 mon
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:49:59PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" 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 w
On 1/12/2013 11:07 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, "John Levine" 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 IETF budget?
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, "John Levine" 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 budget?
Rel
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" 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 pe
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:59 PM, 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.
-Bill
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 hu
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine 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
>>> 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 like
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
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 member
31 matches
Mail list logo