Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1626
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, March 10 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1626

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:36 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest posting

Joe's latest posting contains his usual careless reasoning.

Joe's endorsement of ICANN assumes that it is OK for USG to control the DNS
via its ICANN quango. This false assumption colours his reasoning, because
it means he commences from erroneous premisses to conclusions which have
little relevance to the arguments of others.

I will admit that Joe's logic is sometimes coherent, but it is logic
confined within an alternative universe : a universe of US supremacy which
presupposes the right of the US to "do what it likes just because it can".

In this momentous week, of all weeks, Joe Sims fails to understand the
offence caused internationally by the failure of USG to share
decision-making with other nation states.

ICANN is less appropriate than other alternatives because ICANN is
accountable primarily to USG, and exists only as an expression of American
control of the DNS. The GAC does not determine the existence of ICANN, the
DoC does.

What allows America the "God-given right" to appoint ICANN, define ICANN,
and dismiss ICANN? It is this failure to recognise the underlying
illegitimacy of ICANN - its lack of accountability to the rest of the
world - that renders Joe's arguments weak and supine.

It is absolutely obvious that the administration of the DNS should be
overseen by the whole international community, and that decisions about the
appropriateness of ICANN should not be reserved for DoC and USG.

It is a great shame, but as in International Affairs generally at this point
in history, what can be observed is the arrogance of power, the loose and
false assumptions of moral self-righteousness, the cloying self-pitying of a
selfish and spoilt element within a dominant society, the sentimental
Disneyesque shallowness of a section of culture that is founded on easy
answers and money-driven cheap and transient values. It is crass but it
cannot perceive itself for what it is.

In the context of ICANN, Joe Sims seems to me to be the epitome of a
bullying, arrogant Americanism which sickens other nations, with its cynical
abandonment of other people's arguments and interests.

I do not speak of ordinary American people, many of whom are my friends, but
of those who obsess on power and control, and prevail under the present
administration.

The failure of America to work *with* the rest of the world, the bull-dozing
contempt for international process, the "top-down" domination of structures
which reach out globally and impact the rest of us... you can see it all in
ICANN.

Little wonder that voices of dissent call for ICANN to have its mandate
removed, and call for a just and transparent administration of the DNS that
is accountable *not* to one nation, but to the community of nations...

The Internet belongs to the whole world.

So why should ICANN be an appointment of the DoC?

Sorry Joe, but you just don't get the central fault-line. If you can't see
the fault-line which divides USG / ICANN from the rest of us, then no
logical process on your part will seem like more than spin and
self-interest. You will simply be talking to your own clique, with power as
your pretext. You fail to persuade people, because you assume the right to
control.

We need a DNS administration which is ceded to a body beyond the control of
America alone.

Otherwise, it's just more Empire, just more 'new American century'.

There's no accountability to the rest of the world.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Sims <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 5:03 PM
Subject: [ga] Karl's latest posting

> Karl's latest posting contains his usual careless reasoning.
>
> He says that the Internet user community is not present in either ICANN or
> the ITU.  Of course, he means by "internet user community" only that
> portion that does not include those segments of the community that he
> constantly ignores -- providers, industry, education, non-commercial orgs.
> In other words, the portion that is not present, according to Karl, is
> individuals acting as individuals.  This may or may not be correct -- it
> depends on whether you accept his nonsensical comparison of the various
> ways for individuals to express their views in ICANN to village soviets --
> but it certainly is not the case that the "internet user community" is not
> present in both organizations.  It certainly is present in both, although
> more visibly and with more authority in ICANN.
>
> Then he asserts that, since the government role is larger in the ITU than
> in ICANN, the ITU would be the preferred forum for the "internet user
> community" as he defines it because the governmental role is (1) less
> diluted and (2) more formalized in the ITU than in ICANN.  The first point
> is probably correct; governments absolutely control ITU decisions and only
> exercise significant influence on ICANN decisions.  However, many people
> (including large portions of the actual "internet user community," in
> contrast to the one Karl sees) think this is a comparative advantage of
> ICANN.  The second point is utter nonsense, and demonstrates a pretty
> critical lack of understanding of how governments work.  Does Karl
actually
> believe that Nancy Victory is not "clearly credentialed" by the US
> government when she sits at the GAC?  Or that Sharil Tarmizi, the current
> Chair of the GAC, is not a legitimate government representative?  How does
> Karl think that governmental delegates to the ITU get selected, and
exactly
> how does he think that differs from the selection process for GAC
> representatives?  Does Karl believe that he can exercise more influence
> over Nancy Victory in her activities at the ITU, or of the representative
> from the State Department who is the US delegate to certain ITU fora, than
> he can with respect to the US's activities at ICANN?   I suspect that
> Karl's real problem is that he does not seem to be able to influence
> anyone, including governmental representatives, but I do not think that is
> a function of the forum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:15:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest posting

On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Joe Sims wrote:

> Karl's latest posting contains his usual careless reasoning.

Ah, I remember when Sims called me an "idiot" and claimed that my lawsuit
against ICANN was without merit.  As it turned out, an impartial judge did
find ICANN's actions clearly unlawful and that they compared poorly
against the already ultimately poor standard of Enron.  See
http://www.eff.org/Infra/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/Auerbach_v_ICANN/

One might hope that Sims would be honorable enough to admit that he erred.

A general matter, I find that I must dismiss Sim's comments as emotional
outbursts rather than as thoughtful opinions made with due consideration
of the concerns and interests of his client(s).  I know that Sims is
capable of intelligent decisions, I have seen him do it ... on occasion.
But unfortunately, such occasions are becoming increasingly rare.  I have
received comments from people in the legal community that express
embarrassment at these outbursts from one who was once a highly respected
member of the legal community.

One might wonder at the motiviation behind Joe Sims' statements.  How much
money has he made from ICANN's existance?  How much more money will he
continue to make, even if he withdraws from ICANN has he claims he will,
as ICANN continues to pay fees, on the order of a million dollars a year,
into his law firm?

If ICANN were to lose part of its role to the ITU, then one might expect
that ICANN wouldn't be paying as much to Sims's firm and thus Sims'
portion or the receipts would drop accordingly.

And looking at it from the ICANN perspective - Has ICANN received value
for the money it has spent on Sims?  I have looked at many of ICANN's
records, and have examined much of Sims' work product.  My own business
judgement is that ICANN has not received value for its money.

(Lest my brush be too wide, Sim's law firm is cable of very high quality
work.  I am very impressed with JDRP people like Jeff LeVee.  And some of 
the work from lower level attorneys at the firm has been top notch and has 
exhibited efforts that are to be lauded.  However, as Benjamin Franklin 
said: "The rotten apple spoils the barrel.")

>From Sim's comment it appears that Sims considers that we citizens have no
power to affect the activities of our government.  There is some truth to
that - with paid advocates like Sims lurking around behind the scenes and
wandering in and out of Nancy Victory's office, there is indeed a question
of whether a mere citizen can have an effect or whether governments of
today are captured by highly paid lobbyists and lawyers.

And again, lest the brush be too wide.  There are business advocates and
lawyers who, while attempting to influence, are also broadminded and who
attempt to find answers to hard questions.  There are people here on this
e-mail list who represent their companies and clients with honor and with
whom disagreement is a creative and constructive process in which both
sides come out with better answers and increased knowledge.

As for Nancy Victory's credentials to represent the United States - The
United States is a country of delegated powers and administrators, such as
Nancy Victory, obtain authority only via Congressional legislation or
delegation of Executive authority.  Neither of these occurs by telepathy.
Unless an explicit and express chain of delegation can be shown, the claim
of authority is specious.  I have been asking to see such a chain of
authority since the late 1990's - and I have not been alone in asking that
question, see http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf I
have yet to see an adequate answer.

And finally, Sims asks whether I have had an ability to influence anyone.
I believe I have.  Sims, however, appears to be afraid of testing the
question by the one test that is the hallmark of democratic systems - an
election.  If ICANN were to hold elections for board seats, it is likely
that I would win against any existing board member who chose to run
against me.  And does anyone doubt that I would win against Sims?

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:45:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, at 09:55 [=GMT+0100], [email-masked] wrote:

> ITU does not have contracts with telephone operators (except of course for
> the contracts we need to get telephone service for our premises).  What ITU
> does (for example, my administration of the telephone country codes) is
> specified in detail in a Recommendation (E.164.1 for the telephone codes).
> I follow the instructions in the Recommendation.  That service is provided
> at no cost.

Yes, but to read the text you mention, so that one knows how to apply, one
has to make a small investment. 20 Swiss Franks for 20 pages. All texts on
www.icann.org are still free.

> Most people don't know about it, but there are actually non-national
> telephone country codes.  These are assigned (by me, in accordance with
> Recommendation E.164.1), on the basis of what I would call minimal technical
> requirements.  No business plans are required for an assignment.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:49:25 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

> Richard, I read your response to Marc Scheiders, which seems to be 
> an explanation of the ITU's operations
> and functional responsibilities, 

Understanding the ITU is very simple.  

All you have to do is read their charter:
http://www.itu.int/publications/docs/basictexts.html

...which is a bargain at only 60 Swiss Francs.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:21:13 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest posting

- --=======12A9774B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1AA2741; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 18:03 09/03/03, Joe Sims wrote:
>Does Karl actually believe that Nancy Victory is not "clearly 
>credentialed" by the US government when she sits at the GAC?

I am afraid this is a absolute anti-American non-sense.

ITU claims to have liberalized. OK. But I can testify that during 
monopolies days (early 80s) we (Tymnet as an FCC licenses Value-Added 
Record Carrier) were part of the US ITU delegation under Earl Barberley (as 
you know ITU delegation are conducted by the State Department). I can 
testify that:

1. we attended all the preparatory meetings in DC - where our most common 
rep was an Irish citizen.

2. I attended all the ITU meetings I wanted in Geneva - while being a 
French citizen

3. most of the work is carried during the preparatory meetings and in 
Geneva during the coffee breaks and through the notes forwards to the head 
of the delegation. I can testify that the mood was extremely open and 
transparent. On several occasions Eaerl defended our position in minutes. 
Not years not to update a ccTLD IP in the root!!!

4. I can testify that users concerns (both large companies and end-users) 
where presented on an as relevant basis, defended and globally responded in 
occasion favorably during the next cession (the CCITT Group III was 
concerned by policy, rates... technical concerns in Group VII were 
discussed the same).

5. I can testify that our worldwide end-users (in the USA or from foreign 
countries) could easily build a case if of real interest and get it through 
the ISIS Club (data service monopoly/large private networks under our 
technology - so everyone in some direct or indirect way) in matter of a few 
months (due to the meeting dates) and that EVERYTHING was on the table. It 
was the same for the European users/manufacturer through the CEPT however 
more formal.

Obviously nothing is perfect. But ICANN's opacity and lack of competence 
was a real surprise to me until I understood that this technical US private 
agency was only staffed with lawyers.

jfc

- --=======12A9774B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1AA2741
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======12A9774B=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:05:31 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 11:38:24 +0100, you wrote:

>The current ICANN drift (cf. Vittorio's use in ITU document) towards 
>"national digital sovereignty" is extremely clever. Let compare:
>
>- State digital sovereignty. (...)
>
>- national digital sovereignty. This is a confuse concept (except when 
>speaking of the USA at large as a sovereign nation over the other nations - 
>one has to be a sovereign over something).

Are you sure you actually read my paper? By "national digital
sovereignty" I was meaning the exact opposite of what you have just
said, and there's no way you could misunderstand this by reading the
paper. Also, please point out where ICANN has supported my statement,
before calling it an "ICANN drift". In fact, my paper had a good and
explicit amount of criticism for ICANN too.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:22:18 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO/ICANN Board elections: Candidate's statement 

[To: [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

Please see Philip Sheppard's statement at:
http://www.dnso.org/nominees/statement_psh.html
Philip Sheppard is one of the nominees standing for ICANN Board elections.

GNSO Secretariat
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:20:39 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Responses to questions

I stated "the bulk of ITU-T's output consists of non-binding
Recommendations" and was asked whether the remainder of the output consists
of binding regulations.

The answer is no.  ITU-T has no mandate, or processes, or operating rules
that would allow it to develop regulations that are binding on either its
members or anybody else.

The remainder of ITU-T's output (besides Recommendations) consists of
tutorial material, called Supplements, Handbooks, proceedings of Workshops,
etc.

As many other standardization bodies (including ISO and IETF), ITU-T uses
the words "shall" and "must" in its Recommendations.  Recently, a concern
was raised that this could cause confusion, with people mistakenly thinking
that the Recommendation was somehow binding.  In order to ensure that there
is no confusion, the following statement will appear in the future on the
inside cover page of ITU-T Recommendations that use those words:

"Compliance with this Recommendation is voluntary.  However, the
Recommendation may contain certain mandatory provisions (to ensure e.g.
interoperability or applicability) and compliance with the Recommendation is
achieved when all of these mandatory provisions are met.  The words "shall"
or some other obligatory language such as "must" and the negative
equivalents when applied are used to express requirements. The use of such
words does not suggest, of itself, that compliance with the Recommendation
is required of any party."

In addition, a new item 7.5 has been added to Authors Guide for Drafting
ITU-T Recommendations: 

"7.5	An ITU-T Recommendation, by definition, is not mandatory -
compliance is voluntary. The use of the words "shall" and "must" and their
negatives "shall not" and "must not" are to be used with care and sparingly.
These words are only to be used to express mandatory provisions when
necessary to give the Recommendation meaning and effect. - i. e. if certain
values and/or parts of a Recommendation are essential and the Recommendation
will have no meaning if these values and/or parts are not strictly respected
or adhered to. Compliance with the Recommendation is achieved only when all
mandatory provisions are met. However the inclusion of mandatory provisions
in a Recommendation does not imply, of itself, that compliance with the
Recommendation is required of any party."

Separately, there have been some questions regarding the role of ITU-T
staff.  ITU-T staff act as organizers of meetings and facilitators of the
development and publication of Recommendations.  The staff does not write
the Recommendations.  The Recommendations are written by experts from the
membership.  The staff organizes, at the request of and under the direction
of Chairmen elected by the membership, the physical or electronic meetings
required to progress the work.  The staff also handles the physical side of
the publication process, such as translation, posting to the web, printing,
etc.  And it provides editorial support to the authors.

The staff works in accordance with pretty strict (in my opinion) rules which
are written by the membership.

For example, the interim procedures for ENUM, available at:

  http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/index.html

give pretty strict (again, in my opinion) instructions to me for what I have
to do when we get a request for an ENUM delegation.

Best,
Richard

- -----------------------------------------
Richard Hill
Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
tel: +41 22 730 5887
FAX: +41 22 730 5853
Email: [email-masked]
Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]
 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:18:38 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

- --=======4C8C2DCB=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-47CB4F60; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Vittorio,
I will not tell in a name oriented organization the weight of the words.

First, it happens that centuries, vocabulary and grammar have given a 
meaning to words and concepts.  If you want to speak about "States", do not 
use "nations".

But mainly I am afraid you did not understand the point. The point is the 
cleverness of the move which is to make a pro-ICANN concept to be 
introduced and supported by useful opponents. I know it is standard 
procedure (and you known it), I acknowledge when it is well done.

Now, to come back to your won document. What will be remembered from it 
will be:
- - you are part of the system as the ALAC Chair (ICANN entrusted you there)
- - you use confusing "national digital sovereignty" words (whatever you 
mean) which serve well the interests of the ICANN controlling minority and 
disserves @large, ccTLDs and ITU
- - you label yourself as an opponent, or at least as a reviser (cf. your 
text: I agree with some parts, cf. your reaction here). This way you give 
the feeling there is some kind of consensus.

IMHO you have two options. Either you truly believe in the "nation 
sovereignty" and you should be able to oppose me a construed doctrine, or 
to explain why I am wrong (what I certainly may be). Or they do not 
represent exactly what you mean, and all this will help you next time.

You know that I encouraged you to stay in the ICANN process. I am happy you 
did it (even if deeply dismayed by some of your ways). ICANN is many 
people: you are one of them now. Karl is going to go, you will be by your 
own and will replace him as the main @large rep. I have nothing 
against  cooperation with ICANN, but I wish not to compromise with those 
who do not serve its best interest. FIY I defined that best interest ad the 
global common interest of every - large or small - user.

jfc

At 10:05 10/03/03, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 11:38:24 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >The current ICANN drift (cf. Vittorio's use in ITU document) towards
> >"national digital sovereignty" is extremely clever. Let compare:
> >
> >- State digital sovereignty. (...)
> >
> >- national digital sovereignty. This is a confuse concept (except when
> >speaking of the USA at large as a sovereign nation over the other nations -
> >one has to be a sovereign over something).
>
>Are you sure you actually read my paper? By "national digital
>sovereignty" I was meaning the exact opposite of what you have just
>said, and there's no way you could misunderstand this by reading the
>paper. Also, please point out where ICANN has supported my statement,
>before calling it an "ICANN drift". In fact, my paper had a good and
>explicit amount of criticism for ICANN too.
>--
>vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
>-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======4C8C2DCB=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-47CB4F60
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======4C8C2DCB=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:28:19 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

See below for free access to the ITU Convention, Constitution, etc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 10 March 2003 5:49
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Richard, I read your response to Marc Scheiders, which seems to be 
> > an explanation of the ITU's operations
> > and functional responsibilities, 
> 
> Understanding the ITU is very simple.  
> 
> All you have to do is read their charter:
> http://www.itu.int/publications/docs/basictexts.html
> 
> ...which is a bargain at only 60 Swiss Francs.

They are also available for free in HTML format, at:

  http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/basic-texts/index.html

You can find that link from the page "About ITU", at:

  http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/index.html

Best,
Richard
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:31:41 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

Please see below for free access to ITU-T Recommendations.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 10 March 2003 4:46
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, at 09:55 [=GMT+0100], [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, but to read the text you mention, [ITU-T Recommendation E.164.1] so
that one
> knows how  to apply, one
> has to make a small investment. 20 Swiss Franks for 20 pages. 

Anybody can download up to three ITU-T Recommendations per year for free
from our web site.

I agree that this is not the same as IETF or ICANN where everything is
available for free.

Best,
Richard Hill
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:49:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, at 09:55 [=GMT+0100], [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > ITU does not have contracts with telephone operators (except of course for
> > the contracts we need to get telephone service for our premises).  What ITU
> > does (for example, my administration of the telephone country codes) is
> > specified in detail in a Recommendation (E.164.1 for the telephone codes).
> > I follow the instructions in the Recommendation.  That service is provided
> > at no cost.
>
> Yes, but to read the text you mention, so that one knows how to apply, one
> has to make a small investment. 20 Swiss Franks for 20 pages. All texts on
> www.icann.org are still free.

That's nonsense.  Paying money to find out the rules and qualifications to
join.  Thats not going to fly.

Has anyone gotten the application - send it on down - i'd love to read it
but am damed if I'm going to pay anything for the priviledge.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

     .scifi domain registration http://www.register.scifi

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:33:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment  s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> Anybody can download up to three ITU-T Recommendations per year for free
> from our web site.
>
> I agree that this is not the same as IETF or ICANN where everything is
> available for free.

Richard - may i make a recommendation to you.  To remain relevant in
cyberspace you can't put up roadblocks to propaganda.  The only people who
are going to be interested in it are indeed very small in number.  If you
want to be relevant to the internet community then you make your stuff
free.

This policy is one of those dino affairs.  Obvioulsy the ITU is run by
professional bureacrats which means in short interent twits.  this is not
an offence - it is a standard.  The common internet twit is someone who
knows to little about the internet - but who feel they know it all - and
as a result cause a great deal of fuss over nothing.  This is essentially
the state of affairs throughout the internet.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

  Can you see this domain http://www.baptista.god/

  if ANSWER = NO THEN U.S. government controls your surfing habits
  if ANSWER = YES THEN your a pioneer and you already know whats going on

      find out more http://www.pacificroot.com/ (Americas)
                 or http://www.newroot.com/ (Europa)

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:42:38 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, 08 March 2003 21:29
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> Richard, I read your response to Marc Scheiders, which seems 
> to be an explanation of the ITU's operations
> and functional responsibilities, and suggest that there is a 
> need for clarification in a few areas.  You are undoubtedly 
> describing part of the activities of the ITU, but for those 
> who are not fully informed of its core mission and 
> responsibilities, it may not be actually factually helpful 
> since it omits so much in your undoubtedly very well 
> intentioned effort to be brief.  

You are correct, ITU is a complex institution and it is hard to summarize in
a short E-Mail all the information contained on our web site.

> 
> 
> First, you seem to be saying that there is "no charge" for 
> some of the services of the ITU :-) 
>This could imply "free".  
> I think you mean that the particular service is subsidized by 
> member fees and that there is not a specific charge for it. 
> BUT, your comment could imply that the service is "free" and 
> indeed that the workshops are "free".  Your careful use of 
> the words "no charge" are factual. All services of the ITU, 
> like services of any organization, are paid for by someone. 

I struggled with the formulation.  I guess the correct statement is that we
provide services without charging fees for the specific service, because the
cost is covered by membership fees.  There are fees for a few services,
those fees are based on cost recovery.  But most services are covered by the
overall budget.

The costs of TSB (the secretariat for ITU-T) are covered approximately 52%
by the Member States (governments), 29% by Sector Members (industry), 17% by
sale of publications, and 2% by registration fees for Universal
International Freephone Numbers (that particular service is provided on a
cost-recovery basis, the applicants pay a fee).

> 
> Nor, perhaps fully informed of the rather substantial budget 
> shortfall faced by the ITU, as described at the ITU Plenipot 
> '02.  The Council of ITU is charged with addressing this 
> substantial -- as I recall, somewhere around $23m sf -- 
> budget shortfall and determining how to address this.

I've seen various ways of stating the budget reduction as a percentage.  The
number I retain is an 8% reduction over the four years from 2003 to 2006.

From what I've heard so far, there should be no significant impact on ITU-T,
which, as you know, is the smallest sector of ITU.

> 
> Secondly, while you are describing some of the ways in which 
> the ITU interacts with interested parties, via workshops, 
> forums, etc., you made no mention of the way that voting 
> takes place in the governing bodies of the ITU.

As you know the rules depend on the governing body.  Most bodies don't vote,
full consensus is required.

ITU-T Recommendations are approved by Study Groups only if there is no
opposition from any Member State.  That is, there has to be full consensus.

Most Recommendations are technical, and most of those are now going through
the new Alternative Approval Process.  In that process, Sector Members can
also block approval.

> The 
> description below didn't include a factual portrayal of how 
> decisions are actually taken in the policy bodies and treaty 
> conferences by the member states of the ITU, where, of 
> course, only member nations vote and where the sector members 
> or observers have no to extremely limited presence or voice. 

This is your characterization of the situation.  I have heard others state
that, in practice, the industry members exercise considerable influence on
the positions taken by the Member States.  I've also heard people state that
industry exercises considerable influence at the national level in certain
countries.  And that that influence gets reflected at the international
level, in bodies such as WTO, WIPO, ITU etc.

As stated above, ITU-T Recommendations are approved by Study Groups, not by
policy bodies or treaty conferences.

> Perhaps it is more helpful to be clear that your response 
> below seems to focus primarily if not solely on the workshops
> and forums which the ITU hosts, and does such a good job of 
> providing in a variety of areas related to telephony and 
> convergence, and international standards in those areas.  

As you say, ITU-T is addressing convergence issues, which includes work on
protocols for IP-based networks (that is the official ITU terminology for
Internet).

There are lots of examples.  xDSL is one of them.  X.509, which provides the
basis for PKI, is another.

The link:

  http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com13/ip/ietf-wg.html

provides a synoptic view of areas of common interest between ITU-T Study
Groups and IETF Working Groups.
 
> 
> Folks on this list have a wide range of familiarity with the 
> ITU, and its core purposes.  You and I have discussed this 
> many times, and you and I are in agreement that the concerned 
> parties related to the coordination of the technical aspects 
> of the global Internet do not work at the ITU on these 
> issues. There are many reasons for that, of course. 

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with that statement.  What I have said is that
greater participation in ITU-T would make sense if certain issues were to be
discussed in ITU-T.

> 
> However, Richard, I do wish to call your attention to a 
> concern I have with your email below. You rely on telephony 
> examples in how you explain the role of the ITU via telephony 
> and related convenience examples.

As you state above, not everybody knows the ITU.  ITU has certain
well-proven processes and procedures.  I use telephony as an example of how
those processes and procedures work in practice.  Apparently to the
satisfaction of all concerned, since I don't get complaints about the way
the international telephone country codes are allocated.

Similar processes and procedures are used in other areas, notably
radio-frequency allocations.

>>However, you seem to imply 
> [perhaps I misunderstand] that this extrapolates to the Internet.
> 
> I am not sure that your efforts to extrapolate from telephony 
> into the Internet are quite a "fit".

I'm not aware of extrapolating.  All I'm trying to do is to describe how
ITU-T works.

> 
> Finally, I offer one point, which others more expert than I 
> must validate. My understanding is that at the IETF, that one 
> participates as an individual, and that in fact, all 
> documents are publicly available. Of course, at the ITU, 
> there are both public documents, and then, there are the 
> documents which are available under subscription as a member. 

This is correct. IETF has no membership, ITU is a membership organization
(like W3C, IEE, ISO, and others).

IETF operates by "rough consensus", ITU-T requires full consensus.

> And, of course, during the course of treaty conferences, many 
> documents are not available at all until they are 
> finalized....

In my experience, drafts get circulated as soon as physically possible.
Sometimes that takes a day or two, given the volume of documents and the
number of participants.

Best,
Richard

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1626
*************************