Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day <[e-mail]>]

At 4:33 AM -0800 1/2/13, SM wrote:
>At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
>>jumped all over.  Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have 
>>a consensus.  This
>
>There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has 
>its own meaning for that word.

No, it isn't that.  I have been in too many meetings like this.  The 
reason it is done is because of what the chair wants.  I remember one 
standard where the stack of comments on the document was two feet 
high.  Normally a tenth that many comments would have had the 
document going for a second ballot rather than progressing.  Since 
most wanted it to progress even if it was probably severely flawed 
after all those changes, it was done.

No, this is not a case of different groups having different rules. 
It is a case of chair getting what he wanted.

>
>>;-)  Why is that daunting?  ;-)  I hear that excuse often.  If we 
>>had had that attitude when we started this effort 40 years ago.  We 
>>would still be patching the PSTN.  There would be no Internet. Do 
>>you think the Internet was a success because we convinced IBM and 
>>AT&T it was a good idea?!!  I am sorry to see that the younger 
>>generation is so faint of heart.  Can't take a little challenge!
>
>Nowadays it is called being pragmatic.  The little challenge might 
>be taking on the legacy.  I wonder how many fairy tales are part of 
>the legacy. :-)

Nice rationalization for your inaction.  It has been used a lot 
throughout history.  That doesn't change the facts. (BTW, a close 
inspection reveals that the legacy is all fairy tale.)

>At 16:29 01-01-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>ITU-T has absolutely no control over the Internet unless member 
>>governments decide to give it that power. The importance of the 
>>protests was that they prevented the US and EU governments from 
>>agreeing to cede that power.
>
>That might explain the the press releases about the WCIT discussions.
>
>At 17:11 01-01-2013, John Day wrote:
>>doing some of these as well.  The UN is a very weak confederation, 
>>so the question to consider is what aspects of *telecommunication* 
>>(not defense or commerce or anything else) does it make sense that 
>>there should be international regulation (or binding agreements)?
>
>Y.2001 covers topics which affect commerce (I am ignoring other 
>angles).  There is leeway for expanding the scope beyond a narrow 
>definition of telecommunication.  Everybody will lobby for their pet 
>project as there is an opportunity to do so.

Could you expand on this?