| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
So, Why not the ITU?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 15 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
RFassett writes:Yet, it achieves funding by way of country contributions... It is interesting to compare and contrast this with the previous ICANNWatch article regarding the GAC bailout. As Dan Steinberg says, they are voting with their checkbooks. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Anyone who supports individual participation in ICANN in any meaningful sense needs to keep in mind that the mechanism for participation in ITU is membership in major industry bodies (generally with very high membership dues and strict qualifications) or governments.
Adopting the ITU or its models as having a major role in ICANN policy would be a dramatic and probably irreversible step in the opposite direction from individual participation or the level of involvement currently seen by the constituencies of the SOs. As broken as the current participation model is, involving the ITU or adopting its practices would almost inevitably move such participation from "limited" to "zero".
It's the absolute wrong answer for anyone who supports the At-Large in any form.
Among techies, the ITU is seen as so bureaucratic and hidebound that the Internet was literally invented in spite of it. Any technical standard or policy that isn't explicitly acceptable to its members-- the telecom establishment in its member countries-- does not ever get out of the maze of committees and document-drafting task forces. Its means of "protecting the public interest" does not include asking the public in any form what that might be, simply trusting its members to represent them.
There's much that's broken about ICANN's policy mechanisms. The fact that they were drafted in part deliberately to avoid having ICANN become the ITU over again is not one of them.
Other than that, it's a fine idea.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
>Anyone who supports individual participation in ICANN in any meaningful sense needs to keep in mind
> that the mechanism for participation in ITU is membership in major industry bodies
>(generally with very high membership dues and strict qualifications) or governments.
I'm not aware of any particularly strict qualifications. Membership fees for ITU range from US $ 7'000 per year to US $ 21'000 per year, depending on the option.
A number of public-interest and user groups are members of ITU. Membership fees are typically waived for such organizations.
>Among techies, the ITU is seen as so bureaucratic and hidebound that the Internet was literally invented
> in spite of it.
This is primarly true of the "old guard". Younger people tend to be aware of the very significant streamlining of ITU procedures that has taken place. For example, formal approval of a technical specification can now be given after a 12-week online approval process. This is one of the fastest formal approval processes of any standardization organization.
> Any technical standard or policy that isn't explicitly acceptable to its members--
>the telecom establishment in its member countries--
>does not ever get out of the maze of committees and document-drafting task forces.
It is correct that the ITU operates by consensus, so standards are only approved if there is a consensus in favor of them.
The current membership of ITU consists of many well-known Internet players such as Cisco, Sun, AOL, Worldcom, etc. and not just "old line" telecom operators.
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: richard.hill@itu.int
Study Group 2 email: tsbsg2@itu.int
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
Very simple. The US Government has no interest in giving the ITU any say in the Internet.
Just imagine the reaction of the US Congress or Dubya should the Dept. of Commerce give the ITU any significant say in ICANN...
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
