<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] ITU debate
fpardon the delayed posting but i have been travelling
today....
frankly, I do not believe that non-council members should be
able to use this maillist as a forum in the manner like this.
if Philip wants to post to the individual members I have no
problem with this, but this post does not belong on the dnso names council
maillist.
this is not a forum for discussion about the ITU.
this sets a very bad precedent and should be strongly
discouraged
ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 5:03
AM
Subject: RE: [council] ITU debate
Philip
Whilst I concur that the NC needs to consider this
issue, I'm getting increasingly concerned that an input to
the Reform process from an individual (Houlin Zhao, Director of the TSB,
ITU) which has no official status within that organisation is receiving
so much attention. We need to proceed with caution here as others may feel
disenfranchised that their comments and responses do not receive the same
level of attention as those of Richard Hill who appears to be able to post
directly to Council.
Tony
-----Original
Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard
[mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: 29 April 2002
09:01
To: NC (list)
Subject: [council] ITU
debate
Forwarded to Council on request of Richard Hill,
ITU
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 29 April 2002 09:51
Philip,
I would appreciate it if this message could be
posted.
Grant Forsyth has stated at: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00152.html
"There
are some fundamental differences about the ITU and the environment/market that
existed at the time the ITU was set up and that which the Internet exists and
operates in now. When the ITU was set up, most telephone companies were either
state owned, mostly as part of the government post office, or were closely
government regulated legislated monopolies."
Actually, the ITU-T was set up
in 1865, by what we would now call the OECD countries, to deal with
telegraphy. See:
http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/history.html
As
stated there, "Today, some 135 years later, the reasons which led to the
establishment of ITU still apply, and the fundamental objectives of the
organization remain basically unchanged."
Grant confuses the long-term
history of ITU with the immediate post-war situation. It is true that in
the 1950's, and 60's, the predecessor of ITU-T (then called CCITT) was heavily
influenced by state-owned monopolies. Since then, most countries have
liberalized and privatized telecommunications and new players have become
active in ITU-T. There have been very significant changes in ITU's
operating methods during the past 20 years, precisely because of the big
changes in the industry.
Grant states:
"While governments continue to
hold voting member status in the ITU, most of the telecommunications industry
and certainly the users of telecommunications - from the largest
multinationals to the individual residential consumer - have no involvement,
representation on or receive direct benefits from, the ITU. "
There are 650
Sector Members (non-government members) of ITU. The full list can be
found at:
http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=SEC&_languageid=1
It
includes most of the major players in information technology and
telecommunications, including companies such as AOL Time-Warner, Cisco,
Compaq, Intel, and Sun, as well as user associations and non-profit
organizations such as the Red Cross. While I cannot speak on their
behalf, I presume that they pay membership fees and participate in the ITU's
work because they believe that they receive a benefit from
it.
Best,
Richard
Hill
-----------------------------------------
Richard
Hill
Counsellor, 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|