nanog mailing list archives
Re: De-funding the ITU
From: Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:49:59 -0800
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred () cisco com> 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 petition.
Shutting down the ITU would be in effect discarding the baby with the bathwater.
You're being awfully naive, Fred. It's a 147-year-old, $180M/year baby with a serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down so that it can go back to doing things the way it was before we all showed up. I expect you think you're being sophisticated and taking a nuanced view or some such, but you aren't. Note that the _entire_ congress disagrees with you. Not a single vote in favor of the ITU in S. Con. Res. 50 or H. Con. Res. 127. And if you think that any of the Internet agrees with you, you should take a look at Reddit sometime. -Bill
Current thread:
- De-funding the ITU Bill Woodcock (Jan 12)
- Message not available
- Re: De-funding the ITU james jones (Jan 12)
- Message not available
- Re: De-funding the ITU bmanning (Jan 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: De-funding the ITU John Levine (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Fred Baker (fred) (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Bill Woodcock (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU bmanning (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Bill Woodcock (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Barry Shein (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Owen DeLong (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU John Levine (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Nick Hilliard (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Wayne E Bouchard (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Eliot Lear (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Fred Baker (fred) (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Owen DeLong (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Bill Woodcock (Jan 14)