On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > IMHO while there is no explicit reference or mention to the Intenret on the > body of the ITR, there are quite clear implicit references. > > On the other hand the text on Article 1 product of "compromise" and > "massaging" the text many times in relation to the ITR not being related to > "content" and the lack of a formal definition of what "content" actually > means in Article 2, leaves that open to interpretation and on a telcom > system it could be any data unit on any of the layers of the OSI model, ie > an IP packet or an electronic email. > > Then if the ITR is not related to "content" how you deal with 5B ? isn't > unsolicited bulk electronic communications "content" ? > > To a certain degree I agree with the "ITU-phobia" Milton wrote about on the > IGP site, but what is certain is that as the Internet keeps advancing ITU > becomes more and more obsolete, then if we want to save whatever is positive > from their potential contributions we need to have a more open and frank > dialog, but sooner or later the other side needs to admit that no longer > plays the role it use to play when telecom was a obscure market dominated by > government run monopolies. +1 on all of the above. In re: "ITU-phobia", there are plenty of examples (47-E the Russian proposal for example) one could point to which lead one to believe that many Member States would like to use the ITU as a vehicle to gain greater control over the governance of the net! http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121209_it_is_not_paranoia_if_they_are_really_after_you/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel