RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

[richard.hill@itu.int]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 08 March 2003 21:29
> To: richard.hill@itu.int; marc@fuchsia.bijt.net
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> Richard, I read your response to Marc Scheiders, which seems 
> to be an explanation of the ITU's operations
> and functional responsibilities, and suggest that there is a 
> need for clarification in a few areas.  You are undoubtedly 
> describing part of the activities of the ITU, but for those 
> who are not fully informed of its core mission and 
> responsibilities, it may not be actually factually helpful 
> since it omits so much in your undoubtedly very well 
> intentioned effort to be brief.  

You are correct, ITU is a complex institution and it is hard to summarize in
a short E-Mail all the information contained on our web site.

> 
> 
> First, you seem to be saying that there is "no charge" for 
> some of the services of the ITU :-) 
>This could imply "free".  
> I think you mean that the particular service is subsidized by 
> member fees and that there is not a specific charge for it. 
> BUT, your comment could imply that the service is "free" and 
> indeed that the workshops are "free".  Your careful use of 
> the words "no charge" are factual. All services of the ITU, 
> like services of any organization, are paid for by someone. 

I struggled with the formulation.  I guess the correct statement is that we
provide services without charging fees for the specific service, because the
cost is covered by membership fees.  There are fees for a few services,
those fees are based on cost recovery.  But most services are covered by the
overall budget.

The costs of TSB (the secretariat for ITU-T) are covered approximately 52%
by the Member States (governments), 29% by Sector Members (industry), 17% by
sale of publications, and 2% by registration fees for Universal
International Freephone Numbers (that particular service is provided on a
cost-recovery basis, the applicants pay a fee).

> 
> Nor, perhaps fully informed of the rather substantial budget 
> shortfall faced by the ITU, as described at the ITU Plenipot 
> '02.  The Council of ITU is charged with addressing this 
> substantial -- as I recall, somewhere around $23m sf -- 
> budget shortfall and determining how to address this.

I've seen various ways of stating the budget reduction as a percentage.  The
number I retain is an 8% reduction over the four years from 2003 to 2006.

>From what I've heard so far, there should be no significant impact on ITU-T,
which, as you know, is the smallest sector of ITU.

> 
> Secondly, while you are describing some of the ways in which 
> the ITU interacts with interested parties, via workshops, 
> forums, etc., you made no mention of the way that voting 
> takes place in the governing bodies of the ITU.

As you know the rules depend on the governing body.  Most bodies don't vote,
full consensus is required.

ITU-T Recommendations are approved by Study Groups only if there is no
opposition from any Member State.  That is, there has to be full consensus.

Most Recommendations are technical, and most of those are now going through
the new Alternative Approval Process.  In that process, Sector Members can
also block approval.

> The 
> description below didn't include a factual portrayal of how 
> decisions are actually taken in the policy bodies and treaty 
> conferences by the member states of the ITU, where, of 
> course, only member nations vote and where the sector members 
> or observers have no to extremely limited presence or voice. 

This is your characterization of the situation.  I have heard others state
that, in practice, the industry members exercise considerable influence on
the positions taken by the Member States.  I've also heard people state that
industry exercises considerable influence at the national level in certain
countries.  And that that influence gets reflected at the international
level, in bodies such as WTO, WIPO, ITU etc.

As stated above, ITU-T Recommendations are approved by Study Groups, not by
policy bodies or treaty conferences.

> Perhaps it is more helpful to be clear that your response 
> below seems to focus primarily if not solely on the workshops
> and forums which the ITU hosts, and does such a good job of 
> providing in a variety of areas related to telephony and 
> convergence, and international standards in those areas.  

As you say, ITU-T is addressing convergence issues, which includes work on
protocols for IP-based networks (that is the official ITU terminology for
Internet).

There are lots of examples.  xDSL is one of them.  X.509, which provides the
basis for PKI, is another.

The link:

  http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com13/ip/ietf-wg.html

provides a synoptic view of areas of common interest between ITU-T Study
Groups and IETF Working Groups.
 
> 
> Folks on this list have a wide range of familiarity with the 
> ITU, and its core purposes.  You and I have discussed this 
> many times, and you and I are in agreement that the concerned 
> parties related to the coordination of the technical aspects 
> of the global Internet do not work at the ITU on these 
> issues. There are many reasons for that, of course. 

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with that statement.  What I have said is that
greater participation in ITU-T would make sense if certain issues were to be
discussed in ITU-T.

> 
> However, Richard, I do wish to call your attention to a 
> concern I have with your email below. You rely on telephony 
> examples in how you explain the role of the ITU via telephony 
> and related convenience examples.

As you state above, not everybody knows the ITU.  ITU has certain
well-proven processes and procedures.  I use telephony as an example of how
those processes and procedures work in practice.  Apparently to the
satisfaction of all concerned, since I don't get complaints about the way
the international telephone country codes are allocated.

Similar processes and procedures are used in other areas, notably
radio-frequency allocations.

>>However, you seem to imply 
> [perhaps I misunderstand] that this extrapolates to the Internet.
> 
> I am not sure that your efforts to extrapolate from telephony 
> into the Internet are quite a "fit".

I'm not aware of extrapolating.  All I'm trying to do is to describe how
ITU-T works.

> 
> Finally, I offer one point, which others more expert than I 
> must validate. My understanding is that at the IETF, that one 
> participates as an individual, and that in fact, all 
> documents are publicly available. Of course, at the ITU, 
> there are both public documents, and then, there are the 
> documents which are available under subscription as a member. 

This is correct. IETF has no membership, ITU is a membership organization
(like W3C, IEE, ISO, and others).

IETF operates by "rough consensus", ITU-T requires full consensus.

> And, of course, during the course of treaty conferences, many 
> documents are not available at all until they are 
> finalized....

In my experience, drafts get circulated as soon as physically possible.
Sometimes that takes a day or two, given the volume of documents and the
number of participants.

Best,
Richard

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html