[governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei...

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 18.08.11 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4E4CC4C4.2040409 at digsys.bg>, at 10:52:36 on Thu, 18 Aug 
> 2011, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> writes
>>> Make your mind up, was it regulated by the ITU, or by the operators?
>>
>> What was regulated by ITU?
>
> Much that made the telephone system end-to-end (I don't accept most of 
> the criticisms you make about shortcomings in that regard - it wasn't 
> perfect but neither was it as proprietary as you claim).

You didn't live where I do. Nor did I live where you do. We have 
different perspective and I do not expect you have ever heard of most of 
what I have witnessed. There are no doubt others, with different 
experiences.

Still, the phone network was pretty much different everywhere.
The end-user had absolutely no choice.

Not so with Internet.

>
> >You remember the e-mail "standard", X.400.
>
> Yes, but that's neither a telephone nor the Internet.

Yes, but it was product of the ITU. Especially the bilateral contract 
requirement.
There were/are a lot other products of the ITU, based on the same paradigm.
Everyone should be thankful ITU does not govern the Internet!

Daniel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t