[governance] Defund the ITU petition

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Louis, you are right (sadly). The USA started boycotting Unesco in 1984 
(with the argument that Unesco did not adhere to US foreign policy) and 
did so for about 20 years. In 2011 they found another argument to stop 
supporting Unesco -- the recognition of Palestine as a Unesco member -- 
on the grounds that allegiance to Israel is determinant to US foreign 
policy.

Curiously, though, they did not ask anyone else for support or relied on 
a public mobilization -- just an executive order was enough, both in '84 
and in 2011.

There is in my view no chance of them boycotting the ITU -- like Israel 
in the case of Palestine, this decision will be determined by the 
leverage of US telecom industry, not public petitions. Who will feed 
ITU-T, ITU-R etc, if there is a relevant boycott afer all?

This standards structure, working in partnership with the likes of IEEE, 
IETF and others, is BTW crucial for the future of spectrum allocation; 
no other international body exists with the same capability. My view is 
that as the Internet advances, ITU will be left with the only role of 
coordination international spectrum allocation policy.

BTW, as a Brazilian gov representative says, those who signed the ITRs 
will not necessarily follow its determinations (Brazil included), and 
those who did not sign might follow several of its recommendations. So 
there would be really no relevant motive for all this fuss around 
defunding ITU.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 02/10/2013 07:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> ...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> ------------
>> C. A. Afonso
>>
>> - - -
>
> Hi,
>
> The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a vote
> of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was
> admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its
> budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development
> projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily
> developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US favour
> on the next occasion ?
>
> When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China
> or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some
> political and commercial deals.
>
> Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000
> signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a
> success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications references
> in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the
> flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.
>
> Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the
> petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non
> aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:
>
> http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/
>
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/
>
> Louis
> - - -
>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>> Date: 10/02/2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00)
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>>
>>   Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects
>> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget
>> is a rounding error. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the
>> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign
>> is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries)
>> continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a
>> legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a
>> calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the
>> ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically
>> reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in
>> a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about
>> geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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