Re: [802SEC] ISO/IEC vs ITU as "intergovernmental bodies"
Roger is correct. ITU is an intergovernmental organization. The meeting
now in Geneva (WRC-07) is developing treaty text. Also know as the Radio
Regulations.
Regards from WRC-07 in Geneva,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 18:12
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] ISO/IEC vs ITU as "intergovernmental bodies"
Pat,
I am confident that you are correct and that the distinction is real.
ISO and IEC are private entities that take one member per country; those
members are not national governments, though in some cases they are
controlled by governments. ISO and IEC are not "intergovernmental
bodies."
ITU is a United Nations agency of which governments ("Member States")
are members. [It does include private-sector members as well, but I
don't think this matters to this discussion.]
Roger
On Nov 6, 2007, at 03:24 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
> Bob,
>
> You raise an interesting point - one I thought about but didn't bring
> up in my email. I think we have generally treated ISO/IEC JTC 1 as a
> standards development group even though it has national voting. We
> have submitted standards to it without putting that submittal up to
> the SEC, though if my memory serves that wasn't necessarily done by
> 802.3 officially but by a US Tag or one of the other national member
> bodies.
> We send liaison letters I think using 14.1 provisions - i.e.
> copying the
> 802 chair rather than the whole EC with 5 days for someone to raise a
> blocking motion.
>
> On the other hand, I think we have generally treated ITU or at least
> ITU-R as intergovernmental. I'm not sure if this difference is real or
> artificial. Possibly it is a US perspective for some of us because the
> State Department handles ITU membership but not JTC 1. I think for
> some other countries the interface to JTC-1 is handled through the
> national government. Possibly ITU is more governmental than ISO/IEC
> JTC-1 because of its role in international spectrum regulation and
> because of its relationship to the UN.
>
> ISO itself says on its about.htm page that it is non-governmental:
> "ISO
> is a non-governmental organization: its members are not, as is the
> case in the United Nations system, delegations of national
> governments." I didn't find such a clear statement on IEC, but it does
> say it is up to a country to decide whether its national committee is
> public sector, private sector or a mix of both.
>
> Based on that I think there is some justification for our history of
> treating ISO/IEC JTC 1 under 14.1 and ITU under 14.2.
>
> Regards,
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 6:30 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F
>
> Colleagues:
>
> I am not attempting to stop a discussion of this issue at the EC to
> things clarified, but think is important to point out some things to
> think about.
>
> What constitutes an intergovernmental body? Does 14.1 ever apply to
> standards development groups with national body voting?
>
> I believe liaison communications from WGs to multiple groups with
> national body voting have long been conducted under 14.1 requirements,
> not under 14.2 requirements. While ITU-R may be the focus for more
> LMSC WGs than ITU-T, there are still a couple groups that have ITU-T
> issues to liaise.
>
> --Bob Grow
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 6:01 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F
>
> Dear EC members,
>
> I support Arnie's request that this be the subject of an EC discussion
> (during one of the EC meetings, NOT during the week when WG Chairs
> have WG meetings to run). I think that this is important enough that
> it deserves to be allocated more than a cursory 5-10 minutes of
> discussion time, too.
>
> I believe that submissions to ITU need to be reviewed by .18, be
> approved (or reviewed under the 5 day rule) by the EC, and be
> submitted by Mike Lynch (the designated liaison to ITU-R for the
> IEEE's sector membership) for a review by Terry deCourcelle at SA HQ
> before being submitted to ITU- R as an IEEE contribution.
>
> The IEEE is the Sector Member ... neither .16 nor any other WG has, or
> should have, any standing to submit contributions to ITU-R ... that
> right is, as it should be, reserved for Sector Members and Member
> States per ITU rules (if this rule has been ignored or skirted in the
> past that should not constitute an excuse to continue the practice).
>
> IEEE needs to maintain control over the use of its sector membership
> in ITU-R, not only to maintain a level playing field amongst
> potentially competing internal interest groups, but also in order to
> maintain its image and the privilege of sector membership.
>
> Regards,
> Carl
>
>> -------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
>> From: "IEEE LISTSERV Server (15.0)" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> To: greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET
>> Subject: Rejected posting to STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:51:43 +0000
>> All:
>>
>> Paul has requested that I bring a concern that I have to the
>> attention of the EC and that this subject be added as an agenda item
>> for discussion by the EC in Atlanta. This message is in the way of a
>> heads up to the members of the EC so that we can exchange views on
>> the Ec reflector.
>>
>> Briefly;
>> My concern is that the chair of 802.16 has announced his intention of
>> making a separate submittal to WP8F other than the joint submittal
>> administered by 802.18 at the direction of the EC. I think that a
>> separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and contrary to the
>> express direction of the EC. I request that the EC clarify their
>> direction so that all working groups will be playing on a level
>> playing field.
>> Arnie Greenspan
>>
>> ----------
>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.