Re: [802SEC] Governmental and standards body communication in the OM
Mike,
I'm not sure about 2) but I would agree that 1) makes a body
intergovernmental.
But I didn't think that all parts of ITU are involved in creating
legally binding documents.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lynch [mailto:mjlynch@nortel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:49 PM
To: Pat Thaler; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Governmental and standards body communication in
the OM
Pat,
If membership doesn't make a body intergovernmental then maybe one or
both of these two items would:
1) The ability to create legally binding documents (treaties) that
require Member States to do, or not to do, certain things and behave in
a prescribed manner.
2) The ability of Member States to block recommendations or other
actions taken by an organization that were developed during the normal
meetings of the organization.
I'm not certain if Member States can block the output of ISO/IEC JTC-1
but they can in ITU. If you ask any ITU Member State (or ask the ITU
itself) they will say that the entire ITU is an intergovernmental
organization.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: "Pat Thaler" <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>
To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: 7/2/08 15:26
Bob,
I agree. I also don't think that state membership makes a group
intergovenmental. ISO/IEC JTC-1 has a similar membership model but we
don't consider them an intergovernmental body.
When the main focus is creation of voluntary standards rather than
regulation, I think we should deal with them as an SDO. When the main
focus is regulatory, then the governmental model that we apply to other
regulatory bodies should apply. If there is a way to draw a bright line
between those two functions in I
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.