Slashdot Mirror

Actually it wasn't ignored, the ITU made sure the US goverment *mandated* the ITU/OSI protocol suite and *banned* the TCP/IP protocol suite for any interaction with the US government in 1991. By 93 this had come to seem as ridiculous even to the USG then as is it does now to you and this quietly went away.

When the very first transatlantic ITU-protocol OSI/X.25 link was put up the first thing that went over it was TCP/IP traffic. Why? Because there actually *was* some.

The sole accomplishment of the dude that spun the ITU and UN into this feeding frenzy for the net was a technical paper on how to write an X.400 email address on a business card. That's it. http://www.itu.int/itudoc/teltopic/x400/20656.txt

Previous to that he made Ethernet work in the ITU office, comically described in Carl Malamud's superb book wherein he tries to put the ITU technical specs online like the IETF's were. The general counsel at the time, the America technical genius (who set up the white house web server) / lawyer who started Internet Society, Dr. Tony Rutkowski, thought it was a swell idea, and since the rest of the ITU had never heard of the Internet they said "whatever" thinking it was some sort of CompuServe like thing. Then they found out some months later, and took them all down so they could figure out how best to deploy their information online - http://museum.media.org/eti/ http://museum.media.org/eti/Prologue01.html and more...

Rutkowski wrote a paper recently pointing out it would be best if the ITU were sort of, um, turned off. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120816_privatizing_the_itu_t_back_to_the_future/

Actually it wasn't ignored, the ITU made sure the US goverment *mandated* the ITU/OSI protocol suite and *banned* the TCP/IP protocol suite for any interaction with the US government in 1991. By 93 this had come to seem as ridiculous even to the USG then as is it does now to you and this quietly went away.

When the very first transatlantic ITU-protocol OSI/X.25 link was put up the first thing that went over it was TCP/IP traffic. Why? Because there actually *was* some.

The sole accomplishment of the dude that spun the ITU and UN into this feeding frenzy for the net was a technical paper on how to write an X.400 email address on a business card. That's it. http://www.itu.int/itudoc/teltopic/x400/20656.txt

Previous to that he made Ethernet work in the ITU office, comically described in Carl Malamud's superb book wherein he tries to put the ITU technical specs online like the IETF's were. The general counsel at the time, the America technical genius (who set up the white house web server) / lawyer who started Internet Society, Dr. Tony Rutkowski, thought it was a swell idea, and since the rest of the ITU had never heard of the Internet they said "whatever" thinking it was some sort of CompuServe like thing. Then they found out some months later, and took them all down so they could figure out how best to deploy their information online - http://museum.media.org/eti/ http://museum.media.org/eti/Prologue01.html and more...

Rutkowski wrote a paper recently pointing out it would be best if the ITU were sort of, um, turned off. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120816_privatizing_the_itu_t_back_to_the_future/

"I'm failing to see how increased protection for the internet against bad laws is a bad thing. That's exactly what unanimous vote at the ITU grants it."

COUGH CHOKE.

You have no direct experience with this, do you?

Read this: http://museum.media.org/eti/

That'll give you a good idea what ITU "protection" brings you. Hint: they tried to ban TCP/IP and pushed OSI instead; in 1990 the USG mandated the use of OSI in all communications with it - because of the ITU. Read Sean Doran's great screed "It Seeks Overall Control" about when the IESG explained that there would be a new focus on OSI and there was a revolt in the IETF.

These are the last people on earth you want anywhere near the Internet.

I think the ITU controlling the net is wonderfull. I could't be happier about this.

For those of you who are serious, go read Malamud's account of the ITU. And keep in mind how sleazy these guys are.

Any of you who want to be a publically accessible nameserver for the ORSC root zone, drop me a line. Apparantly we're getting to be a bit popular and need to spread out the load a bit. Yo u guys are starting to chew up quite a bit of bandwidth.

When was the last time you saw a fat ugly woman with a beautiful voice in the Billboard charts.

You know, I never really though about it, but it's so true - hell, The First Lady herself probably couldn't land a contract today. Oc course, leaves you wondering how Rosen got where she is...

I like Tad Crawford's article very much, but I also believe that their are certain nuances of Web design where traditional copyright laws may not directly apply. Crawford writes:

"Design certainly informs culture which in its myriad diffusions casts the spell of influence. I don't think of that kind of influence as plagiarism and it certainly isn't copyright infringement."

I think this is an important point in this article which shouldn't be overlooked. The Web is a communications medium affecting our culture in profound ways we have yet to discover, and I think a designer needs to view issues of copyright from a new perspective (which I address in my rant). I am a professional designer and have been for many years, yet I consider myself a netizen as well.

For me, anyway, it all boils down to respect for each other, and the contributions we all make to build a better medium.

webchick

Absolutely...and this applies to web sites as well as programs. One of the things that really bugs me is when people take a site (or code) and just help themselves. It's amazing how many people assume permission.

Sometimes when people have permission (as in the case of work for hire) they still should ask. Simple respect for the original work is the fundamental issue in this day and age, not legal nitpicking over license terms.

webchick