[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 53, Issue 5

[Finkleman, Dave]

Having very recently visited the ITU in Geneva, I am now absolutely
certain that it is a purely administrative body with no power or desire
to participate materially in technical matters and no technical
capability to contribute.   The organization's definition of due
diligence is to run meetings, maintain registries, and execute the
recommendation process.   The lack of due diligence rests strongly with
Study Groups and Working Parties.  There is, in my opinion, no way to
affect outcomes by working through the ITU directly.  

To me this means working with and helping delegations from Canada, the
UK, etc., that have objected to the proposed change.  Since few of the
ITU member countries serve on SG7, we might also try to educate other
delegations that can still contribute to the final judgement.

I asked how stakeholders could challenge SG leadership assertion that
concerns were not technical and therefore not eligible for
consideration.  The answer was that there is no way, and, as I reported,
an SG chairman can forward anything after two failures to achieve
consensus.  

This is the equivalent of the Polish Sejm in the early 16th century.
The wealthy Magnates established Szlachta, the privilege of liberum
veto.  The king was selected generally from outside Poland.  His
privileges were severely limited, and the monarchy was not hereditary.
Any Magnate could alone diminish the common good with overpowering,
peremptory veto.  


Dave Finkleman
Senior Scientist
Center for Space Standards and Innovation
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
 
Phone:  719-510-8282 or 719-321-4780
Fax:  719-573-9079
 
Discover CSSI data downloads, technical webinars, publications, and
outreach events at www.CenterForSpace.com.
-----Original Message-----