Doreen Bogdan-Martin, KD2JTX, elected Secretary-General of ITU

Would it really make you happier if she held an Extra Class license, that school age children earn on a regular basis?

 

As an amateur, yes I do. Would show a level of commitment.

What makes me happy is of no concern here. A higher license level just would show a better understanding of just what she is putting forth , that's all.

 

Cannot we just celebrate the fact of Ms. Bogdan-Martin’s election to the highest post in the ITU? Have a look/listen to my comments on her election I made at the RSGB AGM on Saturday (it is on the RSGB YouTube channel) She knows the Amateur Services. She is licensed. Not a bad thing at all.

Tim VE6SH

 

Regardless of who's in charge, how were frequencies assigned in the old days, before escalating conflicts, a climate crisis, food security, gender inequalities, and 2.7 billion people with no access to the Internet?

I'll bet it was easier then. You could probably just phone it in.

"Hey, move those airplanes up a few and move those tugboats down and tell the police to stay where they are.

Nah, that last one was just a joke. Hands up, there eh? Ha ha.

Thanks, will call again next week."

 

This sure sounds like the only reason Doreen won.

139 votes for U.S. candidate vs 25 for Russia

• ITU election seen as symbolically important
• U.S. President, Blinken had backed U.S. candidate

GENEVA, Sept 29 (Reuters) - A U.S. candidate decisively beat her Russian rival to become the next head of the main U.N. technology agency on Thursday in an election seen as a test of how many countries are still siding with Moscow after its invasion of Ukraine.

"It's a symbolically very important election," Olaf Wientzek, director of the Geneva office of the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation, said. "It's a way to measure how many countries are still siding with Russia," he added, describing the outcome as a "heavy defeat" for Moscow.

www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-candidate-beats-russia-head-un-telecoms-agency-2022-09-29/

 

There is a famous quote that I first saw in a presentation by TF3LJ at an ICAO seminar back in the 90s:

"Definition of Radio Frequency Management:

Radio frequency management is done by experts who meld years of experience with a curious blend of regulation, electronics, politics and not a little bit of larceny.

They justify requirements, horse-trade, coerce, bluff and gamble with an intuition that cannot be taught other than by long experience.”

- Vice Admiral Jon L. Boyes, U.S. Navy"

Having worked within the ITU and with national spectrum management issues, I can attest to the truth in this.

73/Karl-Arne

 

This post, and this entire thread is missing the real story. None of the voters in the ITU cared much about the candidates citizenship, whether they had a ham ticket, their gender or their stance on gender equality.

The real issue in the election was the internet:


Shall it be open, globally connected and robust against outages?

Or shall it be split into national subnets, each national subnet subject to the national laws of that country therby enabling comprehensive government monitoring and control?

Bogdan-Martin's opponent was Rashid Ismailov, a Russian who was once his country’s deputy minister of telecoms and mass communications (Roskomnadzor).

Roskomnadzor is the Russian government agency that requires Russian IT providers to install monitoring equipment so that the Russian state can monitor IP traffic using "deep packet inspection". This allows them to screen out (and prosecute) scary subjects such as the (ahem) "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine, draft resistors, civil liberties, democracy, Alexi Navalny etc.

Ismailov has been working to advocate mandatory extensions to the Internet Protocols that would enable national governments to mandate IP traffic in their country to be routed THRU government nodes to facilitate monitoring.

These extensions were pitched to the ITU originally by China, then by Huawei (a Chinese telecom company currently under US sanctions). These draft extensions, euphemistically known as "New IP" are an authoritarian states playbook for converting the internet (created to route around disruptions and broken nodes) to a series of splintered national networks each subject to deep government monitoring and control.

So this election was really about electing a former government snoop to the ITU so he could further NewIP or alternatively electing another person who is completely opposed to "New IP".

The Economist Magazine has great article on this election (written before the election results were announced). I can't insert it here (copywrite issues) but below is an internet search string that will allow QRZ readers to find the story on The Economist website (omit the quotes). Paste the search string inside the quotes into your favorite search engine to view the Economist article.

"ITU election site:economist.gov"

The 132 to 39 margin of victory for Bogdan-Martin should really be thought of a global "Hell No!" vote on NewIP. Which countries voted for which candidate was not disclosed by the ITU (as is typical in any secret ballot election) but I'd wager the 39 votes for Ismailov all came from authoritarian states wishing to further monitoring and control over the internet in their home country.

 

The Economist Magazine LOL? Who actually pays attention to such a biased rag that is owned by the soulless Roths childs?
Try again with a reputable source.

You claim the extensions were pitched to the ITU originally by China, then by Huawei yet even though Houlin Zhao (Chinese) ran the ITU for two terms from 2014-2022, before Doreen, China never implemented them, so why would anyone think Russia would if Rashid Ismailov was elected?

Your theory is as airtight as a screen door.

I'll stick with my post above, "It's a symbolically very important election," Olaf Wientzek, director of the Geneva office of the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation, said. "It's a way to measure how many countries are still siding with Russia,"

 

It's highly doubtful that the ITU can do any of that, but I covered the US notion of "openness" here:

If you remember, last April, someone had the bright idea to create an Internet Disinformation Governance Board, whose purpose was to shut down misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. That Board was lambasted as dystopian, and as yet another backdoor means to censor online speech that was disfavored by whichever faction was in charge at the time.

Recently, Mark Zuckerberg told a media personality that an executive agency had advised him that "Russian Disinformation" reports were behind stories that were actually truthful and verifiable reports, but the MSM and Big Tech platforms removed that information, and banned people from discussing that information, based on falsehoods perpetrated by people who simply wanted to discredit the truthful reports.

How can we forget the headlines? "50 former intelligence officials warn NY Post story sounds like Russian disinformation." So, please, let's keep government and UN/ITU regulators from fiddling with the flow of information. The best regulation involves using your mind to think critically about what is said, who said it, and to evaluate it carefully before spreading whatever it is. And for the ITU to think it's going to "help" control, regulate, or increase the use of the Internet? Please. The 3rd world needs fresh water, food, medicine, sanitation facilities, and sanitary products for women. Let's tackle the basics before worrying about how to spread Facebook, Youtube, and Instagram to those who lack the basic essentials of life.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." So, let's leave the Internet open and free, and that starts with keeping public/private and UN partnerships out of the regulation of the Internet, and away from any control of what can be spoken, written, banned, censored, removed, and derated -- because in the US, we already have laws that cover speech. If it's criminal, it can be charged as such; if it's libelous, it can be the basis for a civil case.

In the US, the best regulation is based on the needs and desires of the owner of the site; and the laws that already regulate speech. The ITU will never change the laws in Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, North Korea, or a hundred other countries, and they shouldn't be involved in content regulation in the US or the EU, at all, period. The US has laws that should not be massaged by unelected bureaucrats under the pretense of making the Internet "better" by making arbitrary decisions as to what does/doesn't constitute misinformation, malinformation, and disinformation.

 

Al Gore invented the internet, so he can now make it his goal to ensure it is secure and robust... and available to everyone, everywhere, for free!


(AUTODIN <- the original Mil-Spec internet)

 

PayPal also initiated a ruckus when they announced a new user policy charging any account holder $2500 per offense for disseminating any information or comment that PayPal determined was "misinformation".
I didn't know users gave permission for PayPal to monitor their social media or online posts. That is definitely not in their user agreement. Interesting......

A major backlash erupted causing PayPal to back pedal claiming that policy change was untrue. Will PayPal fork over the $2500 per account holder for the misinformation it spread?

Oddly enough that policy change is still listed on the PayPal website.

What is most absurd is now PayPal is giving the runaround to users wishing to close their PayPal accounts. This has been widely reported and I know firsthand as I have been trying to close my account for over a week!

 

Yes, this directly relates to the ITU discussion as it applies to a free and open Internet, free speech, freedom of association, freedom to engage in pursuits protected by the First Amendment, and the monetization of sites that survive on memberships and donations.

Your alternative to the AUP is to cancel your account with PayPal. They also offer to delete your user data at the same time (if their software will allow that, which several reports indicate is impossible). The crazy part is that they will decide if you violated their policy, and how, and will then proceed to debit your card for $2500 for each perceived violation. If the dispute is not resolved to your satisfaction within the time frame provided in the PayPal user agreement, (5 days or perhaps longer) you may begin arbitration by submitting a Demand for Arbitration to the American Arbitration Association, which can be found at www.adr.org.



Violation of this Acceptable Use Policy constitutes a violation of the PayPal User Agreement and may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation, which may be debited directly from your PayPal account(s) as outlined in the User Agreement: ---->You may not use the PayPal service for activities that: Act in a manner that is defamatory, threatening or harassing; Refuse to cooperate in an investigation; Use the PayPal services in a manner that results in or may result in; complaints; Harass and/or threaten our employees, agents, or other users; or relate to transactions involving items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity; the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory; items that are considered obscene; items that infringe or violate any right of publicity or privacy or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction; ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories; or certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law.[/u]

https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full?locale.x=en_US

 

... it is all good. To much thought, anger, and self-righteous expectation here.

 

More UN style information manipulation here:


https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/google-search-information

“We are happy to team with Google to ensure that factual, trustworthy content about climate is available to as wide a global audience as possible,” said Melissa Fleming, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications. “Misinformation is so widespread these days that it threatens progress and understanding on many critical issues, including climate. The need for accurate, science-based information on a subject like climate change has therefore never been greater.”

No thanks.