Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Hi Roberto,
>
> Glad to see you are still usefully participating.
>
Hi, Tony.
Nice talking to you again.
> <short snip>
> The meaning is fairly clear on its face. It says
> "...is open to any person or organization." It
> doesn't say that, except for the the ITU and ETSI
> who admit only organizations - and in the case of
> the ITU, only if they are supported by the Administration
> under whose jurisdiction they exist."
>
I participated in the discussions in the poisson WG, and I know you also
did.
At a some point in time I raised exactly this point, i.e. that the
formulation of the sentence was such that one could imply that both
individuals *and* organizations had to be accepted without limitation, and
the exchange of message afterwards was such that everybody clearly
understood that, if the business model was organization-oriented,
organizations had to be freely admitted, and if the model was
individual-oriented, individuals had to be freely admitted.
This was therefore the intention of the drafters, and the willingness of the
WG participants, whether we agree or not.
BTW, the discussion took place in a situation in which few people were
really paying any attention to ETSI, not to speak to draft rules that were
more or less favourable to it. In fact, I suspect that the majority of the
people in poisson thought that ETSI was going to be kept out by the
"geographical presence" clause. Mistake :-o! It does not ;>].
> It also says "makes no claim." It doesn't say "makes
> no claim for some standards, but for those that we
> call Norms, those are excused." For the ITU is also
> doesn't say "...except for the claim under Art. 1
> of the ITU International Telecommunication Regulations..."
>
And in fact ETSI makes no claim.
ETSI could not care less whether the Norm becomes law in each individual
country: in fact, what enforces the law, is not that the standardization
work is conducted in ETSI, but that the NSO that adopt it enforce it.
In other words, ETSI has no status to enforce anything by law, and therefore
could not reasonably make such a claim. What enforces the law is the
adoption of a standardization work (done by ETSI) by the NSOs, that act
under the authority of their respective national governments, and their
common agreement on the rules of the game.
But the processes of producing a standard and enforcing a norm are separate.
> I seems y'all left out a lot of important exceptions...
> or just conveniently implied them. :-)
>
I knew I was not going to convince you ;>)
Best regards
Roberto
