![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: De-funding the ITU
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 13 Jan 2013 11:27:45 -0500
and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved.
Trivial to whom? Is $11M/year trivial relative to the $181M/year ITU budget? Relative to the $2M/year IETF budget? Relative to the $600K/year budget of NANOG?
Trivial to the US government, who's appropriating the money, of course. Not trivial to the ITU-R and ITU-D. You know what they are, right?
This is as much about funding NANOG and the IETF as it is about removing 7.7% of the ITU's budget.
If I were trying to think of a way to totally destroy the effectiveness of the IETF, loading it up with millions of dollars that come with political strings attached would be about the best one I could imagine. Congrats.
R's, John
Current thread:
- Re: De-funding the ITU, (continued)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Nick Hilliard (Jan 15)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Eric Brunner-Williams (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU George Herbert (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU John R. Levine (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Eric Brunner-Williams (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Dave Crocker (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Eliot Lear (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Owen DeLong (Jan 14)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Bill Woodcock (Jan 12)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Dave Crocker (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU John R. Levine (Jan 13)
- Re: De-funding the ITU Jimmy Hess (Jan 13)