Unlimited long distance $24.99/mo
March 29, 2005 4:00 AM PST
Newsmaker: The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace
See all Newsmakers
But the ITU enjoys virtually no influence over the Internet. That remains the province of specialized organizations such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN; the Internet Engineering Task Force; the World Wide Web Consortium; and regional address registries.
The ITU, a United Nations agency, would like to change that. "The whole world is looking for a better solution for Internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation," Houlin Zhao, director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, said last year. Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been in his current job since 1999.
Though Zhao is far too diplomatic to state it directly, the ITU's increasing interest in the Internet could presage a power struggle between ITU, ICANN, and perhaps even the U.S. government, which retains some oversight authority over ICANN and appears content with the current structure.
In a series of speeches over the last year, Zhao has suggested that the ITU could become involved in everything from security and spam to managing how Internet Protocol addresses are assigned. The ITU also is looking into some aspects of voice over Internet Protocol--VoIP--communications, another potential area for expansion.
"Countering spam is just one of many elements of protecting the Internet that include availability during emergencies and supporting public safety and law enforcement officials," Zhao wrote in December. Also, he wrote, the ITU "would take care of other work, such as work on Internet exchange points, Internet interconnection charging regimes, and methods to provide authenticated directories that meet national privacy regimes."
CNET News.com recently spoke with Zhao about the ITU's increased interest in the Internet and its involvement in a series of meetings that will conclude in November with a U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia.
Q: How do you see the ITU becoming involved in Internet governance over the next few years?Zhao: As you know, Internet governance was one of two hot topics left from the first phase of the U.N. world summit. Unfortunately we did not have a clear definition of Internet governance. Therefore the group established by Mr. Kofi Annan still has to work on these definitions.
Anything which concerns the future development of the Internet will be part of the question of Internet governance. It covers a very wide range of topics not just related to technology development, service development, but also policy matters, sovereignty, security, privacy, almost anything.
What do you think? Should the ITU be involved in Internet governance?
Zhao: Yes, for sure. ITU should be part of Internet governance. But ITU cannot cover everything.
Does that mean an inevitable conflict with ICANN?
Zhao: I don't think so. Whether we have a conflict with ICANN depends on (many things).
I do not consider ICANN an enemy. We are founding members of ICANN's Protocol Supporting Organization. I myself signed that paper on behalf of the ITU. We tried to support ICANN as far as we
See more CNET content tagged:
governance,
U.N.,
telecommunications,
definition,
VoIP
world health with some skill. In most other areas, the UN is
grossly ineffective. In technology areas, the UN is totally
incapable of intelligent action.
So begin with the UN's incompetence, add UN officials with an
agenda (and all sorts of good sounding fog), and we have a
serious attempt to insert the ITU into the internet operations.
The internet didn't need the ITU to get to it's cuurent
performance, it doesn't need the ITU for any future
developments.
By the way, the linking of China (via Zhao) and 'security' should
be a bone-chilling event to everyone.
world health with some skill. In most other areas, the UN is
grossly ineffective. In technology areas, the UN is totally
incapable of intelligent action.
So begin with the UN's incompetence, add UN officials with an
agenda (and all sorts of good sounding fog), and we have a
serious attempt to insert the ITU into the internet operations.
The internet didn't need the ITU to get to it's cuurent
performance, it doesn't need the ITU for any future
developments.
By the way, the linking of China (via Zhao) and 'security' should
be a bone-chilling event to everyone.
Internet. One kind has to do with sovereignty ("we want more
national authority, we feel vulnerable because of someone else's
national authority," etc.). Beyond the most abtract level, these
kind of soverignty arguments are like tastes, ala "res
gustandum" -- much noise can be made, but it's politics and
power all the way down.
The other kind of claims are more interesting, and *potentially*
more useful. These have to do with what important goods are
provided by the Internet, and how to get more/better of that
stuff out to more users, sooner/faster rather than later/slower.
This is more interesting because it is measurable, and
*potentially* more useful because national governments can
accomplish a lot in this area just by looking at those measures,
comparing themselves with our national entities, figuring out
what combinations of policies/technologies/commercial
arrrangements work better than others, and adjusting
accordingly.
To date most ITU/UN/national government interests dwell on
the former kind of argument, to the near exclusion of the latter.
This is counterproductive because it tends to alienate the private
sector actors that deliver Internet services to most of the world
-- at the same time that it alienates "public interest" groups that
work on development in general or economic/technology/
Internet development in particular. Unless/until the gov-types
can bridge this gulf (e.g., by recognizing how existing
commercial and regulatory conditions dramatically affect
Internet development at the national level), they are likely to
continue talking only to themselves...
Internet. One kind has to do with sovereignty ("we want more
national authority, we feel vulnerable because of someone else's
national authority," etc.). Beyond the most abtract level, these
kind of soverignty arguments are like tastes, ala "res
gustandum" -- much noise can be made, but it's politics and
power all the way down.
The other kind of claims are more interesting, and *potentially*
more useful. These have to do with what important goods are
provided by the Internet, and how to get more/better of that
stuff out to more users, sooner/faster rather than later/slower.
This is more interesting because it is measurable, and
*potentially* more useful because national governments can
accomplish a lot in this area just by looking at those measures,
comparing themselves with our national entities, figuring out
what combinations of policies/technologies/commercial
arrrangements work better than others, and adjusting
accordingly.
To date most ITU/UN/national government interests dwell on
the former kind of argument, to the near exclusion of the latter.
This is counterproductive because it tends to alienate the private
sector actors that deliver Internet services to most of the world
-- at the same time that it alienates "public interest" groups that
work on development in general or economic/technology/
Internet development in particular. Unless/until the gov-types
can bridge this gulf (e.g., by recognizing how existing
commercial and regulatory conditions dramatically affect
Internet development at the national level), they are likely to
continue talking only to themselves...
I really think that the people inside the ITF and the WWW consortium have thought in the 'not technical' stuff before deciding on something technical. And what do we have as a result so far? An Open and free (as speach) plataform that has been the solid base of our new digital culture.
I think is because tech guys are not that related to politics that things have worked.. we focus on making things work not how to make things work for MY political ambitions..
And by the way.. I don't care if the ITU has a lot of years of experience, the UN (the 'most respectable' International Institution) was moved aside when US wanted to invade Irak... Are we going to have that when the US decides to spy all internet as a "preventive mesure"?. I really prefer the present cooperative scheme and leave it free to evolve and get better (it has done that since it started)...
When you have fredom you have a lot of people using it for good things, and some few abusing of that freedom and doing wrong things.. but that's the price to pay amigos, the society has to become better in the fredom space. Cut freedom and you could have a perfect controled system but it will depend entirely on the good or bad will of the people in charge of the system..
History hast taught us many lessons of the failure of this kind of systems and has none that resembles the development of the internet as we know it.. lets all give freedom a chance... IT IS WORKING!!!
Greetings from Mexico
Augusto Ayala Ledesma
I really think that the people inside the ITF and the WWW consortium have thought in the 'not technical' stuff before deciding on something technical. And what do we have as a result so far? An Open and free (as speach) plataform that has been the solid base of our new digital culture.
I think is because tech guys are not that related to politics that things have worked.. we focus on making things work not how to make things work for MY political ambitions..
And by the way.. I don't care if the ITU has a lot of years of experience, the UN (the 'most respectable' International Institution) was moved aside when US wanted to invade Irak... Are we going to have that when the US decides to spy all internet as a "preventive mesure"?. I really prefer the present cooperative scheme and leave it free to evolve and get better (it has done that since it started)...
When you have fredom you have a lot of people using it for good things, and some few abusing of that freedom and doing wrong things.. but that's the price to pay amigos, the society has to become better in the fredom space. Cut freedom and you could have a perfect controled system but it will depend entirely on the good or bad will of the people in charge of the system..
History hast taught us many lessons of the failure of this kind of systems and has none that resembles the development of the internet as we know it.. lets all give freedom a chance... IT IS WORKING!!!
Greetings from Mexico
Augusto Ayala Ledesma
Robert
Robert
In fact, I would first ask the ITU what their own definition of "The Internet" is before they tackle the issue of regulation. I would also like to point out that many countries have tried to pass timely laws to regulate the Internet and have met with poor results to outright failure--due to how rapidly the technology of the Internet changes. Once again, this reinforces the reasons not to regulate the Internet in any way.
- China and ITU Are Wrong About the Internet
-
by
March 29, 2005 10:26 AM PST
- The ITU has enough to do in the wireless (radio) spectrum thus should not venture into the Internet issues such as regulation. The same goes with China. I would suggest if they wish to "regulate" the Internet to open up their own domain and let their users/subscribers be subject to regulation, not the world. This is a classic case where generalizing their arguments to the world (or in this case, the entire Internet) becomes fallacious.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 60 Comments >>In fact, I would first ask the ITU what their own definition of "The Internet" is before they tackle the issue of regulation. I would also like to point out that many countries have tried to pass timely laws to regulate the Internet and have met with poor results to outright failure--due to how rapidly the technology of the Internet changes. Once again, this reinforces the reasons not to regulate the Internet in any way.