The Best of Both Phone, and Tablet
March 29, 2005 4:00 AM PST
Newsmaker: The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace
See all Newsmakers(continued from previous page)
try to get a compromise. In this meeting we won't make everyone happy.
I understand it may not happen. But if ITU got what it wanted, what would it be?
Zhao: If I could give you my personal views, I would say that if they can charge the U.N. to continue to work on this issue, that would be nice.
ICANN is supposed to be independent of the U.S. government. But when DENIC (DENIC registers Internet domains under the German top level domain .de) executives wanted the contract to run the .net registry, they headed to Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress and the Bush administration. Is U.S. government involvement viewed as a problem?
Zhao: To some extent, yes. That is why people are raising this issue as a very important one to be debated at the U.N. and in the (World Summit) process. Some people argued very strongly that ICANN's establishment based in California gives people some worries. This issue should be addressed.
If ITU were to allocate addresses, anybody could have a choice between their national assignment or a regional or international assignment. That would be good for the development of the Internet.
The World Summit is being held in Tunisia, which a Paris-based journalist group has called a "predator of press freedom." Does the choice of Tunisia send a symbolic message?
Zhao: I noted this kind of opinion from a very early stage that the decision was announced to have two phases, in Geneva and Tunis. The media seems to have no problem with the first phase in Geneva but they don't think it's a great choice to have the second phase in Tunisia.
I think finding the right place to host an international event is not an easy job. There were not many volunteers to host the second phase. The media thinks that country is not very transparent and open, and therefore that country is not transparent and open. I don't think so.
When a country promises to host a U.N.-type conference, they have to respect the U.N. rules. The U.N. rules are quite clear: If any journalist comes to join this meeting, and a Tunisian authority tries to impose any sanction--I don't think that would happen.
What changes in Internet governance structures might be necessary?
Zhao: First we have to understand what the problem is today. Then we can perhaps understand what will happen.
One of the most important changes was the early stages, when the Internet started, when ICANN started in 1998. The purpose was to exclude governments (but that didn't work). People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service? If there are any Internet governance structure changes in the future, I think government rules will be more important and more respected.
60 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
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.
It would be wonderful in my opinion if the UN regulate the World Internet rather than any nation. If we take competence as a criterion, the US of A is wanting. A look at the state of interdepartmental computing would convince anyone it is not. After the last 3 years we know the US will first and foremost look out for itself, can we have a world regulatory system based on such blatant nationalism. I doubt it.
The internet 'was' heavely weight in the US, but no longer, Europe, China and India have long ago overtaken it.
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.
It would be wonderful in my opinion if the UN regulate the World Internet rather than any nation. If we take competence as a criterion, the US of A is wanting. A look at the state of interdepartmental computing would convince anyone it is not. After the last 3 years we know the US will first and foremost look out for itself, can we have a world regulatory system based on such blatant nationalism. I doubt it.
The internet 'was' heavely weight in the US, but no longer, Europe, China and India have long ago overtaken it.
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.
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 has absorbed and digested trillions of dollars worth of spending, and hundreds of billions in R & D, from the US and other Western nations, and never stopped to either pay, or to even say "thank you", even for the zero interest loans it still receives as a "developing" country. This is almost as true about India. The ITU-T - and Chinese diplomatic - assault on ICANN is about harming the US, and positioning copied Chinese and Indian "technology standards" to be officially certified so that more Asian hardware and software can be sold that "meets standards".
If you believe that the US should be insulted and hindered, so that China can be its rival, and its military adversary, then you should support the ITU's claim to somehow speak for humanity.
If you think that the current Internet should be free of even the possibility that it will become a hostage to the whims of one or more governments that simply want to harm or hinder the US, then you should oppose this initiative.
A simple solution to the ITU power grab is to ask ALL candidates to replace Dr. Zhou when his term of office ends in less than two years to come up with written proposals - a book is about the right level of substance - that include vision and justification. That way the next vote for the head of the ITU, and of the ITU-T, can be have something roughly approaching a mandate. Dr. Zhou is a wonderful man, someone that I like and respect, but this platform was not the one that he presented when he offered himself as a candidate for election, and, to the best of my knowledge, not one author has ever made a compelling case that China's treatment of its country acquisitions nor its treatment of Internet users is a model superior to the current system. Let candidates with Internet expertise and credentials from countries that were net givers (vs. net takers, or free riders) of Internet technology run for office on transparent platforms in two years, and let the UN prove can offer something of value to the world that is even a tiny fraction of the value of all the technology that the US has given freely and unselfconsciously, not only to its Coalition Partners, but also to its rivals, and millions (billions?) of people who would find it easier to imagine killing an American than thanking them for giving them so many technological and social innovations.
China has absorbed and digested trillions of dollars worth of spending, and hundreds of billions in R & D, from the US and other Western nations, and never stopped to either pay, or to even say "thank you", even for the zero interest loans it still receives as a "developing" country. This is almost as true about India. The ITU-T - and Chinese diplomatic - assault on ICANN is about harming the US, and positioning copied Chinese and Indian "technology standards" to be officially certified so that more Asian hardware and software can be sold that "meets standards".
If you believe that the US should be insulted and hindered, so that China can be its rival, and its military adversary, then you should support the ITU's claim to somehow speak for humanity.
If you think that the current Internet should be free of even the possibility that it will become a hostage to the whims of one or more governments that simply want to harm or hinder the US, then you should oppose this initiative.
A simple solution to the ITU power grab is to ask ALL candidates to replace Dr. Zhou when his term of office ends in less than two years to come up with written proposals - a book is about the right level of substance - that include vision and justification. That way the next vote for the head of the ITU, and of the ITU-T, can be have something roughly approaching a mandate. Dr. Zhou is a wonderful man, someone that I like and respect, but this platform was not the one that he presented when he offered himself as a candidate for election, and, to the best of my knowledge, not one author has ever made a compelling case that China's treatment of its country acquisitions nor its treatment of Internet users is a model superior to the current system. Let candidates with Internet expertise and credentials from countries that were net givers (vs. net takers, or free riders) of Internet technology run for office on transparent platforms in two years, and let the UN prove can offer something of value to the world that is even a tiny fraction of the value of all the technology that the US has given freely and unselfconsciously, not only to its Coalition Partners, but also to its rivals, and millions (billions?) of people who would find it easier to imagine killing an American than thanking them for giving them so many technological and social innovations.
When the Internet began, it was called ARPANET and it was based on the concept of packet switching, as opposed to circuit switching like telephone systems. Also, the idea was to create a 'de-centralized' network that could not be destroyed by dropping a bomb on a mainframe computer, making the ARPANET indestructible. De-centralization also created a network that CANNOT BE REGULATED except by the masses who use the network.
Today the Internet is regulated more by flaming than by any government intervention.
Some lessons:
- media companies have been trying to stop the phenomenon of P2P file sharing. They can never stop people from sharing these files, because of the structure of the Internet. If media companies succeeds in shutting down one P2P program, people simply begin another one with a different name with a new host. A P2P file sharing utility is very easy for most programmers to create (as little as 15 lines of code).
- Canada's CRTC wanted to do the same thing by regulating the Internet for Canadians back in the 1990's. They failed and have never tried again.
- phone companies have been trying to prevent the use of VOIP or Voice Over Internet Protocol for years. Instead, they have been forced to embrace VOIP, or face major new competition.
- China is trying to restrict access to certain web sites they feel are inappropriate, but they've only managed to create a black market Internet which profits criminals.
What we need is a new form of governance to regulate the Internet. As mentioned above, the masses are best at regulating the Internet. So we need to form a Democratic Meritocracy style of governance (let's call it Internet Government (IG) for now), where the most talented people in each field rise to the top in the IG. People who rise to the top do so, not of their own doing, but by being 'selected', not 'elected' for the position.
Linux is governed by a Meritocracy system with open-source software products. Today, they've become the biggest threat to companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia and others who operate in dictatorial, closed-source, non-sharing environments. They wonder, how do we compete with concepts, like open-source or Meritocracy? You don't, because it's all new territory with new concepts.
We can use the Internet to have people vote for a 'Selection Committee'. The Selection Committee will determine who is the most qualified for each field and will offer that person the job. If they accept, then they serve a term and submit their record of success in the IG as reasons to be 're-selected'. If they didn't do very well, they are replaced by someone more qualified.
Governing anything that is de-centralized requires governance that is de-centralized, or it doesn't stand a chance of success.
This doesn't mean we don't need, ITU, ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the World Wide Web Consortium and others to help regulate the Internet - we do. It only means that they should not be THE regulators. These organizations have a great deal to offer in expertise and experience. With their help the Democratic Meritocracy of the IG could work.
Thanks for reading this.
I agree with you a decentralized goberment and meritocracy resembles open source community model.
And It applies to more than only the tech scenario... It could be applied to many things including goberning countries, states, towns.
Relying on the most capable people based on proved experiences and results should be the way to go.
Maybe even the UN could apply that way of working to its own internal issues. Instead of trying to impose a model that the entire world knows it haven't worked.