Newsmaker: The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace

The International Telecommunication Union is one of the most venerable of bureaucracies. Created in 1865 to facilitate telegraph transmissions, its mandate has expanded to include radio and telephone communications.

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.

I do not consider ICANN an enemy.

According to ITU's definition of "telecommunications," telecommunications covers almost anything. Therefore according to our own lawyers, the Internet is one of these telecommunications mediums. Others argue that "telecommunications" is too wide and it does not include the Internet.

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

More Newsmakers

Dancing around the obvious

Read between the lines and its clear that Mr. Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, is advocating more government control (such as "methods to provide authenticated directories that meet national privacy regimes") in order to help repressive regimes such as the one that he (used to?) work(s) for stifle dissent and free access to information. It would be a mistake to let governance of the Internet fall into such hands.

Dancing around the obvious

Read between the lines and its clear that Mr. Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, is advocating more government control (such as "methods to provide authenticated directories that meet national privacy regimes") in order to help repressive regimes such as the one that he (used to?) work(s) for stifle dissent and free access to information. It would be a mistake to let governance of the Internet fall into such hands.

[Earl Benser]

The UN is a limited concept.

It can handle disaster aid, some international diplomacy, and <br />world health with some skill. In most other areas, the UN is <br />grossly ineffective. In technology areas, the UN is totally <br />incapable of intelligent action. <br /><br />So begin with the UN's incompetence, add UN officials with an <br />agenda (and all sorts of good sounding fog), and we have a <br />serious attempt to insert the ITU into the internet operations.<br /><br />The internet didn't need the ITU to get to it's cuurent <br />performance, it doesn't need the ITU for any future <br />developments. <br /><br />By the way, the linking of China (via Zhao) and 'security' should <br />be a bone-chilling event to everyone.

[Albertv]

The UN is a limited concept

The US government does 'not' have an agenda? It is competent? Dream on! <br /><br />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. <br /><br />The internet 'was' heavely weight in the US, but no longer, Europe, China and India have long ago overtaken it.

[Earl Benser]

The UN is a limited concept.

It can handle disaster aid, some international diplomacy, and <br />world health with some skill. In most other areas, the UN is <br />grossly ineffective. In technology areas, the UN is totally <br />incapable of intelligent action. <br /><br />So begin with the UN's incompetence, add UN officials with an <br />agenda (and all sorts of good sounding fog), and we have a <br />serious attempt to insert the ITU into the internet operations.<br /><br />The internet didn't need the ITU to get to it's cuurent <br />performance, it doesn't need the ITU for any future <br />developments. <br /><br />By the way, the linking of China (via Zhao) and 'security' should <br />be a bone-chilling event to everyone.

[Albertv]

The UN is a limited concept

The US government does 'not' have an agenda? It is competent? Dream on! <br /><br />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. <br /><br />The internet 'was' heavely weight in the US, but no longer, Europe, China and India have long ago overtaken it.

The last thing we need

I think that the UN is the last body that should be in control of the Internet and its standards. This organisation is already slow to move on things, and should stick to what it already does badly.

The last thing we need

I think that the UN is the last body that should be in control of the Internet and its standards. This organisation is already slow to move on things, and should stick to what it already does badly.

[Bob_299]

What is the value proposition?

One thing that is not clear is what Zhao thinks the ITU brings to the table. The basic proposition seems to be a preference for the Chinese government to have relatively more influence over Internet government and for the U.S. government to have relatively less influence over Internet government. It is not clear what value, if any, Zhao proposes to offer for that increased influence. If the only benefit is to give the Chinese government greater ability to control Internet use within China, then it is not clear why that is an international issue.

[Bob_299]

What is the value proposition?

One thing that is not clear is what Zhao thinks the ITU brings to the table. The basic proposition seems to be a preference for the Chinese government to have relatively more influence over Internet government and for the U.S. government to have relatively less influence over Internet government. It is not clear what value, if any, Zhao proposes to offer for that increased influence. If the only benefit is to give the Chinese government greater ability to control Internet use within China, then it is not clear why that is an international issue.

[nickberry]

Yeah, anyone remember the Oil for Food scandal

Do they think the public forgets stories that are still in progress. The last thing the world needs is the UN overseeing spammers, good lord I can't imagine what will happen to the internet then.......

[nickberry]

Yeah, anyone remember the Oil for Food scandal

Do they think the public forgets stories that are still in progress. The last thing the world needs is the UN overseeing spammers, good lord I can't imagine what will happen to the internet then.......

Two kinds of Internet public interest / public good assertions

Policy makers tend to make two kinds of claims on/about the <br />Internet. One kind has to do with sovereignty ("we want more <br />national authority, we feel vulnerable because of someone else's <br />national authority," etc.). Beyond the most abtract level, these <br />kind of soverignty arguments are like tastes, ala "res <br />gustandum" -- much noise can be made, but it's politics and <br />power all the way down. <br /><br />The other kind of claims are more interesting, and *potentially* <br />more useful. These have to do with what important goods are <br />provided by the Internet, and how to get more/better of that <br />stuff out to more users, sooner/faster rather than later/slower. <br />This is more interesting because it is measurable, and <br />*potentially* more useful because national governments can <br />accomplish a lot in this area just by looking at those measures, <br />comparing themselves with our national entities, figuring out <br />what combinations of policies/technologies/commercial <br />arrrangements work better than others, and adjusting <br />accordingly. <br /><br />To date most ITU/UN/national government interests dwell on <br />the former kind of argument, to the near exclusion of the latter. <br />This is counterproductive because it tends to alienate the private <br />sector actors that deliver Internet services to most of the world <br />-- at the same time that it alienates "public interest" groups that <br />work on development in general or economic/technology/<br />Internet development in particular. Unless/until the gov-types <br />can bridge this gulf (e.g., by recognizing how existing <br />commercial and regulatory conditions dramatically affect <br />Internet development at the national level), they are likely to <br />continue talking only to themselves...

Two kinds of Internet public interest / public good assertions

Policy makers tend to make two kinds of claims on/about the <br />Internet. One kind has to do with sovereignty ("we want more <br />national authority, we feel vulnerable because of someone else's <br />national authority," etc.). Beyond the most abtract level, these <br />kind of soverignty arguments are like tastes, ala "res <br />gustandum" -- much noise can be made, but it's politics and <br />power all the way down. <br /><br />The other kind of claims are more interesting, and *potentially* <br />more useful. These have to do with what important goods are <br />provided by the Internet, and how to get more/better of that <br />stuff out to more users, sooner/faster rather than later/slower. <br />This is more interesting because it is measurable, and <br />*potentially* more useful because national governments can <br />accomplish a lot in this area just by looking at those measures, <br />comparing themselves with our national entities, figuring out <br />what combinations of policies/technologies/commercial <br />arrrangements work better than others, and adjusting <br />accordingly. <br /><br />To date most ITU/UN/national government interests dwell on <br />the former kind of argument, to the near exclusion of the latter. <br />This is counterproductive because it tends to alienate the private <br />sector actors that deliver Internet services to most of the world <br />-- at the same time that it alienates "public interest" groups that <br />work on development in general or economic/technology/<br />Internet development in particular. Unless/until the gov-types <br />can bridge this gulf (e.g., by recognizing how existing <br />commercial and regulatory conditions dramatically affect <br />Internet development at the national level), they are likely to <br />continue talking only to themselves...

[Razzl]

Top-down will prevail

Notwithstanding his diplomatic references to the UN and current arrangements, in the end the internet will be governed in a "top-down" arrangement by National governments because the logic of the international order makes it impossible to prevent that. The world is carved up into nation-states that hold legal and technical control over telecommunications technologies crossing their borders and can only achieve their overriding goals--language preservation, crime prevention, tax collection, etc.--when the governmental entity controls the the components of the internet which reach their population. We should have no illusions that authoritarian and centralist regimes, whether they be China or the European Union, will not be able to force this issue to the side of national control. These entities will have no fear of throwing the system into crisis by offering up competing domain systems outside of ICANN if they don't get their way because control is more important to them than commerce and they know we will give in because the opposite is true for us. The truth of the matter is that all of the problems we experience in the U.S. on the internet, from spam to pornography to unregulated gambling, would be more easily controlled if we were part of a top-down system and we should look forward to the day that happens.

[Razzl]

Top-down will prevail

Notwithstanding his diplomatic references to the UN and current arrangements, in the end the internet will be governed in a "top-down" arrangement by National governments because the logic of the international order makes it impossible to prevent that. The world is carved up into nation-states that hold legal and technical control over telecommunications technologies crossing their borders and can only achieve their overriding goals--language preservation, crime prevention, tax collection, etc.--when the governmental entity controls the the components of the internet which reach their population. We should have no illusions that authoritarian and centralist regimes, whether they be China or the European Union, will not be able to force this issue to the side of national control. These entities will have no fear of throwing the system into crisis by offering up competing domain systems outside of ICANN if they don't get their way because control is more important to them than commerce and they know we will give in because the opposite is true for us. The truth of the matter is that all of the problems we experience in the U.S. on the internet, from spam to pornography to unregulated gambling, would be more easily controlled if we were part of a top-down system and we should look forward to the day that happens.

And we're going to have an 'Internet Irak', no thanks!

Yes the internet has a different kind of 'control', it's based on cooperation on community negotiation, not on imposition by the strong or the welthiest. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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..<br /><br />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)...<br /><br />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.. <br /><br />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!!!<br /><br />Greetings from Mexico<br />Augusto Ayala Ledesma

And we're going to have an 'Internet Irak', no thanks!

Yes the internet has a different kind of 'control', it's based on cooperation on community negotiation, not on imposition by the strong or the welthiest. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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..<br /><br />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)...<br /><br />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.. <br /><br />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!!!<br /><br />Greetings from Mexico<br />Augusto Ayala Ledesma

The UN Can't...

The UN can't even manage its member countries let alone the entire internet. When they are better able to handle countries like Irag, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. then maybe they will have developed the balls to handle the internet. As it standards right now the UN is about as effective as two boobs on a bore.<br /><br />Robert

The UN Can't...

The UN can't even manage its member countries let alone the entire internet. When they are better able to handle countries like Irag, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. then maybe they will have developed the balls to handle the internet. As it standards right now the UN is about as effective as two boobs on a bore.<br /><br />Robert

China and ITU Are Wrong About the Internet

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.<br /><br />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

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.<br /><br />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.