Newsmaker: U.N. says its plans are misunderstood

TUNIS, Tunisia--The last-minute deal between the United States and its critics at a summit here merely postpones a debate about Internet management to next year.

According to the agreement, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan will create a new Internet Governance Forum where the discussions will continue. One group that might organize the forum--and can therefore set the agenda--is the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency based in Geneva.

The ITU is in a unique position. Created in 1865 to facilitate telegraph transmissions, its mandate has steadily expanded to include radio and telephone communications, and its annual budget now tops $530 million.

The main objective of the ITU is to foster cooperation between the governments and the private sector for global communications.

Through its standards arm, the ITU remains involved in crafting protocols used in everything from DSL (digital subscriber line) to video conferencing. But its broader international-coordination mandate is being threatened by the shrinking importance of the traditional telephone system--and the rise of Skype and other forms of packet-based Internet calling.

The ITU doesn't have any day-to-day responsibility over the Internet, and Western businesses and the U.S. government would like to keep it that way. In addition, a power struggle over the creation of the Internet Governance Forum is developing with the Virginia-based Internet Society, meaning the ITU's management of the forum is not guaranteed.

CNET News.com spoke about these topics with Robert Shaw, the ITU's Internet strategy and policy adviser.

Q: There's lots of talk in Washington about the dangers of the U.N. becoming more involved in Internet governance. But the ITU already is involved in DSL standards, international-spectrum management, and so on. What's going on?
Shaw: I guess one has to differentiate between more political bodies like the U.N. and specialized technical agencies like the ITU, which is involved in a lot of the technical standards used in the Internet right now.

I remember reading one senator saying that the ITU is threatened by VoIP. He probably doesn't know that the most widely used VoIP protocol, H.323, comes from the ITU. I guess that means we have to be frightened by ourselves.

They're probably not aware that most of the broadband connectivity they're using at home probably comes from ITU standards, particularly DSL. So the ITU is already heavily involved in Internet standards. The most important work we're doing right now is next-generation networks, converged television-Internet type networks.

So you make a distinction between standards-setting and regulating?
Shaw: Absolutely. Sometimes standards have policy and regulatory implications. For instance, the ITU does standards in naming, numbering and addressing. Like ENUM or the global telephone numbering plan. That's always been an area where there's been great sensitivity to the sovereignty (of individual nations).

That's an area where we do technical standards but they have policy and regulatory implications. Member states have a regulatory oversight, the right to have a last say.

Nobody in the U.S. Congress really seems worried about technical standards. They're worried about a U.N. agency becoming an Internet regulator.
Shaw: The problem is that people envision the ITU as a super-FCC or something like that. The main objective of the ITU is to foster cooperation between the governments and the private sector for global communications. For example, broadband. We've done a lot of policy and regulatory studies about building out broadband. Korea's done a fantastic job. Other countries are interested in how Korea did it. We exchange best practices.

It's drilled into our heads from day one at the ITU that national bodies regulate. We just try to play a facilitating role.

ITU Secretary-General Yoshio Utsumi said this week that he anticipates your organization taking the lead on creating this new Internet Governance Forum. What does that mean?
Shaw: I think what he was probably referring to was the language in (the agreement that mentions ITU). What this is saying here is that the ITU has demonstrated in the WSIS process how to have a multi-stakeholder discussion on issues related to Internet governance. They're saying that this expertise should be recognized in how you set up the Internet governance forum. I'd imagine we would play an appropriate role.

More Newsmakers

[yrrahxob]

It ain't broke

The internet is fine just the way it is. It ain't broke. Don't try to fix it.

[sydneyallen]

...but it will be if the U.N. wrests control

While the U.N. may do some good around the world, they're generally too stodgy, too autonomous, too arrogant and lately, too embroiled in scandal and mis-management to handle something as dynamic and important as the internet. Give the U.N. control?!?! Why? So censorship, access and taxation demands of "developing nations" (China, N. Korea and other, less than free thinking regimes) can be "legitimately considered"? I smell fraud, corruption and one of the biggest mistakes the U.S. will ever make if this is allowed, whether deliberately or through apathy.

[Mark Donovan]

Evasive interview

Mr. Shaw's interview was one of the more evasive I've ever read. Even the CNET News.com interviewer noted Mr. Shaw dodged a question, and when Mr. Shaw was asked to be more specific, he further avoided a clear answer -- prefering to "avoid focusing on the negative aspects." If Mr. Shaw's lack of candor is typical of the U.N. approach to Internet standards and operation, the world is better off without it.

[The user with no name]

it aint about standards

and the fact that Autocratic regimes like China and North Korea want a say in REGULATION proves it. The EU wants taxation regulation not a say in how protocols interact.

Mr Shaw says about how Developing Countries have to go back home and implement policy changes... What policy changes do they have to implement? Forgive my apparant ignorance but isnt a computer in Zimbabwe pretty much the same as A computer in the US? After all they're all made in Taiwan (lol)! But seriously...what policy changes is he referring to?

The UN, like most political organizations NEVER GET ANYTHING DONE.. all the world needs is China being able to say noone can talk about things the chinese govt doesnt want it's citizens to be able to read... oops there goes most content except content that states how wonderful the chinese govt is!

As for the EU.. I do not need to be paying even more taxes to a country that I am not even a citizen of, nor living in!

Yeah...lets just kill the internet with policies, policing and taxes... thats good for the global economy and community!

Idiots!

[hrep14]

It's been working fine, leave it alone.

The Internet has been stabily moving along under the fair governance of the United States since it's conception.
Now we see political pressure from outside the US trying to wrest control of top level domains which the US has been governing fairly internationally for years.
For some politicians it's a way to try to deny their citizens their freedoms and keep them in ignorance, because they may be able to deny free speech in the local Press and TV media but it's a lot harder to deny it on the Internet especially if they don't have a say on domain registrations.
I just hope the US Government significantly realizes that this is not just a space for political free speach but also a space for business, banking, crime prevention etc... in which stability is paramount and it has been under their governance for all these years. I personally wouldn't trust the UN with this, it's a political body in which some unsavory characters have a say.