[KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] Should the United Nations run the Internet?

[Robert G. Brown]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:42:53 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams <adam@morrison-ind.com>wrote:

>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104413,00.html
>>>>One of many articles on this topic.
>>>Actually this has been percolating for some time.  I remember reading
>>>snippets about this quite awhile ago....
>>Yes, this is what I mean by "One of many articles..."
>I assumed,  I wanted to emphasize that it didn't mean "many 
>{recent} articles", but that there is a long -chronology- of articles.

Yes, we're saying the same thing with different words.

>>>It seems like the natural progression to move this now-major conduit of 
>>>information and commerce to the world's primary administrative body.
>>Seems like a reasonable time to start. I tend to discount a lot of the 
>>shrill whining that seems to surround this sort of topic as well as the
>>rather unrealistic crowing of UN (perhaps non-) functionaries about how
>>they are going to "liberate these resources from the clutches of the
>>developed countries".
>The UN does moderate the influence of the bloated self-important bully
>countries.
That's true, it has, over the years, tended to do so, an impressive (by
no means perfect, but surprisingly good) record.

>Those shrill whiners and the dogs who would give the world to those
>bully countries on a platter create an at least vaguely reasonable 
>center, sort of the point of a democratic institution.  And (IMHO) 
>that demonstrates the very reason there needs to be such a super-state
>institution.
The UN has evolved some, and has been tempered by events since it's 
creation, including its own success and failures. At it's best, it has
been a forum where differences are aired and conflicts are, if not settled,
at least defused. At it's worst, it can be a mechanism by which one group 
of countries can delay proper actions, and perhaps justice.

>>>>This is one of those things which sounds good in principle and is likely
>>>>happen at some point in the future. I suspect that ITU itself may not have
>>>>the technical expertise to do this now.
>>>>A constructive process to go to ITU-administered Internet oversight could
>>>>be executed over a 3-5 year period, IMO.
>>>Sure, anything like this takes a LONG time.
>>Given the way of lot of this develops, 3-5 years is not considered a long
>>time. It's my estimate, based on observing how the ITU works over about
>>25 years, and it's offered FWIW.
>It is even more interesting to postulate the time line for some convergence of
>IETF, IANA, ICANN, and ISOC (and probably a half dozen others).  Maybe it will
>never happen, but it all seems unduly fragmented.  Of course, fragmentation 
>can also be a good thing.
In my view, these orgs do not converge, not do they necessarily need to merge
under the Aegis of (f'rinstance) the UN. They have different and complimentary
missions, and probably see the merits of a bit of fragmentation here. It's
certainly clear that they (or eventually their successors) must communicate
clearly, often, and well.

>>>>For those readers who have some philosophical objection to this transition,
>>>Personally, I agree with the policies of the UN more often than our own
>>>national policies.
>>In general, or is there something about this US administration that causes
>>you to say this?
>Current situations have emphasized this, but it has pretty much been true 
>since I "came of age".
To a great degree, the UN was borne of different times, and a rather different
view of the world, and the future.

>>>So I'd feel better about this than creating some
>>>board of corporate oligarchs to oversee it, as currently exists at ICANN
>>>and other multi-national "regulatory" bodies.
>>It is interesting to see how "un-American" ICANN actually is, for those
>>who think this is a power play to "take the Internet away from the
>>Americans".
>I mostly meant their deeply flawed election process, continued attempts to
>push out at-large representatives, etc...
>http://www.icannwatch.org/
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/17/171217&mode=thread&tid=95
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/30/1958218&mode=thread&tid=95
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/11/1831210&mode=thread&tid=95
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/31/2035207&mode=thread&tid=95
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/28/232206&mode=thread&tid=95

Clearly another collection of struggles at work, some of them with agendas,
others perhaps, trying to seek balance, and learn something. It is hard to 
tell all of the forces at work here.

Having refrained from advocating immediate "takeover of the Internet" by the
UN, I'm also not going to leap to the defense of ICANN in all of this. There
are clearly problems here, something not confined to the UN.....

>>>>need merely point out that the radio spectrum has been under general ITU
>>ad-ministration since the 1950's, as have other forms...
>>>Shocking!
>>Background, for those who are not as up on this stuff as our Program 
>>Director and resident LDAPper par excellence....
>Aw, schucks.....
Polish your halo! :)

>BTW, the UN is a heavy user of LDAP technologies -
>http://accsubs.unsystem.org/iscc-intranet/work/itexchange/LDAP/ldap.htm
>Unfortunately most of it is via M$-Exhange integration. Ick!
Not an unexpected outcome, with all of those AMERICAN technological 
advisers there! :)

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---