What do you think? Should the ITU be involved in Internet governance?
Yes, for sure. ITU should be part of Internet governance. But ITU cannot cover everything.
Does that mean an inevitable conflict with ICANN?
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 Organisation. I myself signed that paper on behalf of the ITU. We tried to support ICANN as far as we could, but on the other hand you see that ICANN's mandate seems to be a little bit unclear... The UN working group on Internet governance provides us with a very good opportunity to look at this issue.
You mentioned a lot of topics — perhaps spam and content could be in there as well. Which ones should the ITU be directly involved in?
You can say that the ITU should address those, including spam and security. We have a different concept of security. As far as the [legwork] of security, ITU has worked on this for many, many years.
On privacy, I think that a lot of things are not related to technology only; those are policy matters. Those can be done by the national authorities, regional cooperation and international cooperation. On freedom of speech, I don't see it as a pure technical issue. In my opinion, freedom of speech seems to be a politically sensitive issue. A lot of policy matters are behind it. It's not in ITU's competence, but of course we can make some contributions.
Should ITU run or manage any top-level root servers?
That is a question discussed by a lot of people. Today the management by ICANN [is something that] people consider to be management by the United States, by one government. People definitely want to see some changes. I think everyone would agree that a better arrangement is something that we're looking for.
The ITU is trying to ensure its value. Any public network of communications is naturally of interest to ITU. ITU has a lot of expertise and a lot of experience. (Editor's note: An ITU lawyer said in a follow-up conversation that though the organisation may wish to oversee the operation of root servers, it would not run them itself.)
We assign country codes. Some people consider that the top-down approach. I made a proposal for IPv6, that we could look for a new approach based on the experience we have in top-down approaches. Can we find something different? Nobody seems to be confident that ITU's top-down approach is best for IPv6. But nobody is sure that IPv4 bottom-up is best. Can we find something in between? I'm paying attention to that. I have a lot of opinions from ITU members.
Does that mean the ITU would be in the IPv6 allocation business, saying, for instance, that Norway gets 10 trillion addresses and Sweden receives 20 trillion?
Yes. I raised that possibility. [I discussed it] not only with government bodies but with industry experts. I did not see them deny that we [could] do that.
But I know this would affect a lot of things. For stability of Internet service, for effective development in the future, we need good cooperation. Right now IPv6 is still not that known to many people in the world. If we have a good understanding of this system, a good management of this, we can avoid problems in the future.
If more and more phone calls move to VoIP, do you see the ITU becoming irrelevant?
I don't have that worry at all. ITU was created in 1865. It has 140 years of history. I don't know if you noted recent news that a very respected academy in the United States said ITU is among the world's most enduring institutions. (Editor's note: This is a reference to a December 2004 report by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton.)
Talkback
The biggest problem with the UN is itself. It has lost all the respect it ever had with the international community and become merely a "talking shop" for politicians.
It was this sort of attitude that it's predecessor - the League of Nations - set up after World War I encountered, and led to it's downfall. Part was apathy and part was the Great Depression of 1933; mainly though was the loss of confidence.
As far as the UN administering the Internet is concerned, I would ask them, why, when there has been so much adverse publicity aboout that organisation, from the Secretary General on down, do they think they should embark on another possibly ill-fated venture.
UN, put your OWN house in order first, THEN look at other problems.
My opinion is the UN should stay as far away from the internet includig the U.S. government from regulating the internet in any manner. Why? The internet was developed here in the U.S. in 1969 before the National Science Foundation released the Internet for public services. So that means U.S. taxpayers have been paying the government since 1969 for these services to be there for them.
The ITU is doing nothing about the abuse of internet dialup fraud that occurs as it is which involves telephone communications. There are still people out there who goes to a site unware that they are downloading a program that makes long distance charges to other other places without their knowledge.
ITU hasn't solved that problem.
The UN should just leave New York as they can't manage anything as it is. They might as well be on their own little island. See the IRAQ issue is pissing on their door right next to is IRAN as well. Manage nations is something the UN should be proud of doing but they might as well hang their heads between their legs and run. The UN is viewed as a global joke.
So should UN administer the internet. No it should not.
No - it's insanity. The UN has consistently demonstrated a lack of ability to manage anything. Look at the Oil for Food, look at the Sudan.
Definitely YES. Once upon a time, the Internet was a matter for academic and military in US. Today it serves billions of poeple on the Earth with an essential communication measure.
Think about the Tsunami warning system. It couldn't be realized without use of the Internet.
Although the Internet has become one of the most important infrastructures of the world, there is no international body which is responsible to manage the Internet in the manner based on the concensus of world participants.
This absence of administration causes major difficulties like unsolicited emails, virus and worms, and unfair assignment of IP addresses.
I think ITU is the only possible solution to finish this anarchy.
No, the internet should administer the UN.
Maybe not perfectly, but the Internet can administrate itself. By that I mean the users and providers are pable of eventually coming to some kind of reasonable concensus most of the time. Why does anyone thing the UN would be better able to solve the three main problems: spam, fraud and security, better than these?
Any other issues not covered at that level should be left down to national governments to address.