ITU's situation is similar to the US Constitution. ITU is very dynamic. We try to keep abreast of the latest development of the market and to give assistance to human society for future development. Remember, ITU was created in May 1865 to develop a system for telegraphs.
If you could get everything you wanted out of the September 2005 World Summit on the Information Society, what would that be?
If I could get everything from this meeting... I think all international efforts may not be able to satisfy everybody. We 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?
If I could give you my personal views, I would say that if they can charge the UN to continue to work on this issue, that would be nice.
People talk about whether we should have a new agency rather than give it to an existing agency. But if ICANN, ITU, UNESCO and WIPO see each other as complementary and try to work together, we don't need to have a special [Internet regulatory] agency to be established.
ICANN is supposed to be independent of the US 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 DC, to lobby Congress and the Bush administration. Is US government involvement viewed as a problem?
To some extent, yes. That is why people are raising this issue as a very important one to be debated at the UN 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?
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 UN-type conference, they have to respect the UN rules. The UN 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?
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 realise 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.
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.