Ross Rader writes a passionate response to the ITU "Beyond Internet Governance" paper. This is the struggle/debate that we face today and good for Ross for articulating the position many people have but are either not in a position to say or are not informed enough to say. I would be very interested to hear the ITU's response to Ross.

5 Comments

Joi,
it's a good article. Esp. that it's not very often when defenders of the self-management of the Internet dare to speak freely:))

Give it a break! The first comment says it all! :-) First attend an open, transparent and democratic ITU meeting before you judge! The ultimate self-serving organization is no one else than ICANN!
The only problem ITU faces is that the USG is constantly blocking initiatives! Why? Very simple: Because the USG still controls ICANN and does not want to loose it's power over ICANN! I dont' believe that the USG will EVER allow ICANN to be independent...
Read Karl Auerbachs blog posts how ICANN is doing it's job and then decide which organization might be better for the future of the internet...

Mike Sorros writes:


Read Karl Auerbachs blog posts how ICANN is doing it's job and then decide which organization might be better for the future of the internet...

Or conversely, read _The Open Book_ by Marshall Rose and _GOSIP Made Easy_ by Lini and Moore and *then* decide which organization might be better for the future of the Internet.



I'm no big ICANN fan, but the goal should be to improve it (which Joi is actively doing) or replace it with something better, not to relinquish Internet governance to a hidebound organization that is incapable of embracing growth and change except as a historical footnote, years after the fact. Those of us who remember the OSI wars don't relish the notion of the ITU nee CCITT dictating our technical standards to us. Don't for a moment believe that the ITU is "democratic" either - it represents the interests of state monopoly telecom organizations and that's about it.


It should come as no surprise that the only reply to Ross' missive that takes issue with its premises comes from our old pal Peter Bachman, formerly the X.500 "C=US" namespace manager when he was at PSInet. He's been on the wrong side of history before; he'll be on the wrong side of history again...


You wrote:

"Don't for a moment believe that the ITU is "democratic" either - it represents the interests of state monopoly telecom organizations and that's about it."

Everyone is free to join the ITU! NASK just recently joined the ITU. I believe you agree with me that NASK as the registry of ".pl" is not a typical "state monopoly telecom organization", right?

And look what ICANN is doing in the case of the ".mobi" sTLD application without ever consulting with the ITU:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-13dec04.htm

"...and confirmation that the sTLD applicant’s approach will not conflict with the current telephone numbering systems."

Can someone please tell me since when ICANN has any legitimacy to regulate in regard of E.164?

Mike -

Not sure what your background is, or at what level you participate at within the ITU, but there are a few bits that you seem to have twisted around that should be clarified for the casual reader;

1. According to my calculations, associate membership in ITU-R, ITU-D and ITU-T would cost me at least $450k CAD, and not entitle me to a vote or any serious level of participation. The ITU is, first and foremost, a place where governments play. Secondarily, the ITU is a place where sector members (telco providers) play. I'm not wanted there, either professionally or personally and neither are 99% of the people that will read this.

2. ICANN doesn't have to consult with the ITU to expand the namespace. In fact, there are no real reasons why .mobi, along with .tel, .num and .voip shouldn't all be approved and added to the root tomorrow. ICANN needs to get better at not being a regulator. The extract you pull from is simply a nod from ICANN to the ITU indicating that ICANN will try to make sure that the .mobi operators don't do something stupid. Problem is, this really has nothing to do with the ITU nor does it have a thing to do with e.164. It does add up to bad regulation, but not the type that you characterize it as - but that's entirely another blog post.

3. I haven't specifically asked Karl Auerbach this, but it wouldn't surprise me if given a binary decision between ICANN and the ITU that he would squarely line up behind ICANN and never criticise it again.

RS hit the sweet spot with his earlier reply. The internet community needs to come to terms with the organization it created to manage these resources and actively strive to make improvements in its constitution, management, policy and execution. Giving it over to the ITU is precisely the wrong reaction to ICANN's shortfall.

Finally, the post the Joi linked to was originally published here, with an equally lengthy followup aimed at George Tenet, former director of the CIA, here. For the interested reader, most of my ICANN, internet and ITU related diatribes never make it to CircleID (Ali just repubs the really juicy bits ;), but can instead be found in filtered form here separate from the rest of the drivel on my weblog.

Have a safe and happy holiday season!

Leave a comment

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Business and the Economy category.

Books is the previous category.

Computer and Network Risks is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index.

Monthly Archives