Should the United Nations run the Internet?


By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/2010-1028-5181327.html

Story last modified March 30, 2004, 4:00 AM PST

The United Nations wants to expand its influence over the Internet, but
would it be wise to let that happen?

That question follows the conclusion of a two-day U.N. summit last week, in
which delegates from sundry countries such as Cuba, Ghana, Bolivia and
Venezula lectured North American, Asian and European countries about how
best to run the Internet.

Their demands varied, but the bottom line was the same: They want a piece
of the action in just about every way. The event's agenda was
breathtakingly broad, taking in everything from spam and privacy to
intellectual property, network security and the operation of root domain
name servers.

Juan Fernandez, the delegate from Cuba's Ministry of Informatics and
Communications, no doubt was sincere in the speeches he delivered at the
summit.
The United Nations makes ICANN look like a paragon of political
perfection.
Less clear is why a nation that tolerates only one political party and last
year imprisoned some 80 journalists and peaceful democracy activists should
be a model for enlightened thinking about how to preserve an open and
democratic Internet.

Iran was also among the delegates hoping to inject the United Nations into
the process of overseeing Internet protocols, domain names and network
stability. Before taking these folks too seriously, though, let's recall
that Iran ranks in the bottom few percent of the 2004 Index of Economic
Freedom, bans more than 10,000 "immoral" Web sites and jailed Iranian
journalist and Web logger Sina Motallebi last year.

All this raises the question whether these are nations that should decide
the rules for a worldwide Internet.

It is true that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), which currently oversees address space and domain names, has its
problems. It has moved with the speed of a crippled, three-toed sloth in
approving new top-level domains. It is a little too cozy with large
trademark holders. It needs to be more completely weaned from the U.S.
government.

Developing nations have other legitimate gripes, too. China has been
allocated about 45 million global Internet addresses, less than the
combined total of Stanford University and IBM. That's hardly reasonable
nowadays. But groups like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) have
been working hard on Internet Protocol version 6, the next-generation
Internet protocol that will eliminate the shortage of addresses.

It is hardly clear that the United Nations would do a better job, and there
are plenty of reasons to believe that it wouldn't.

The United Nations is home to the world's most bloated bureaucracy,
employing more than 56,000 people at salaries roughly twice what they would
be paid in the private sector. It refuses to subject itself to independent
audits of its finances and does not even publish an annual financial report.
Demands for greater U.N. involvement in the Internet are not new.
What's more, the General Assembly, which had 191 members as of December
2002, has grown estranged from the United States in recent years and is
hardly a place for enlightened political discourse.

Yet, the United Nations makes ICANN look like a paragon of political
perfection. ICANN posts reasonably complete financial information online,
broadcasts its board meetings over the Internet and permits the general
public to attend its meetings at no cost. By contrast, writes Ted
Carpenter, author of "Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global
Intervention": "Most U.N. members are ruled by authoritarian regimes that
rarely even make the pretense of being democratic, and the culture of
governance at the United Nations itself is hardly sympathetic to the values
of individual rights and tethered government."

Demands for greater U.N. involvement in the Internet are not new. As far
back as 1999, a U.N. agency proposed taxing all e-mail messages to pay for
development aid. The United Nations hastily backed away from that proposal,
however, after prominent members of the U.S. Congress correctly slammed the
organization as a "bureaucracy looking to get its greedy mitts on the
Internet through new taxes."

While the politics of last week's summit was difficult to decipher and was
cloaked in the argot of U.N. bureaucratese, the delegates fortunately
didn't seem to be able to agree on specifics.

In a statement, the United Nations seemed to acknowledge this temporary
setback, saying it hopes to "better coordinate the work of specialized
bodies" like ICANN, the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board and the World
Wide Web Consortium, and to "ensure the involvement of all
stakeholders"--rather than invent a new organization to supplant them.

The next step is for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to create a "working
group on Internet governance" that will make specific recommendations in
time for a summit in November 2005.

It is highly symbolic that the United Nations' climactic summit next year
will meet in Tunisia, a state that blocks access to many Web sites, spies
on its citizens' e-mail and closely controls Internet service providers.
The group Reporters Without Borders calls Tunisian president Zine
el-Abidine Ben Ali a "predator of press freedom" and claims that he allowed
Zouhair Yahyaoui, editor of news site TUNeZINE, to be arrested and tortured.

At next year's event, I'm sure that Tunisian politicians will be happy to
share their experiences in how a free and open Internet should be run.


Binneh s Minteh

New York University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~