The problem I have with this situation is the basic premis that the ITU or any organization should have any say whatsoever over what is supposed to be an ad-hoc interconnection of independant networks. Anarchy was it's biggest virtue. The fact that these discussions are even happening reflects how centralized it has become, how easy to censor and disrupt it is, and how easy it is to seize in a coup, or simple UN slight-of-hand.
I feel like we have a learning disability or something, watching all this and I for one am glad I kept that 56Kbps modem so at least I can dial up my actual peers when the robot apacalypse comes.
There's a difference between documenting the evolving anarchy (RFCs, W3C "standards") and what appears to be a deluge of closed-room policy and legislation.
> Did the ITU have any involvement in constructing the Internet? No.
The ITU had a lot of involvement in the CCITT modem standards. (CCITT morphed to be / is part of ITU.) V.21 through V.92 are all relevant for dial up modems.
None of which are relevant the the internet apart from providing some tunnels. The technical standards did not affect much in the osi stack bar the transport layer, which could be run quite happily over anything out there (Cambridge ring, avian carriers, cups and string, flashing lights).
Yeah, the ITU is great at ensuring compatibility. They are also great at creating and maintaining monopolies on telecom services, and sidelining hackers, hobbyists, and anyone who tries to do more with their equipment than simply consume service provided by the "big boys." ITU recommendations almost always divide telecom services into consumers and service providers, which is basically incompatible with the Internet's design.
If they stick to technical specifications in the spirit of RFCs I will be silently content but this is the UN we're talking about not the IETF, and I am too old for closed-room negotiations that directly affect me (and everyone). Any technical standards proposed by the ITU can and should be written by the technical community and industry participants in an open manner, as everyone has come to expect.
Telephone traffic is also, ironically, a pretty small part of global Internet traffic now so I would paint this more like a power-grab from an organization hanging off the cliff of irrelevance. Telephone-like billing and regulatory models, for example, are simply not applicable to the Internet. At the same time, there is a huge potential for this to be the place that anonymity on the net is simply outlawed, for example.
Seriously discussing "global Internet policy" legitimizes the creation of a single lever that can be pulled to manipulate the whole world's ability to communicate, and that is way too much power -- even (some would say especially) for the UN. IMHO, the Internet should be deaf dumb and blind and keep on switching packets really really fast; there should be nothing to break or bicker about, and we can all get on with things. It's obviously going to be tempting though, and that's what all the posturing is about. But even well-intentioned proposals (surely standards are "a good thing (TM)"!) simply foster the idea that it is appropriate to centralize that power. IMHO, we need to stop that sentiment before it congeals and formalizes into a World Government.
Historically, people have been able to ignore the IETF, etc, when they "get it wrong." The problem with a UN group, or any government, trying to serve a similar purpose is you have to work really hard (sometimes with force) to dismiss a terrible idea -- for example: global censorship, brought about by a simple prescriptive "standard" that enabled it. (This mirrors some of the debate around Canada's snooping bill -- for example, I believe our core networks shouldn't even support government spying, thats the RCMP's job to budget for, and they damn well better have all the right the warrants to actually snoop.)
IMHO, with government, less is usually more.
There is also a more general conflict at work here: it's easy to confuse leadership with "directing" rather than "facilitating." The former leads to dictatorships (ever had a boss hold a meeting and not ask for feedback?) and that's the impression I'm getting here, while the latter has been the source of IETF's and the W3C's, etc's, successful roles in "governing" the Internet. The Internet's governance so-far has basically been de-facto based on technical successes (the word meritocracy feels loosely applicable). Reading RFCs is like reading source code and it makes me feel the closest thing to patriotism that I can as a member of the Internet and the F/OSS community (and a bit of a techno-anarchist).
So yeah, it's wincing to see the Internet at the center of yet another closed-room power grab.
Somehow I find it fascinating how fast all those crazy world "World Government" conspiracy theories are getting more and more tangible.
The ITU case clearly demonstrates, that when we propose more negotiation and common solution finding of governments across the world, individual liberties are to many nations very low on the priority list.
The ITU might have more geek cred if there were fewer politicians and diplomats and more technologists and engineers making the decisions. Do we really want people who regard the Internet as a "series of tubes" and/or a threat to their domestic power to be the ones in charge of it? Or are we content to let the people who built the damned thing continue to run it too?
To be fair, with all due respect, while I understand the concerns of Messrs. Berners-Lee and Cerf, I think they are also kind of missing the point. Unless newspapers are intentionally or not misleading us which is another possibility.
If you read what Russia is actually asking for, you will see that it has nothing to do with technologies and standardisation, everyone is pretty happy with that. No, what some governments start questioning is ICANN and especially IANA powers.
IANA is overseeing the whole IP allocations business and supervise root DNS management which give it a huge power over the network. However, while private, ICANN operates under a DOC contract and is headquartered in LA. I'm not overtly surprised it tickles some countries which are not too fond of the USA.
IHMO keeping ICANN but making it operate under a UN contract (maybe through ITU) would be a step in the right direction.
The problem is that there are central points that any government can control because we communicate over wire and fiber-optics. By decentralizing the net and using mesh networking, we would regain and retain control. We need to develop the technology needed to have a world-wide mesh network.
Why even bother with mesh networking? We already have the technology needed to decentralize the Internet: amateur radio operators have been using digital modes for decades, over long and short distances, and packet switched amateur radio nets do exist. The problem is the ITU, which set up the regulatory structure that prevents amateur radio from ever being anything more than a hobby.
If we took some of the spectrum that was handed over to 4g cell providers and gave it to amateurs, and created a regulatory system that encouraged amateur stations to act as repeaters, routers, and gateways, we could have a decentralized wireless internet in short order. We should create a new class of amateur licensing, specifically for packet switched networks, that allows a station to repeat a commercial transmission (e.g. someone directing their web browser to Amazon or Google), allows the use of cryptography without requiring key disclosure, allows profanity, allows communication with unlicensed stations (e.g. someone's laptop), etc. There is no technical reason this cannot be done, and amateur radio operators are just as capable of setting up and maintaining a packet switched network as commercial services are (and perhaps even better; Comcast has pretty bad bufferbloat problems).
The ITU establishes standards and regulatory recommendations that are intended to protect the power of telecom monopolies. That is fundamentally incompatible with the Internet's design, which makes no distinction between nodes (compare to cell networks, cable TV networks, etc.) -- any connected node can be a service provider.
I feel like we have a learning disability or something, watching all this and I for one am glad I kept that 56Kbps modem so at least I can dial up my actual peers when the robot apacalypse comes.
There's a difference between documenting the evolving anarchy (RFCs, W3C "standards") and what appears to be a deluge of closed-room policy and legislation.