November 05, 2005

Kofi and the Internet

Kofi Annan has an OpEd in today's Washington Post which seeks to reassure people like me that the UN has absolutely no designs on control of the Internet. Besides being a masterful piece of bureaucratic doublespeak, it leaves me trying to figure out what the hell he's trying to say.

On the one hand, we have:

One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to "take over," police or otherwise control the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

And in the very next sentence we get:

The United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet's global reach, and that effort is at the heart of this summit.

Kerthump. In a singe, small paragraph, Kofi, or rather Kofi's ghostwriter, manages to distill the the essence of the UN's ineffectiveness in matters such as this.

Later:

The United States deserves our thanks for having developed the Internet and made it available to the world. For historical reasons, the United States has the ultimate authority over some of the Internet's core resources. It is an authority that many say should be shared with the international community. The United States, which has exercised its oversight responsibilities fairly and honorably, recognizes that other governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns, and that efforts to make the governance arrangements more international should continue.

One of the reasons the Internet works is that it is a uniquely American institution. Kofi seems to think that something that works as brilliantly as the Internet is in need of change. Yet, he can't quite seem to put into words exactly what needs to be changed and how he wants to go about it, other than setting up yet another UN works project for underused and overpaid bureaucrats, also known as a World Summit or Working Group or Forum. That there are governments out there "concerned" with US control of the Internet is understandable. After all, it was designed originally by the Defense Department as a means to preserve military communications in the event of a nuclear decapitation strike. We control the core of the 'Net, therefore we can shut it off. Not that we would do so. As an American, I want control over that technology. Sure, I'll share the 'Net - I can play nice - but I want to be able to flip the switch when some idiot government out there decides to get a little rambunctious with my toy. And the very fact of that matter drives other governments nuts and therefore Kofi is firing off further bits of snarky crap like this:

Everyone acknowledges the need for more international participation in discussions of Internet governance. The disagreement is over how to achieve it. So let's set aside fears of U.N. "designs" on the Internet. Much as some would like to open up another front of attack on the United Nations, this dog of an argument won't bark. I urge all stakeholders to come to Tunis ready to bridge the digital divide and ready to build an open, inclusive information society that enriches and empowers all people.

When a UN Secretary General starts using American colloquialisms to denigrate concerns over the UN being in control of something like the Internet, then you know there's trouble ahead.

How about this little American saying, Kofi: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

October 06, 2005

As Bono Proceeds With His Plans For World Domination...

Can his ego contain this?

U2 frontman Bono and singer/activist Bob Geldof are among the favorites to win the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. Bono and Geldof are favored by United Kingdom bookmakers and third on the Australian bookies' list with 7-1 odds, according to published reports. The two musicians are nominated for their work to relieve poverty and hunger in Africa, including the organization of this year's massive series of Live 8 concerts. The Nobel Peace Prize is selected in secret by a five-person committee and will be announced tomorrow.

If Bono and Sir Bob get the Peace Prize, then Bono's Path to World Domination will be swept clear of resistance. He will be unstoppable as we mere mortals are mesmerized by the light emanating from his perfect being. Sir Bob, on the other hand returns to being merely a pawn used to further Bono's Great Game.

U2 begins a five-night stand at Madison Square Garden tomorrow.

First he takes Manhattan...

Linkbono_1

August 20, 2005

Washing Away The Gatekeepers

Bill Quick,in the evolving comments to one of his own posts, provides a startling moment of clarity concerning one of the switching stations of the emerging Information Age, the "profession" of journalism.  

The post itself dealt with Paul Krugman of the New York Times being caught out in yet another lie, seemingly abetted by his editors. Bill then hearkens back to a previous post dealing with how journalists view their jobs as opposed to the reality of the situation.

In this confluence, comments fly fast and hard, but eventually in the course of the exchange with Jay Rosen, Bill posts this little gem, which I dearly hope he expands upon.

Bill Quick, for those of you don't know, is a writer; an author of numerous science fiction short stories and books. As such, Bill has what I view as the visionary tools to provide a reader with a plausible glimpse of the future. The science fiction I enjoy the most happens in the near future and tends to have to do with the extrapolation of current events and technological trends. I think the reason I like it is that I just might live long enough to see if the story emerges as reality. In the last 20 years, this has happened a number of times. It's a bit of a rush, actually.

Bill has this perspective, I believe, and in one comment fleshes out the future of news as an information commodity whose very nature wipes out the concept of journalism as we know it in this day and age.

What I know about technology is this: it destroys centralized systems. It doesn't just do away with gatekeepers - or, more accurately, the way it does so is the item of interest - since it destroy the very gates themselves. What will remain is the talents and expertise of individuals, and the intelligent systems that will be developed to aggregate them and provide options for "trust products" to those who will consume news-based product. Yes, trust will be a product, and you will pay depending on what sort and level of trust you require.

We are seeing this emerge before our eyes. This is the hard reality of the Information Age. Like any means of production, the ideal usually varies greatly from reality.