Restore Morsi Now!

I am no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood, as many of their political positions are diametrically oppose to my own.

However.

I am a big fan of democracy. However imperfect his election and that of the parliament, President Mohammed Morsi deserves the world’s support. We in America often forget just how imperfect our democracy is. Putting aside hanging chads, they used to have a saying in Chicago: vote early, vote often.

Democracy takes time to get right. It takes commitment, and it takes patience. Could you imagine the United States Army going in and taking over CNN in Atlanta, and arresting the president, simply because of a large protest on the Mall? Those protests are meant to sway legislators and those who vote for them peacefully.

And it hasn’t always been so peaceful, even in America. Some people may remember Sheriff Bull Connor who set dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protestors. And we don’t even have to go back that far. But we got better at it.

So would Egypt, if they give it time and patience.

What was the strategy of the Allied Forces in WWII?

I’ve recently read two books relating to World War II. The first was Ike: An American Hero, a biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower by Michael Korda, which is a near idolizing tale of Ike, in which the man can seemingly do no wrong. The other is saga of Winston Churchill’s life, starting from the day he becomes Prime Minister in 1940. This is the third of The Last Lion trilogy by William Manchester. These are two very different perspectives on how WWII was won.

In the case of Churchill, Manchester describes his Mediterranean strategy as somewhere between nibbling around the edges, a war of opportunity, or an attempt to coax Turkey into the melée, while at the same time placing blame on Americans for delaying the end of the war, first by not entering it earlier, and second by not being more aggressive in the taking of Italy.

On the other side, Korda points out that Eisenhower took his strategy directly from Grant, which was to destroy the enemy’s ability to make war. That necessitated the destruction of all German armies the hard way, under the belief that so long as they had armies that could fight, they would fight.

What is stunning about the difference in points of view is that neither seems to acknowledge the others at all. As an American I found Manchester’s book helpful to understand the British perceptions of history, while at the same time having some understanding of the history of the Americans involved.

North Korean Nonsense:

In the last two weeks we’ve heard about how the North Koreans have, well, let’s see…

All of this stemmed from further sanctions the U.N. imposed after these nutcases conducted a nuclear test.

These people are, quite simply put, wackos with nuclear weapons, each dictator worse than the last. The people they least endanger is America, and the people they most endanger are themselves, and their brothers, sisters, and cousins to the south. Not far behind them are the Chinese to the north. Clearly basketball diplomacy hasn’t helped at all.

The United States has a tendency to clean up messes all around the world. We get yelled at for doing so, and then people privately thank their lucky stars we do. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone else did the dirty work for once? As it happens the Chinese have been flexing their muscles all over the region, from Japan to Malaysia. They’ve even breached South Korean waters. But the North they leave alone.

With lots to lose and the fact that the Chinese have been propping up this government for six decades, the Chinese will have to deal with the consequences far more so than we will. It is a problem that the United States cannot solve. Our having sent B-2s was a nice show, but if we end up in an armed conflict with North Korea, mostly South Koreans, Chinese, and maybe Japanese get hurt. That region must resolve the matter. B-2s shouldn’t do it.

You don’t get to be a leader by simply showing military might. You have to use that might to address real problems. The Chinese have feared above all that if they intervene in the affairs of others, some day it will be their turn to be on the receiving end of such interference. Their turn may come, but not because they’ve done the right thing with North Korea.

When is a Fine Excessive?

CNN has an interesting story about a Christian organization that is seeking to avoid fines for not providing coverage for the “Day After” pill or (I think) RU-486. Let us not argue about birth control or abortion. My issue here is the amount of the fine, which is $100 per day per employee for whom the employer refuses coverage. Why isn’t that fine excessive? To begin with, let’s look at the cost of such services. The cost of the drugs are relatively low. According the Planned Parenthood, the cost for the pharmaceuticals are between $10 and $70. For an insurance company this is really a non-issue, and that leaves the moral issue, because it’s not an ongoing expense. In fact, it may even be lower than some people’s co-payments or deductibles. Now we need to add this to an insurance risk pool cost, and the price for insurance probably drops to well less that $0.10 per year . After all, how often does anyone need such services? Maybe once in their lives? Maybe never.

If we break this down, then, to compensatory versus punitive damages, let’s postulate an government program that allows doctors and pharmacies to be reimbursed for the cost of the procedure. Let’s call the program, oh…. Medicaid. Let’s say that costs, from a risk perspective, $1.00 per year. The Supreme Court has already said that punitive damages in civil cases should not exceed a factor of 10. Why then, should the fine for this behavior not by $10 per employee per year instead of $100 per employee per day?

In fact, why not let employers opt out on conscience grounds and let them pay a slightly higher premium of $2.00 per employee? In this sense, the government would stand to profit from an employer who REALLY has qualms. Of course, one would also have to ask why that company would feel so comfortable paying the government twice what it would pay the insurance company, when at the end of the day the same service would be performed?

Put simply: what is the societal interest in penalizing a company 100,000 times the cost of a service in this case? Is this such an egregious omission? Are employees unsafe? Would the service otherwise be unavailable? What is the issue?

WCIT, the Internet, the ITU-T, and what comes next

Courtesy of Mike Blanche of Google, the map on the left shows in black countries who signed the treaty developed at WCIT, countries in red who indicated they wouldn’t sign the treaty, and other countries who are thinking about it. A country can always change its mind.

Over the next few weeks that map will change, and the dust will settle. The fact that the developed world did not sign the treaty means that the Internet will continue to function relatively unmolested, at least for a time, and certainly between developed countries. As the places that already heavily regulate telecommunications are the ones who are signing the treaty, its impact will be subtle. We will continue to see international regulatory challenges to the Internet, perhaps as early as 2014 at the ITU’s next Plenipotentiary conference. Certainly there will be heated debate at the next World Telecommunication Policy Forum.

This map also highlights that the ITU is the big loser in this debacle. Secretary General Hamadoun Touré claimed that the ITU works by consensus. It’s just not so, when matters are contentious, and quite frankly he lacked the power and influence to bring all the different viewpoints together. This loss of consensus has split the Union, and has substantial ramifications. There is no shared vision or goal, and this will need to be addressed at the next Plenipotentiary conference.

With different sectors and diverse participants, it is hard to lump the Union into a single group. Nations come together to manage radio spectrum in the ITU-R. That’s important because spectrum crosses borders, and needs to be managed. In the ITU-D, both developing and developed countries come together to have a dialog on key issues such as cybersecurity and interoperability. The work of the -D sector needs to be increased. Most notably, their Programmes need even more capability, and the study groups should be articulating more clearly the challenges and opportunities developing countries face.

The -T standardization sector is considerably more complex. It’s important not to lose sight of the good work that goes on there. For example, many of the audio and video codecs we use are standardized in ITU-T study group 16. Fiber transmission standards in study group 15 are the basis for long haul transmission. Study group 12 has some of the foremost experts in the world on quality of service management. However, the last six years have demonstrated a fundamental problem:

At the end of the day, when conflicts arise, and that is in the nature of standards work, because of one country one vote, the ITU-T is catering to developing countries who by their nature are not at the leading edge of technology. The ITU-T likes to believe it holds a special place among standards organizations, and yet there have been entire study groups whose work have been ignored by the market and governments alike. To cater to those who are behind the Rogers adoption curve is to chase away those who are truly in front. This is why you don’t see active participation from Facebook, Twitter, or Google in ITU-T standards, and why even larger companies like Cisco, IBM, HP, and others prefer to do protocol work largely elsewhere.¹

So what can be done?

In practice study groups in ITU-T serve four functions:

develop technical standards, known as recommendations;
provide fora for vertical standards coordination;
direct management of a certain set of resources, such as the telephone number space;
establish accounting rates and regulatory rules based on economics and policy discussions.

The first two functions are technical. The other are political. The invasion of political processes into technical standards development is also a fundamental issue. I offer the above division to demonstrate a possible way forward to be considered. The role of the -D sector should be considered in all of this. Hearing from developing countries about the problems they are facing continues to be important.

The ITU-T and its member states will have the opportunity to consider this problem over the next two years, prior to its plenipotentiary meeting. There is a need for member states to first recognize the problem, and to address it in a forthright manner.

What Does the Internet Technical Community Need to Do?

For the most part, we’re at this point because the Internet Technical Community has done just what it needed to do. After all, nobody would care about regulating a technology that is not widely deployed. For the most part, the Internet Technical Community should keep doing what we’re doing. That does not mean there isn’t room for improvement.

Developing countries have real problems that need to be addressed. It takes resources and wealth to address cybersecurity, for example. To deny this is to feed into a political firestorm. Therefore continued engagement and understanding are necessary. Neither can be found at a political conference like WCIT. WCIT has also shown that by the time people show up at such places, their opinions are formed.

Finally, we must recognize an uncomfortable truth with IPv4. While Africa, Latin & South America still have free access to IPv4 address space, the rest of the world has exhausted its supply. Whenever a scarce resource is given a price, there will be haves and have nots. When the have nots are poor, and they often are, it can always be classed as an inequity. In this case, there truly is no need for such inequity, because IPv6 offers everyone ample address space. Clearly governments are concerned about this. The private sector had better regulate itself before it gets (further) regulated.

Another Uncomfortable Truth

Developing countries are also at risk in this process, and perhaps most of all. They have been sold the idea that somehow “bridging the standardization gap” is a good thing. It is one thing to participate and learn. It is another to impede leading edge progress through bloc votes. Leading edge work will continue, just elsewhere, as it has.

Category: Politics