Aaron Okin Columnist

Last week in New York, a meeting on governance and regulation of the Internet took place at the United Nations among diplomats, computer industry representatives and U.N. officials. And, in typical U.N. fashion, there were aspects of the meeting that resembled a group of kindergarteners rushing with raptor-like vigor for a chance to play with one of their classmate's new toys.

In the case of this meeting, the nations of the world were making it clear they wanted more of a say in how the Internet is regulated. Apparently, there is widely held disdain for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and the power it holds. The nonprofit organization is charged with distributing Web addresses and setting the minimum standards for registering for a site; perhaps its most undesirable characteristic is that it's located in the United States.

It makes sense that ICANN is headquartered here. After all, the Internet is an American innovation.

The argument on behalf of many countries and industry officials is that since the Internet is a tool so widely utilized and has vast potential to bring different people around the world together, it makes sense to have a global body overseeing it and managing it. It is clear that there are different languages, alphabets and ways of life in play that are foreign to the English language and American culture, but that does not give other countries instant eminence in determining how the Internet is controlled just by merit of their existence.

Such a cavalier and unsubstantiated attitude from them is hardly surprising. Members of the international community in the past have sought to gain control of things they have no real business making decisions on, things that are privately developed. There is a precedent for the developing world to overlook the rights of the innovator.

The countries that are calling for Internet oversight now are the same countries that have serious health problems within their borders and strategize that the best way to deal with them is to disregard patents pharmaceutical companies have on their drugs and to produce them illegally in places like India.

Naturally, controlling the Internet is not as dire a thing as terrible illnesses. It is evident, though, that the developing bloc lacks respect for the people who are responsible for making human lives better, especially when one looks at the deals pharmaceutical companies tried to cut with poor countries.

Before the conclusion is jumped to that I am just another heartless conservative out only for big business and without compassion for the poor, realize the position that such actions are wrong has been supported by the left-leaning "humanitarian" countries of Scandinavia and Western Europe.

ICANN has been inclusive ÷ entities all over the world, even governments and organizations that are openly hostile to the United States, have been allowed to register domains and operate Web sites unfettered by interventions that clearly would be in the interests of the American government.

Additionally, the technological gap that exists between the developed and the developing worlds is not going to disappear just because ICANN's functions shift to international control. It is going to take much more than such a transfer to overcome the problems of access to information and to a better quality of life that accompany many of the innovations we take for granted.

It's time to realize that the developing world, while wrought with serious problems and suffering that threatens so many, is not a docile, helpless group of states. It is vociferously pursuing a goal that, in this case, has very little to it beyond an inflated sense of place in the international community's hierarchy.

But while it may seem inconsequential now, cases in the future when the issues aren't as relatively trivial as who is handing out Web addresses could legitimately place the American strategic position in jeopardy ÷ that is, if the United Nations ever gets its act together and gains some legitimacy, and if these conferences cease being exercises in anti-developed world rhetoric that yield little more than a few press releases.

Actually, maybe there's not too much to worry about after all.

Aaron Okin is a regional development and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.