Speed and Flexibility. States can, in fashioning an international agreement, take into account the special needs and character- istics of the activities to be affected. Most specialized agencies of the UN proceed with their work at a slow pace. In some areas, however, speed is essential, and deadlines must be met for the activity to achieve its 71Goldsmith and Xx treat the “root” server issue as fundamental. See discussion in Who Controls the Internet, pp. 170-72. The U.S. has responded to complaints on this issue from the EU by establishing the Internet Governance Forum in which states debate and recommend Internet policy issues; it should, if necessary, also consider arrangements that would enable it to share with other states its largely theoretical “ultimate” authority over the process in such a manner that enables it to prevent changes that are unacceptable, as is the case with regard to substantive matters considered by the Security Council. 72Opposition is intense to any negotiation that might result in the U.S. agreeing to an ITU role in cyber security. A recent article by Xxxxxx X. XxXxxxxx, a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission condemns the FCC proposal to regulate broadband Internet access services under laws written for “monopoly phone companies” as opening the door to ITU ambitions to regulate the Web. He states: “The best way to keep the Internet open, operating and growing is to maintain the current model.” Yet, he also acknowledges that international support for ITU jurisdiction over at least parts of the Internet may be beyond the power of the U.S. to prevent, since “Unlike at the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. has no veto power at the ITU ” Wall St. J., July 23, 2010, p. A17.
