[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

[Brian E Carpenter]

In a word, none of those issues are Internet governance.

How, for example, is the USA bugging Angela Merkel's cell phone
anything to do with Internet governance? How is the NSA snagging
and analysing billions of email headers a defect in Internet governance?
Sounds like a problem with NSA governance to me. Was it an error in
telegraph cable governance that led to the Zimmermann telegram incident
in 1917?

I could continue but I won't. This business is complex enough without
dragging in irrelevant problems.

Regards
   Brian

On 17/04/2014 11:43, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Apologies for the top post, but this will be illegible if I try to interleave from my phone. 
> 
> I would like to know why "governance" in particular is the answer to even one of these problems.  
> 
> The OpenSSL case is a good example.  People have freeloaded on that project for years, offering it precious little support while leaving security auditing and cryptanalysis for "someone else".  If you think that trash in your neighborhood park is a problem, the answer is not to form a committee. The answer is to make like Pete Seeger and pick up some trash. 
> 
> Yahoo's DMARC decision is another good example.  That is a service supported mostly by advertising. Don't like what they're doing?  Organize a boycott.  That'll change things. Ask Mozilla. 
> 
> IPv6 is indeed a problem, and I will not defend the series of decisions that got us here (though it's trickier than many seem to imagine). But actually, in my experience, v6 just works now.  I use it all the time.  It's not a "governance" problem, but an economics problem. 
> 
> And it seems to me that there we arrive at the issue: this is about who's going to pay. That's very well, but I don't see why it's "Internet governance".
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
>