[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Thu Feb 20 20:00:41 UTC 2014
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
>I'm not convinced that it is an "either ... or ..." situation, such as you to allude above.
>It is true that "State-led" doesn't match the present model (and success) of the
>Internet to date, but it is also worth noting that the current model fails to provide a
>clear roadmap for governments on how they can fulfill their responsibilities, particularly
>when those responsibilities now involve parties who are distributed globally and
>communicating via the Internet.
Speaking of false dichotomies, what the heck are Mike (or Jefsey) talking about when they defend the need for government "involvement"????
Have they been asleep since 1998? Have they missed more than a decade of state-imposed filtering and censorship, ICE domain seizures, cybersecurity initiatives, cyber espionage, kill switches, data retention, surveillance not only by NSA but most others, etc., etc., etc? Did they overlook the existence and growing influence of the GAC within ICANN? Did they overlook the takeover of various ccTLDs by national governments ranging from Korea to Kazakhstan to Ukraine? They are already involved.
Oh, those poor governments. They are confused about their "responsibilities". They have no road map. My heart bleeds for them.
I get rankled about this kind of stuff because when Mike and John make these soothing overtures to states, the actual bargaining chip that they offer those poor confused states usually ends up being _my_ rights and _my_ freedom and that of billions of other individual internet users.
Yes, governments have a big role to play in the "solution space." Most of it involves recognizing and enforcing limits on their powers. In other words, they are a big part, if not the biggest part, of the problem space.
More information about the discuss