[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

[John Curran]

On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>> (i.e. providing the legal framework in which the Internet operates,
>> in enforcement of laws, and in protection of citizens from harm)
> 
> When an entity can make the rules and enforce them, they are in control.
> So even if you did use the word, I infer it from what you wrote.
> 
> If we allow governments to create the framework in which the Internet
> operates on an international level, we will have given them control.
> ...
> So certainly in an abstract sense we can accept therule of law as a good thing, but only in cases where we can trust the lawmakers; and those cases are few and far between and getting more rare all the time.

Apologies... I understand the concern now, and it is quite reasonable as a 
result of my writing "providing the legal framework in which the Internet 
operates" with respect to governments.

Let's try again with slightly different phrasing: 

"Governments have several important roles with respect to the Internet, 
including providing for overall rule of law that helps facilitate Internet 
institutions being accountable to the Internet multistakeholder community"

i.e.  we provide the framework, governments might also participate in 
development of such, but the role I referenced is not anything new or 
unique but simply the ability to aid in enforcement of legal agreements
between parties.

The framework to be used should be developed collectively by the Internet
multistakeholder community (which includes governments), and should provide 
for strengthened mechanisms for accountability of the Internet identifier 
coordinating organizations.  

Is that any clearer?
/John

Disclaimers: My views alone.