[discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
jmamodio at gmail.com
Fri Jan 3 14:12:52 UTC 2014
> On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> On 03-Jan-14 03:11, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> One more comment
>>> we are doing for ourselves as a multistakeholder organization. The NSA fiasco makes doing ICANN's job harder. That makes it an Internet governance, for want of a better term, issue.
>> Why are we focusing so much on the NSA fiasco ? What about the China fiasco, the Russia fiasco, the Turkey fiasco, the India fiasco, the Tunis fiasco, and so on ?
> I can think of 2 reasons:
> - We in the US are asking people to trust that we are a benign steward, a trusted neutral broker for the Internet. I have not heard of the others you mention do that.
We learned long time ago that the Indians are the bad guys and the cowboys good and always win, and they keep the bounty and the girl, nothing new here. That the Indians are not screaming that they are also the good guys doesn't make it a reason to just focus on the cowboys. If we want to tackle this problem we should not focus on just snowdenia.
> - We in the US have been holier than though about our goodness.
That's always by default, enforced by the US having bigger guns and in higher quantity.
> Oh, and a third reason: because it was such a pervasive attack on global human rights. None of the other examples have that scope - this was a pivotal event, despite what we may have known, or not known, about governments and the way they behave.
So persecution and incarceration of people with a dissenting opinion in some of those countries are not as important in terms of human rights as snoopy sniffing traffic.
What I meant with my comment is that we should work on this across the board, I'm not ignoring the scope and pervasiveness but we can't just focus on one event pivotal or not.
More information about the discuss