Thats a really interesting way of looking at it, I wonder has anyone studied how much innovation has came out of Chinas great firewall implementation with regards to avoidance and privacy enhancing technologies to protect and enable the Chinese population to access an unfiltered internet.
-James
> On 15 Aug 2015, at 10:08, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have never thought so-called fragments are more that another temporary
> breakage in the Interent that the network will heal and learn to 'route'
> around. That has been the threat from government lately, they will
> fragment the network. They can try, but they will only hurt themselves
> and some of their citizens. The Internet will survive and will 'route'
> aroundany breakage they commit in time.
>
> I think all these government threats of fragmentation are just
> disruption that will spur further innovation and a stronger Internet.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 15-Aug-15 11:02, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Governments cannot control the Internet, they can only ruin it.
>> Then again, that should not be much of a surprise.
>>
>>
>> +1 hence the source of the term "Internet deferagmentation". Not
>> allowing govt participate in the coordination processes of the
>> internet would only justify their need to further "defragment" the
>> Internet.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 15-Aug-15 09:46, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>> Hello Sam & All,
>>>
>>> taking a broad historical view,
>>> - to begin with, the Internet was the realm of engineers,
>> academics, military personnel;
>>> - most sovereign states, because their civil servants came from
>> law, macro-economics or political "science", did not grasp the
>> potential of the Internet, and therefore left it to their
>> technical ministerial departments (telecoms, industry...);
>>> - businesses were quick to espouse the Internet, taking in their
>> wake the necessary lawyers for trademarks and litigations, and
>> this may have become the single most influential segment of the
>> Internet eco-system;
>>> - more recently, and for a variety of reasons (strengthen
>> censorship, extend surveillance, streamle administrative tasks,
>> reach the electorate more easily, most states are simply catching
>> up. This is where we are today.
>>>
>>> Against this background, it seems likely that most sovereign
>> states will seek a greater role. That is evident in the GAC, but
>> also more widely. One of the main areas of competition for them is
>> representation of the public interest, where they generally do not
>> take a favourable view of NGOs or other elements of civil society,
>> because the latter occupy a space which, in political theory,
>> belongs first and foremost to sovereign states.
>>>
>>> Reports on the future of the Internet (Ilves Commission and
>> others), the pursuit of a universal forum (IGF), various
>> initiatives to enhance the multi-stakeholder model (MSM) (e.g.
>> NetMundial Initiative), none of these proposes, nor will bring
>> about, a lesser role of governments.
>>>
>>> The challenge today is
>>> - to recognize that sovereign states will not abandon what they
>> see as their self-evident place in Internet governance;
>>> - taking that as a given, how can we strengthen the MSM in a way
>> that does not push states towards an alternative to MSM, such as
>> national Intranets, i.e. terminating the single, universally
>> compatible Internet as most of us know it today?
>>>
>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> À: [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 12 Août 2015 15:58:16
>>> Objet: Re: [Policy] IANA transition and ICANN accountability
>> proposal : NCSG comments
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a shorter history observing the role of GAC inside ICANN,
>> but a longer history of observing governments, and I am the
>> position that the transition should take place keeping GAC pretty
>> much in its existing advisory role where there are, and will be,
>> continues pressures for role modification. It would open up a very
>> dangerous and destabilizing struggle if “...the GAC dissented from
>> whatever Dublin adopts”.
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to keep a collaborative element to the struggles for
>> position within ICANN. Moving to a pure adversarial stance in this
>> area would be a lose-lose recipe for disaster.
>>>
>>> Sam L.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> /Seun Ojedeji,
>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>> //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>/
>>
>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
