[governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance

[Gene Kimmelman]

I"d also like to commend to the attention of this list the letter that Public Knowledge sent in opposition to the legislation as drafted, and Harold Feld's blog on this issue.  In a nutshell, legislative language that conflates "internet governance" with "the internet" without any appropriate definitions appears to suggest that traditional regulation of the internet's basic infrastructure should be eliminated.  This isn't just a knee-jerk, extreme reaction to ambiguity  -- when the ambiguities were pointed out to the bill's sponsor and suggested clarifications rejected, it became difficult for many of us to feel comfortable with these ambiguities.  So the letters I refer to point out dangers to nondiscrimination rules, antitrust oversight and other traditional tools to promote competition and the public interest.  If it is true that there is no intent to implicate these regulatory tools until existing U.S. law, it is difficult to understand the sponsor's unwillingness to do so.
On Apr 13, 2013, at 10:36 PM, McTim wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> I, like Avri have some questions about this post:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This, once visibly put into practice, is very welcome news indeed. Many
> 
> How many is many?
> 
> in
>> the rest of the world
> 
> 
> where in the rest of the world specifically?
> 
> 
> were astonished at the capacity of certain elements of
>> US Civil Society and the Technical Community to offer uncritical support for
>> what is so evidently self-serving hypocrisy of the form, do as we say not as
>> we do.
> 
> Are you talking about the recent contretemps about your non-appointment by T&A,
> or are you talking about the bill in the House?
> 
> If the former, why would you use this thread, and not any of the others?
> 
> If the latter, I thought you are in support of the letter from OTI and CDT
> (both orgs are folk whose work I like and respect a great deal BTW)?
> 
> Perhaps if we all stopped top-posting, I could make greater sense of the matter.
> 
> On the substance of this proposed bill, I don't see the "impact on
>> important aspects of freedom of expression/citizen and consumer protection
>> under U.S. law".  that Gene sees.
> 
> While I don't normally support much of what the Republicans in the
> U.S. put forth,
> the language on human rights is something that we have been asking for, no?
> 
> If they pass this (which as per Lee is a long shot) can we not throw
> it in their face
> the next time they try and do a dodgy domain seizure/expand
> monitoring/$badthingthat
> we don't like?
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with Avri that the letter in reaction to this
> bill is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> I also agree with her that it's not a very helpful tone you have
> chosen, and join her in asking
> if "tone" like this would trigger a warning.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t