<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20.06.13 01:38, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba"
type="cite">Daniel, your basic assumption seems to be that nothing
that governments can do can affect the future of the Internet.
Here I disagree. I think they have enormous power to break up the
Internet, and there are plenty of examples out there already of
how governments can restrict open access. Yes, there are Tor and
other workarounds in some cases, but for the majority, national
firewalls and censorship are effective.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have no assumption related to whether "Governments" can affect the
future of the Internet. In my opinion, Governments have no mandate
to do anything related to Internet, as such -- <b>although they may
have mandate to regulate activities that use Internet </b><b>technology
or resources</b>. This is quite an difference in my opinion and
probably the core of our "disagreement".<br>
<br>
Things might have been different, if Governments in fact built and
controlled the Internet -- which is not the case. But Governments
are free to build and control their very own Internets: in fact,
some do --- thing is, nobody else is interested in participating. It
could of course be fixed, by disallowing competition...<br>
<br>
As an example, I don't think any Government has any mandate to
regulate Earth's gravity. As a consequence, water drops will
continue to fall from the sky and fill rivers that will continue to
flow (the Internet), despite the fact that in some places artificial
structures prevent that free flow (national firewalls?). Governments
could however pretend they have mandate to control "national water
resources" which comprise of all water flows trough "their"
territory -- and insist on regulating anyone who "operates with
water".<br>
However, if those who control the flow of water on Earth (God?)
decide, that they wish that no single drop of water will fall on the
territory of an particular country, there is nothing the government
of that country can do about their "mandate to control water" --
except of course to declare God hostile, and who knows, start a war
:)<br>
If Governments could alter Earth's gravity as they wish, they could
cause rain drops intended for another country to drop on their "own"
sold, or the other way around.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba"
type="cite">
As you say,the Internet is based on peer trust. I think the big
issue we face is that the trust is now highly questionable to many
of us. It's the breach of trust by a dominant stakeholder that
concerns me and leads me to believe that the path back to internet
freedom may be difficult.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do not believe the US Government is your peer.<br>
<br>
Your statements strikes me as if you believed the US Government is
the sole guardian of the Internet and multistakeholderism.. This is
interesting, as by definition you cannot trust any (elected)
Government, as on the next election you end up with different set of
"governors" with possibly completely different goals and agendas. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba"
type="cite">
But I appreciate your optimism!
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for the kind words, but I am not exactly optimist.<br>
If the drink is not to my taste, the glass is always half full (I
don't want any more).<br>
If the drink is good, the it is always half empty (needs to be
refilled).<br>
<br>
But in this particular discussion, I am merely pointing out common
sense. <br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
</body>
</html>