AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting

[McTim]

2011/2/26 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> omg
>
> Does the $90million cover include costs for unmet SLAs and exposures to
> service providers? Although they are exempt from litigation, I suppose
> because they were legislated to disconnect. This very act of using a "kill
> switch" supports the argument for removing control from a national level to
> an international level.


NO, IT DOESN'T!!  It supports the idea that "control" over the
Internet is not at all useful.



>
> The only question

That is not at all the only question.




 is whether there would be tiered controls or not. I
> suppose the arguments would have to come under the ICESCR and perhaps a new
> schedule within the GATS - creation of options.
>
> But first, we would have to revise or add on Montesqiue, Locke and Hobbe's
> philosophy to capture the basis of possible controls and who should have
> control.

People should have control over their own networks.  Governments can
control their own.  Haven't we learned ANYTHING in the last 6 weeks?

Do you honestly believe that a government that feels threatened is
going to abide by an international agreement NOT to shut off
communications to its citizens?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/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