On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Phrases like "national digital independence and sovereignty" make > it sound as though the real motivation for all this is to make it > easier for the repressive regimes of the world to selectively disconnect > themselves from the global net. Things are bad enough already. > Let's not help the chauvenists of nationalism make things worse, > even though the technology is already in place to allow them to do it. Well, they think we are the chauvenists of unilateralism. If we had played more fairly and honestly, they might not be so suspicious of our motives. And its not just about disconnection. One can already disconnect if one chooses. So I think the developing world views it as about freedom from the undue control and influence of a unilateral power. > Admirable goals like improving network security and stability do > not require increased government involvement, nor do they in > any way require abandoning the existing cooperative relationship > between the ITU and the IETF. The very notion of "national > digital independence and soveriegnty" is contrary to network > security and stability. Actually, these admirable goals do require government involvement. Without laws to punish the crackers and the DDOS'rs, there is no network security or stability. One cannot fight international crime without Interpol, and organizations like Interpol cannot exist without respect for national soveriegnty. --Dean