Vittorio, I’m on holiday, so my answer will be brief. You excerpted part of my message and used it to build a straw man. I’ll happily engage in discussion if you reply to the whole message. Regards, P.S. regarding global public goods, your response leads me to believe you either misunderstand the term, or are contesting a fair slice of academic work supporting it. Which is it? Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Jan 2023, at 10:14 pm, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Il 06/01/2023 02:19 CET Mark Nottingham <mnot=40mnot.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >> >> The IETF has considerable legitimacy as not only an institution that can create useful technical documents, but also as a steward of the Internet architecture as a means to realise and maintain a global public good, even as we ourselves are an essentially private institution. In contrast, state actors are still relatively unproven in their roles as Internet regulators. > > Pardon me for the thought-provoking remark, but if you were to say this to any European Commission officer or national Internet regulator, you would possibly get a diplomatic version of the following question: who are you, the IETF or your employer to judge or question what a sovereign nation of 5-10-80 million people decides for themselves through democratic processes? Who gave you this right and this role, and how is this compatible with democracy? > > (hint: there is no such thing as "a global public good" but many different ideas of what that would be, as the definition of "good" is highly cultural and subjective, the more so on a global scale; thus, defining what the "global public good" is, for policy purposes, is not a matter of competence but of representativeness, exactly like in the "old world" offline) > > -- > Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange > vittorio.bertola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
