On 20/11/2013 06:13, SM wrote:
...
> As mentioned above, there has been many announcements,
> meetings, etc. about Internet governance and most of them were motivated
> by well-meaning people. I am not aware of any positive outcome out of
> any of the efforts.
I'm not sure, given the origins and history of WSIS/WSIG (including the
WSIS session in Tunisia supported by the previous Tunisian regime), about
"most" being well-meaning. But never mind. I think there has actually been
one positive outcome of all the IGF blah-blah: a continued absence of
international treaties and regulations interfering with Internet technology
and deployment. Interference has occurred only on a national basis. What
we need is for this international non-interference to continue, even
post-Snowdenia.
Multi-stakeholder meetings, if they serve to prolong the non-interference,
may be a price we have to pay. It's particularly important to underline
that the response to pervasive surveillance should be better security
and privacy technology, not regulation or national solutions.
Brian