Brian, On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I agree. It seems to me that since governments are the ones doing pervasive surveillance, it is unlikely that government based solutions are likely to fix the problem, more likely the opposite. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail