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