The role of Internet governance in sanctions
mel at beckman.org
Thu Mar 10 16:42:14 UTC 2022
I don’t understand your comment. I don’t think our statements are the same at all.
I’m opposed to this particular description of ad-hoc “social justice” in Internet governance described in your proposal. It’s far too broad and open to interpretation. You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to — correct me if I’m wrong — sovereign countries pulling the plug on their Internet access.
The proposal you signed doesn’t address that, that I can see. It has a slew of incredibly vague terms, such as “international norms”, “consensus-driven process”, “principles of non-overreach”, and “pre-defined goals”, to list just a few.
Your comments seems to take this proposal as a fait accompli, to wit "I’m really happy that the document is out. Now we can focus on operationalization. Mailing list, web site, etc. are in the process of being set up.”
Slow your roll. This is nowhere near ready for “operationalization”, as the several comments here objecting to the thing testifies.
> On Mar 10, 2022, at 8:18 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:
>> In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
>> I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge.
> It sounds like your problem statement and ours are the same. Pulling the plug on countries is inappropriate, because it has a lot of unintended consequences and harms people.
More information about the NANOG