Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
googleblog.blogspot.com
Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#2Already posted using a direct link to ISOC story
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2016379
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#3Before we get all up in arms about governments taking monopoly, we should remind ourselves that the "bottom up" approach being championed here gave us the Google-Verizon open internet proposal in August. As I understand it, the proposal have implied net neutrality for wireline services but has an opt-out for wireless internet. So the bottom up approach is not a guarantee that it will produce better policies.
But on balance, the bottom up approach has certainly been good for the internet. I just want to keep it in perspective.
References for the Google-Verizon deal:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-...
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#4Already posted using a direct link to ISOC story http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2016379
To me, this story was interesting to HN not because Google was commenting, but because Vint Cerf was. When he writes about Internet governance, I listen. The UN forms committees and working groups all the time; I'm not going to sign a petition to one of them unless someone I trust on the matter feels so strongly about it.
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#5"bottoms-up" is mentioned twice. Spellchecker?
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#6The inter-networks are too important to be governed by anyone, be they governments or companies. Government implies coercion and regulations, regardless of where it comes from.
Not that the regulators won't try, they will be adamant about their "right" to "bring order" over apparent chaos.
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#7Before we get all up in arms about governments taking monopoly, we should remind ourselves that the "bottom up" approach being championed here gave us the Google-Verizon open internet proposal in August. As I understand it, the proposal have implied net neutrality for wireline services but has an opt-out for wireless internet. So the bottom up approach is not a guarantee that it will produce better policies. But on b…
That's still top down, but with different people at the top.
The Google-Verizon deal involved common framework for government regulation of the internet. Calling it "open internet" was a deliberate misnomer.
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#8"bottoms-up" is mentioned twice. Spellchecker?
Freudian slip. Vint Cerf really wants a beer.
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#9The very premise of this article is totally ridiculous.
The beauty of the internet is that you can easily share vast amounts of digitized information with anyone without having to be in the same place.
Not that it's governed by X or Y. And the IGF doesn't govern it anyway.
In the end this forum is a total joke anyway, a pointless waste of money, much like many parts of the UN from which it stems. Any actual decisions are made elsewhere.
And even if it did matter why should we support a bunch of companies and academics taking part in this sort of thing? Who elected them? What if it were Zynga sitting on this committee instead of Google? Would anyone be outraged at their departure?
Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
#10Before we get all up in arms about governments taking monopoly, we should remind ourselves that the "bottom up" approach being championed here gave us the Google-Verizon open internet proposal in August. As I understand it, the proposal have implied net neutrality for wireline services but has an opt-out for wireless internet. So the bottom up approach is not a guarantee that it will produce better policies. But on b…
That's still top down , but with different people at the top. The Google-Verizon deal involved common framework for government regulation of the internet. Calling it "open internet" was a deliberate misnomer.
Multiple inheritance rears its ugly head yet again. Namespace collisions, oh noes!