From the Belmont Club.
It is precisely because the US "has never abused its position in that way" that the Internet has become so universally accepted. It is on the basis of that "full faith and confidence" in the system that vast information flows, often transacted by companies worth many billions of dollars, can occur on a routine basis. By maintaining this medium of exchange, the United States has become the information central banker to the world. The WGIG's essentially argues that the United States might be tempted to debase the Internet in order to control it. However, a moment's reflection will convince most readers that any American attempt to behave as the WGIG's members (like Saudi Arabia and Iran) would probably be tempted to behave would instantly lead to the end of the US monopoly. The New Scientist's claim that the Internet has become too valuable to entrust it to the United States stands the logic on its head. The Internet has become too valuable, even to American companies alone, for anyone to even think of monkeying with it. Anyone that is, except the WGIG.Wish I could have said it that well.
1 comment:
I guess the first question I'd ask of the UN would be "Do you plan to model your management of this off of the Oil for Food program or the Kosovo occupation, or possibly the way refugee camps outside Rwanda were managed?" With the exception of people who want to intentionally monkee with the network (China, Saudi Arabia, others) who can possibly beleive that giving this over to the UN is even remotely a possibility, let alone a good plan?
Post a Comment