On 1/14/13 11:23 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
... The ITU ...
How shall states determine what harms are lawfully attempted, and what harms are not lawfully attempted? Shall there be a treaty concerning "cyber" strife between states, or shall "cyber" strife between states be without treaty based limits? If one answers that without is less attractive than with, what is the means by which states arrive at treaties, without the ITU, or treaty bodies similar to the ITU, whether regional, or global, in membership and form? Shall all predatory or intentionally injurious uses of trans-jurisdictionally routed communications be {managed, reduced, mitigated, ...} by private parties, which are, inter alia, for the most part, for-profit corporations, with no, or negative, fiduciary duty to "police" the net? Flawed as the current institution is, and has been, for the duration of the the connectionist vs connectionless struggle, proposing to remove the state member organization without a proposal for an alternative public purposed organization, not all of which are state actors, means not have very useful starting points for the big questions -- shall there be any limit on state actions? shall there be any limit on non-state actions? Eric