[Chapter-delegates] Narelle Clark - Is the Internet different?

[Rodel Urani]

Hi Joly,

I was trying to say that such effort could make Internet stakeholders', 
particularly typical end-users, experience even better. I think that would 
alleviate their problems losing billions of dollars while in cyberspace. 
This is not meant giving up fundamental and existing rights being enjoyed by 
people. The fact that the US government (I am from Philippines) has opened 
the matter to be discussed over the public medium and solicit ideas and 
arguments as against the draft strategy, would only mean that the authority 
is serious that the Internet must remain open and will continue to be a tool 
for innovation and that involvement of the general public and all 
stakeholders as it is at present, maybe even beyond, is critical to its 
existence.

Though, it did not say the preservation of complete anonymity, the strategy 
is meant to address reasonable number of issues and that includes security 
and fraud, that ecosystem will not be confined and controlled solely by the 
government allowing organizations or third party provider to participate and 
enroll token for end-users. Imagine an Internet with digital certificates or 
PKI everywhere, where nobody can read information during transit and 
documents deemed private would continue to be kept confidential. Of course, 
cracking, wire tapping and circumventing the system, if possible, is totally 
a different thing.

Though some experiences in the enforcement of, including, laws that have not 
crafted carefully and not gone through consultations by majority or with 
representatives of stakeholders, have put some including less fortunate in 
an embarrassing positions. Legislations, in my own understanding as a 
private citizen's viewpoint, tend to protect public interest and my 
agreement to Fred statement, and not by personal agenda's of the few. I am 
sure any discrepancies that made laws become unworthy to their purpose would 
be discarded if not corrected. We just hope, if any mistakes, could be 
realized sooner.

Kindest regards,
-Rodel

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 3:09 AM
To: "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com>
Cc: "Rodel Urani" <rodel.urani at strategict.pro>; "ISOC Chapter Delegates" 
<chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Narelle Clark - Is the Internet different?

>
> On Jul 9, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>> Narelle's point, written in the context of clumsy moves by Governments to 
>> control Internet behavior, is that statutes should not discriminate 
>> between online and offline activity. That networking is becoming so 
>> integral a part of society that there essentially is no need for 
>> difference in laws. For example, why introduce broad online censorship in 
>> an otherwise free society?
>
> Her point, stated as "The Australian chapter of the Internet Society has 
> argued strongly that our system of law needs to be robust enough to be 
> applied and be enforceable independently of the medium", echos the 
> position that ISOC in general and the IETF have pushed regarding 
> internet-based legislation and regulation for a good 20 years. In short, 
> we have no shortage of laws regulating behavior; use existing law in the 
> new medium of communication rather than specially regulating it, or if one 
> is going to write new regulation, make it apply in all media.
>
> I had an interesting conversation along this line with a lawyer from the 
> Family Research Council, a US christian lobbying organization, a number of 
> years ago. She wanted an obscenity law tailored to the Internet, and I as 
> a contributor was concerned. So I called and asked. When I pointed out the 
> plethora of obscenity laws, she said "yes, but those have all been gutted 
> by the courts; due to precedent, they have no teeth." I wondered aloud why 
> this law would be different, and she replied "of course it will be gutted. 
> But it gives me another opportunity to argue the case."
>
> I stopped supporting FRC. If a law cannot be effective in its intended 
> effect, it should not exist.
>