A speaker at the EURIM Directors Round Table on Information Governance this week sharply criticised the use of the “fetish” word governance in place of “accountability”. We use debate about structures to cover up failure to hold people and organisations to account for not using and enforcing existing law.
By submitting your email address, you agree to receive emails regarding relevant topic offers from TechTarget and its partners. You can withdraw your consent at any time. Contact TechTarget at 275 Grove Street, Newton, MA.
have received much interesting feed-back on the McColo incident, including that it is much easier to remove spammers and malware practitioners when they their route their traffic through the smaller ISPs. It is much harder when criminals route their activities through market leaders, despite their supposedly better technology and security resource. That is because no-one would threaten to block a BT, Google or Microsoft service until they have done what is necessary.
Hence the Washington Post finding that, according to Spamhaus, Microsoft is moving up, not down, the list of “spam friendly” ISPs.
But, what would the headlines be if Microsoft they were to publicly commit to rigorous co-operation with
enforcement around the world to police the
Internet, in advance of any agreement on a
democratically accountable governance framework for that co-operation?
There are only two years to go before the IGF remit to agree effective co-operation on the issues raised at WSIS in Tunis runs out.
Then the spectre of an all-paralysing UN bureaucracy comes back on the table.
The UK and European Parliaments will be well represented at the IGF in Hyderabad. Half the board of EURIM will be there – leaving me behind to look after the on-line shop.
How many the Congressmen and Senators from the United States will be at meetings expected to discuss the transfer of control over the governance of Internet in line with usage? Probably none. They still assume their executive can block such moves at the diiplomatic level
But the Brasilians, Chinese, Indians, Japanese and Koreans now have more Internet users than Western nations added together. They are leading the way with mass-market, high bandwidth on-line and mobile gaming and social networking – including discovering and addressing the issues these raise – such as how to create serious, legitimate, revenue streams other than from pay-per-click adverts and malware protection services. And the credit crunch means that economic power has moved to those who are keeping the dollar afloat.
Obama makes great speaches about the the changing world and his team certainly understood the value of the Internet in laundering political donations so that these appeared as a myriad of small amounts supposedly donated by ordinary Americans,
Democrats understand the need to address the realities of the changing
on-line world any more than the Republicans?
There are signs that they may.
Robert Shapiro, one of Obama’s advisors, gave an excellent answer when I asked him about how they would react to Chinese priorities during his whistlestop tour of London last week.
But time is running out.
The future of Internet Governance may well be determined by how the main ISPs work together to prevent the spammers and malware practitioners getting back on line of the next couple of weeks – including how they reconcile this with the democratic values of Western Internet – as well as with their responsbilities to their other customers.
I personally believe the way forward will entail the kind of co-operation at which London, with operations like the Centre for Effective Disputes Resolution, excells. Those who could, for example, unravel the Maxwell Pension funds, ensuring that most of what was left went to pensioners not lawyers, have the “what is practical” mindset that is missing from much current debate.
We can no more afford to leave Internet Governance to obsessional techies and their lawyers than to diplomats and bureaucrats.
Personally I’d rather trust a cartel of major ISPs working direct with law enforcement – provided they can come up with a creditable set of routines for subsequent public accountability. But that is because I trust many of the academics and lawyers who commonly advise
government and regulators even less.
When I joined ISOC in 1995 that was what I was told it had really been created for – it was merely marking time till the world was ready …. I’m pretty certain that the world is ready – is ISOC?
If not – who is?