This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit

[I-coordination] A Framework for Recent Internet Governance Discussions – From Montevideo Statement to 1net (was: Re: What is 1net to me?)

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at
Wed Dec 4 02:45:52 CET 2013

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at> wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2013, at 9:05 am, John Curran <jcurran at> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at> wrote:
> >>
> >> If that is so, then I can't support 1net in that form, as I think the
> technical community has been fixated for too long on the idea that there
> are technical solutions to policy problems, and the idea that its version
> of the multi-stakeholder model is the only way to produce these solutions.
> >
> > Jeremy -
> >
> >   I do not believe in either of the above statements.  Where there
> >   are technical solutions, we should talk about them; where there
> >   is not, we need to work even closer with other segments of the
> >   greater Internet community (including governments) to find ways
> >   forward.
> >
> >   Why do you feel it should be otherwise?
> I agree with what you say now, but it was not what I understood from your
> blog post.  I was particularly going on "it is my expectation that 1net
> will help promote existing technical solutions or identify opportunities
> for additional cooperation among Internet organizations", which to me read
> as if it was about continuing to promote the concept of the technical
> community has having all the answers to the Internet's problems.

At the moment the problem is that the technical community is only
recognizing some of the problems of the Internet as problems. Meanwhile the
government entities are seeing the Internet as another regulatory problem
like steel production, fisheries etc, that is entirely bound by physical
constraints. The Internet is not a fixed entity, it can change.

And both parties are talking past each other.

The technical community might well have the solution to all the Internet's
problems. But very few of the problems that raise concern and proposals to
regulate the Internet are actually Internet problems.

Internet crime is practically non-existent, and I speak as someone who
wrote a book on 'Internet crime'. What is mistakenly called Internet crime
is actually just crime that happens to involve the Internet in some
fashion. There was terrorism before the Internet and there is no reason to
suppose the Internet makes the problem any worse. But the terrorists use
the Internet in ways that make them vulnerable and hence the demand for
intercept powers.

The same is true of bank fraud which is not generally attacking the
Internet or even Internet banking applications. It is the rotten carcass of
the legacy financial services infrastructure that is being defrauded
because it was built on certain assumptions of how fast information is
exchanged within the criminal fraternity that are now obsolete.

We can certainly deploy technical means to reduce/eliminate bank fraud that
are far more effective than any intergovernmental agreement to apprehend
the perpetrators could possibly be. Chip and Pin is far from perfect
technically but it has effectively eliminated card present fraud in the
countries where it is deployed, except for the legacy processing of non
chip cards issued in countries that don't take fraud seriously.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the I-coordination mailing list