Re: What we might produce

On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The charter calls out two different kinds of activities that this group might pursue (each likely leading to a Report):
> 
> 1) Where we proactively want to recommend* specifications or technologies as a remedy in a defined situation (e.g., social networking, chat, etc.), highlighting any gaps
> 2) Where we want to react to a such a proposal made elsewhere (e.g., when a competition regulator or other national body selects something)
> 

Thank you for this starter Mark.

As a reminder, I'd like to suggest that what happened with the 'upload 
filters' and the Copyright Directive in the EU was detrimental to the 
Internet community. Policy makers gathered the media giants to discuss 
the conditions, ending up with so-called solutions involving time-based 
reply enforcement (i.e., you must reply within X hours, 24/7, which is 
good for a multinational company operating worldwide, but very bad for a 
small actor made of volunteers who do sleep at night) ; had they 
consulted independent service providers, we would certainly have come up 
with volume-based approaches that make giants much more liable than 
smaller actors.

This kind of asymmetry should remain on our radar when thinking about 
"solutions" for technical and policy issues. IRC dwellers may remind the 
time when AOL doubled the size of the Undernet overnight by joining the 
network, and what happened next in terms of cultural di(sso)lution. 
Interoperability must be taken seriously in postcolonial terms as well.

Regards,

==
hk

Received on Monday, 6 December 2021 16:31:38 UTC