Re: United Nations International Telecommunication Union World Conference on International Telecommunications Conference and Scientific Forums

On 26 December 2012 15:01, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Philosophy of the Web Community Group,
>
> Greetings. I agree that that adage was applicable to the ITU WCIT
> conference. The Web and numerous organizations stewarding specification
> processes and discussion areas, public, transparent scientific forums, have
> done so well for decades.
>
> Though some of the ITU WCIT conference meetings were non-transparent for
> regulation, we can attempt to address each claim and rationale of
> conference participants, for example the topic of spam (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg17271.html,
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg17291.html). Those
> opposed to regulation indicated that state approaches to countering spam
> were a slippery slope to state censorship or that technologies for
> countering spam, utilized by states, could be utilized for censorship.
>

Spam is a very interesting problem, and I was thinking about it today.  It
strikes me that the systems that have scaled in history, are ones that do
not provide a default authentication method

- email
- telephone
- HTTP
- postal service

All are subject to spam.  Yet, in every case authentication can be layered
on top, as well as, spam prevention measures.

If you centralize spam measures, or even impose them, then you may
compromise the scalability of the web, which is one of its key strengths...


>
> On another topic, facilitating the participation of non-English-speaking
> scientists and technologists in public, transparent, scientific forums (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0151.html), in
> addition to being a good idea in and of itself, can be phrased as
> addressing some of the concerns that those advocating regulation might have
> had.
>
> We can analyze the arguments and rationale of ITU WCIT conference
> attendees about regulation, in detail, to better understand the situation.
> Some parts of the discussions at that conference, however, were not
> transparent. From the transparent parts of the ITU WCIT conference, we can
> attempt to glean various claims and rationale for regulation and we can
> address each, adding to arguments against regulation. Additionally, some
> scientific topics can be indicated as having solutions arriving from
> science and not from regulation.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam Sobieski
>