Slashdot Mirror


Meet the Man Who Will Save the Internet

UltimaGuy writes to tell us The Register is running an interesting piece about Masood Khan, chairman of the sub-committee that is takling many of the difficult questions about internet governance. Mr. Khan has been able to draw enormous respect for many of the participatory nations and seems to have a very direct style of management. From the article: "I would encourage you all not to focus on general themes of internet governance but instead go to the heart of the matter," were Khan's opening words. And then he listed them. "The question of a future mechanism, the question of oversight, and the paradigm of co-operation amongst all stakeholders."

1 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. The previous post is highly deceptive by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't you think it is more than a little deceptive to take a quote like "the internet is five days away from total collapse as governments are finally forced into a corner and told to agree on a framework for future Internet governance." completely out of its context? The original quote from the article is, "If a certain US senator and a certain EU commissioner are to be believed, the internet is five days away from total collapse..." To take a quote like that and crop out the fact that it is qualified with a statement that it is propaganda from two particular individuals and try to pass it off as a premise of this article is wholly dishonest.

    The rest of your post is either poorly informed and considered garbage, or an attempt to troll. Just a few choice samples:

    Let every ISP decide. The competition will allow the creation of new ways to excel.

    Ignoring that in the majority of the world, including the US there exist government enforced monopolies on transmission lines, and thus there is no free competition.

    putting all into a head nodding "we can all control our citizens equally" concert.

    Assigning villainous motives to people trying to decide upon a communication standard between them. It has nothing to do with controlling people, just agreeing on an equitable way to communicate with one another.

    Meaning that they will generalize everything in vague definitions easily adjusted to their situation.

    Something specifically addressed as false by the article, but which this poster chooses not to address since it is easier to post this FUD.

    They have no clue what to control next, but surely there must be more taxes, regulations and restrictions added to the lawbooks.

    Crap pulled from his anus. This was about agreeing upon principals of how they will communicate and has nothing to do with taxes.

    etc., etc. etc.

    This is one of those posts where you wish a "-1 complete lies and fabrications" mod existed.