> On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:42 PM, Mel Beckman <[email protected]> wrote: > I don’t understand your comment. I don’t think our statements are the same at > all.
Perhaps not. My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection. Maybe that’s not
your goal. I was trying to give what you wrote the most generous possible
interpretation.
> You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to — correct me if I’m wrong —
> sovereign countries pulling the plug on their Internet access.
Perhaps you’re misunderstanding, it’s difficult to tell. The current problem
is “sovereign countries” disconnecting (or attempting to disconnect) other
countries. That’s a lot of disconnection. That’s bad for people, and bad for
business. I’m against that. It’s relatively simple.
> The proposal you signed doesn’t address that, that I can see.
Perhaps read it again, then, since that’s the only thing it talks about.
Reducing the amount of disconnection from whole countries to as near zero as
can be achieved in the presence of “sovereign countries."
> Slow your roll. This is nowhere near ready for “operationalization”, as the
> several comments here objecting to the thing testifies.
Putting aside matters of fact...
Because a couple of people objecting to a document they haven’t actually read
means that the rest of the industry has to put up with national-level
disconnection?
I’m pretty sure that’s not how the Internet works. But, you seem pretty
certain you understand how things work better than I do. Perhaps you can
explain it to us.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
