<html>
<body>
At 14:41 28/01/2005, Federico Heinz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 09:05
+0000, Jonathan Cave wrote:<br>
> In my view, an IG group that did not consider IP would be like a
traffic authority that ignored land ownership.<br><br>
Beyond the extreme oversimplification implied in the metaphor, I think it
kind of fails to make your point, precisely because a traffic authority
has no bussiness setting policy on land ownership or its enforcement.
</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">I was not aware that WGIG was setting
policy:-)<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All it cares about is
keeping the cars flowing in an orderly fashion, it is none of its
bussiness whether a car's destination is the driver's property or
not.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">See subsequent discussions relating to IP and spam
- the metaphor sounds less throwaway than when I made it:-)<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Let's abandon the
metaphor quickly, lest we end up discussing it instead of the real issue
at hand. Internet Governance is about keeping the internet going
smoothly, it's about the rules that are expected from a good netizen,
regardless of where she comes from. Unless we want software to implement
chinese-style censorship installed in all *our* routers, we should try to
keep this governance scope as narrow as possible, and avoid setting
policy on anything that is not strictly related to the internet as
such.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">OK, fine - I'm not on the WGIG, didn't think they
were setting policy, but do think these issues are worth discussing -
somewhere...<br><br>
<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><x-tab>
</x-tab>Fede<br><br>
-- <br>
GnuPG Public Key: gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-key
BD02C6E0<br>
Key Fingerprint: 04F4 08C5 14B7 2C3D DB21 ACF8 6CF5 0B0C BD02
C6E0<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>