On 1/31/11 10:30 AM, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
I take Beau's point to be that it would be better if the statement emerged from the RALO closest to the immediate problem.
I'm not convinced that a claim of regional priority has any utility.
But in some respects that could also lead to further politicization.
I don't know what is meant in this sentence.
And the relevance for NA-RALO is clear -- one of key cyber security proposals before the US Congress is the creation of an "Internet kill switch."
I'm sure the Canadians will have something to say about the lack of complete relevance of a cite to the US Congress. The existing lack of service in most of Indian Country in the Americas is less speculative than an administrative mechanism to interfere with the beneficiaries of existing (originally public) buildouts of private high-speed (for the Americas) data services.
This is why we should try to generalize: cutting off access to the Internet is not simply a regional problem.
Agree. Had the administrative tool been the SEA-ME-WE-4 and FLAG cable landings in Alexandria, the effect would be similar to what took place two years ago, affecting most of West and South Asia. Part of the message to authoritarians is use the tools wisely. Eric