For example, a big threat to Internet stability and security is the rapid evolution of identity theft schemes and malware. These scams not only affect us all technically, but they also affect the end-users' level of trust while surfing the web.
Think of Confiker, which had us all scrambling to respond. The Internet is a global medium. However,the laws that govern us are very much local and often conflicting. So in trying to mitigate security threats, our hands are often tied when faced with the threat of litigation for overstepping the myriad of overlapping boundaries that we have to navigate. As a result, many simply give up—to the detriment of us all. Collaboratively taking responsibility and involving players outside the ICANN area is one answer (note: shameless plug for RISG which involves almost every actor in the chain collaborating across industry lines to mitigate identity theft). But another is our governments and regulatory systems untying the chains that bind us… or at least make it much harder to do the right thing. Why not encourage our respective governments and regulatory bodies to provide multilateral relief in security cases which cross national boundaries? For example, ICANN provided regulatory relief upon request during Confiker so the registries could take the necessary actions to mitigate the threat. We need this model on a multilateral- governmental scale. If we do not actively enable end-user trust in the use of the Internet, we risk losing it.
When the trust in the wider ecosystem of the Internet decreases, users will be more tempted to give some of the their rights to a controlling third party platform provider in return for assurances of security. Haven't we seen that happen already many times in the real world? I can almost hear the voice-over: remember those National Geographic specials? Recall when the thirsty wildebeest started walking towards the safe-looking pool of water, teeming with crocodiles. "Sadly now, there can be but one outcome." And it wasn't pretty.
Think of Confiker, which had us all scrambling to respond. The Internet is a global medium. However,the laws that govern us are very much local and often conflicting. So in trying to mitigate security threats, our hands are often tied when faced with the threat of litigation for overstepping the myriad of overlapping boundaries that we have to navigate. As a result, many simply give up—to the detriment of us all. Collaboratively taking responsibility and involving players outside the ICANN area is one answer (note: shameless plug for RISG which involves almost every actor in the chain collaborating across industry lines to mitigate identity theft). But another is our governments and regulatory systems untying the chains that bind us… or at least make it much harder to do the right thing. Why not encourage our respective governments and regulatory bodies to provide multilateral relief in security cases which cross national boundaries? For example, ICANN provided regulatory relief upon request during Confiker so the registries could take the necessary actions to mitigate the threat. We need this model on a multilateral- governmental scale. If we do not actively enable end-user trust in the use of the Internet, we risk losing it.
When the trust in the wider ecosystem of the Internet decreases, users will be more tempted to give some of the their rights to a controlling third party platform provider in return for assurances of security. Haven't we seen that happen already many times in the real world? I can almost hear the voice-over: remember those National Geographic specials? Recall when the thirsty wildebeest started walking towards the safe-looking pool of water, teeming with crocodiles. "Sadly now, there can be but one outcome." And it wasn't pretty.
No comments:
Post a Comment