search

rfc-editor / draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization

AUTH48 for RFC-to-be 9518 <draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization-14>
https://mnot.github.io/avoiding-internet-centralization/
Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

Possible issues in "Power Imbalance" text (Section 2.1) #24

Closed mferguson-rpc closed 9 months ago

mferguson-rpc commented 10 months ago

A few points about this text:

  1. The Introduction makes the point that the Internet is not governed. Might the following sentence's use of present tense seem to contradict that idea (as if the current governance of the Internet applies this)?
  2. Will the mention of states be clear to readers everywhere?
  3. Should there be a 1:1 relationship about the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers (especially considering the title of the cited document)?

Please review our suggested text and let us know if this would correctly convey your intention.

Original: Just as good governance of states requires separation of powers [Madison], so too does good governance of the Internet require that power not be consolidated in one place without appropriate checks and balances.

Perhaps: Just as [Madison] describes good governance of the US states, good governance of the Internet would require that power not be consolidated in one place without appropriate checks and balances.

mnot commented 10 months ago

The introduction doesn't say that the Internet is not governed -- only that it lacks a single point of control. So:

Just as [Madison] describes good governance of the US states, good governance of the Internet requires that power over any function not be consolidated in one place without appropriate checks and balances.