马王堆帛书老子下载:感谢混乱

互联网对这个现代社会来说是如此核心的东西，而它被混乱地管理着。 它被一群群名字只有三、五个字母缩写的组织管理着。 他们的许多无论是在线的还是离线的会议，都会向公众开放。 有些组织，比如本周在内罗毕举行年会的互联网治理论坛只是一个论坛。 决策往往缓慢而难以预测。

It is in short a bit chaotic. But sometimes chaos, even one that adherents like to claim somewhat disingenuously is a “multi-stakeholder” approach, is not disastrous: the internet mostly works. And the shambles is a lot better than the alternative—which nearly always in this case means governments bringing the internet under their control.

总而言之，就是有点乱。 但是呢，有的时候混乱未必是灾难性的，甚至是那种，即使被互联网支持者们不诚实地说成是“多重利益方合作”的灾难，其实也没什么：因为互联网大部分时间还是是有效地运作的。 而且混乱要比它的反面，也就是让政府控制要好很多。

Supple yet strong

坚实而柔韧

The internet’s openness fosters two of its great virtues. First, it has encouraged innovation. In rich countries the internet has generated as much as 10% of GDP growth over the past 15 years, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, a think-tank. Second, because nobody controls the internet, it has proved hard to censor. And despite (or perhaps because of) this lack of governance, the network has proved surprisingly resilient. More than two billion people are now connected to the internet. The many predictions of collapse have not yet proved correct.

互联网的开放性促成了两个美德。 首先，它鼓励创新。 根据智囊团-麦肯锡全球研究院的调查，在富裕国家中，互联网已经在过去的15年中创造出高达10％的GDP增??长。 其次，因为没有人控制互联网，实践证明它很难被监管。 尽管（也许是‘因为’）这种缺乏治理，网络已经显示出了惊人的弹性。 超过20亿人现在已经连接到了互联网。 许多预测过的网络瘫痪至今从没有正确过。

Governments are uncomfortable with the current set-up. There is a growing sense—and not just among the usual authoritarian suspects—that the internet is too important, politically as well as economically, to continue to operate beyond the remit of governments (see article).

政府对当前的这种设置倍感不适。 不仅仅是那些质疑权威者，越来越多的人现在渐渐意识到，无论从经济还是政治上来说，要想超出政府的管辖范围，互联网真是太重要了。（见下文）

Some governments are pushing to be more than mere stakeholders and instead to have the final say in important matters. China and Russia want the United Nations General Assembly to adopt an “International Code of Conduct for Information Security”. India, Brazil and South Africa have called for a “new global body” to control the internet. Other countries want to give a UN agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a supervisory role. The upcoming renegotiation of the treaty that defines the ITU’s competences is regarded as an opportunity to push this agenda.

一些国家的政府正在致力于不仅仅担当单纯的利益相关者的角色，而是想在重大事项说了算。 中国和俄罗斯希望联合国大会通过一个“国际信息安全的行为守则”。 印度，巴西和南非呼吁一个“新的全球性机构”，来控制互联网。 其他国家想给联合国的机构-国际电信联盟（ITU）以监督权。 近期将举行的对该条约的重新谈判，将对国际电联的职能定义，这将是一个推动。

Even Western governments, which usually favour the multi-stakeholder system, would like to rein in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose board decides which top-level domains to add (such as .com or .biz). ICANN has just started the process to introduce a lot more high-level domains (expect to see .pepsi and .lawyer), which is why governments are increasingly nervous about the body’s sometimes opaque decision-making process—and why some would like to have a veto over controversial new domains (such as .jesus, .gay and .tibet).

即使是西方国家的政府，虽然他们通常支持‘多重利益方合作’的系统，但还是想想控制ICANN(国际互联网名称和编号分配公司)。ICANN的董事会有权决定添加顶级域名（如.com或.BIZ）。 国际互联网名称和编号分配公司（ICANN）已经开始推出更多顶级层域（比如今后会看到.pepsi（。百事可乐）和.lawyer（。律师））。而这就是为什么各国政府都越来越对该机构不透明的决策过程胆战心惊了。这也是为什么有些国家想对较有争议的新域名（如.jesus （。耶稣），.gay(。同性恋)和.tibet(。西藏）实行否决权。

Governments have a role to play—such as defending their citizens’ interests—but they should not be allowed the final say over such matters, for creeping state control would suffocate the internet. Imagine if the ITU, a classic example of a sluggish international bureaucracy with antiquated diplomatic rituals, or indeed any other inter-governmental organisation, had been put in charge of the nascent global network two decades ago. Would it have produced a world-changing fount of innovation? We think not.

当然政府比如捍卫本国公民的职能还是能发挥的，不过他们不应该对有些事有最终的发言权，因为逐渐增加的国家控制会令互联网窒息。 试想，如果20年前，刚刚兴起的互联网被国际电联（这个拥有陈旧外交礼仪的缓慢的国际性官僚机构的典型），或任何其他政府间的国际组织所管辖，我们今天还会有这个改变了世界的创新源泉吗？ 我想是没有的。