【案例】
Internet governance
互联网管理
In praise of chaos
称赞互联网混乱的管理
Governments’ attempts to control the internet should be resisted
应该阻止政府试图控制互联网
Oct 1st 2011 | from the print edition
FOR something so central to the modern world, the internet is shambolically governed. It is run by a hotch-potch of organisations with three- to five-letter acronyms. Many of their meetings, both online and offline, are open to the public. Some—like the Internet Governance Forum, which held its annual meeting in Nairobi this week—are just talking shops. Decision-making is slow and often unpredictable.
在现代世界中，互联网的地位相当重要，但其管理却混乱不堪。如今，互联网由一些名称缩写为三到五个字母的组织组成的大杂烩共同管理。这些组织的许多会议，不论是在线还是离线的，都对公众开放。但其中有些组织，就像本周在内罗比举行其年会的互联网管理论坛，不过是“清谈俱乐部”，一到做决策时便拖拖拉拉、经常难以捉摸。
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.
总之，情况有点混乱。不过有时候，混乱，或者甚至是追其随者喜欢在某种程度上狡猾地称之为“多方参与管理”的方法，也并没有那么糟糕：因为大多数时候互联网仍然运转良好。况且，混乱的局面要比另一种选择要好得多——在这种情况下这个选择几乎总是意味着政府对互联网进行控制。
Supple yet strong
灵活但强势
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.
互联网的开放性造就了其两个极大的优点。首先，互联网鼓励了创新。智囊机构麦肯锡全球研究院称，过去十五年间，互联网在富有国家所创造的财富占了GDP增长的10%。其次，因为无人能够控制互联网，所以很难对互联网的信息进行审查。而且，虽然（或者正因为）互联网缺乏管理，互联网的恢复力出人意料地强大。如今已有超过二十亿人接入互联网。之前有许多人预测互联网终会垮掉，但事实证明他们错了。
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).
现今的互联网管理模式使各政府不安。不仅那些向来有独裁主义者之嫌的人，连其他人也逐渐认识到：不论政治上还是经济上，互联网都太重要了，以致于无法继续在不受政府监管的情况下运作。
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.
一些政府正努力争取在重要事务中拥有最终决定权，而不仅像现在一样只是个参与者。中国和俄罗斯都希望联合国大会能通过“国际信息安全行为准则”。印度、巴西和南非已号召建立一个“新的全球体系”来控制互联网。其他国家则希望联合国的机构国际电信联盟(ITU)能对互联网进行监管。最近即将重新谈判规定国际电信联盟(ITU)权责的协议，此举被视为推进“新全球体系”议程的机会。
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).
即便是向来赞成多方参与管理体系的西方政府也希望加强对互联网名称与数字地址分配机构的管理，此机构的理事会负责决定网站使用哪个一级域名（如.com或.biz）。互联网名称与数字地址分配机构刚刚开始进行采用更多高级域名(其中会有.pepsi和.lawyer)的计划，因此，各政府才会对机构偶尔不透明的决策过程感到越来越紧张，也正因如此，有些政府才意欲反对采用这些极具争议的新域名（如.jesus和.tibet）。
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.
不过在互联网管理方面政府当然有其作用，如保护公民的利益，但政府不应该被赋予最终决定权或类似的权力，因为政府不知不觉间加强对互联网的管理将会束缚网络。想象一下：如果互联网名称与数字地址分配机构(ITU)——这个懒散的国际官僚机构（还有着过时的外交仪式）的典例，或者说实际上就是一个各政府联合组成的机构——在二十年前就被委派负责管理当时刚刚兴起的互联网，它能使互联网成为改变世界的创新之源吗？我们认为：不能。
undefined
It is run by a hotch-potch of organisations with three- to five-letter acronyms.
如今，互联网由一些名称缩写为三到五个字母的组织组成的大杂烩共同管理。
译成大杂烩是不是有些太直译了呢？楼主要不要考虑：混合体之类的？
Some—like the Internet Governance Forum, which held its annual meeting in Nairobi this week—are just talking shops. Decision-making is slow and often unpredictable
但其中有些组织，就像本周在内罗比举行其年会的互联网管理论坛，不过是“清谈俱乐部”，一到做决策时便拖拖拉拉、经常难以捉摸
但其中一些不过是“清谈俱乐部”，就像本周在内罗比举行其年会的互联网管理论坛，一到做决策时便拖拖拉拉、经常难以捉摸
不知道这样翻译，减少个逗号怎么样？
But sometimes chaos, even one that adherents like to claim somewhat disingenuously is a “multi-stakeholder” approach, is not disastrous
不过有时候，混乱，或者甚至是追其随者喜欢在某种程度上狡猾地称之为“多方参与管理”的方法，也并没有那么糟糕
不过有时候混乱，甚至是被其追随者认为有些狡猾的“多方参与管理”方法，也并没有那么糟糕，
译成“糟糕”程度是不是有点轻？
互联网的开放性造就了其两个极大的优点
我查了下，似乎很少有说造就优点的
would like to rein in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN
也希望加强对互联网名称与数字地址分配机构的管理
rein这里译成“加强管理”程度是不是有些轻呢？
but they should not be allowed the final say over such matters
但政府不应该被赋予最终决定权或类似的权力，
或类似的权力？
|
http://www.ecocn.org/thread-58736-1-1.html
|
楼主: admin
楼主