One thing I find fascinating in discussions about the Internet filtering trial is the extent to which industry professionals seem prepared to wash their hands for responsibility for the experience of users.
After all, it doesn't seem like an unrealistic expectation that for people using the World Wide Web specifically, rather than the internet in general, shouldn't be able to be afforded the same protection as they get with movies or television of being advised of the nature of the content they are about to navigate to. That is, a person just "surfing" through a standard browser looking at html pages.
To make that happen would require develoment of standards that could lead a global debate on unified content standards. It could be conducted in a secular manner so that the classification scheme was against some objective criteria. But the industry response is it is eithr too hard because it is global or because it can be subverted.
But it is not the only place where the model of the intrnet is broken. Everyone seems to accept that IPv6 implementation is critical, but doesn't do much about it. At least IPv6 activists who want to Act Now have a place they can go.
Another interesting avenue is the The Pouzin Society whose purpose is "to provide a forum for developing viable solutions to the current Internet architecture crisis." The crisis itself is described in the following terms;
About 15 years ago, it became clear that IPv4 was reaching its limits, and the IETF responded by creating IPv6. In 2006 came the tacit admission that there continue to be fundamental scaling problems in the Internet routing architecture which would only be exacerbated by IPv6, and that Moore's Law could not save us this time. Several solutions were proposed, all based on revising IPv6 addressing using the concept of a locator/identifier split. Work has proceeded diligently, but a few months ago, it became clear that not only was this approach fatally flawed, but by implication, so was IP, or any variation of it. Academic efforts, beginning with NewArch and continuing with FIND and GENI are no closer to finding a solution than we were a decade ago.
A jumping off point for this work is John Day's Patterns of Network Architecture, and I think the society's name is in honour of Louis Pouzin whose main claim to fame seems to be criticism of the US centric model of Internet governance and architecture.
My policy question is whether we are thinking of any of this as we sail off to build the world of the Australian NBN.