Susan, Thanks for posting this. Displaying my own bias, I think you missed out the most chilling statement: “When you use public infrastructures you can not be anonymous” Helpfully the document explains why this is the case: “,,,because each user interacts with other users and with the system operator: thus we have license plates on cars,,,” *puts serious hat on* The ‘because’ point is a sharp piece of rhetoric - it’s a normative wolf hidden in a descriptive sheep’s skin held together with technological determinism. The fact of the interaction between the given actors does, using the technology we have, not does not necessitate lack of anonymity, if it does in the future this will be due to contingent design choices. The ‘thus’ seems to be trying to make a corollary out of an analogy, and a bad one at that. Cars, you see, are not the only things that use roads, bikes use them, pedestrians walk across them, children play by them and skunks get killed on them. The licensing of cars is not motivated by virtue of the public nature of the space but what one is doing in that space and the way that the technology of the car is configuring the relationships with those around you. In the UK we tax car users, notionally to maintain the road system, we also feel that given the potential mortal danger that cars and other motorised vehicles represent that their use should be regulated and that this is best operated through some kind of identifying structure. We might want to see any use of the internet as equivalent, in the eyes of regulation, as driving a car in public – but that would have to be argued for, and it’s a tough argument. One point (and there are very many) being that if I am in a car I could knock someone over, this could be an accident but the state would still want to know who I was – I’m not sure I present the same kind of danger on the net – though of course reading Susan’s blog might motivate me to be awkward in all kinds of ways. “public infrastructures are "generally available to the public," and have important characteristics and user expectations such as substantial availability (especially during and after emergencies), and for the protection of users.” Here’s a user expectation – public infrastructures are end-to-end and anonymous. OK, that is /this/ user’s expectation, but I’m a user too and if expectation is a motivating factor here take mine too. “These are the FCC's most important Title I responsibilities, and are shared today with the President, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice. Providers and users of these public infrastructure services in exchange for ubiquitous access to national and global networks, undertake obligations and responsibilities established in law, regulations, and technical standards.” Taking the last two paragraphs together you just have to stand back and admire the beauty of it. This re-conceptualisation of the net is baroque in its injection of a semiotic of power. Just look at those words shine ‘President’, ‘Homeland’, ‘Security’, ‘Justice’ ‘obligation’ and of course we are in a state of ‘emergency’. It’s exquisite it really is. And lastly “Other related and even more important capabilities involve the ability to identify and authenticate providers and users of the public infrastructure, including the numbers and addresses they use. Such interoperable trusted directory capabilities” I don’t mean to be bitch. But. Hey if ooonly one of these guy’s worked for a company that sold some kind of internet based trust system. Oh, hold on. Lastly, I’ve never heard of K-Street, is it like Avenue-Q?