[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

[Michel Gauthier]

At 20:33 28/12/2013, Avri Doria wrote:
>What is missing from the working* definition is any indication of a 
>special sovereignty over the Internet for governments.  They only 
>role they have in governing is as one of the stakeholders in areas 
>in which they may some capabilities and responsibilities.

Sovereignty implies the legitimate use of violence. I.e. the 
legitimacy to use cyber capacities to distroy and kill (possiby, any 
of us). Do the people on this list really believe the US, French, 
Russian, British, Chinese, etc. armies and cyberagencies are really 
impressed by RFCs and CS motions?

MSism belongs to polycracy, i.e a contination of democracy where 
debates are among stakeholders but decisions do not result from 
votes, but emerge from the running codes and from all the resulting 
individual decisions. "Globality" (an NW, NYT or Brzezinsky political 
concept) is everyone potentially at war with everyone. Is there 
anyone on this list who beleives that China thinks its DNS is 
coordinated by ICANN?

What is surprising for an oberver of this list is the lack of 
reference to the Tallinn Manual?

A pratical example: does someone knows screens, lap-tops, etc. with 
"camera gun port". Camera (& mikes) can be remotly controlled and are 
used for spying. A gun (it can actually be used as a virtual gun) 
port would be a normal protection of the user and of the optic. Why 
is this not proposed?

MG