[discuss] global cyber sovereignty [was discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67, etc.]
sm+1net at elandsys.com
Sun Feb 23 00:41:33 UTC 2014
At 11:35 22-02-2014, JFC Morfin wrote:
>I think this issue is the only one where this list can really help
>the Govs. that will meet in Sao Paulo. It concerns what we could
>call "global cyber sovereignty". I will try to gather some elements
>for common consideration.
>2. Advent of Cyberspace
>With the advent of cyber space, it was naturally decided in 1978 and
>accepted (cf. ICP-1) that the source of national cyber authority was
>the ISO 3166 table of *territories* (not of sovereign states). The
>rationale by then was either to divide the world:
There was a comment from Keith Davidson about ICP-I.
>Now, we observe that a territory (i.e. a part or the entire national
>space) and a "state relational space" have many similarities. The
>same for a territorial domain and a private relational
>space. Mokapetris who documented the DNS, called them "domains", a
>TLD being a territory's general domain. So, we observe that the
>Tymnet/PTT, the Internet, the DNS, and the general common practice
>converge toward relational spaces that can be identified by domain
>names, gathering people and machines that accept that "domain name"
>for the domain of their structured relational space. In terms of
>sovereignty, it means that sovereignty is attached to the space
>supported by a relational support system/management structure. This
>is what Jon Postel documented as a "NIC", network information center.
Please see my comments at the end of this message.
>This is a case we recently observed on Wikipedia in France. As a
>result of Google's enforcement of its global rules, the French
>privacy protection agency has been designated by the other European
>agencies as their leader to study the resulting legal cases. The
>French NSA equivalent summoned the President of MediaWiki France and
>asked him to remove a page they considered as violating military
>secrets. This was a test to understand (without lawyers
>interference) how multinational structures would react. He explained
>to them how to do it and removed the page. There was an uproar in
>the MediaWiki community, and three hours later a Swiss lady restored the page.
The above seem related to the DCRI.
>root file manager. This means that even if "com" was managed in the
>cloud by multiple masters or processes, or is foreign, the root
>could be used to block a ".com" name. The plaintiff (here ICE) is,
>therefore, entitled to ask an US Judge to impose VeriSign to load
>the name associated to an ICE address in the root-file.
I consider the above as an unknown.
>The case did not occur yet. But nothing prevents it from being
>raised. Except if extraterritoriality was granted to the root file.
There has been some studies about sovereignty, jurisdiction,
etc. The proposals I have read do not cite any of those studies. It
is difficult to establish the veracity of the historical information
mentioned in the discussions.
There are articles at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full Nowadays, it is
more and more difficult for the average person to determine whom to rely on.
More information about the discuss