[discuss] global cyber sovereignty [was discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67, etc.]

[Elisabeth Blanconil]

At 01:41 23/02/2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>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  The proposals I have read do not cite any of those 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.

This is why information are only to be considered as case 
illustrations. Better if they can be confirmed as you did for ICP-1 
and DCRI/Wikimedia France. The other hypothetical cases are subject 
to your  (and other readers') technical sagacity.

>There are articles at 
>http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/11/nation/na-nyt11 and 
>http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

I suppose that you refer to the incredible hoax of the single unique 
authoritative root with its mathematical (US) hierarchy for an MS 
global world distributed on an equal footing basis.

>Nowadays, it is more and more difficult for the average person to 
>determine whom to rely on.

This is why that average person is only to trust him/herself (IUsers: 
informed/intelligent users). That is if he/she is clever enough and 
follows an established thinking methodology. A good way to do it 
(used in every business teaching) is the plausible case study. Either 
from a real story when it already occurred, or from a theoretically 
possible one when exploring potentialities.

This is what I find in the JFC's mail. However, I would like to add 
the naked king case. The case where the all world says that the 
king's dress is singularly unique. Like in the case of the DNS 
root-file. I feel the US are pretty naked without a consistent 
digisphere doctrine.

Hebe