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

[Joe Alhadeff]

Colleagues:

As I read this thread, I wonder what percentage of average users would be considered "informed" or sufficiently technologically intelligent to understand issues of root management.  It would be easy enough to make users feel uncomfortable about a fact, but what is it that we are asking for when we use this informed/intelligent option.

Likewise, concern has been stated related to the US role.  The concern seems to be 2-fold.  One the fact that the incorporation of the organization requires US applicable law and 2, the continued role of the USG, which has been described as fairly neutral and custodial - looking somewhat like the "stewardship" concept in the paper.

Which of the two is the predominant problem?  If the latter, and there is a concern of potential abuse rather than an existing example of abuse, can it be addressed by greater transparency and accountability?

Also one of the hallmarks of any approach to governance and the sovereignty related to it is the ability to establish stability and predictability; what I have called the Hippocratic approach of first do no harm.  How does that argument get factored in these concepts of sovereignty?

Joe  
----- Original Message -----
From: info at vgnic.org
To: sm+1net at elandsys.com, jefsey at jefsey.com, dblumenthal at pir.org, cdel at firsthand.net, GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 5:33:13 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [discuss] global cyber sovereignty [was discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue  67, etc.]

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  The proposals I have read do not cite any of those 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 


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss