[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67

[Jefsey]

At 18:05 23/02/2014, David Cake wrote:
> > Please, if you really want to talk about IG, dont think other 
> people are dumb stupid.
>
>         Not everyone involved in IG knows the first thing about web 
> hosting. It is worth explaining even if you do understand it.

Absolutely. What I underline is that IG concerns the societal 
management of a technical system. No one should fear to be explained 
anything technical. But no one should assume that some others known 
better technical issues. The technical governance is like the 
political and societal one. What counts is to be pertinent and, if 
possible right (what count is running code and usage acceptance).

>  > If you have been subject to an ICE action you have the money to 
> afford a dedicated IP.
>
>         Why would you assume that? They might have the money to do 
> so, but that doesn't mean they always do.

A dedicated IP costs a few buck a month, far less than a lawyer.

>  Or that an ICE action is the only issue here?

ICE is only an example. And the problem is not really technical. 
However, the way ICE performed it shows that they know the 
technicalities, so they are a good example.

> > What would be more interesting would be to explain how a US 
> Justice decision can directly impact the access to a site located 
> at a non-US server
>Not just US, but any international blocking.

For the time being what is discussed is the special case of the US in 
the singular situation where there is only one VGNIC (ICANN). The 
legal situation certainly changes as soon as people can switch to 
another VGNIC (e.g. ORSN or their own HomeRoot) which are outside of 
the US jursidiction. However, this leads to a a new legal situation: 
an Amercian citizen's HomeRoot or using ORSN or the planed FLOSS 
VGNIC or the Merkel/Hollande project will not be affected by an ICE 
seizure, unless ICE publishes a public notice and checks the people 
computers one by one.

The problem is that for decades, the EDP culture has been influenced 
by the "superuser" concept: the root. This is theoretical. There is 
no authoritative root in a distributed system and reality. There are 
maps. There is no main access to a computer, there are accesses with 
certain capabilities. The "root" of a computer is just a vision. The 
"back-door" has another one. In confusing the map and the territory 
we have created problems and security weaknesses in many places that 
should be managed by subsidiarity.

We have to accept that "governance" is a layer. This is the layer 
where those who decide for themselves agree together on an MS basis 
because their legitimate autonomous decisions may mutually impact 
others. The layer where there are unique decisions, files, roots, 
etc. is not governance but government.

Best
jfc