[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sun Feb 23 22:52:52 UTC 2014
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.
More information about the discuss