[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Thu Feb 27 18:50:10 UTC 2014

At 00:25 27/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>On Feb 26, 2014, at 8:29 AM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > 3. the citizen has no asset in country B and his legal 
> infringement in country B is legal in country A. He is protected 
> from country B.
> > (there can be intermediary cases when he can be punished in A but 
> not extraded, etc.)
> >
> > Now country B may decide to hit the virtual assets of the citizen 
> in country A through a cyberattack. The citizen is then entitled to 
> ask the protection of his country which may chose to compensate him 
> and/or attack assets of country B.
>
>I'm sorry - are you truly advocating that the model we should propose for
>government engagement in the global Internet is NOT one of mutual cooperation
>(towards shared norms and principles) but instead based upon having countries
>express their interests unilaterally in the form of national laws and then
>exercising cyberattacks on those parties _in other countries_ whose actions
>don't comply with such national laws?

No. What I say is that we are in a real world, where soverignty 
exactly means the MS accepted right to use violence against others. 
This is tampered by diplomacy, treaties and in particular by the 
international accepted law under the UN mutual help.

Every other ideas mat be interesting and may be worth being 
considered, but they will have no impact if not accepted by the 
international multilateral Govs community - and in the case of the 
internet the bandwidth providers (Telcos) since the VGNs have not yet 
found a common representation (the World Digisphere Organization I suggest).

1. in term of cyber space, the Tallinn Manual is the most advanced 
and more or less accepted basis for an international Cyberwar/peace 
law. Nothing in terms of Govs intergovernance not considering it as 
the key element is not worth discussing.

2. in terms of internet governance, the law is the code since the US 
have refused that it could be the WCIT. Since the US Congress intent 
could be to continue substituting the US  local law, it was necessary 
to call on the codes law in an open-code way. This is the VGN/VGNICS 
reminder. This call to the law obviously does not please the 
trespassers who claim they do not understand its terminology in order 
to amusingly save time.

What will be discussed in Sao Paulo is a patch to the 
US/European/BRICS/etc. Dubaï disagreement. Michel Gatuthier has 
perfectly identified it and its hows. ICANN has partly acknowledged 
its role in this scenario.

Cheers.
jfc

>I will state unequivocally that we (collectively) can do better, and indeed,
>the people of world deserve a much better model of governance for the global
>Internet.  That may not provide you your desired ability to use the Internet
>based solely on the interests of expressed by any one country, but 
>then again,
>that's why the Internet is global.
>
>/John
>
>Disclaimer: My views alone (although I suspect there may be others who feel
>             similarly... :-)