[discuss] What about sovereignty?: Re: Problem definition 1, version 5
Dr. Ben Fuller
abutiben at gmail.com
Wed Jan 22 19:31:22 UTC 2014
This is a critical distinction, especially your second paragraph. That distinction will be good to keep in mind when dealing with representatives of governments. They have different assumptions on how the world is structured versus those assumptions held by many who deal with the Internet.
On Jan 22, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fellow Travelers
> Even if I seem to repeat myself again and again, but the issue of sovereignty also seems to pop up in one form or another again and again, and maybe, just maybe, it helps to untie this knot by looking at a new definition of it:
> The Internet Ecosystem, by its very nature, does not care too much about physical boundaries. This is the fundamental reason why countries, whose authority is based on territory and the concept of sovereignty, struggle to find their place in a digital world. The uncontrolled free flow of data, together with the ongoing speed of innovation, seems to be irreconcilable with the concepts of national territory and sovereign rights.
> Similar to nation states, many of those organizations and individuals involved in the Internet Ecosystem and its governance, commonly known as the stakeholders, claim “sole-sovereignty” or self-proclaimed sovereignty over specific issues, roles and functions. The stability and security of the DNS, telecommunication standards, security and human rights, to name just some, are well defined “subject-territories” in the Internet Ecosystem.
> Cyberspace today requires a new understanding of sovereignty. Sovereignty in the context of Internet Governance is fundamentally different from the traditional understanding of sovereignty as it is not based on geographical territories and treaties but on the ability of a stakeholder or a group of stakeholders in Cyberspace to have specific expertise and/or infrastructure that is relevant to the Internet Ecosystem and to have the capacity to manage the decision-making and implementation processes in a timely and effective way.
> On 1/22/2014 5:52 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brenden Kuerbis [
>>> mailto:bnkuerbi at syr.edu
>>>> To that point, in option (3) do you mean delegation in the sense of rescindable
>>>> granting of authority to an agent to act on a principal's behalf? And if so,
>>>> what principal(s)? Rescindable under what conditions?
>>> Good questions. Answers would represent the various "flavors" of a denationalized approach.
>>> Such a delegation could be permanent and not rescindable, in which case the USG, which currently controls IANA, would be the principal.
>> Milton, Brenden -
>> Two points:
>> 1) The language "granting of authority" is overly vague in this context;
>> yes, it is true that the IANA is granted authority to act, but it is
>> the ability to act in a _administrative_ manner (the NTIA IANA Function
>> contract, for example, does not convey authority to set policy, only to
>> implement policy set by other parties.)
>> 2) The USG is not the only party involved in granting such authority; the
>> IAB/IETF also grants the IANA its authority to administer the various
>> Internet registries (name, number, and protocol) via its MOU [RFC 2860]
>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
Dr. Ben Fuller, Dean
Faculty of Humanities, HIV and AIDS and Sustainable Development
International University of Managment
bfuller at ium.edu.na, ben at fuller.na
More information about the discuss