[discuss] Utopia was Re:  Survey
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Mar 6 16:48:14 UTC 2014
At 09:25 06/03/2014, Matthias C. Kettemann wrote:
>There is, of course, also international law. Some of it in the form
>of conventions, some in the form of custom. Let's not forget about
>this normative order which can greatly influence how international
>actors behave. It is through international law, for example, that we
>can assess the legality of pervasive Internet monitoring; it is
>through international law that we can establish binding rules.
This is why I think all this debates on the internet governance
without a single allusion to the Tallinn Manual (which is not
available for free on the Internet) are irreal.
>I am not saying that all questions will be solved by international
>legal approaches, but we should not completely forget this important
>field in a haze of themis and theory. Let's stay real.
I like the French position because it makes me to think about Grotius
and the debate on free and closed seas, etc. Have the Law of the
Cyberspace been delayed by the US WCIT position or to the countrary
is Sao Paulo a way to start anew?
The actual question is that anti-Nation-State wants to defend the
idea that the prejudice is against the USG for interfering in the
other nation's domestic and people private business. My understanding
is that they want more to introduce the notion of Personal-State when
relaity inclines to consider relations-states.
I do not know. The main problem we face anyway is that international
laws are between States. And the mood in here is to ban States and
Grotius' Westpahalian States legacy. This is why I feel safer on my
own privateer's VGN.
>Disclaimer: I am kind of fond of international law. It keeps my children fed.
>On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jefsey
><<mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com>jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>At 21:32 05/03/2014, Elisabeth Blanconil wrote:
>the Themis was the natural law as seen by the Greeks. It included
>the gods, the lessons from greek history, etc. In the present case
>one could claim that the Themis equivalent is the current geek
>paradigm. This paradigm has been reworded by the I*people (RFC
>6852). Do you accept it after your appeals due to your recent
>comments that they missed a final referent but that an MS principle
>could replace such a referent? Would the DNSA be an acceptable referent?
>I did not go into details. The French Govs position, if I understand
>it well, is that the Cyber Right has many common points with the Sea
>Right. In the Themis (as a Greek and not a Humanity law of the
>universe) there are the philia (a strong human friendship, as
>humans) and a war etiquette (like in China's second millenary) which
>are quite similar the seamen's solidarity. There is the same kind of
>connivance in the Libre, among hackers and geeks. But nothing so
>strong, and it stays at individual level.
>IRT the DNSA this would be confusing a part and the whole. The whole
>is the digisphere, of which the internet is a component, of which
>its DNS is currently a part. My point about RFC 6852 is that
>actually the I*leaders are being used and ISOC does not represent
>anything architectural anymore. So, they have not the credibility to
>enforce or arbitrate anything. In this case OpenStand is only a way
>for the IAB not to be politically responsible for a technology which
>is now outside of any control by a single guru, agent or board. So,
>it is a wild economic west, where the IUsers will eventually win and
>dispute the leadership among themselves. This is where a technical
>governance is necessary, but the arena of this governance exists
>already because on a network you need to test your running code in
>living mode. So, you are known - the press is the technical IGF.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss