[discuss] On Addresses and Identifiers / proceeding properly

[Lee Howard]

On 3/7/14 7:12 AM, "Jefsey" <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

>Dear Lee,
>
>Thanks, but I am sure Michel was not considering operator
>"soverignty", but States and people sovereignty. At least I am. You
>know things like Putin does in Crimea.


The case was, "What if the government made a network use addresses not
acknowledged by the rest of the world."
The answer is, "The network would no longer be on the Internet."

Minimum requirement: interoperability.  Without that, no Internet.

Lee



>
>Cheers
>jfc
>
>At 16:59 07/03/2014, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>>On 3/7/14 5:39 AM, "Jefsey" <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>>
>> >At 07:06 07/03/2014, McTim wrote:
>> >>I did answer, and I used to work at one of the RIRs AND I was Chair
>> >>of the Policy WG of another RIR, so I think I have a bit of clue.
>> >>What wasn't answered?
>> >
>> >I think that what was not answered was a basic question of
>> >multirelational sovereignty: do we think that IETF RFCs, I*practices,
>> >RIRs tables, or /1net recommandations are binding international laws
>> >the disrespect of which will be globally and consensually accepted as
>> >a motive for economic crisis, cyberwar or more.
>> >
>> >In other terms, who is sovereign in the cyberspace? And what is
>> >sovereignty in there?
>>
>>The operator of the network is sovereign over the operation of that
>>network.
>>If that operator defers sovereignty to another authority, that is their
>>choice.
>>Choices may have implications.
>>
>>If a network operator chooses (or chooses to comply with an order) to use
>>addresses which other network operator will not route, the ramification
>>of
>>that choice is a lack of interconnectivity.
>>
>>Lee
>>
>>
>>
>> >jfc
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >discuss mailing list
>> >discuss at 1net.org
>> >http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >
>
>