<html>
<body>
At 09:25 06/03/2014, Matthias C. Kettemann wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. </blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote><br>
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?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
Cheers!<br>
jfc<br><br>
PS. IANAL<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Kind regards<br>
Matthias<br>
Disclaimer: I am kind of fond of international law. It keeps my children
fed.<br><br>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jefsey
<<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>At 21:32 05/03/2014, Elisabeth Blanconil wrote:
<dl>
<dd>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?<br><br>
</dl>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>jfc
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>