<html>
<body>
At 07:09 16/07/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Right now this is simply an
order by a magistrate and has been appealed in federal court. <br>
Declamatory speech making can wait pending the result of this
appeal</blockquote><br>
Correct,<br>
this M$/JD fuss is absurd. JD should only ask for the NSA copy of the
files.<br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a><br>
In the past, geography was used extensively by criminals of all types.
This is why we forged international law. Now, with code becoming a
significant part of the law, we have a global virtual territory under a
global IETF law that is forged by internet dominants' employees and
sub-contractors.<br><br>
The only human acceptable solution to this real/virtual internet version
of the omnipresent scientific, political, and societal local/global
problem is a multi-local-jurisdiction global internet, where the local
jurisdictions are built and enforced by localized "code" - i.e.
appropriate local standards. This is what technically is called
"SDN" (software defined networking).<br><br>
To make this more easily understandable, I will use the road metaphor.
The internet is the road system and it requires local and global
technical and societal governances.<br><br>
- There is the
asphalted lane.<br>
- The network of
lanes is global. This is the "plug to plug" catenet. <br>
- On top of the
catenet, asphalt concrete has been laid in layers: this is the "end
to end" internet, the OSI layers 1 to 5 and a part of 7.<br>
<br>
The road, as per the OECD, is "a line of communication (traveled
way) using a stabilized base other than rails or air strips open to
public traffic, primarily for the use of road motor vehicles running on
their own wheels) ". The system building and maintenance, and road
traveling rules are under national, regional, and local jurisdiction and
responsibility along international principles. <br>
<br>
- In OSI terms,
this is the layers OSI 5 to 7 and what may come above the OSI model.
<br>
- in IETF internet
terminology (RFC 1958) this is to happen at the fringe. The "fringe
to fringe". is outside of the IETF "end to end" scope.
<br><br>
The fringe can be on three sides:<br>
<br>
- the
"DSP" side, as one of the digital services it may provide.<br>
- the remote
"edge provider" side, plugged into the DSP’s system through its
DCN (direct connection network)<br>
- the user side at
an Intelligent Use Interface (IUI). This is why one speaks of the
resulting layer six virtual global network as the "InterPLUS",
where PLUS stands for "presentation layer on the user
side".<br>
<br>
The IUse (intelligent use) is the technical realm of the Civil Society.
To understand why, the presentation layer is what the NSA prevented in
the internet design: security, languages, formats, and network
intelligence. <br>
<br>
This why the internet missing presentation layer ***does not*** “ensure
that the information that the application layer of one system sends out
is best (and only) readable by the application layer of another system”.
Not implementing the presentation layer has forced everyone in the world
to be NSA readable, i.e. to drive on the NSA side of the road if we use
the road metaphor. <br><br>
Adding a layer six support on the user side permits you to freely deploy
optional layer six virtual networks in a transparent way to the internet
layers below, like driving on the users' virtual sides of the road (on
the information highways there are many virtual sides).<br><br>
The resulting virtual networking has been planned from the onset (IEN 48,
the fundamental internetting plan by Vint Cerf, in July 1978) in order to
be capable of supporting virtual networks being: <br><br>
- transparent to
technologies (this is the layer six job) for a multitechnology network
(IETF TCP/IP is not the only technology users may want to plug
into).<br>
- neutral, since
virtual networks will only be users software defined and managed
(SDN)<br>
-
"glocal", i.e. able to globally extend their internet
"locality" (according to IEN 48, local means peculiar to the
particular network). This is why they are called VGNs: virtual glocal
networks.<br><br>
Now, what the US is actually trying to achieve, just as every other
Government, is to protect their sovereignty over digitality. One used to
identify sovereignty with many grand things such as flags, ISO 3166
listing, violence legitimacy, UN membership, issuing laws and
jurisdiction, printing money, patriotism, etc. All of these things are
certainly part of the sovereignty whole, but sovereignty is an iceberg:
its visible economic tip is the capacity to raise taxes. Right now,
states are not raising very much money on digital businesses (so, we, the
users, pay for the taxes Google do not pay )<br>
<br>
However, the US is by far the leading state in tax revenues on the
"huge bounty" "the global economy has realized [] due to
the Internet and the World Wide Web over the past several decades"
(RFC 6852). They want to protect and consolidate that situation.<br>
<br>
This situation mostly results from a general use of the pretended
"necessary uniqueness/advantages of" the ICANN managed US VGN.
It is a BUG (no one can Be Unilaterally Global) that the US is trying to
transform into a global feature. In so doing, they are fragmenting the
Internet at the application layers: into "global communities
benefitting humanity". This is described in the
"OpenStand" IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C "normalization
paradigm" document |RFC 6852]: Web, Windows, Android, Apple,
Facebook, Amazon, etc. based on formal or informal standards. This is a
fragmentation because their legitimate commercial competition has not
been consolidated first by one single support of diversity basis, at the
missing internet presentation layer six.<br><br>
For years, I have tried to advance the second part of the IEN 48 plan
blocked by the US industry status-quo strategy. Transparency and
neutrality are highways for a competition that the incumbents did not
wish for and the current US 1996 Telecommunications Code does not protect
(cf. FCC "Open Internet Order" invalidation). However, all I
was able to do was:<br>
<br>
1) to oppose confusing standardization, in
particular in the diversity area (multilinguistics).<br>
2) to ascertain that the internet would
continue to be able to match its double IEN 48 motivation: i.e. to prove
that TCP/IP could support the two fundamental concepts deployed by 1978,
by:<br>
<br>
- <b>Cyclades</b>,
the Louis Pouzin’s datagram + catenet network of networks. It was closed
in October, for budgetary reasons, in order to favor the X.25/PAD
Transpac + Minitel project.<br>
- <b>Tymnet</b> and
its secure and neutral inter-technology agoric architecture of which the
VGN and extended services I eventually internationally managed and
deployed. (agorics is meshed complex logic.)<br>
<br>
A few weeks before Vint Cerf published IEN 48, we (Tymnet) had met with
Louis Pouzin. We wanted to explore how Cyclades could extend its own
Tymnet VGN. However, they explained to us that they were to close their
project. We then all missed out on an opportunity that I would like to
avoid missing again. <br>
<br>
For your information: Tymnet initiated commercial VAN services in Feb.
1972. It was licensed by the FCC in 1977 (including for the international
namespace). It was the domestic leader (60% of the market). It assumed
100% of the public international liaisons until 1987. Its domestic
competition with the internet technology spin-off Telenet has
introduced/experienced the concept of competition vs. regulation in
universal telecoms services. It was acquired in 1984 by the US industry
to be progressively sacrificed to the "status-quo"
strategy.<br>
<br>
Thirty years later, the technical and political situation has
changed:<br>
<br>
- The WG/IDNAbis
has enlightened the fact that the internet technology was supporting
diversity by fringe subsidiarity, and RFC 4895 has provided an example.
Progress has been important in distributed programming, virtualization,
general sciences, etc. and the experience acquired by the engineers and
users. A better architectonic understanding has been obtained; Libre and
lead users have emerged.<br>
- after the WCIT
voted and signed against the status-quo, in the wake of the RFC 6852
internet economic fragmentation acknowledgment. Snowdenia has made people
aware of the digital pervasiveness. The NTIA has engaged in an internet
deregulation strategy, where the US Executive branch protectorate would
be replaced by the colonial regime of the US commercial law (most of the
I*leading stakeholdership is being incorporated in the US).<br><br>
This, however, opens up an opportunity for the Civil Society and
Libre:<br>
<br>
- to affirm itself
as an RFC 6852 global community benefitting humanity in the Civil/Libre
area.<br>
- to address the
second motivation of the internet project at its glocal level,
encapsulating and consolidating the successful completion of its first
motivation (IETF internet).<br>
<br>
This means understanding the InterPLUS for what it is to be: a complex
entanglement of VGNs (virtual glocal networks): the fringe to fringe
networks of the end to end network of plug to plug networks.<br>
<br>
This means that we do not need IETF like structures, rough consensus,
gurus, leaders, etc. nor ICANN lawyers and BoD, nor Root Servers Systems,
nor political debates over the Internet global governance. <br>
<br>
We only need a Libre non-profit local network digital services provider
(DSP) to start working, internetting at the presentation layer six over
the layers 1 to 5 internet, with other local Libre non-profit local
networks digital services providers (DSPs), and so on. And then to learn
from experience. <br><br>
This is what I am currently implementing, a double proposition of:<br>
<br>
- internet
"Chinese wall": a non-IETF Trust copyrighted description of
digital network technologies (including the Internet one) from the point
of view of a connected machine. Help from every source, including states,
academies, research, ITU, ISO, etc. <br>
- local community
VGN development, cooperation, and interconnection projects. <br>
<br>
This is a time to think about tools, development languages, etc. Then, to
most probably start along a dual strata model:<br>
<br>
- meshed local
network (mostly Wi-Fi, out of fiber of which 80% is connected to the US
and NSA)<br>
- global connection
gateways under revised secured protocol to protect privacy. <br><br>
Everyone is welcome to share in this multi-project and expected bar
camps, or to start his/her own one and contact us. And to contribute in
his/her own language: in my village, it is the French language. <br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 16 July 2014 10:29:55 am
parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
The problem is, this isnt even hypocrisy, and an entirely new much
stronger word has to be invented for it...<br><br>
See for instance<br><br>
"The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an
age when "electronic communications are used extensively by
criminals of all types in the United States and abroad, from fraudsters
to hackers to drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US
law.""<br><br>
Yes, global jurisdiction is needed, and that global jurisdiction should
be US jurisdiction. Sure.<br><br>
Meanwhile, similar demands by other countries to have jurisdiction
on matters of their national concern is supposed to be a call to control
the Internet. <br><br>
And at times when saying such think looks just too bad or illogical in
polite company, say, ok multistakeholder jurisdiction is fine, knowing
very well that it means nothing, which is the whole point..<br><br>
parminder <br><br>
<br><br>
On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>From: </b>Dewayne Hendricks
<<a href="mailto:dewayne@warpspeed.com">dewayne@warpspeed.com</a>
><br>
<b>Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Obama administration says the world's servers
are ours<br>
Date: </b>July 14, 2014 at 3:47:28 PM EDT<br>
<b>To: </b>Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
<<a href="mailto:dewayne-net@warpspeed.com">
dewayne-net@warpspeed.com</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To:
</b><a href="mailto:dewayne-net@warpspeed.com">
dewayne-net@warpspeed.com</a><br>
<br>
Obama administration says the world’s servers are ours<br>
US says global reach needed to gut "fraudsters,"
"hackers," and "drug dealers."<br>
By David Kravets<br>
Jul 14 2014<br>
<<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/">
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/</a>
><br><br>
Global governments, the tech sector, and scholars are closely following a
legal flap in which the US Justice Department claims that Microsoft must
hand over e-mail stored in Dublin, Ireland.<br><br>
In essence, President Barack Obama's administration claims that any
company with operations in the United States must comply with valid
warrants for data, even if the content is stored overseas. It's a
position Microsoft and companies like Apple say is wrong, arguing that
the enforcement of US law stops at the border.<br><br>
A magistrate judge has already sided with the government's position,
ruling in April that "the basic principle that an entity lawfully
obligated to produce information must do so regardless of the location of
that information." Microsoft appealed to a federal judge, and the
case is set to be heard on July 31.<br><br>
In its briefs filed last week, the US government said that content stored
online doesn't enjoy the same type of Fourth Amendment protections as
data stored in the physical world. The government
<a href="safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/federalbrief-microsoftcase.pdf">
cited</a> (PDF) the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a President Ronald
Reagan-era regulation:
<dl>
<dd>Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid
subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production. The disclosure of
records under such circumstances has never been considered tantamount to
a physical search under Fourth Amendment principles, and Microsoft is
mistaken to argue that the SCA provides for an overseas search here. As
there is no overseas search or seizure, Microsoft’s reliance on
principles of extra-territoriality and comity falls wide of the
mark.<br><br>
</dl>Microsoft said the decision has wide-ranging, global implications.
"Congress has not authorized the issuance of warrants that reach
outside US territory,” Microsoft’s attorneys
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/microsoft-challenges-us-govt-warrant-to-access-overseas-customer-data/">
wrote</a>. “The government cannot seek and a court cannot issue a warrant
allowing federal agents to break down the doors of Microsoft’s Dublin
facility."<br><br>
The Redmond, Washington-based company said its consumer trust is low in
the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations. It told the US judge
presiding over the case that "[t]he government's position in this
case further erodes that trust and will ultimately erode the leadership
of US technologies in the global market."<br><br>
Companies like Apple, AT&T, Cisco, and Verizon agree. Verizon
<a href="safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/verizonamicus.pdf">
said</a> (PDF) that a decision favoring the US would produce
"dramatic conflict with foreign data protection laws." Apple
and Cisco
<a href="safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/applebriefinremicrosft.pdf">
said</a> (PDF) that the tech sector is put "at risk" of being
sanctioned by foreign governments and that the US should seek cooperation
with foreign nations via treaties, a position the US said is not
practical.<br><br>
The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an age
when "electronic communications are used extensively by criminals of
all types in the United States and abroad, from fraudsters to hackers to
drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law."<br><br>
The e-mail the US authorities are seeking from Microsoft concerns a
drug-trafficking investigation. Microsoft often stores e-mail on servers
closest to the account holder.<br><br>
The senior counsel for the Irish Supreme Court wrote in a recent filing
that a US-Ireland "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty" was the
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/10/National-Security/Graphics/SDNY%20McDowell%20Declaration.pdf">
"efficient</a>" avenue (PDF) for the US government to obtain
the e-mail held on Microsoft's external servers.<br><br>
Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment expert at George Washington University,
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/microsoft-fights-us-search-warrant-for-customer-e-mails-held-in-overseas-server/2014/06/10/6b8416ae-f0a7-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html">
said</a>, "The scope of the privacy laws around the world is now a
very important question, and this is the beginning of what may be a lot
of litigation on the question. So it's a big case to watch."<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now">Archives</a>
<a href="https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3">
<img src="https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg" alt="[]">
</a>|
<a href="https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308">
Modify</a> Your Subscription |
<a href="https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20140714160148:B4952B62-0B91-11E4-BC5E-F4360264DADE">
Unsubscribe Now</a> <br>
<div align="right"><a href="http://www.listbox.com">
<img src="https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png" alt="[]">
</a><br>
</div>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Members mailing
list</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>