[governance] Article on national sovereignty and communications in Indian Magazine Diplomatist

[Lee W McKnight]

Barry,

Not to be pedantic...but then I am a prof so I guess I should not apologize: google 'statistical multiplexing'

Which explains why we now speak of voice or even tiny sms/instant messages over IP vs in their native telecom formats...

Lee

PS: And to reply to Jefsey's critique of Milton's article....there is the Internet and much more around the Internet; much of - that- can reasonably be governed/managed and be legally controlled by the usual suspect national legal arrangements, no doubt. But starting your critique by claiming the Internet went off the rails in 1986 when...the usual suspect national authorities (including USG/DOD) and ITU and EU and Japanese governments were all trying to strangle the strange new...statistically multiplexed beast in the cradle, in favor of a more controlled/tarriffed open systems interconnection model of the future...well sorry you seem to neglkect the 3 billion or so now free to chat about whatever they want now in ways they could not, back in the day.

________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 1:50 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Article on national sovereignty and  communications in Indian Magazine Diplomatist

Reading the article what strikes me is: How is the internet different,
fundamentally, from the voice or sms telephone networks (which most of
the internet travels on), or postal and package carriers, as a few
examples which come to mind?

They're all indepedent systems interconnected by some agreement of
protocols. For example sharing of undersea cables or mutual
recognition of postage.

Something which does distinguish them is that there seems to be much
less concern about regulating the content of these other
networks. Generally just customs, import/export regulation, and of
course any overt criminal content in all cases.

So we are led to a paradox raised implicitly by the article:

The internet is different because it resists regulation of its content
by any centralized, typically sovereign, actors. This is because its
control is distributed in super-sovereign or extra-sovereign patterns.

Yet it is the internet's very identifiable control points such as the
DNS system's single root-structured (in practice, not in theory)
management which causes us to worry about control and who shall
administer that control.

So, it is distributed and independent of sovereign control, except
when it isn't?

I think this can be repaired with a prefix of "we would prefer it
were..."  rather than trying to create this illusion that there is
anything inherent in the internet which resists control, any more than
my first examples, voice networks etc.

--
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t