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

[JFC Morfin]

At 19:50 12/01/2015, Barry Shein wrote:
>Reading the article what strikes me is: How is the internet different,
>fundamentally, from the voice or sms telephone 
>networks (which most ofthe internet travels on), 
>or postal and package carriers, as a few
>examples which come to mind?

Dear Barry,

this is very interesting question as it shows 
that what is of main interest in the internet 
phenomena and its governance is not the network 
but the digital nature of a global pervasiveness 
(like radio, money, etc.). The network aspects are at three strata:

- lower catenet layers: the layers shared with other networks, like telephone.
- middle layers (end to end protocols) that are 
specific to technologies (like the internet, 
Myrinet, Ethernet, Infiniband, NDN, etc.).
- fringe to fringe upper-layers extended services 
(like security, authentication, IA, µpayment, etc. etc)

The lower layer is locally oriented (states). The 
fringe to fringe layer is at individually 
orientfed (civil society, Free/Libre). The end to 
end layer is commercially managed i.e. depending on markets (cf. RFC 6852).

jfc




>They're all indepedent systems interconnected by some agreement of
>protocols. For example sharing of undersea cables or
>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*
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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





-------------- 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