Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] Survey

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:48:45 +0100

At 00:14 05/03/2014, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>This survey is a miserable mascarade. Why waste time discussing it ?

The whole thing is a mascarade.

At 01:00 05/03/2014, Mike Roberts wrote:
>I'm not sure we've dumped enough on the survey yet.  What about 
>"Dastardly abomination!"  That's from one of the Sherlock Holmes 
>episodes on PBS.
>Seriously, there have been sound and constructive contributions to 
>this forum.  It undermines the credibility of that hard work to have 
>foolishness appear at the last minute.

For them it is an intellectual academic game :-). Let them enjoy it, 
get T&L paid, dream they save and rule the world, etc.

They want to constrain States with such jokes.
Folks, States are where humanity has located "sovereignty", i.e. the 
legitimacy to use force up to violence if this becomes necessary.
Anything that does proceed from that fundamental premise is called utopia.

Now, we participated and teased because we wanted to be sure we would 
not miss a good idea (we found none) and check the soundness of ours 
(we only got pertinent confirmations of David Conrad). Now, there is 
work to be seriously done to deploy the innovation our national 
industries, jobs, security and development need.

If some want to discuss their practical participation to the enhanced 
cooperation it calls for, they are welcome on [email-masked] 
(http://0net.org). "0net" stands for a 0 blahblah governance of a 
neutral, transparent, reliable network. Not something @ M$ 12 a year 
the sysops.

Cheers
Hebe

---

From: Chris Grundemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:22:46 +0000

>> I'm not sure we've dumped enough on the survey yet.  What about
"Dastardly abomination!"  That's from one of the Sherlock Holmes episodes
on PBS.
>> Seriously, there have been sound and constructive contributions to this
forum.  It undermines the credibility of that hard work to have foolishness
appear at the last minute.
>
>
> For them it is an intellectual academic game :-). Let them enjoy it, get
T&L paid, dream they save and rule the world, etc.
> Anything that does proceed from that fundamental premise is called utopia.

FWIW - You're definition of humanity, sovereignty, and utopia are
frighteningly different than mine.

>
> Now, we participated and teased because we wanted to be sure we would not
miss a good idea (we found none) and check the soundness of ours (we only
got pertinent confirmations of David Conrad). Now, there is work to be
seriously done to deploy the innovation our national industries, jobs,
security and development need.
> If some want to discuss their practical participation to the enhanced
cooperation it calls for, they are welcome on [email-masked] (
http://0net.org). "0net" stands for a 0 blahblah governance of a neutral,
transparent, reliable network. Not something @ M$ 12 a year the sysops.
>
> Cheers
> Hebe
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:15:06 +0100

At 11:15 05/03/2014, Avri Doria wrote:
>Calling it Utopian, or worse, and deprecating it in various ways 
>does not change that.  Sovereignty as currently understood has been 
>a limited success - just looking at the daily papers and the movable 
>permanent wars should be enough to convince anyone.  We need to 
>figure out how to do better.  And this movement on the Internet, a 
>new way for global society to interact directly, is the best 
>alternative I know of at this point in time.

Dear Avri,

I am afraid you miss a fundamental point. Democracy appeared in 
Athens. Its contribution was the "nomos", i.e. the law voted by the 
people (actually some people). This nomos came in addition to the 
Themis (natural law) and patria (families best practices). This was a 
way to organise (architectonics) and harden the city from the 
interior (cohesion among citizens) and be more structured and 
prepared at the exterior. These tasks were distributed along three 
archons: Eponymous (also the chief of state - Aristote introduced 
architectonics, i.e. the architecture of all the architectures, as 
the supreme political art),  Basileus for interior issues,  and 
Polemach for external sovereignty (i.e. the field where only Themis 
applies and your army can protect you against violence).

1. the city's internal fundamental law does not change anything in 
terms of external affairs which is our field.
2. the nature of architectonics has changed: we do not only have to 
manage the land, seas, air and outer space, we also have to manage 
the cyber space, and more complicate and out of capacity of the 
political art we have to *build* it, and build it globally what can 
only be done on an MS basis, except if one state colonizes or invades 
all the others. Is that what you mean when you talk of democracy?

So, references to your political feelings are off context. We are in 
a pure Themis/natural law context. If someone does not goes by the 
treaties, conventions or covenants it/he/she signed, there is only 
one alternative: acceptance or war. For the time being the majority 
of the States have signed a treaty. Sao Paulo is to see how the 
minority (which happens to be in position of relative strength) could 
settle a working compromise with the majority.

You cannot do anything to change that. Except, change the world or 
humanity. Dreams (Utopia) cannot help, except in giving ideas or 
suggesting a aesthetics, hence ethics to better proceed. However, no 
one is prepared to receive ethics lessons or even suggestions from 
the USA at this time. So, the only possibility left is to change the 
digital world. This is not immediately possible (cost too much, and 
there is no consensus, most of the leading forces [USG/US and others 
TNCs] being in favor of a status-quo which looks at their immediate 
advantage).

However, what is possible is to change the leaders' perception of the 
world. In the hope they are clever enough to understand faster than 
the full demonstration of an implementation that might economical 
conflicts or losses for them (nobody wants to oppose, just to help 
people understanding where their best interest lies, in spite of the 
"experts" says). We have introduced such a change in the perception: 
the one which was planned from the very beginning as the second 
motivation of the internet. Yes, it opposes the current leadership 
status-quo strategy because it structurally treats every MS on a 
technical equal footing, whatever the use, the language, the 
technology, the economy. Yes it is "0net" in  removing every internet 
technology non neutral non transparent advantage. Yes it is not 
accepted by outdated gurus of the first motivation phase. However, 
cute responsible people know the internet project ultimate target. 
They know that the tools are here. They know they cannot block 
innovation too long. They know that the majorities of states is ready 
to move in if they are proven their technical trust has also been 
betrayed. So, now it is up to the decision makers to decide. Is it 
Obama's job to sovereignly rule my old file, the networks reality 
independently more accurately produce in 10 minutes with my old 
tools? I am sure that many round the world do it faster!

Obviously the DNSA will exist. Obviously not in the way it is 
discussed today. As a VGN, TLD, name_holder association, supported by 
an international small and cheap secretariat. Government are not much 
interested in domain names, as long as they do not hamper their 
industry and their social peace. They are much more interested in 
what may weak their cyber warfare capacity, and the protection of 
their citizen. E-Democracy in other countries does not preoccupy them 
as much as the fact that, if the NSA was able to spy the US citizens 
themselves, the US technology is very vulnerable and no secret is 
secure in a world where you can be penetrated by the NSA and a civil 
contractor can disseminate your secrets so easily, together with 1.7 
millions of other secret files.

Frankly, Covs are still more worried because the secrets the NSA 
stole them through the internet, were not protected at the NSA. This 
definitely kills the idea of any international governance agency or 
organization where US security could have a responsibility. How could 
191 countries trust it?

Sorry, let get real. In an MS environment there is no king, no 
president, no votes. Only running code. Please develop or chose your 
running code. As we are doing. We will see what kind of governance 
may emerge from this zero blah blah MS globalized decision on an 
equal keyboard typing.

Best!
jfc

---

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:32:22 +0100

At 19:15 05/03/2014, Jefsey wrote:
>>a limited success - just looking at the daily papers and the 
>>movable permanent wars should be enough to convince anyone.  We 
>>need to figure out how to do better.  And this movement on the 
>>Internet, a new way for global society to interact directly, is the 
>>best alternative I know of at this point in time.
>
>Dear Avri,
>
>Themis (natural law) and patria (families best practices). This was 
>a way to organise (architectonics) and harden the city from the 
.
Jefsey,
this is a good analysis. However, 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?
Hebe

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:17:21 +0100

At 21:32 05/03/2014, Elisabeth Blanconil wrote:
>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?

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.

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.

jfc

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:48:14 +0100

At 09:25 06/03/2014, Matthias C. Kettemann wrote:
>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.

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.

>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.

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?

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.

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.

Cheers!
jfc

PS. IANAL

>Kind regards
>Matthias
>Disclaimer: I am kind of fond of international law. It keeps my children fed.
>
>On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jefsey 
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>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 
>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.
>
>jfc

---

From: "Matthias C. Kettemann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:25:21 +0100

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. 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.

Kind regards
Matthias

Disclaimer: I am kind of fond of international law. It keeps my children
fed.

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 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
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> jfc
>
>

-- 

Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)
Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence
"<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>Normative
Orders<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>
"<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>,
University of Frankfurt/Main
Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations,
University of Graz <http://voelkerrecht.uni-graz.at/en/>
Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights
and Democracy, University of
Graz<http://trainingszentrum-menschenrechte.uni-graz.at/en/infos-fuer-studierende/>

Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1
60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland

E | [email-masked]
T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany)
T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria)
T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office)
Blog <http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/> |
SSRN<http://ssrn.com/author=1957909>
 | Google Scholar <http://scholar.google.ch/citations?user=8jRGt2QAAAAJ> | my
new book<http://www.elevenpub.com/law/catalogus/the-future-of-individuals-in-international-law>
 | Amazon Authors' Page  <http://www.amazon.de/-/e/B00DBT3K36>
Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/MCKettemann> |
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann>
 | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/116310540881122884114/posts>

Recent publications:
Freedom of Expression and the Internet
(2014)<https://book.coe.int/eur/en/human-rights-and-democracy/5810-freedom-of-expression-and-the-internet.html>
Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013,
ed.)<http://publikationen.collaboratory.at/mri/>
Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013,
ed.)<http://www.jan-sramek-verlag.at/Buchdetails.455.0.html?buchID=139&cHash=e856a8a762>
The Future of Individuals in International Law
(2013)<http://www.elevenpub.com/law/catalogus/the-future-of-individuals-in-international-law>
European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013,
co-edited)<http://www.nwv.at/recht/verfassungsrecht/1019_european_yearbook_on_human_rights_2013/>