5 ms·

I ask this completely seriously. What would it take to declare the domain of the internet as its own sovereign entity? The internet to me has become greater t

I ask this completely seriously. What would it take to declare the domain of the internet as its own sovereign entity? The internet to me has become greater than just a communications network. It is a place where people connect/work/play. DNS is a natural resource, and should be regulated by all that is affected by it.

bendmorris 15y ago
It's certainly interesting, but I don't think the internet could be considered its own sovereign entity. One major problem is that the "internet" is just an emergent property of lots of connected machines, and all of those machines have to physically exist somewhere within another sovereign entity.
- clistctrl 15y ago
  What if the entity was a p2p program that was miraculously internationally recognized? The hard part to me convincing governments to give up power.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    Ok it seems that more than a few people have had similar misconceptions, so I'm going to try to clear this up. The idea that the internet is a p2p network is a pernicious falsehood. The only real way that the Internet is a p2p network is in inter-AS routing. You are not part of the p2p Internet, your neighbor is not part of the p2p Internet, and your company is probably not part of the p2p Internet--you're just leasing use of the p2p Internet. By this I mean that the Internet is fundamentally not as distributed as it seems. This is the flaw that most people who argue for wireless mesh networks have. The don't actually understand the technical complexity in how the Internet is run. But anyway, let's admit for the moment that the edge network is not decentralized (it is completely dependent on its ISP). Well, then the Internet is kind of decentralized, right? No. In order to cover the vast areas of land and ocean that connect the Internet we require massive fiber infrastructure development. But if that were somehow provided it would be distributed, right? No. As two Northwestern phd students and I measured in a paper in submission, more than 60% of p2p traffic passes through one of a handful of Tier 1 ISPs. No matter how you swing it, the Internet is not really decentralized, it is balanced between a few powerful companies and governments (which thus have to operate under the law of their hosting countries). A distributed or unregulated Internet is a pipe dream.
    - ynniv 15y ago
      This is the flaw that most people who argue for wireless mesh networks have. I'm curious what you mean here. I am reasonably sure that mesh networks are actually distributed, at least internally. Are you referring about the Internet gateways that are generally a part of a mesh proposal, or possibly that mesh networks don't scale like centralized networks do? A distributed or unregulated Internet is a pipe dream. I think that we could create a truly distributed network. It would not be nearly as efficient as the Internet we are accustomed to, and it would not be based on the current Internet Protocol.
      - Locke1689 15y ago
        I'm curious what you mean here. I am reasonably sure that mesh networks are actually distributed, at least internally. Are you referring about the Internet gateways that are generally a part of a mesh proposal, or possibly that mesh networks don't scale like centralized networks do? I'm saying that mesh networks are 1) not connectable on the scale of the Internet and 2) not scalable. I think that we could create a truly distributed network. It would not be nearly as efficient as the Internet we are accustomed to, and it would not be based on the current Internet Protocol. No offense but many DS papers have been published in this area and most aren't even positive in the theoretical sense, much less the practical. Crudely, I think it's time to put code where your mouth is ;)
        ynniv 15y ago
        Crudely, I think it's time to put code where your mouth is Ah, you have me there. Actually, I am interested in this space and would appreciate a good academic overview. Maybe some links to these papers you mention?
        Locke1689 15y ago
        Here's some stuff to get you started: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1498497&tag=1 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1498497... http://www.springerlink.com/content/l4317522286237m4/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/l4317522286237m4/ http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/labs/bwn/surveys/mesh.pdf http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/labs/bwn/surveys/mesh.pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.132.4609&rank=4 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.132....
- nitrogen 15y ago
  In the US, various Native American tribes exist as "sovereign nations," able to set many of their own laws that contradict those of the state. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know the limits of their sovereignty, but hypothetically a similar concept could be applied to any property hosting a node of the sovereign Internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unite...
  - bendmorris 15y ago
    Reservations in the US are a special class of enclave, which means a sovereign nation that physically exists inside another country. Other examples include Lesotho (contained within South Africa) or Vatican City (contained within Italy). What doesn't exist, and what I have a hard time imagining, is this sort of "distributed enclave" that's been suggested - an entity that exists in multiple places, each of which is within a different sovereign entity. It seems like a flimsy arrangement. Who's to stop any one country from taking over "internet territory" within their borders?
    - die_sekte 15y ago
      Well, there's the SMOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Mal...). Sovereign, but doesn't own any land except for a building in Rome.
kijinbear 15y ago
> DNS is a natural resource, Interesting idea, but I don't think this analogy works. Sovereign nations routinely assume complete control over natural resources located within their territories. (Maybe they shouldn't, but that's another argument.)
anamax 15y ago
> What would it take to declare the domain of the internet as its own sovereign entity? An army.
- westicle 15y ago
  Does that make 4chan a sovereign entity?
  - anamax 15y ago
    A bunch of folks at keyboards are not an army. http://xkcd.com/538/ http://xkcd.com/538/ contains some relevant wisdom.
roundsquare 15y ago
AFAIK, under international law for statehood it would require a permanent population, a defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with the other states.[1] There is some precedent for non-states getting "international personhood" but so far its only happened to the UN and even that is only minimal personhood. [2] I don't think the logic would carry over. Treating it as a natural resource would probably put it under the jurisdiction of states where it resides. At that point, maybe states can do what Equador did with nature and treat it as having fundamental rights in their constitution. [1]http://www.taiwandocuments.org/montevideo01.htm http://www.taiwandocuments.org/montevideo01.htm [2]http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/4/1835.pdf http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/4/1835.pdf (very long and I don't think mostly relevant).

bendmorris 15y ago

It's certainly interesting, but I don't think the internet could be considered its own sovereign entity. One major problem is that the "internet" is just an emergent property of lots of connected machines, and all of those machines have to physically exist somewhere within another sovereign entity.

clistctrl 15y ago
What if the entity was a p2p program that was miraculously internationally recognized? The hard part to me convincing governments to give up power.
- Locke1689 15y ago
  Ok it seems that more than a few people have had similar misconceptions, so I'm going to try to clear this up. The idea that the internet is a p2p network is a pernicious falsehood. The only real way that the Internet is a p2p network is in inter-AS routing. You are not part of the p2p Internet, your neighbor is not part of the p2p Internet, and your company is probably not part of the p2p Internet--you're just leasing use of the p2p Internet. By this I mean that the Internet is fundamentally not as distributed as it seems. This is the flaw that most people who argue for wireless mesh networks have. The don't actually understand the technical complexity in how the Internet is run. But anyway, let's admit for the moment that the edge network is not decentralized (it is completely dependent on its ISP). Well, then the Internet is kind of decentralized, right? No. In order to cover the vast areas of land and ocean that connect the Internet we require massive fiber infrastructure development. But if that were somehow provided it would be distributed, right? No. As two Northwestern phd students and I measured in a paper in submission, more than 60% of p2p traffic passes through one of a handful of Tier 1 ISPs. No matter how you swing it, the Internet is not really decentralized, it is balanced between a few powerful companies and governments (which thus have to operate under the law of their hosting countries). A distributed or unregulated Internet is a pipe dream.
  - ynniv 15y ago
    This is the flaw that most people who argue for wireless mesh networks have. I'm curious what you mean here. I am reasonably sure that mesh networks are actually distributed, at least internally. Are you referring about the Internet gateways that are generally a part of a mesh proposal, or possibly that mesh networks don't scale like centralized networks do? A distributed or unregulated Internet is a pipe dream. I think that we could create a truly distributed network. It would not be nearly as efficient as the Internet we are accustomed to, and it would not be based on the current Internet Protocol.
    - Locke1689 15y ago
      I'm curious what you mean here. I am reasonably sure that mesh networks are actually distributed, at least internally. Are you referring about the Internet gateways that are generally a part of a mesh proposal, or possibly that mesh networks don't scale like centralized networks do? I'm saying that mesh networks are 1) not connectable on the scale of the Internet and 2) not scalable. I think that we could create a truly distributed network. It would not be nearly as efficient as the Internet we are accustomed to, and it would not be based on the current Internet Protocol. No offense but many DS papers have been published in this area and most aren't even positive in the theoretical sense, much less the practical. Crudely, I think it's time to put code where your mouth is ;)
      - ynniv 15y ago
        Crudely, I think it's time to put code where your mouth is Ah, you have me there. Actually, I am interested in this space and would appreciate a good academic overview. Maybe some links to these papers you mention?
        Locke1689 15y ago
        Here's some stuff to get you started: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1498497&tag=1 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1498497... http://www.springerlink.com/content/l4317522286237m4/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/l4317522286237m4/ http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/labs/bwn/surveys/mesh.pdf http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/labs/bwn/surveys/mesh.pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.132.4609&rank=4 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.132....
nitrogen 15y ago
In the US, various Native American tribes exist as "sovereign nations," able to set many of their own laws that contradict those of the state. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know the limits of their sovereignty, but hypothetically a similar concept could be applied to any property hosting a node of the sovereign Internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unite...
- bendmorris 15y ago
  Reservations in the US are a special class of enclave, which means a sovereign nation that physically exists inside another country. Other examples include Lesotho (contained within South Africa) or Vatican City (contained within Italy). What doesn't exist, and what I have a hard time imagining, is this sort of "distributed enclave" that's been suggested - an entity that exists in multiple places, each of which is within a different sovereign entity. It seems like a flimsy arrangement. Who's to stop any one country from taking over "internet territory" within their borders?
  - die_sekte 15y ago
    Well, there's the SMOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Mal...). Sovereign, but doesn't own any land except for a building in Rome.

kijinbear 15y ago

> DNS is a natural resource, Interesting idea, but I don't think this analogy works. Sovereign nations routinely assume complete control over natural resources located within their territories. (Maybe they shouldn't, but that's another argument.)

anamax 15y ago

> What would it take to declare the domain of the internet as its own sovereign entity? An army.

westicle 15y ago
Does that make 4chan a sovereign entity?
- anamax 15y ago
  A bunch of folks at keyboards are not an army. http://xkcd.com/538/ http://xkcd.com/538/ contains some relevant wisdom.

roundsquare 15y ago

AFAIK, under international law for statehood it would require a permanent population, a defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with the other states.[1] There is some precedent for non-states getting "international personhood" but so far its only happened to the UN and even that is only minimal personhood. [2] I don't think the logic would carry over. Treating it as a natural resource would probably put it under the jurisdiction of states where it resides. At that point, maybe states can do what Equador did with nature and treat it as having fundamental rights in their constitution. [1]http://www.taiwandocuments.org/montevideo01.htm http://www.taiwandocuments.org/montevideo01.htm [2]http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/4/1835.pdf http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/4/1835.pdf (very long and I don't think mostly relevant).