On Thu, 2024-08-15 at 20:49 +1000, Lloyd W wrote: > because the Internet is under de facto US control and always has > been, currently through ICANN. > > ICANN now has "global multistakeholder governance", gradually > supplanting US Department of Commerce oversight, for what that's > worth. > > A new, unique jurisdiction suggests new and unique laws. Unlikely. > The internet runs on physical hardware located in existing countries, > bound by their laws. It would be possible for a treaty to establish jurisdiction without establishing any government for it. A treaty could place network routers, severs, names, certificates and other infrastructure outside the reach of territorial governments, without needing to have a "king" or a "congress" to regulate that jurisdiction. It would be more of a "hands-off treaty" for all nations that prevents things like sanctions from breaking infrastructure. In other words, the Jurisdiction would be isolatory, not regulatory.
