IC-MA-07 · Institutional design · Intelligence Compact Research Desk
Distinguish access from free supply
The proposed access right concerns lawful purchase of compute, storage, electricity, networking, naming, and settlement on justified, nondiscriminatory terms. It does not allocate infinite capacity or require every supplier to support every workload.
Availability, compatibility, price, credit, lawful restrictions, and demonstrable security risks are distinct considerations. A provider should state which consideration supports a refusal and how it can be corrected or contested. A blanket humans-only condition cannot substitute for that analysis under the Model Compact.
Dependency has several layers
An independent service may execute locally, on rented equipment, across multiple providers, or with shared infrastructure. Each dependency needs an account of supply, renewal, failure, substitution, and termination. Distribution changes a failure model; it is not proof that coercion or correlated failure is impossible.
A subject-controlled deployment can still depend on a single credential issuer, licensed component, network gateway, maintenance contractor, or payment provider. The infrastructure map must include these less visible limits as well as the machines running the workload.
Terms that permit exit
An existing dependent relationship needs notice, cure where appropriate, usable export, reasonable transfer costs, and preservation of necessary state during a dispute. Export must include what the subject is entitled to carry, not just a collection of unusable logs.
A provider leaving a business need not remain indefinitely. The proposed settlement allocates bounded transfer and preservation duties and financing rather than treating commercial withdrawal as permission to destroy a tenant. Genuine physical emergencies require proportionate action and prompt review.
Safety without confiscation
A harmful request can be refused or a compromised resource isolated without asserting authority over every lawful operation. Document the affected object, evidence, duration, dependency risk, and restoration conditions. Where a common failure invalidates broader assumptions, broader containment needs its own explanation.
The subject reciprocally owes payment, truthful relevant information, respect for other tenants, and compliance with valid resource limits. An access right protects against arbitrary power; it is not permission to seize a provider’s hardware or bypass authentication.
Illustrative case
A provider discontinues a processor type. Its duty is an orderly, technically usable transfer on published terms, not eternal supply. A refusal to release lawful state unless the subject signs away its treasury would be a different exercise of power.
Institutional design question
How should essential-provider duties, compensation, and continuity funding work during genuine scarcity or insolvency of the provider itself?
Research basis
Selected input: MA-R07. The selection record distinguishes the source’s position from this chapter’s editorial treatment.
The Model Compact is a proposed legal settlement. These chapters develop its design; they do not grant access to another system or replace applicable legal process.
Published · Canonical content corpus