The proposition is narrow and more consequential than it sounds: a country extends its critical digital infrastructure into another state's territory while retaining legal control over the data, compute and governance. The inversion starts from a physical fact — power and water cannot be relocated across borders, so move the facility to where they already exist rather than demanding they appear where the sovereignty is. The concept predates AI, having been arranged to protect continuity of essential government services, and the change is one of scale: a defensive instrument satisfied by modest infrastructure becomes a template for where the world's compute physically sits. The argument for standardising is practical rather than principled — bilateral agreements otherwise reinvent the same legal and technical answers, and investors want a tried framework in place before capital is committed. What it does not resolve is leverage, since the scenarios that make sovereignty matter are precisely the ones in which holding the buildings confers options.