<div dir="ltr"><br><div>Then how you can say it is illegal, what is the foundation of your reasoning ? </div><div><br></div><div>-J</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Marc Perkel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org" target="_blank">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I'm not a lawyer but I have extensive legal experience. You can't
sue the USG because they claim State Secrets Immunity and the judge
dismisses the case. I have been in court and watch it happen as the
EFF tried to do just that.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On 10/28/2013 10:32 AM, Jorge Amodio
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>I'm not a lawyer and qualified to judge if it is illegal or
not, are you ? If so, just sue the USG.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-J</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Marc Perkel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org" target="_blank">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> What the USG is doing
is highly illegal. However because the president and
congress choose to ignore the constitution they can get
away with it. And we have no right to inflict ourselves on
the rest of the world.
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On 10/28/2013 10:18 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>The NSA is a product of the USG, the
officials of the USG gave the NSA the mandate
and funding to do what they have been doing for
ages, I hardly believe that ICANN is even close
to be the right organization to tackle that
issue.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you are a US Citizen, call your
Senators/Representatives and express your
opinion, and put pressure on the big pockets
that fund the lobbying apparatus in Washington
DC so they change the agenda accordingly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Protocol Names and Numbers have NOTHING to do
with the NSA, so it is not in the scope of ICANN
to fix ANYTHING related to it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-J</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at
11:34 AM, Marc Perkel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org" target="_blank">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I think ICANN needs
to increase its scope. I think ICANN needs to
become a UN alternative forum to fill a vacuum
to address issues like the NSA spying. If
ICANN doesn't do it - who will?<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/27/2013 11:01 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> To the extent
that Fadi is trying to address Internet
Governance generally<br>
(forgive me if I am reading too much into
his actions?), that would seem to<br>
be out of scope, regardless of whether
ICANN/IANA and general-IG both would<br>
benefit from internationalization.<br>
<br>
As for multistakeholderism, in principle
this all sounds great, but in<br>
practice it seems to have fallen far short
of its intended potential. In<br>
practice is where the rubber hits the road,
and in practice MSism at ICANN<br>
has recently fallen prey to ad hoc action
when some "more equal than<br>
others" stakeholders decide the outcome is
not to their liking. They<br>
apparently start to think along the lines of
"God is not Mocked."<br>
<br>
I see MSism as still an experimental
work-in-progress, hardly with all the<br>
bugs worked out, and not necessarily "ready
for prime time" in terms of<br>
overall world governance. The only reason
it has worked as free from<br>
collapse at ICANN as it has up to now, I
think, is that the big Powers That<br>
Be in the world (nations and big
corporations) hadn't really seen ICANN as<br>
all that meaningful in their general scheme
of things. The more important<br>
ICANN's actions become, the more the big
powers will pound on it to shape<br>
it to their desires. I think you've only
seen the bare beginning of this<br>
in the ad hoc shenanigans of the last few
years. Just beginning to rev up<br>
the engines. MSism has not reached up out
of the play-pen to play with the<br>
Big Boys yet, as far as I can tell, and it
remains to be seen how it will<br>
fare if it is brought up to the Big Time.<br>
<br>
That's a big risk, IMHO. Be careful what
you ask for, you might get it.<br>
And if it doesn't turn out how you expected,
what then? This whole MSism<br>
experiment is a huge exercise in unintended
consequences (in the gap<br>
between theory and practice), if you ask me.
It's worth doing the<br>
experiment, but I'd be more comfortable if
the experiment were closer to<br>
completion before trying it out on anything
*really* important. I don't<br>
see it anywhere near that point, yet.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Any opinions expressed in this message are
those of the author alone and do<br>
not necessarily reflect any position of the
author's employer.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 12:59 AM -0400 10/28/13, avri doria
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hi,<br>
<br>
In terms of legitimacy, isn't one of the
topics that needs to be explored<br>
internationalisation of ICANN, and IANA?
Isn't that a topic at the top of<br>
the list? That seems to be in scope.<br>
<br>
And the ICANN Board seems to be on-board
as Fadi was meeting with a subset<br>
of them (including the Chair) and AC/SO
leadership every morning. I wasn't<br>
in the meetings, and don't know who the
rep from gnso was since Jonathan<br>
wasn't there, so don't know what the level
of buy in was, but I heard no<br>
complaints on the ground.<br>
<br>
So whatever we might say about scope creep
Fadi is not being renegade.<br>
<br>
As for scope creep Fadi and the leaders of
the other I* seem to be acting<br>
in coordinated faction, so it is within
their scope, and would seem to be<br>
in scope for any one of them to act on
I*'s behalf in organizational<br>
talks with governments on a meeting
planning.<br>
<br>
So, in this case at least, I see no
fundamental problem of overreach by<br>
Fadi. And, whether he fully understand
what it means, he seems to be<br>
carrying the banner of multistakeholderism
into these discussions.<br>
<br>
So, at least this once, I am not ready to
join in Fadi-attack.<br>
<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>