[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Statement on PRISM?

Mon Oct 28 05:11:55 CET 2013

Nothing wrong with it being "us" in terms of individuals who happen to be
members of NCUC, etc.  And now is a good time to explore the ideas.

But ICANN per se I believe is not a useful "venue" or institution to
promote whatever goals this community might come up with.  Its particular
institutional structure and mandate is peculiar to a particular origin
surrounding a particular narrowly technical need, and that structure is not
IMHO best suited for the institutional needs of whatever our broader goals
might be.

What Fadi is doing is totally renegade, from the standpoint of ICANN formal
structure.  It is ad hoc to the point of being essentially outside the
ICANN institution as such.  He's just making sh** up and acting as an
individual, using the ICANN imprimatur as a legitimizing device.  You seem
to be reaching to meet him in that ad hoc space, and that places you
outside the ICANN institution as well.

ICANN's institutional dynamics have enough problems just dealing with the
narrow issues.  It has not proven itself capable or suitable for addressing
even broader concerns, as it has been increasingly overcome with ad hoc
actions in violation of the policy making structure that was set up at the
outset, and even with regard to tweaks in the last few years.

If I were going to address the broad issues (and I would like to), ICANN is
by no means the place I'd try to build from.  This institution is
systematically fraught, and increasingly so in recent years.

It's a "luxury" to suggest this institution can be productively reshaped
from an outlier advisory group such as NCUC to accomplish the broad goals
you are aiming for.  I think that is almost certainly a setup for failure.

The goals are worthy, the time is pressing, the individuals here are likely
participants to recruit.  The institution is far, far, far from being the
best place to stand to build it forward.  The more ICANN reaches into
broader issues, the less accountable it seems to be, the more ad hoc it
seems to be, the more vulnerable it seems to being hijacked by power
players out for their own narrow aims (and that sure ain't *us*), and the
less likely it seems to be a place where any of this can really get started
in a way that respects the broader interests of the world public.  We spend
all our time just trying to hold the line against encroachments on The
Right Thing for the public as represented by civil society.

Please, look for somewhere else to get this started.  I can see no good
coming of an effort to build it here at ICANN.  That choice would more
likely hold back the very goals you (and others including myself) seek to
achieve.

Don't get fixated on this institution as the place to stand.  This
institution is young, still highly experimental, and far from proven as a
broadly generalizable model for collective governance, which is what your
mission requires.

Better, it seems to me, to either start from scratch somewhere else, or
find a less unlikely existing platform to build from.  The idea of trying
to build this movement at ICANN makes me shudder and despair for the
prospect of success in the mission.  It is just about the wrongest place to
start from that I can think of.

This has utterly nothing to do with your philosophical ideas (which I
haven't even taken time to read) -- this is purely about the choice of
institutional setting to talk about any such ideas in a broad sense.

Not here.  Find somewhere else (in public policy jargon: "shop for a
different venue").  It won't work here, because of the institutional
structure (both the formal structure in principle, and even more the
informal structure as distorted in practice).  Choosing ICANN would IMHO
doom the project to the highest possible likelihood of failure, compared to
just about any other institutional platform, except maybe ITU.

Dan

--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.

At 8:10 PM -0700 10/27/13, Marc Perkel wrote:
>If not us who? If not now when?
>
>We don't really have the luxury of pretending that the role of ICANN is
>limited to names and numbers. The NSA issue is making the issue of
>governing the internet something we have to deal with. ICANN really has
>the only infrastructue on the planet to deal with it. You can't use the UN
>because the US has veto power.
>
>The nature of the Internet is that it is growing exponentially. The
>Internet is the center of human evolution. The Internet is central to
>humanity. The Internet is humanity's collective brain. It is crucial to
>the future of human evolution.
>
>The United States is making a move to seize control of the internet. We
>can not let that happen. I don't know if the US is in some sort of mental
>breakdown or if there's a back story we don't know about but we are the
>people who are in the right place at the right time. Think of us being on
>an airplane that is about to crash and we're the ones who happened to be
>seated in front of the side exit. It's up to us to make it happen.
>
>For the last couple of months I've been working on the philosophical
>foundation for world government arising out of ICANN. So far no one is
>really taking this seriously but it's time to wake up and read it.
>
><http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Philosophy>http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Philosophy
>
>The way I see it we can either step up or suffer the consequences of not
>stepping up. I think we should step up.
>
>On 10/26/2013 6:12 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
>>
>>I believe that this subject is completely out of the scope of ICANN,
>>NCUC, NCSG, *, you really need to find the appropriate forum to discuss
>>the constitutionality of all these garbage.
>>
>>My .02.
>>
>>Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Rudi Rusdiah
>><<mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id>rusdiah at rad.net.id> wrote:
>>
>>It is sad if obama ruled out the American Constitution, it will become
>>the wild wild west of the Information age and society... its a pity that
>>we have to experienced Orwelian big brother 1984
>>
>>rgds, rudi rusdiah
>>
>>On 06/10/2013 11:11 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>>Here's an article I wrote about government spying.
>>>
>>><http://gilroy.patch.com/groups/marc-perkels-blog/p/why-do-i-care-abut-government-spying-i-have-nothing-to-hide>http://gilroy.patch.com/groups/marc-perkels-blog/p/why-do-i-care-abut-government-spying-i-have-nothing-to-hide
>>>
>>Why do I care about government spying? I have nothing to hide.
>>
>>
>>In response to government spying on all our phone calls some people have
>>said to me, "Why do I care about government spying? I have nothing to
>>hide. So what if the government is tapping into everything we do?" Obama
>>says, "We're going to have to make some choices as a society."
>>
>>
>>The 4th Amendment of the Constitution says. "The right of the people to
>>be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
>>unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
>>Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
>>the persons or things to be seized." Obama is saying that a secret court
>>has determined that all Verizon customers are criminal suspects,
>>including me. That is just plain crazy on its face.
>>
>>Obama and every member of Congress took an oath that includes, "I do
>>solemnly swear that I will ...  preserve, protect and defend the
>>Constitution of the United States." That oath has now been broken by the
>>President and every member of Congress that supports government by secret
>>courts and secret laws.
>>
>>So an answer like "I have nothing to hide.", misses the point. I don't
>>recall anything in the Constitution that says that you can amend the
>>Constitution by deciding to ignore it. I don't recall a rule that says
>>that if a Republican president and a Democrat president both break the
>>same law then the law becomes nullified. Obama and the Congress have
>>effectively suspended the Constitution.
>>
>>What they are doing is declaring that the Constitution itself, the
>>document upon which all laws are founded, is void. Obama and Congress
>>have declared that the rule of law no longer applies in America. Without
>>the rule of law and the Constitution the America we knew no longer
>>exists. It is wrong and it rises to the level of treason against the
>>Constitution.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss