[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Statement on PRISM?

Mon Oct 28 11:47:02 CET 2013

++1

-Jorge

> On Oct 27, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:
> 
> 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