[NCUC-DISCUSS] Expanding Scope of ICANN

Mon Oct 28 20:22:55 CET 2013

That was a recent breakthrough Jorge.  But it is also cause for
concern, as with the machinations of the executive branch in the
international sphere undertaking activities that outstrip our
constitutional framework within the US, the courts may actually be
conned into rendering rulings that narrow due process and liberties
further.  It may be that the administration knows this and is willing
to go forward with that hope or expectation.

Seth

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And BTW, you are wrong ... perhaps you were in a different court ...
>
> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/federal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed
>
> -J
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Marc Perkel <marc at churchofreality.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/2013 10:32 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer and qualified to judge if it is illegal or not, are you ?
>> If so, just sue the USG.
>>
>> -J
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Marc Perkel <marc at churchofreality.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/28/2013 10:18 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> -J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Marc Perkel <marc at churchofreality.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/27/2013 11:01 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To the extent that Fadi is trying to address Internet Governance
>>>>> generally
>>>>> (forgive me if I am reading too much into his actions?), that would
>>>>> seem to
>>>>> be out of scope, regardless of whether ICANN/IANA and general-IG both
>>>>> would
>>>>> benefit from internationalization.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for multistakeholderism, in principle this all sounds great, but in
>>>>> practice it seems to have fallen far short of its intended potential.
>>>>> In
>>>>> practice is where the rubber hits the road, and in practice MSism at
>>>>> ICANN
>>>>> has recently fallen prey to ad hoc action when some "more equal than
>>>>> others" stakeholders decide the outcome is not to their liking.  They
>>>>> apparently start to think along the lines of "God is not Mocked."
>>>>>
>>>>> I see MSism as still an experimental work-in-progress, hardly with all
>>>>> the
>>>>> bugs worked out, and not necessarily "ready for prime time" in terms of
>>>>> overall world governance.  The only reason it has worked as free from
>>>>> collapse at ICANN as it has up to now, I think, is that the big Powers
>>>>> That
>>>>> Be in the world (nations and big corporations) hadn't really seen ICANN
>>>>> as
>>>>> all that meaningful in their general scheme of things.  The more
>>>>> important
>>>>> ICANN's actions become, the more the big powers will pound on it to
>>>>> shape
>>>>> it to their desires.  I think you've only seen the bare beginning of
>>>>> this
>>>>> in the ad hoc shenanigans of the last few years.  Just beginning to rev
>>>>> up
>>>>> the engines.  MSism has not reached up out of the play-pen to play with
>>>>> the
>>>>> Big Boys yet, as far as I can tell, and it remains to be seen how it
>>>>> will
>>>>> fare if it is brought up to the Big Time.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a big risk, IMHO.  Be careful what you ask for, you might get
>>>>> it.
>>>>> And if it doesn't turn out how you expected, what then?  This whole
>>>>> MSism
>>>>> experiment is a huge exercise in unintended consequences (in the gap
>>>>> between theory and practice), if you ask me.  It's worth doing the
>>>>> experiment, but I'd be more comfortable if the experiment were closer
>>>>> to
>>>>> completion before trying it out on anything *really* important.  I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> see it anywhere near that point, yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 12:59 AM -0400 10/28/13, avri doria wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of legitimacy, isn't one of the topics that needs to be
>>>>>> explored
>>>>>> internationalisation of ICANN, and IANA? Isn't that a topic at the top
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the list? That seems to be in scope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the ICANN Board seems to be on-board as Fadi was meeting with a
>>>>>> subset
>>>>>> of them (including the Chair) and AC/SO leadership every morning. I
>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>> in the meetings, and don't know who the rep from gnso was since
>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>> wasn't there, so don't know what the level of buy in was, but I heard
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> complaints on the ground.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So whatever we might say about scope creep Fadi is not being renegade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for scope creep Fadi and the leaders of the other I* seem to be
>>>>>> acting
>>>>>> in coordinated faction, so it is within their scope, and would seem to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> in scope for any one of them to act on I*'s behalf in organizational
>>>>>> talks with governments on a meeting planning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in this case at least, I see no fundamental problem of overreach
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> Fadi.  And, whether he fully understand what it means, he seems to be
>>>>>> carrying the banner of multistakeholderism into these discussions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, at least this once, I am not ready to join in Fadi-attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss