[discuss] Artificial conflation of issues not helpful. [Was: Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67]

Wed Feb 19 20:16:53 UTC 2014

George,

this whole dog wouldn't have been wagged by its tail without the conflation
you correctly describe and some of us have signalled from the very start.

The need to "do something" after the Snowden revelations, while carefully
avoiding the original serious issue in them, has created a huge cloud of
hot air. Within it some poison does breed.

One would wish that the surveillance issue were being addressed with the
same energy. It is not and it will not. The distraction of the Internet
governance debate, again reduced only to the ICANN issues, pays a great
service to those who don't want a serious discussion about surveillance -
those practicing it.

The debate about "Problem no. 1" has become so bogged that it is worth a
moratorium of a couple of weeks while participants search for another issue
in which the alignments are different and, instead of a continuous
drill-down into dividing the territory, some common ground is created. You
had already proposed to start a discussion of cybercrime that could serve
as preparation for the one needed in the Sao Paulo get-together.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, George Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky at gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree with Shatan's comments below, and especially about the danger of
> conflating issues that have little or no linkage.
>
> In particular, I would assert that the real link between the NSA
> revelations and technical management of the root is the perception that
> both involve the same country, the USA.  I would claim that there is no
> technical linkage between the two.  Those that believe there is such a
> linkage have the obligation to describe in detail, with evidence, exactly
> what they believe that linkage is.
>
> There is also a perception that ICANN and therefore the IANA function
> being located in the USA have given the NSA an advantage in being able to
> carry out their various surveillance activities.  I asset that this is not
> true. Those that believe there is such a linkage have the obligation to
> describe in detail, with evidence, exactly what they believe that linkage
> is.
>
> The surveillance issue is real, and deserves full attention.  It is one of
> a class of processes that has been substantially transformed by the
> existence of the Internet.  Other members of this class include political
> organizing, electronic asset transfers, major areas of criminal activity,
> counterfeiting, political activism, and the like.  These are serious areas
> of human activity, and the Internet, as a fundamentally neutral technology,
> has aided both bad behavior and control over it.  Closely related is the
> area of transnational jurisdiction issues, which have been with us ever
> since the first international contact, but which have assumed greater
> importance by virtue of the growth of the Internet, a technology that
> ignores national boundaries.
>
> We need to deal with all of these issues, and we do need to recognize
> linkages among issues when the linkages are real and material.  We gain
> nothing by conflating issues that are not linked. The real issues are
> difficult enough to solve; let's delineate them and try to find ways of
> ameliorating or solving them.
>
> George
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think Mr. Morfin is assuming a connection between the NSA's activities
> (as brought to light by Snowden) and the root that just isn't there (or at
> the very least, is not supported by the record).  Without a direct
> connection between the "Snowden revelations" and the root, the calls to
> move the root (or split the root, etc.) stand on much shakier ground, and
> rely more on opinion, emotion and prejudgment and less on fact.  "Calling
> for an investigation" when there is nothing to investigate is just intended
> to score points.
> >
> > The reality of how ICE freezes domains (so to speak) is rather more
> mundane.  And by and large, these are domains being used by cybercriminals
> and other bad actors.  Not sure why the deep level of concern for their
> rights.
> >
> > It also doesn't help matters to conflate the US government, ICANN, and
> US private companies (e.g., Verisign and PIR).  It's not all one vast
> conspiratorial ball.
> >
> > Greg Shatan
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> Behalf Of Don Blumenthal
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:42 PM
> > To: Jefsey; discuss at 1net.org
> > Subject: Re: [discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67
> >
> > The ICE court orders are on the public record. Have at it.
> >
> > And what petty actions would those be?
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> > And what petty actions would those be?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/19/14, 11:52 AM, "Jefsey" <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> >
> >> At 01:24 19/02/2014, Don Blumenthal wrote:
> >>> Assuming that ICE refers to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
> >>> domain-related court orders that it has obtained from judges generally
> >>> contain redirects at the name server level
> >>
> >> Hosts can be accessed by their IP. How, non-US located Hosts seem to be
> >> affected. I  was just caling for an investigation. I am in particlar
> >> interested in non-US hosted sites. BTW, I know (by
> >> experience) that there are other forms of petty actions made easy by
> >> the US monopoly on .com, .net and .org which by definition should be
> >> global.
> >> jfc
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >                                                                * * *
> >
> > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> > confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it
> in
> > error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by
> reply
> > e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
> it or
> > use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> > person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> >                                                                * * *
> >
> > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> > inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal
> tax
> > advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is
> not
> > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (1)
> > avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> > and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another
> > party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> >
>  Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140219/212becdd/attachment.html>