[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Thu Feb 20 23:47:41 UTC 2014

At 23:07 20/02/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>Understood – I am put in mind of protests at varrious G8 and G20 
>summits, etc. against â€œglobalizationâ€ as such.  That still 
>doesnâ€™t equal USG/NSA control (not saying that is your position, Ian).

Good that you accept that point.

Now, the problem is that for many Americans, Snowden is a trauma. So 
you are obsessed by surveillance. Keep cool. There are NSAs in every country.

What Snowden realy means for the Govs 
(politicians/militaries/economists) is that he has shown the 
technical vulnerability of the US tampered world technology,and the 
unexpected over importance of the US relative global digital power as 
too important for the stability of the world. Moreover, US appeas as 
USG+NSA+USCC+GAFAT (google, amazon, facebook, apple, twitter: their 
multilateral sovereignties by-passing national laws.This is too much 
and this has to be corrected.

The trust in the American neutral unilaterality cannot be afforded 
anymore. The technology has to be reviewed. ICANN is not the only one 
in line, IETF/IEEE/W3C also are.to discussed. Merkel and Hollande are 
no necessarily approaching it in the correct way yet. But the intent 
is here. Snowden has been welcome by Putin, etc.

etc...

M G

>
>Greg
>
>From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On 
>Behalf Of Ian Peter
>Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:56 PM
>To: John Curran; Louis Pouzin (well); Michel Gauthier
>Cc: 1Net List
>Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
>
>the word globalisation has different meanings to different people 
>and I refer you to the anti-globalisation  movement, which sees 
>globalisation as a word for transnational corporate control without 
>government regulation (and you can see the ramifications of that in 
>an internet setting in terms of economic dominance). Probably not 
>the most sensitive word for ICANN to use given its connotations to 
>many people, but Iâ€™m not sure what the best substitute is.
>
>
>
>From: <mailto:mg at telepresse.com>Michel Gauthier
>Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 8:18 AM
>To: <mailto:jcurran at istaff.org>John Curran ; 
><mailto:pouzin at well.com>Louis Pouzin (well)
>Cc: <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>1Net List
>Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
>
>At 20:43 20/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>
>On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) 
><<mailto:pouzin at well.com>pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>
>Global(ization) mentioned 25 times, i.e. USG/NSA control.
>
>Louis -
>     For those us not quite as astute, could you unpack the above a 
> little bit,
>    (In particular, I'm trying to figure the how use of global 
> implies USG control)
>
>Please, not again!
>:-)
>
>----------
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140221/35687abb/attachment.html>