[discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
dl at panamo.eu
Sun Mar 16 23:41:52 UTC 2014
The Snowden leaks seem above all to provide you an argument against all
governments and public bodies.
So, what could be your conclusion? To forget every democratic
representation and leave citizens alone facing the great global companies?
I doubt it could be your wish, is it?
@+, cheers, Dominique
Le 17/03/14 00:22, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit :
> The Snowden leaks provided a convenient soapbox for the EU and others to climb on and demand this transition. Perhaps the EU member states should throw open their surveillance activities for public scrutiny, so that we could compare and contrast the levels and types of mass surveillance actually going on. Then we could make more reasoned judgments about "issues of trust."
> Since the EU isn't really a "government," and presumably does not itself take on significant surveillance activities, it has "plausible deniability" when it comes to such things. This allows the EU to "throw the first stone," while not really being "without sin."
> Greg Shatan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:34 PM
> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Adiel Akplogan; Seun Ojedeji
> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
> Given this difference, why are the Brazilian government, the I*, and the European Commission insisting on treating US mass surveillance as a trigger for calling for IANA reform?
> The Brazilian government lumped those two topics together for NetMundial, with ample encouragement from 1Net and ICANN. The I* brought those two issues together in the Montevideo Declaration. The European Commission in a recent press release noted:
> "Recent revelations of large-scale surveillance have called into question the stewardship of the US when it comes to Internet Governance.
> So given the US-centric model of Internet Governance currently in place, it is necessary to broker a smooth transition to a more global model while at the same time protecting the underlying values of open multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet."
> I can't quite grok why.
> ~ Pranesh
> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> [2014-03-16 12:36:14]:
>> 1+ Adiel.
>> A good performance of the IANA functions is a pre-condition that the
>> Internet works and can be used by all kind of governmental and
>> non_governmental players for good and bad things. The publication of a
>> TLD zone file in the root doesn´t say anything what the Registrant of
>> a domain name is doing with the domain. And it has nothing to do with
>> third party´s attack on this domains by blocking, filtering, hacking,
>> manipulating, spying etc. The problem is that so far there not enough
>> multi-stakeholder places where users and providers of services can go
>> to look for (policy and technical) arrangements to counter bad things.
>> This is one challenge for Net Mundial. It should discuss what on top
>> of a multi-stakehoder managed technical layer (which includes the
>> termination of the transition of the IANA function to the network of
>> the multistakleholder I* organizations) should be done to have
>> multi-stakehooder mechanisms on the content/political layer. We know
>> that the two lyers are interconnec
> ted, but they are two different shoes. New multistakeholder policy mechanisms will not emerge over night. But Sao Paulo can start the process and deliver a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020).
>> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Adiel Akplogan
>> Gesendet: So 16.03.2014 13:47
>> An: Seun Ojedeji
>> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
>> Betreff: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.
>> - a.
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
>>> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>>> Different department.
>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
>>> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
>>> http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/>
>>> http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/> - http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/>
>>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/>
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> * * *
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss