[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 153

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Mon Mar 17 01:43:30 UTC 2014

FYI, I have just published a new article on related topics at 


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of discuss-request at 1net.org
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:26 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 153

Send discuss mailing list submissions to
	discuss at 1net.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	discuss-request at 1net.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	discuss-owner at 1net.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [governance] NTIA statement (Shatan, Gregory S.)


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 01:25:14 +0000
From: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at ReedSmith.com>
To: 'Dominique Lacroix' <dl at panamo.eu>, "discuss at 1net.org"
	<discuss at 1net.org>, 	"governance at lists.igcaucus.org"
	<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
	<DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C04BF4 at USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

That?s a rather bizarre conclusion to make from my statements.  The Snowden leaks provide me with nothing.

The issue is not whether there are problems related to surveillance.  The issue is whether there is a concrete connection between how the surveillance occurred and the US role related to the IANA function or to ICANN generally.  I have not seen a concrete connection demonstrated yet.  Just vague hand-waving about ?trust.?  So I?ll continue to suggest that the ?Snowden Revelations? were an excuse, rather than a reason, to call for ?globalization? of Internet Governance.

The other point I was making is that the US is not alone in conducting surveillance, for better or worse.  Even the ?Snowden Revelations? revealed surveillance by other governments, alone or in concert, and the sharing of intelligence between nations.  If we had all the facts about global surveillance in front of us, the picture would certainly be far different than the one available to us today.  Especially about who you can ?trust.?

As far as your questions go, they are so far off anything I said, I don?t see the need to answer.  I will say that on the one hand, I don?t have any love of surveillance (my grandparents left Poland one step ahead of the secret police due to trade union activities and my father had his phone tapped and mail opened due to antiwar activities), but it?s too simplistic to say that surveillance is per se evil (I watched the World Trade Center towers come down in front of my eyes from my office window).

And I really don?t see what ?great global companies? have to do with any of this.

Greg Shatan

From: Dominique Lacroix [mailto:dl at panamo.eu]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:42 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: Shatan, Gregory S.; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement

Dear Gregory,
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 ?crit :

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> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash

Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:34 PM

To: "Kleinw?chter, 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

Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de><mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto:joly at punkcast.com> wrote:


Different department.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com><mailto: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<mailto: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://wwwhatsup.com/>

  http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/><http://pinstand.com/>  - http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/><http://punkcast.com/>

  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/><http://isoc-ny.org/>




discuss mailing list

discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>



discuss mailing list

discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>



discuss mailing list

discuss at 1net.org<mailto: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<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140317/9f6e3918/attachment.html>


discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

End of discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 153

More information about the discuss mailing list