[discuss] surveillance governance, was Re: [governance] NTIA statement
dogwallah at gmail.com
Sat Mar 22 12:28:42 UTC 2014
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 09:58 22/03/2014, David Cake wrote:
>> I would very much agree with Greg that Parminder's scenario of a single
>> entity (or even a single stakeholder group, or organised cabal across a
>> wide range of stakeholders) taking control of the ICANN board is extremely
>> farfetched, a matter for conspiracy theory novels not a genuine worry. It
>> is a scenario that does not plausibly survive even a casual examination of
>> how board members are selected.
>> There is only one likely scenario of all ICANN board members having their
>> decision influenced by the same entity - and that entity is ICANN itself.
>> While an oversight mechanism should function in such a way as to guard
>> against a board that was all somehow controlled by a commercial entity
>> willing to patiently infiltrate and suborn a range of ICANN processes, it
>> should be focussed on the more likely issue that ICANN board will take
>> decisions that are in the interests of ICANN itself, rather than the
>> community it serves.
> David, McTim,
Why am I involved in this thread?
I've not commented at all since the subject line was changed and we went
down this particular rathole.
Leave me out of this nonsense please!
> let get real please. The far farfetched scenario is the one we are living
> with for 31 years and the majority of the world's multititude wants now to
> get rid off. The single entity has a name and reasons clearly explained in
> documents/farewell_address/1961_01_17_Press_Release.pdf. 53 years ago.
> The change is that this single entity was, in spite of RFC 3869 able to
> make RFC 6852 produced and obtained the Montevideo statement.
> However, what has changed since 1961, due to the internet, is that the
> 1961 warning is no more sent to the fellow Americans, but to the Multitude.
> And that the Multitude has a more powerfull capacity for peace, and also
> for war, than a single people, however great it can be. The question is
> simple enough: will the whole internet ordinarily become de facto under the
> sole US law jurisdiction as the NTIA statement leads to. Followed by a
> cecession (cyber)war.
> Let get real please. IG is not only a legal or technical issue, it is
> first a international political affair. We all know that the US are
> cyberdestructible. This list does not include many citizens of the Dubai
> majority (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/
> Sao Paulo must not be a new Munich.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss