<html>
<body>
At 23:07 20/02/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Understood – I am put in mind of
protests at varrious G8 and G20 summits, etc. against “globalization”
as such. That still doesn’t equal USG/NSA control (not saying
that is your position, Ian).</blockquote><br>
Good that you accept that point. <br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
etc...<br><br>
M G<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
Greg<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> discuss-bounces@1net.org
[<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ian Peter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Curran; Louis Pouzin (well); Michel Gauthier<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 1Net List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving
"problem no. 1"<br>
<br>
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 I’m not sure what the best substitute is.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com">Michel Gauthier</a> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 21, 2014 8:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org">John Curran</a> ;
<a href="mailto:pouzin@well.com">Louis Pouzin (well)</a> <br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">1Net List</a> <br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving
"problem no. 1"<br>
<br>
At 20:43 20/02/2014, John Curran wrote:<br><br>
On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Louis Pouzin (well)
<<a href="mailto:pouzin@well.com">pouzin@well.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
Global(ization) mentioned 25 times, i.e. USG/NSA control. <br><br>
Louis - <br>
For those us not quite as astute, could you unpack the
above a little bit, <br>
(In particular, I'm trying to figure the how use of global
implies USG control)<br><br>
Please, not again!<br>
:-)<br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br><br>
<br><br>
<div align="center"><font size=2>* * *<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<font size=2>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.<br>
</font><br>
<div align="center"><font size=2>* * *<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<font size=2>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.<br>
</font><br>
<div align="right"><font size=1>Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote></body>
</html>