<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>There is no "Paranoia". This is reality.<br><br>It is not Nation/States in control of the world economy, thus world government.<br><br>It is the Multinational Corporation that is controlling Government - that is effecting Citizens world wide.<br><br>I have been saying this for years now... we ARE living in world that is being molded in the shape of a 1984/Brave New World type image.<br><br>Welcome to our new reality. <br><br>E. Christopher Carolan<br>
<a href="mailto:ECCarolan@hotmail.com">ECCarolan@hotmail.com</a><br>
517-490-3844<br>
<br><br><br><div>> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:27:23 -0300<br>> From: ca@CAFONSO.CA<br>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN Paranoia<br>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>> <br>> I do not wish to insist on this topic (and I sort of agree with McTim<br>> there may be not much spooks can gather which is not already public in<br>> ICANN), but I think this statement from RSF & Assange published in Le<br>> Monde today is of interest.<br>> <br>> --c.a.<br>> <br>> ----<br>> <br>> http://www.rsf.org/why-european-nations-must-protect-03-07-2013,44886.html<br>> <br>> - International<br>> <br>> Why European nations must protect Edward Snowden<br>> <br>> 3 July 2013<br>> <br>> The general secretary of Reporters Without Borders Christophe Deloire,<br>> and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange co-sign today an Op-Ed in Le Monde<br>> to call out the states of the European Union to protect Edward Snowden.<br>> <br>> On October 12, 2012, the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize for<br>> contributing to the “advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy<br>> and human rights in Europe.” The EU should show itself worthy of this<br>> honor and show its will to defend freedom of information, regardless of<br>> fears of political pressure from its so-called closest ally, the United<br>> States.<br>> <br>> Now that Edward Snowden, the young American who revealed the global<br>> monitoring system known as Prism, has requested asylum from 20<br>> countries, the EU nations should extend a welcome, under whatever law or<br>> status seems most appropriate.<br>> <br>> Although the United States remains a world leader in upholding the ideal<br>> of freedom of expression, the American attitude toward whistleblowers<br>> sullies the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.<br>> <br>> In 2004, the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression, as well as<br>> his counterparts in the Organization of American States and the<br>> Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe issued a joint call<br>> to all governments to protect whistleblowers from all “legal,<br>> administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in ‘good<br>> faith.’” Whistleblowers were defined as “individuals releasing<br>> confidential or secret information although they are under an official<br>> or other obligation to maintain confidentiality or secrecy.”<br>> <br>> More recently, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe<br>> resolved in 2010 that, “the definition of protected disclosures shall<br>> include all bona fide warnings against various types of unlawful acts.”<br>> The Assembly’s Resolution 1729 concluded that member countries’ laws<br>> “should therefore cover both public and private sector whistle-blowers,<br>> including members of the armed forces and special services.”<br>> <br>> Some are calling for a manhunt for Snowden on the grounds that he is a<br>> traitor, and others are trying to cloak the issues he raised in<br>> legalistic complexities. But what serious person can deny that Edward<br>> Snowden is a whistleblower?<br>> <br>> The digital communications specialist’s revelations have enabled the<br>> international press, including the Washington Post, The Guardian, and<br>> Der Spiegel, to shine a light on a surveillance system that tracks tens<br>> of millions of citizens, Europeans among them.<br>> <br>> Targeted by an apparatus that threatens their sovereignty as well as<br>> their principles, the EU countries owe Snowden a debt of gratitude for<br>> his revelations, which were clearly in the public interest.<br>> <br>> This young man will remain abandoned in the transit zone of the Moscow<br>> airport only if the European countries abandon their principles, as well<br>> as a major part of the raison d’être of the EU. Expressions of<br>> diplomatic outrage will be empty gestures if the person responsible for<br>> the revelations is left isolated and abandoned.<br>> <br>> Beyond the necessity of providing a legal shield for whistleblowers, the<br>> protection of privacy is a matter of clear public interest, especially<br>> in the realm of freedom of information. Frank La Rue, the UN special<br>> rapporteur on freedom of expression, noted in a report last June that<br>> “arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy...threaten<br>> the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”<br>> <br>> The confidentiality of written and oral exchanges is essential to<br>> ensuring the exercise of freedom of information. But when journalists’<br>> sources are compromised, as happened in the case of The Associated<br>> Press; when the United States abuses the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that<br>> has been invoked a total of nine times against whistleblowers, six of<br>> these cases under the Obama administration; when the government tries to<br>> silence WikiLeaks by imposing a financial embargo on the organization<br>> and by subjecting associates and friends of Julian Assange to abusive<br>> searches when they enter the United States, when the site’s founder and<br>> his colleagues are threatened with U.S. prosecution, more than American<br>> democracy is threatened.<br>> <br>> Indeed, the very model of democracy that the heirs of Thomas Jefferson<br>> and Benjamin Franklin are responsible for upholding has been robbed of<br>> its essence.<br>> <br>> By what right is the United States exempt from principles that it<br>> demands be applied elsewhere?<br>> <br>> In January, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a historic<br>> speech in which she defined freedom of expression as a cornerstone of<br>> American diplomacy. She reiterated that position in February, 2011, in<br>> another speech in which she said that “on the spectrum of internet<br>> freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness.”<br>> <br>> Eloquent words. They may have brought encouragement to dissidents in<br>> Tehran, Beijing, Havana, Asmara, Ashgabat, Moscow and so many other<br>> capitals. But how disappointing to find that the skyscrapers of American<br>> surveillance have reached a size to match China’s technological Great Wall.<br>> <br>> The White House and State Department message of democracy and defence of<br>> human rights has lost considerable credibility. One sign of widespread<br>> concern – Amazon has reported a 6,000% increase in sales of the George<br>> Orwell classic, 1984.<br>> <br>> Now, with Big Brother watching us from a Washington suburb, the key<br>> institutions of American democracy must play their assigned roles of<br>> counterweight to the executive branch and its abuses. The system of<br>> checks and balances is more than a slogan for avid readers of<br>> Tocqueville and Montesquieu.<br>> <br>> American leaders should realize the glaring contradiction between their<br>> soaring odes to freedom and the realities of official actions, which<br>> damage the image of their country.<br>> <br>> Members of Congress must be capable of holding back the tide of security<br>> provisions of the Patriot Act by recognizing the legitimate rights of<br>> men and women who sound the alarm. The Whistleblower Protection Act must<br>> be amended to ensure effective protection for whistleblowers who act in<br>> the public interest – an interest completely separate from immediate<br>> national concerns as intelligence services interpret them.<br>> <br>> ----<br>> <br>> On 07/03/2013 09:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:<br>> > Hi Carlos,<br>> > <br>> > I think that viewing issues from the perspective US vs rest of the world,<br>> > or democratic countries vs authoritarian countries or whatever led us to<br>> > wrong perceptions. the reality is that we have concerning trend with<br>> > states pushing for more control, e.g. within ICANN with GAC , regulation<br>> > and have contradictory policies (supporting free internet<br>> > but implementing surveillance like in USA or talking about access ,<br>> > "democratizing" governance and also implementing surveillance too in<br>> > caseIndia ) whatever for political control and threats against FoE or just<br>> > to defend economic interests or maximalist copyright .<br>> > as someone who used with filtered internet for many years I know that was<br>> > the tunisian government doing that and not USG while US companies sold the<br>> > menas to set censorship.<br>> > Things are more complicated :)<br>> > <br>> > Best,<br>> > <br>> > Rafik<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > 2013/7/3 Carlos A. Afonso <ca@cafonso.ca><br>> > <br>> >> At a minimum. After all, they are contractors with the USG, responsible<br>> >> for subcontracting the management of root servers which are considered<br>> >> integral part of national security.<br>> >><br>> >> If the USG orders submissive Italy, France, Portugal and Spain not to<br>> >> let Bolivia's president Morales to land for refuelling -- putting his<br>> >> live at risk --, why wouldn't they have a few spooks wandering about in<br>> >> ICANN, either for real or virtually? :)<br>> >><br>> >> No one is happier than China with these events! Now we understand better<br>> >> what Hillary meant by her perorations on the importance of the "free and<br>> >> open Internet". Free and open for US spooks to peek into, I gather.<br>> >><br>> >> --c.a.<br>> >><br>> >> On 07/03/2013 02:08 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:<br>> >>> Considering the NSA and PRISM stuff and that they are into Microsoft,<br>> >>> Google, Apple, Facebook, etc - shouldn't we assume that ICANN has been<br>> >>> compromised? Considering everything else they are into how can they not<br>> >>> be into ICANN?<br>> >>><br>> >>> Having said that - what does that mean to our trip?<br>> >>><br>> >>> Thoughts?<br>> >>><br>> >><br>> > <br></div> </div></body>
</html>