ICANN Paranoia

Wed Jul 3 08:54:17 EEST 2013

There is no "Paranoia".   This is reality.

It is not Nation/States in control of the world economy, thus world government.

It is the Multinational Corporation that is controlling Government - that is effecting Citizens world wide.

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.

Welcome to our new reality.  

E. Christopher Carolan

ECCarolan at hotmail.com

517-490-3844

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20130703/a6916c70/attachment.htm>