<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Jean-Louis,<div><br><div><div>On Jun 15, 2012, at 4:28 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><p>You are trying to convince those of us who have some concerns regarding the role of USG in Internet governance. </p></blockquote><div><br></div>Actually, what I'm trying to do is provide accurate information in order to inform the discussion. I understand the concerns about the US role, having both heard them and argued them myself at various points in my career. However, if people are going to engage in discussions about "oversight" roles and who performs then, I don't think it particularly useful to base those discussions on myths, misunderstandings, and agenda-driven mis-statements.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><p>However, somewhere your "optimism" is bordering on angelism, since some of us still have in mind Echelon, the worldwide US spying system that you may ignore. If you have some time left please read Duncan Campbell's articles upon this theme and the COMINT Report to the European Parliament whose Temporrairy Committee concluded on the validity of the suspicion about the actual role of Echelon as a vector of the US Intelligence.</p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sorry, I don't see the relevance between the existence of Echelon and "oversight" of ICANN. If you are arguing that the existence of communications intelligence capabilities and/or spies is reason for disqualification of the USG from an oversight role then I suspect finding qualifying countries might be a bit challenging.</div></div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-drc</div><div><br></div></body></html>