<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I would like to see how this issue evolves this time round. I
suspect though that the politics is a mere variation on the theme/s
played out previously by 'single rooters' i.e. you can do and say
pretty much anything but do not question the hegemony of direct or
indirect control of US hegemony over CIR. <br>
<br>
My view is yes it matters for a number of reasons some of which will
suffice for now, in response to your question and on a much broader
level. <br>
<br>
If this were a nation I would prefer a Republic without a monarchy
over CIR - that is democratic control over <i>all</i> aspects of
critical infrastructure. No internet regulation without
representation. In democratic discourse anti-democratic positions
bear the burden of proof... which the framing of the question
sidesteps without justification. The US might have had some
credibility before. This is not the case now. <br>
<br>
The problem is of a global nature, and hence a global solution is
required. Here there can be discussion over tactics (short term
goals) vs strategy. The way the question is framed limits this on
the basis of ICANN's role - ICANN and others are cogs in this
machine and hence are subjects of our consideration. Curran had some
interesting ideas on this. But, the onus has shifted from the heady
days of single rooter hegemony on this list (in terms of argument
rather than power): justification is required for excluding CIR from
democratic control. This is not only about content, but about
potential sites of abuse as Auerbach mentioned previously. If abuse
is a concern then so is ICANN & CIR. <br>
<br>
Any framing that is less than global is too casual given the rights
violations that would allow abuse by US and other officials. After
this incident, the lack of avenues for action or even a safety valve
the judgement regarding ITU or UN control seems positively benign.
Concerned US citizens could read a lot into the Madison quote posted
earlier as they are now treated no differently from Afghans as much
as they would like to believe otherwise. <br>
<br>
The proper question is, what institutional form/s would legitimately
regulate the internet based on standard and universal democratic
principles? A country that has been shown to be abusive <b>is not
even a candidate for leadership in this field</b>. I do not want
Swartzification of the entire internet community. If this is
anti-American then the other side is anti-democratic, if one were to
be Manichean. A lot more argument would be needed to persuade me
about the privileged treatment of the US in the international
community, there is no presumption. Of course one could argue like
McTim that the US built it and the US owns it etc... but that is not
argument, it is a legitimate argument for a vested interest that can
be dealt with through reason - and from a democractic and global
perspective does not pass my muster. <br>
<br>
On jurisdiction, one would need to see what locus standi can be
established for non-Americans to prosecute the case and whether
access to justice would be the same for all people. If same cannot
be assured then we make common cause with inequality and I want no
part in it. <br>
<br>
More technically, no court will take on a case that renders a
verdict empty (I can win a case on a violation in South Africa but
the court would not be able to enforce it; and US courts have even
reduced the ability of aliens to sue for US multinational violations
of human rights so even the trajectory of US law is less conducive
than it used to be - see Nigeria case recently), so ICANN or other
CIR assets would need to be 'attached' or capable of being
'attached' - hence where they are matters: it is not simply a
bilateral arrangement between parties, ICANN & CIR are a
'creatures' of governmental power) - this argument gives presumptive
legitimacy to arrangements - arrangements which we regard as plastic
if we do not want Uncle Sam playing in our dirty laundry. CIR
institutions decisions on trade marks may have extra territorial
effect. Hence third parties can be affected by bilateral
arrangements. It is a peculiar American liberal myth this view of
voluntrism, which frankly I find objectionable. For me what flows
from the approach/politics implicit in the framing of the question
and flowing from it is a less well articulated variation on Milton's
and McTim's internationalisation - despite the discussions, we have
not had a response to our equally legitimate objections to what I
see essentially as a pro-American or pro-Corporate (I have explained
why) position implicit in these definitions of internationalisation.
<br>
<br>
The politics of this position posits a problem of surveillance and
not of the right to participate in decisions that affect our lives.
The politics of the approach, and most subsequent discussion I have
read on this thread, presumes US legitimacy as a strategy. Rejecting
such legitimacy (without saying one cannot deal with the situation
incrementally) is essential and one would have hoped that the lies,
constitutional violations, Swartzing, and complete and utter lack of
credibility would have opened up more space. <br>
<br>
From my perspective it is simple, are we going to take this as a
global issue (the violation was global) and put it into democratic
terms or are we going to play the same games (as one single rooter
put it, don't take us back to the 'troubles' of WSIS) so that the US
can continue its abusive role? And it is not anti-American to say it
is abusive. <br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/06/11 07:12 PM, Kerry Brown
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A825642DF@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">The subject line will probably stir some
controversy. Because of that I will state my position clearly
so people don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from. I abhor
the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly collecting data
with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has affected my
country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am
actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada
to help keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my
government to be more open and transparent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now to the question I posed. Are we not
conflating two issues that are not related? Solving one won’t
change the other. If ICANN moved to a different jurisdiction
tomorrow what would change re the American government’s access
to private data? Many of the services that Internet users
worldwide want to access are provided by American based
companies subject to American law. Much of the world’s
Internet traffic is carried on communications media owned by
American companies subject to American law. How would changing
the jurisdiction that ICANN operates under change the reality
that if the American government wants to spy on anybody they
could do so with relative ease?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am all for investigating what it would
take to move ICANN away from US jurisdiction. There are many
questions that need to be answered and problems that would
need to be solved but in the end I believe it would be a good
thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way hinder
the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet.
These are two distinct issues that will require different
solutions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kerry Brown<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>