<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Not really. Applications based in the USA is a myth for several of the largest providers, who have a global network with data centers spread around the world. If you use a large email provider, Your mail is just as likely to be located in Bombay or Singapore rather than in the USA.</div><div><br></div><div>Greater decentralization can be achieved by the growth of more local services, or for worldwide providers, by architecting their systems to be part of a global network of data centers. <br><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 12-Jun-2013, at 14:11, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">This said, I agree with your contention that
the real problem is the over-concentration of </font>Internet
traffic flows, applications base, etc in the US, and it is this
issue that needs to be addressed, through greater decentralisation,
and also global norms on cross border data flows and so on...
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 12 June 2013 02:07 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51B83338.7090603@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
Kerry<br>
<br>
Lets agree to you contention - it does not matter 'which legal
system ICANN operates under" (although I think it does).<br>
<br>
Now, if this is so, it should be ideal that ICANN operates under
an international legal system, under UN auspice, rather than of
one country... Just looks and feels nicer, fairer, democratic etc
etc. No? Even if just for its symbolic value - and you know, in
politics symbolic values count for a lot. <br>
<br>
However, moment you propose that, there are shrill cries all over
- UN out to control the Internet. Now, how does the logic you
propose suddenly change completely when it is the UN/
international legal regime instead of US... That is the paradox.
And I will be happy to hear your response to it. <br>
<br>
So, the simple question is this: How when US exercises oversight
over the ICANN, it is contended that the 'oversight' issue bears,
or can bear, no connection to content, and other control related
issues, whatsoever; but when it is proposed that an international/
UN body takes up oversight of ICANN, these issues suddenly become
the most relevant ones??<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 11 June 2013 09:42 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>