Re: [iucg] [discuss] surveillance governance, was Re: [governance] NTIA statement

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

At 09:58 22/03/2014, David Cake wrote:
>I would very much agree with Greg that Parminder's scenario of a 
>single entity (or even a single stakeholder group, or organised 
>cabal across a wide range of stakeholders) taking control of the 
>ICANN board is extremely farfetched, a matter for conspiracy theory 
>novels not a genuine worry. It is a scenario that does not plausibly 
>survive even a casual examination of how board members are selected.
>
>There is only one likely scenario of all ICANN board members having 
>their decision influenced by the same entity - and that entity is 
>ICANN itself. While an oversight mechanism should function in such a 
>way as to guard against a board that was all somehow controlled by a 
>commercial entity willing to patiently infiltrate and suborn a range 
>of ICANN processes, it should be focussed on the more likely issue 
>that ICANN board will take decisions that are in the interests of 
>ICANN itself, rather than the community it serves.

David, McTim,

let get real please. The far farfetched scenario is the one we are 
living with for 31 years and the majority of the world's multititude 
wants now to get rid off. The single entity has a name and reasons 
clearly explained in 
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address/1961_01_17_Press_Release.pdf. 
53 years ago. The change is that this single entity was, in spite of 
RFC 3869 able to make RFC 6852 produced and obtained the Montevideo statement.

However, what has changed since 1961, due to the internet, is that 
the 1961 warning is no more sent to the fellow Americans, but to the 
Multitude. And that the Multitude has a more powerfull capacity for 
peace, and also for war, than a single people, however great it can 
be.  The question is simple enough: will the whole internet 
ordinarily become de facto under the sole US law jurisdiction as the 
NTIA statement leads to. Followed by a cecession (cyber)war.

Let get real please. IG is not only a legal or technical issue, it is 
first a international political affair. We all know that the US are 
cyberdestructible. This list does not include many citizens of the 
Dubai majority 
(https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml). 


Sao Paulo must not be a new Munich.

jfc