Hi Rafik, no, I am not viewing this in the Bush-like black-and-white
perspective. Just mentioning major players does not mean I am not
considering that complexity. To the contrary, actually it is clear that
the revelations fuel the interests which in many countries are pressing
for more surveillance - now with the added justification that they need
to protect "their people" from those NSA paramount villains. As I just
said in another message, this is also fuelling the arguments for a
UN-based governance of the Net, while many of us keep saying that all is
just fine and we do not any new form of coordination etc.

Surveillance, BTW, we already have, abundantly, by the telcos who
provide our broadband services, for money reasons or otherwise.

--c.a.

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 <[log in to unmask]>
> 
>> 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?
>>>
>>
>