[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Roberts <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: ICANN Update
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Fenello.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:48:35 -0500
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Here's an update on the ICANN situation:
>At 10:17 PM 11/22/99 , firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>At a National Press Club conference transmitted today by NPR, John Sweeney,
>President of the AF of L-CIO, said that the WTO was a world government whose
>laws, made without the consultation or participation of workers, are
>establishing a world oligarchy of transnational corporations that will throw
>back workers' rights and environmental protection to the union-busting days
>of the nineteenth century.
>Is the Internet to be the mechanism for WTO world government? Is this why
>the U.S. Department of Commerce has created ICANN? What role are MCI and
>Vinton Cerf supposed to play in it? Was Jones Day selected as ICANN's
>lawfirm because of their connection with the transnational corporations
>controlling the WTO and benefitting from the GATT? Under what law will we
>live in the 21st century, constitutional democracy or the dictatorship of
>ICANN and the WTO?
[Note: Jamie Love is the Director of Ralph
Nader's Consumer Project on Technology]
At 11:18 PM 11/22/99 , James Love wrote:
>Funny you should say this. I was just at a Department of State briefing
>on information policy last week, and when discussing a the need for new
>global rules on consumer protection, Don Heath suggested ICANN as a
>model, where NGOs (he meant business NGOs like MPAA and the BSA) played
At 09:50 AM 11/23/99 , email@example.com wrote:
>Jones Day would not have lent its foremost international antitrust lawyer
>to create ICANN for any other reason than that ICANN should be the
>communications tool for the trade hegemony of its transnational clients
>through the WTO and GATT. The DOC would not have gone to the lengths it
>has to protect ICANN, even to violating its own charter, nor would it have
>run the risks of dissembling in congressional testimony, for a lesser purpose.
>Why has the Antitrust Division of the DOJ refused to investigate and
>pursue ICANN? Merely because Joe Sims used to work there and is a friend
>of the Division's counsel? If that were so, then Scott Sacks, to whom I
>supplied the same information I gave James Tierney, and who is supposedly
>beyond the influence of the Division's counsel, would have acted on it,
>and the same goes for the Division's director, Joel Klein, and Janet Reno,
>who have been apprised of the situation by Tom Bliley. Yet nothing has
>been done by them to change it.
>Clearly, ICANN is an integral part of the U.S. Government's plans to
>control world trade through the pseudo-world government of WTO. Don Heath
>is no doubt privy to those plans, as are also the ICANN board and the
>Berkman Center. Why else would the DOC have allowed the ICANN board and
>staff to give ISOC and CORE control of the DNSO and, through the IETF, the
>PSO as well? But it is Vinton Cerf and MCI who are the key. Mr. Cerf's
>characterization of the Internet as the device of world trade in the 21st
>century, in his "Internet Is For Everyone" paper, was no exaggeration. In
>the Western power-block politics of the cold war period, it was ITT that
>provided U.S. communication and control; in the coming period of unopposed
>U.S. domination, it will be MCI, through the Internet.
>John Sweeney, because he has learned the effect of U.S.-controlled foreign
>industrial production on American workers, understands what is at stake.
At 04:16 PM 11/12/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>The way I see it, we have a
>confluence of activities that paint a very
>Specifically, we have presidential candidate
>and senator John McCain saying that soft money
>is a legalized form of graft. And he's right,
>especially if you look at the totally unfair
>process used to put in place ICANN. But with
>literally 100s of millions of dollars being
>funnelled into Washington on behalf of those
>supporting ICANN, what could be expected?
>We have presidential candidate Pat Buchanan
>saying that this may be the last election where
>the people have any chance of getting back their
>government. Funny, while the White Paper expresses
>concern over capture of the Internet, the capture
>of Washington goes unabated.
>And we have a U.S. Air Force report that does
>a scenario analysis of the next 25 years:
>I'd say we are already pretty far into the scenario
>where multinational corporations exceed the power
>of sovereign nations.
>Throughout this debate, we've had to constantly
>up the ante when it came to describing the meta
>issue that we are all fighting about. And this
>leads me to former ambassador and presidential
>candidate Alan Keyes. He believes that the U.S.
>Constitution requires a moral citizenry, and
>without morality, even the Constitution can't
>In other words, when all is said and done,
>this is a fight over morals and values.
>Some people say (I think it's the Buddhists),
>that awareness is the first step on the road
>to enlightenment. I believe that the Internet
>can be the vehicle that leads to the awareness
>that leads to the enlightenment, that allows
>humanity to evolve to the next level.
>Unfortunately, the Trademark lobby's "deal with
>ICANN" is a serious threat to *that* scenario.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
New Media Relations
"We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction
we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are
building it just outside the constitution's review."
-- Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN