ICANN and East Timor (was Re: The Berlin Operating Principles)

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

Forwarded with permission:


At 02:33 PM 9/10/99 , Stephen Page wrote:
>Jay,
>
>	In my opinion, the time to shed a little light was back in the beginning of
>this process, to prevent this ICANN fiasco from wasting everyone's time and
>rolling forward out of control as it has, but few people with "credibility"
>were either reading, thinking about history, or caring about what was
>happening because it hadn't been brought to the collective attention of the
>press, as it was overshadowed by Lewinsky and other things, and therefore was
>unworthy of precious attention in an overinformed world  
>
>	Thanks to our persistent, pain-in-the-rear efforts putting the truth in
>everyone's face, again and again, with a little help from some of the
>journalists you have been hammering, it seems possible that shedding some
>light on the truth may make a difference in the near to medium term.  
>
>	The timing appears right because as we view the struggle to free a
>systematically controlled population in East Timor exercising their will for
>freedom from the total control which Indonesia has held over them for 20+
>years, we can see our future selves in their struggle today.  
>
>	Those of us indidivual and democracy-leaning people who have had the
>foresight and experience to recognize the evil agenda which ICANN is slowly
>perpetrating, who have chosen to stand on the side of protecting individual
>rights and freedoms against ICANN's position that the "Internet naming and
>addressing system is a public resource", are witnessing in East Timor the
>attempts of an ICANN-equivalent control-mechanism doing what it is designed to
>do...hold onto power at all costs, with no regard to human life, rights, or
>freedom.   
>
>	We should not let the color of their skin fool us, or allow the appearance of
>looted and abandoned island shacks lead us to conclude that theirs is an
>isolated problem...it isn't.  The East Timorese ARE US exercising our
>fundamental rights in a country which does not respect such rights.  
>
>	The result of this exercising of their fundamental human right, the right to
>speak one's mind, to choose one's destiny, sadly, is that once again on this
>earth, freedom loving people have died merely because they, under the
>perceived "protection of the United Nations" have chosen a path which
>conflicts with the agendas of the powerful controlling interests which have
>economically enslaved the East Timorese.  To anyone involved in the struggle
>for rights and freedoms at the "root" level of Internet existence (the right
>to own a name or use an IP number, the equivalent of life sustaining "net
>oxygen" in cyberspace ), this conflict hits home. 
>
>	By choosing to stand up to ICANN, we (you and I) make the same fearful
>choices that the East Timorese made, but in a different economic time and
>place, albeit the same time in history. If economies are waves of human
>activity, and we know that they are, the East Timorese are making their choice
>for freedom in an agrarian region.  In our ICANN situation, leaping forward
>through the industrial economy to today's "i"ndividual, "i"nterconnected,
>"i"nteractive economy enabled by the commercialization of the Internet by

>DARPA in 1994, you and I have been making our choice for freedom in this new
>form of economy.  There is no difference in what we, the East Timorese and you
>and I, seek.
>
>	So Jay, as human nature manifests itself, once again under a variety of
>locations, economies, and actors, it does so uniformly and consistently as it
>always has.  You and I understand clearly where the ICANN situation is
>heading.  
>
>	Just as clearly as the British had their agenda with "the colonies" in the
>1700s, Indonesia has had its agenda with East Timor.  Where the United States
>were formed, so East Timor exercised its rights under U.N. "protections". The
>failure of human intervention in East Timor is a failure of people to
>recognize that the "United" nations are not united, but comprised of 2
>categories of governance, one controlling, and the other benevolent.  The
>controlling governments hold power to act as hostage in such situations under
>the term national sovereignty.
>
>	Clinto-Gore had their hands-off agenda for years  in Kosovo, and the U.S. had
>its hands-off agenda while Indonesian militias have their agenda in East
>Timor, so Ira Magaziner/Clinton-Gore/Dept of Commerce have had their agenda
>with ICANN.  The outcomes will all be the same...actions will be taken by
>someone, preferably early but probably late, because as human beings we
>recognize ourselves in the faces of those others.  With ICANN, the scale of
>the conflict is worldwide, so it is much more grave long term.
>
> Just a little more food-for-thought so that when the Senate holds its
>hearings, nobody will be able to ignore the parallels.
>
>Steve Page
>T: 925-454-8624
>
>(c) Copyright, 1999.  Stephen J. Page.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  
>	
>
>At 03:18 AM 6/22/99 , Stephen Page wrote:
>>Jay,
>>       Is what Tony Rutkowski wrote below a surprise?  It has been clear to me that
>>the Clinton administration has been treating the Internet like it is theirs to
>>"own" since it can be shown that the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP)
>>funded the commercialization of it in 1994 (CommerceNet) by DARPA.  This is
>>the point-in-time where their perceived "ownership" was established when
>>Defense technology like Internet, was to be commercialized.  
>>       It makes one wonder if Jon Postel were eliminated or if he did really die
>>from surgical complications.  An aweful lot of people have now lined up behind
>>the Joe Sims/ICANN cartel, and it is apparently in their economic interest to
>>see ICANN act as an unelected cartel on behalf of national governments seeking
>>to fleece revenue from legitimate economic activities of Internet enabled
>>citizens worldwide.
>>       When Tony R. talks of Clinton administration sell-out below, we know he means
>>the White Paper/Green Paper/ICANN sell-out, but it could be just as easily the
>>sell-out of American-style democracy to foreign contributions by the
>>Democrats, the sell-out of supercomputing technology to Chinese by Secretary
>>of Commerce Ron Brown (deceased), and the selling out of the thousands of
>>Kosovar Albanian men and their families to preserve the face of NATO which
>>needed to stand up to Milosevic after negotiating and losing to him on many

>>occasions.   
>>       At its present state of infancy, ICANN does not rank anywhere near these
>>sell-outs, but we know that it will eventually become the largest sell-out of
>>them all, and THIS is the opportunity that the Dept of Commerce is
>>pursuing...to create an inter-governmental entity with the equivalent power of
>>the Federal Reserve (which controls the supply and demand of money by
>>controlling interest rates), by controlling the supply and therefore demand
>>for IP names and numbers.  That limitation of supply (a monopoly by another
>>name) is what creates scarcity, which is what artificially inflates value, and
>>which enables unscrupulous governmental leaders to extract value from
>>individuals.  It is no wonder that the Individual Domain Name Owners
>>organization (IDNO) is refused a role within ICANN's insiders.
>>       In retrospect, Ira Magaziner did exactly what he did for the Clinton Internet
>>agenda, that he did for the Clinton Health Care agenda, but this time he had
>>no established network of mature and educated physicians to stand in his way
>>and oppose him.  I had written some warnings to that effect and posted them on
>>lists, but that was not the hopeful or positive view that people wanted to
>>believe.  But it was real, as the history has shown. 
>>       Internet is a much more immature industry than health care was, led by
>>immature and unsophisticated thinkers, the sysadmins of the 'Net.  When it
>>became clear that this would become a high profile issue, and that Magaziner's
>>history would become a liability, Magaziner went away. (Why expose the
>>liability of his true agenda?) The back-room operators of the Dept of Commerce
>>have been pursuing the agenda outlined for them by Magaziner/Clinton ever
>>since.  
>>       The core issue is all about control, and it always has been, first
>>controlling health care expense, which meant demonizing the physicians as the
>>problem with the system, meanwhile the insurance companies (the real problem,
>>was lobbying the administration like crazy.  The result?  What evolved was a
>>more subtle element of control, the HMO, which was encouraged to control the
>>physicians using another mechanism...Wall Street and contracts.  The rest is
>>history...Columbia Health System, MedPartners, and now the People have
>>recognized that the combination of Wall Street profiteering and Governmental
>>control-seeking are a dangerous combination.
>>       Fast-forward to the Internet.  Ira Magaziner resurfaces, he is the point-man
>>for snookering the free market, by using deceptive words like "competition"
>>(there ain't none), and it is all a big rehash of the exact same principles of
>>the failed health care agenda, this time applied to market principles of an
>>emerging economy...electronic commerce. 
>>       As one of the few persons on any of the past three years of email lists who
>>has clearly understood the intent of Ira Magaziner (and Clinton), one who has
>>written extensively about where their agenda is taking them (the development
>>of the Internet equivalent of Federal Reserve System for Names and Numbers,
>>with no borders or Congressional Oversight), none of what Tony Rutkowski

>>writes is any surprise to me at all.  I've got the trail of emails to prove
>>it.  You've received them Jay.  Whether anyone reads them is another question.
>>Email is not the best venue for understanding complex relationships.  People
>>respond to simple things, which is why we collectively are viewed as a bunch
>>of simpletons who CAN BE snookered.  Shame.
>>       Tony's questions below have been asked of the officials in charge for the
>>past several years, with no response.  It would take a person with a full time
>>position to protect and preserve the Constitution and an appreciation of
>>modern American history to compile the case to support Tony's position, but
>>most of us have lives to live.  That is what Clinton and Magaziner have been
>>banking on.  
>>       So far, it has worked.  But you can fool some people all the time, all the
>>people sometime, but you can't fool everyone all the time.  At some point, it
>>will become clear.  I just hope that I am around to witness the exposure of
>>the truth to the people who can do something about it, the Representatives in
>>the U.S. Congress and Senate.
>>       Thanks for the FYI Jay.  Keep me in the loop.  I'm doing what I can to
>>provide a perspective which is informative and enlightening.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Steve Page
>>T: 925-454-8624
>>
>>(c) Copyright, 1999.  Stephen J. Page.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
>>       
>>
>>Anthony M. Rutkowski possesses degrees in both Electrical Engineering and
>>Law. Over the past thirty years, he has held many positions, including
>>Chief of International Telecommunication Regulations and Relations Between
>>Members at the ITU, FCC Engineer, Adjunct Professor at New York Law School
>>(teaching the graduate program in international telecommunications law),
>>Research Associate at MIT, and industry positions with General Magic,
>
>>Sprint, Horizon House, Pan American Engineering, and General Electric.
>>
>>FYI:
>>
>>At 07:37 AM 6/19/99 , A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>>>With each passing day, we're beginning to find
>>>out exactly what occurred in Berlin.  In particular,
>>>what occurred behind the closed doors of ICANN's
>>>infamous GAC (Government Advisory Committee) after
>>>they threw out anyone perceived to be an outsider,
>>>is beginning to seep out.
>>>
>>>Yesterday, the GAC minutes were finally posted, and
>>>revealed they had prepared and adopted a new
>>>intergovernmental agreement on the Internet.
>>>
>>>The full impact of the existence and profound adverse
>>>effects of these new "Berlin Operating Principles"
>>>deserves significant exposure, as well as a full
>>>accountability by the Dept of Commerce and ICANN.
>>>The public officials involved should be made to account
>>>for their actions and ICANN terminated.
>>>
>>>It ranks up near the top of perfidious, foolish
>>>power grabs by government authorities who will do
>>>anything to be Internet relevant.  It's a complete
>>>sellout by the Clinton Administration of the worst
>>>kind.
>>>
>>>Why the angry words?
>>>
>>>Over the past several months, officials of the
>>>Department of Commerce have been meeting in secret
>>>with representative from more than 30 other countries

>>>to form a new intergovernmental body for the regulation
>>>of the Internet.  On 25 May, they met in Berlin and
>>>adopted among themselves a new international agreement
>>>that declares the "Internet naming and addressing
>>>system is a public resource."
>>>
>>>This "Operating Principles" agreement among 33 countries
>>>goes further to assert the bases on which Internet naming
>>>and addressing is to occur, and that any names that
>>>have a country symbol in them are under the sovereignty
>>>of the countries concerned.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, the full document is not available
>>>because it is still being treated as confidential,
>>>and the US Dept of Commerce officials involved will
>>>not release it.
>>>
>>>As someone who has been a leading public official,
>>>industry leader, law school professor, and published
>>>historian over the past 25 years in telecommunications,
>>>Internet and International law, this stands as probably
>>>the most egregious misfeasance of public officials I've
>>>ever encountered in this sector.
>>>
>>>Inquiring minds want to know.
>>>
>>>Who gave the authority to officials in the Department
>>>of Commerce to create a self-defining, unaccountable
>>>new intergovernmental body for the regulation of the
>>>Internet?
>>>
>>>Who gave the authority to officials in the Department
>>>of Commerce (or for that matter any of the other countries
>>>involved) to undertake this kind of secret process -
>>>much less produce such principles and enter into an
>>>agreement among themselves?
>>>
>>>I personally operate part of the Internet Naming and
>>>Addressing System on my own computers, software, and
>>>network piece of the Internet.  My service provider,
>>>PSI - a private company, owns its own resources,
>>>including names and numbers.
>>>
>>>Who gave these officials the right to declare that my
>>>systems and those of my provider and everyone else are
>>>now a "public resource" subject to the "Operating
>>>Principles" of the Governmental Advisory Committee?
>>>
>>>Bear in mind that "the Internet" is nothing more than
>>>a means that allows private networks, computers, files,
>>>and software to be shared.  These actual components are
>>>owned and operated by millions of people as their own
>>>property.  For the past 30 years, the most basic public
>>>policies of the United States have held that computer
>>>networks themselves are not the province of government
>>>control or regulation.
>>>
>>>Under our legal system, public officials are proscribed
>>>from meeting in secret, drafting, and adopting agreements
>>>like the GAC Operating Principles - especially the provisions
>>>that they contain.  It is outrageous, and it is misfeasance.
>>>
>>>On a substantive level, if such provisions were even
>>>attempted to be enforced, it would effectively kill the
>>>Internet.  Perhaps because the Clinton Administration
>>>believes it created the Internet, it also now apparently
>>>believes it can do with it what is wishes.
>>>
>>>It is time for someone to start demanding accountability
>>>here.
>>>
>>>--amr
>>
>