It's curious you should write on east timor. I came across a post
concerning the dns and east timor. Will try to find it for you Jay.
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>
> 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
> >>
> >
>
>
>
