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 >> >
