Here's an update on the ICANN situation: Jay. >At 10:17 PM 11/22/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >a role. At 09:50 AM 11/23/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >interesting picture. > >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: > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/af/a-f.htm >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 >help us. > >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. Respectfully, Jay Fenello, New Media Relations ------------------------------------ http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480 "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
