Watchdog: Secret Board Resolution Paved Way In ICANN Internet Globalization Agenda

icann-oversight-3
Source: ActivistPost.com
Daniel Taylor
August 29, 2016

Corwin: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade passed secret resolutions, used NSA spy leaks as “false premise” to strip control from U.S.

Philip Corwin, Founding principal of Virtualaw LLC, and ICANN watchdog for the Internet Commerce Association, spoke out recently at the 49th ICANN meeting. ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is in charge of assigning domain names and IP addresses on the Internet. Until now, the United States has had contractual oversight for the organization.

Singapore hosted the historic ICANN meeting, which discussed the future of internet governance after the United States ceded control. Singapore has a poor track record of internet freedom. Terence Lee writes in a paper for Surveillance and Society that internet regulation in Singapore “… hinges on an ideology of control with the sole aim of producing law-abiding, self-regulated and therefore, economically productive, docile and compliant citizens.”

During the meeting, Corwin expressed his concern that the United States ceding control of the internet was based on the “false premise” that NSA spy revelations required a massive change at ICANN. Corwin also came out against pervasive globalization.

“I am a globalization skeptic, which does not mean that I’m against globalization in the abstract. It means I have great concerns about the quest for globalization that’s going on right now. We are clearly in a time for ICANN of hope and change, that makes me very nervous because hope is not always rewarded and change is not always for the better. I’m also a firm believer in the maxim if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Corwin also revealed that ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade passed secret resolutions to further the goal of “an internet cooperation agenda.” Corwin stated,

“In the last period, particularly in the question which was out there since last summer of whether the NSA revelations undermined trust in ICANN and the Internet and required the type of response we’re seeing. Instead, we saw the establishment of top‐down presidential strategy panels. We saw ‐‐ and I hate to say this ‐‐ a new low point in ICANN with the secret Board resolution last September that authorized the CEO to take many of the actions that have been taken…”

The resolution, issued in September 2013, was published a month after the October 2013 ICANN meeting that pushed for the globalization of ICANN. The October meeting called on members to sign the “Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation.” Corwin notes that “While the Montevideo Statement was signed by ten entities, the actual work of coordinating its issuance was performed by CEO Chehade pursuant to a secret resolution passed by the ICANN Board on September 28th.”

Corwin notes that “No consultation effort was engaged in with ICANN’s stakeholders and constituencies before these decisions were made.” The resolution states,

Whereas, the existing, global, open, multi-stakeholder Internet governance system is under increasing pressure to evolve and adapt to global concerns.

Whereas these increasing pressures cannot be addressed by ICANN alone, but only by a group of similarly concerned organizations and entities acting in concert, ICANN should participate in an effort to form an Internet cooperation agenda (“Coalition”).

Resolved (2013-09-28-C1), the ICANN Board authorizes its CEO to allocate necessary and sufficient time and resources of ICANN and work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition towards the formation of a movement or initiative. The financial resources for building the coalition must be allocated from the already established Strategic Plan funds.

ICANN’s goal of an open and transparent Internet doesn’t seem to coincide with the organization’s recent activities. The move to cede United States control over the Internet is concerning for multiple reasons. Now that ownership is being fought for among the worlds repressive superpowers, freedom of speech on the Net is in danger.

With ICANN now open to the world, a whole host of anxious governments and organizations are grabbing for the power that is the Internet. The European Union, pushing for a “Web 3.0” that will facilitate the Internet of Things, is one potential player. “The European Commission’s position on jurisdiction and choice of law could lead to imposition of the European Union’s approach on data protection, cybersecurity, and other matters on entities outside its direct jurisdiction — including U.S. companies,” writes Corwin.

As former Bush administration State Department advisor Christian Whiton stated, ICANN may end up as part of the United Nations.

Similarly shady activity is taking place with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is seeking to impose corporate controlled Internet regulation on its members. Senator Ron Wyden told Congress, “…the majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations – like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America – are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement.”

Read More At: ActivistPost.com

Daniel Taylor is an independent researcher, activist, and webmaster of oldthinkernews.com. You can find out more about him and his site HERE 

Saudis Have Lost The Oil War – F. William Engdahl

34534534545
Source: Journal-Neo.com
F. William Engdahl
June 1, 2016

Poor Saudi Arabia. They don’t realize it yet but they have lost their oil war. The war in its current phase began in September, 2014, when the dying King Abdullah and his Minister of Petroleum, Ali Al-Naimi, told US Secretary of State John Kerry they would gladly join Washington in plunging world oil prices. It became clear the main Saudi motive was to eliminate the new growing challenge to their control of world oil markets by forcing prices so low that the US shale oil industry would soon go bankrupt. For Kerry and Washington the focus, of course, was to economically cripple Russia in the wake of new US sanctions by damaging their revenues from export of oil. Neither achieved their aim.

Now, however, it’s clear that Saudi Arabia, which along with Russia is the world’s largest oil producer, is going down a dark road to ruin. Washington seems more than happy to cheer them on.

The long-term Washington strategy since at least 1992, well before September 11, 2001 and the Washington’s declaration of its War on Terror, has been by hook or by crook, by color revolution or outright invasion, to directly, with US “boots-on-the-ground,” militarily control the vast oil reserves and output of the major Arab OPEC oil countries. This is a long-standing institutional consensus, regardless who is President.

Cheney: ‘Where the Prize Ultimately Lies’

To appreciate the long-term strategic planning behind today’s chaotic wars in the Middle East there is no better person to look at than Dick Cheney and his statements as CEO of the then-world largest oilfield services company. In 1998, four years after becoming head of Halliburton, Cheney gave a speech to a group of Texas oilmen. Cheney told the annual meeting of the Panhandle Producers and Royalty Owners Association in reference to finding oil abroad, “You’ve got to go where the oil is. I don’t think about it [political volatility] very much.”

During his first five years as CEO of Halliburton, Cheney took the company from annual revenues of $5.7 billion to $14.9 billion by 1999. Halliburton foreign oilfield operations went from 51% to almost 70% of revenues in that time. Dick Cheney clearly looked at the global oil picture back then more than most.

In September 1999 Cheney delivered a speech to the annual meeting of an elite group of international oilmen in London. One section is worth quoting at length:

“By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”

The PNAC Warplan

Now let’s follow that bouncing ball sometimes called Dick Cheney a bit further. In September 2000 Cheney signed his name before his selection as George W. Bush’s vice presidential running-mate, to an unusual think-tank report that became the de facto blueprint of US military and foreign policy to the present. Another signer of that report was Don Rumsfeld, who would become Defense Secretary under the Cheney-Bush presidency (the order reflects the reality–w.e.)

The think-tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), was financed by the US military-industrial complex, supported by a gaggle of other Washington neo-conservative think tanks such as RAND. The PNAC board also included neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz, later to be Rumsfeld’s Deputy Secretary of Defense; ‘Scooter Libby,’ later Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff. It included Victoria Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan. (Notably Victoria Nuland herself went on in 2001 to become Cheney’s principal deputy foreign policy adviser). It included Cheney-Bush ambassador to US-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and hapless presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

Cheney’s PNAC report explicitly called on the future US President to remove Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and militarily take control of the Middle East a full year before 911 gave the Cheney-Bush Administration the excuse Cheney needed to invade Iraq.

The PNAC report stated that its recommendations were based on the report in 1992 of then-Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney: “In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”

At a time when Iran as a putative nuclear “threat” was not even on the map, PNAC advocated Ballistic Missile Defense: “DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for US power projection around the world. (emphasis added)

In the report Cheney’s cronies further noted that, “The military’s job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the “zones of democratic peace; (sic)” to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence…”

The Cheney PNAC document of 2000 went on: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The quote is worth reading at least twice.

A year after the PNAC report was issued, then-General Wesley Clark, no peacenik to be sure, in a March 2007 speech before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, told of a Pentagon discussion he had had shortly after the strikes of September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and Pentagon with someone he knew in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s office.

Ten days after the 911 attacks, Clark was told by the former Pentagon associate, a general, that the Pentagon planned to invade Iraq. This was when Osama bin Laden, a bitter foe of the secular Baathist Socialist, Saddam, was being blamed for the terror attacks, and there was no 911 link to Iraq’s government. Clark related his conversation that day with the general:

“We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.”

“I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Continue Reading At: Journal-Neo.com
__________________________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”