Call on ICANN President and CEO Mr. Rod Beckstrom, ICANN and GAC Chairmen to create the "IDNSO" before IDN gTLDs are rolled out.

Below is the full text of Multilingual Internet Group Chairman Khaled Fattal's Letter to ICANN.

October 15, 2009

Mr. Rod Beckstrom, Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Peter Dengate-Thrush, Chairman, Board of Directors
Mr. Doug Brent, Chief Operations Officer
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

Hon. Janis Karklins
Chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee
Ambassador of Latvia to France
Via email

Members of the Board of Directors
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292


Dear Rod, Peter, Doug, Janis and all Board members,

I write to you in my capacity as Chairman and CEO of The Multilingual Internet Names Consortium (MINC) www.minc.org, Member of the ICANN President Advisory Committee on IDNs, (IPAC IDNs) http://www.icann.org/en/committees/idnpac/ , as well as Chairman and CEO of Live Multilingual Translator http://www.lmtranslator.com/ and WebSynergys Inc. http://www.websynergys.com/

I wish to first offer you my sincere congratulation for achieving what all of you and Dr. Paul Twomey, former ICANN President and CEO, had worked very hard to achieve - an independent ICANN accountable to the global Internet community. Achieving this status has had my unwavering support for years, even when it was not popular. Now that this has been accomplished ICANN’s real work must start in earnest.

The Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) is the dawn of a new era and should be celebrated. However, the manner and timeliness in which the AOC is implemented vis-à-vis IDNs and IDN gTLDs; and how fairly, equitably and transparently ICANN and GAC leadership operating within the multi-stakeholder model prioritize them on behalf of the next 4 billion non-English speaking Netizens’ needs and interests, will be ICANN’s biggest challenge and how the success or failure of its model will be measured.

The full responsibility and accountability now lies squarely on ICANN’s shoulders to deliver with safety, stability and security -- not only for the DNS but to the IDN regions who will be severely impacted if corrective measure are not undertaken expediently.

Challenges ahead

Some ICANN challenges may prove harder to overcome due to internal, external and mind set resistances to change which will require structural modification. But change they must. Special interest groups, especially those motivated primarily by profit from the DNS space, strive for greater influence in ICANN processes now that the potential rewards are larger than ever. Their ability to influence ICANN cannot be underestimated if the past is any indication.

ICANN must not forget that, and must demonstrate its commitment to, its primary role -- which is to deliver a global public service and not to act as a business incubator at the expense of the next 4 billion IDN Netizens.

Special Interest and Claims of ICANN Being Captured

The gold rush 21st century style

Proponents and special interest parties well known for being successful entrepreneurs upon ICANN and its new CEO Rod Beckstrom on September 23, 2009 to launch the NEW gTLDs “without any further delays” http://www.icann.org/correspondence/van-couvering-to-beckstrom-21sep09-en.pdf.

I believe that many of the signatories, some whom I know well and consider good friends, are genuine in their sentiments against further delays. But I couldn’t believe that they would advocate a “stampede to launch” without due care as the letter seemed to imply. Days later we all discovered that at least one had their name used as a signatory to that letter without their prior consent http://www.icann.org/correspondence/deerhake-to-beckstrom-30sep09-en.pdf.

In addition, lawsuits have started flying even before new gTLDs have been launched, showcasing an ugly side to this process and a possible specter of the nature of things to come. (Although I hope not).

No one wanted new gTLDs to be launched, especially in IDNs, sooner and faster than me and my constituents. When we called for testing of IDNs in the root in 2003 and 2004 many called us Internet breakers. Yet we cannot support a call for a rush while the steps needed to avert many serious negative outcomes and possible consequences have yet to be achieved.

A captured ICANN?

The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) called for a full US government audit of ICANN on September 22, 2009 http://www.cadna.org/en/newsroom/press-releases/cadna-calls-for-full-scale-audit-of-ICANN , stating: “ICANN is a captured regulator: ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which develops ICANN's policy, is aligned with business models such as registrars and registries that stand to profit or lose from ICANN's choices”.

The DOC Washes its Hands While Congress Raised Concerns

Leaders in the US Congress have also voiced deep concerns. For example, on September 15, 2009 a letter from Lamar Smith and Howard Coble of the House Committee on the Judiciary sent to ICANN President and CEO, Rod Beckstrom, expressed substantial worries regarding the impact of new gTLDs on criminal justice, competition, and intellectual property rights. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-15sep09-en.pdf.

And yet the "AOC" clause (5) disavows any responsibility by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) for the shape or form of how new gTLDs, including IDN gTLDs, are rolled out, stating: “Nothing in this document is an expression of support by DOC of any specific plan or proposal for the implementation of new generic top level domain names (gTLDs) or is an expression by DOC of a view that the potential consumer benefits of new gTLDs outweigh the potential costs”. It is as if the US Government also anticipates lawsuits and is essentially saying: “when things go wrong we are not responsible we passed the full buck on Sep 30th 2009 to ICANN.”

Continued ICANN failures on IDNs and POTENTIAL LITIGATION

Add to all this ICANN’s continued failure to adequately and properly address IDNs over the years, encapsulated in recent months by the manner the IRT was formed by ICANN’s Board. ICANN may face an additional law suit frenzy focused on IDN and IDN gTLDs of international proportions, UNLESS corrective measures are taken, ASAP and before launch, to avert or minimize them..

ICANN board, the IRT, AND Their Lack of IDNs

The IRT’S formation and the strong negative reaction its report received could have been averted, and the substantial efforts by its panelist could have had much greater value, had the ICANN Board and Chairman mandated that IDNs be given proper consideration in its deliberations.

The Board should have also mandated that experts on IDN be selected for the IRT team possessing comprehensive IDN policy, technical, and IP law knowledge and expertise. Had the board mandated this the IRT deliberations would have included IDNs and the final IRT recommendations would have been IDN congruent. Instead, most of the IRT recommendations were virtually incompatible with IDNs and impractical for implementation by their prospective communities.

I raised this concern during the public forum of the ICANN London event in July and was supported by many IRT members on my contention. The record will also show that many IRT members acknowledged this lack of IDN expertise on the IRT team publicly and wished it was also part of their ICANN mandate. It appears that some of my input has been factored in the 3rd version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG), but much more remains to be addressed.

Unfathomable in 2009

To think that in 2009 the ICANN Board at the leadership of its Chairman, a trademark lawyer, can still approve a resolution to act on anything related to TLD expansion without appropriately factoring in IDNs is unfathomable to me and many members of the IDN regions and the international community. Sadly, this is a manifestation of a continued failure and lack of proper representation and prioritization of IDNs on the ICANN board, and the lack of transparency on the nominating committee that selects the ICANN board members.

The community treatment (or mistreatment) in the Guidebook

Many in the international Internet community would be forgiven if they hoped that the introduction of IDNs would to be done in a way that helped to compensate for the 20 year head start in the domain name market enjoyed by ASCII (English) TLDs, many operated by a small group of for-profit commercial operators who have enjoyed an extremely profitable but effectively closed market that did little to meet the linguistic demands of language communities such as Arabic and Chinese.

We are now faced with a situation however where new IDN gTLD operators hoping to serve the requirements of their communities will have to pay far more than the incumbent gTLD operators ever paid to enter the market. The $185,000 application fee will without a doubt not only act as a considerable barrier but as an obstruction to the deployment of IDN gTLDs to Arabs, Indians or Chinese who want to empower their Netizens to use the Internet in their own languages.

I note that the GAC has come to the same conclusion, urging ICANN to actively consider introducing categories for new gTLDs, given the very different nature of the types of applications ICANN is likely to receive. This is sensible and logical if ICANN is to facilitate the introduction of new gTLDs in a way which reflects the political, cultural and geographic diversity of the Internet. To continue to seek a "one-size-fits-all" approach can only create inequities and result in inappropriate policies for new gTLDs with grave consequences.

Today, the same Arabs, Indians or Chinese who want to empower their Netizens to use the Internet in their own language will be treated in the same manner as applicants for Dot.Gay, claiming to represent the gay community on the Internet (see www.dotgay.com). While I cast no aspersions upon any lifestyle community, it is questionable whether the gTLD application process should treat them and IDN language and culture communities in an indivisible manner.

The Need For Clear Priorities

ICANN’s top priority has been and must remain coordinating the technical management of the DNS to assure its security and stability. An impressive, well-reasoned and extensively documented ICANN-commissioned report on “Scaling the Root”, released on September 18th, clearly lays out the possibility that ICANN is seeking to introduce too many changes to the DNS simultaneously – DNSSEC, IDNs, new gTLDs, and IPv6 -- and that a failure to set clear and intelligent priorities risks major DNS instability.

Were ICANN’s failures's to ignore its own technical inquiries to result in a serious DNS disruption or Internet “crash” ICANN’s very credibility, and its present operational structure, could be placed in serious and permanent jeopardy at the expense of the global Internet community. And if safety and security of the Internet and validated Internet market needs are to be properly prioritized than IDN gTLDs deployment should without a doubt be in the forefront.

Summarizing The challenges and Conclusion

In light of the strength, money and power of the special interest who want to stampede to launch of the new gTLDs and IDN gTLDs “without further delays”, as well as claims that ICANN is a “captured regulator” and that its GNSO “is aligned with business models such as registrars and registries that stand to profit or lose from ICANN's choices”, the ICANN model that many are hailing still faces serious questioning and scrutiny and lacks significant and much needed components to render it functional, at a minimum, on IDNs. Meanwhile, U.S. political leaders have raised great concerns over many issues, while expressing extreme skepticism over the basis for new gTLDs, but have paid scant attention to IDNs.

Now The Question that still daunts the world’s IDN communities

What chance do IDNs have in fulfilling the hopes, needs and aspirations of the more than 4 billion Netizens awaiting IDN gTLDs unless ICANN demonstrates it is willing and capable to make the unavoidable decisions to correct these inequities before serious damage is done?

The Inevitable Answer and The action ICANN Can No Longer Avoid

The time has come for IDNs to take up their rightful place- center stage, without any pressures and biases from special business interests (perceived or real) to fulfill the needs, hopes and aspirations of the people they were aimed at serving first and foremost.

(If still in doubt, please review the 2 IDN ICANN resolutions and why the ICANN Board adopted them during its Puerto Rico meeting http://www.minc.org/news.aspx?id=375&lang=en and which were catalyzed by my public challenge to the ICANN Board the prior day http://www.minc.org/news.aspx?id=374&lang=en that took place in June 2007).

My call on THE ICANN Board and The GAC

The Need For A New ICANN Supporting Organization to be created and named the "IDNSO" (Internationalized Domain Name Supporting Organization)

Adding to my call on the ICANN board during the public comment of ICANN’s Sydney meeting, June 2009, I hereby formalize my call on the ICANN Board to officially create a new ICANN supporting organization called the “IDNSO” (Internationalized Domain Name Supporting Organization).

I also call on the GAC chairman and its members to initiate and conduct a review of my proposal to solicit feedback from the GAC members regarding it.

IDNSO’s Preliminary Mandate, Role, and Structure

As I stated in the past, the IDNSO is to sit side by side with the GNSO (Generic Name Supporting Organization) and the CCNSO (Country Code Name Supporting Organization). All three SOs will operate separately but cooperatively to make policy and technical recommendations under the separate and distinct mandates placed upon them.

Similar to the GNSO, whose mandates are focused primarily on generic TLDs, and the CCNSO’s focus on Country Code TLDs, the IDNSO, whose time has come, will be mandated to provide leadership and feedback on all IDN related matters at all types of TLDs.

All IDN policies in the Gs or the CC’s would then have an opportunity to be made congruent across the G and CC thru the mandates and the recommendations of the IDNSO on what should and should not be recommended on IDNs.

IDNSO linguistic policy formation role for the New IDN gTLDs

The IDNSO will have a unique role in working directly with the IETF on IDN technical matters, and the GAC and the GNSO on IDN policy recommendation matters to the board. The IDNSO will also formalize and create comprehensive ICANN linguistic policies, which alarmingly still do not exist to date at ICANN at any level, despite the linguistics ICANN sound bites references in its communiqués.

These IDNSO linguistic policies are a must to satisfy the acceptance and respect of the local language communities’ linguistic and cultural needs and concerns about their languages, which are an extension and integral expression of their identities, in the short, medium and long term prior to rolling out the new IDN gTLDs. The current ICANN plans will allow any “Tom, Dick or Harry” to apply and be authorized to operate an IDN gTLD with little or no say from the local IDN community.

IDNSO role on the New IDN gTLDs and Review mechanism post JPA

The IDNSO’s role will be the missing link to a community supported homeopathic rolling out of the New IDN gTLDs. It will prove equal if not more essential to satisfying the technical requirements for a single global interoperable Internet when IDNs are launched. Moreover, it will prove incalculable in helping the GAC and ICANN post JPA in their review mechanisms per the AOC.

More details on IDNSO

More details are available on the proposed structure and mode of operation, and on the selection and elections of interim and future IDNSO board members, has been prepared -- and I will share these details when formal and proper consultations are initiated by the Board and senior ICANN staff in response to my call.

Conclusion

I have no doubt that some may not support such modification to the ICANN structure for a multitudes of reasons, least of all special interest or lack of awareness, but if ICANN is to deliver on its mandate and serve all current as well as future 4+ billion Netizens of the world, the majority of whom will come from the IDN regions, and do it effectively, fairly, equitably, homeopathically and congruently in a manner that will withstand the test of time over the coming decades of the twenty-first century and beyond, this change is unavoidable.

Suffice it to say, absent the creation of the IDNSO in an expedient and timely fashion, and prior to the launch of the new IDN gTLDs, so that all matters with IDNs are addressed in a manner reflecting the needs and aspirations of the IDN local communities and their current and future Netizens first and foremost, the current plans for IDN gTLDs may well cause incalculable damage to the Internet and its DNS at the expense of the communities they were originally intended to serve first and foremost.

Looking forward to your replies, and to observing your actions on the above during the Seoul meeting.

Warmest regards,


Khaled Fattal

Chairman of the Board of Directors, and CEO, MINC, The Multilingual Internet Names Consortium, http://www.minc.org/
Chairman and CEO, Live Multilingual Translator http://www.lmtranslator.com/
Chairman and CEO, WebSynergys Inc. http://www.websynergys.com/
ICANN President's Advisory Committee Member on IDNs (ICANN) http://www.icann.org/en/committees/idnpac

Will Obama's Speech From Cairo Make Any Difference to The Muslims Of The World? Are Muslims and Arabs Ready To Trust America Yet? If Not? Why Not?

Without a doubt this was the most impressive speech by a US President in decades addressing Arabs and Muslims. However, bearing in mind that the speech is to serve US strategic interests with the objective of aligning 1.5 billion Muslims around the world to stand by the side of America in its fight against Al-Qaida and Islamic extremism, this is most definitely a good start, but only a start.

A lot remains to be proven and done for Muslims to trust and believe in the sincerity of a  US President or a US Administration if history taught them anything at all. I believe Obama "the man" is sincere. But is the US Administration sincere? Or is this a new way to deal with Muslims who are more often thinking with their passions rather than with their intellect.

So, will Obama be able to deliver on his commitments and his wonderful words?

Muslims and Arabs have been hearing “words” for 60 years. What they need to see is tangible US and Israeli changes supported by positive actions. Expecting trust and more concessions from Arabs and Muslims before anything happens is not the way forward. Netanyahu can't even say the words “two state solution".

President Obama also neglected to quote the Quraan where it says Muslims have the right to fight oppression and occupation of their lands. Arabs and Muslims have not forgotten that.

The French were called champions and freedom fighters for fighting against their Nazi German occupiers during WWII, and with whatever means available to them the world acknowledged. So did America against its colonial British masters two centuries ago, also, by any means available. Why are the occupied and oppressed Palestinians being seen and treated differently?

I believe that the death of any innocent child is a tragedy, regardless whether Jewish, Arab or Muslim. And while I go on the record stating that I don’t support the killing of innocent Israeli women and children, President Obama should also denounce the massacres of more than a thousand Palestinian woman and children in Gaza recently by the Israeli forces with American weapons during the last days of President Bush administration. Such actions also cannot be defended no matter what the excuses. Obama remained silent during the attacks. Muslims and Arabs did not forget that.

And did the President forget that the nuclear arms race in the Middle East already started many years ago caused when Israel obtained them with the help of the US. Did he forget that Israel refuses to be a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty? Why does he not call for a nuclear free Zone Middle East, en route to a World without all Nuclear Weapons.

Also, what President Obama needed to explain in his speech is how he will reconcile the two opposing positions that are the real road blocks to peace.

On the one hand, there is the indisputable legitimate human right of Palestinians. Obama acknowledged this as well as their suffering for decades in his speech. But he did not acknowledge that to resist occupation and oppression against an occupiers is recognized the world over as a legitimate human right. It is also a religious duty of a Muslim to resist oppression and occupation.

On the other hand, Israel continues not to recognize that Palestinians are humans with human rights, and that they are people under its occupation. It labels any actions of resistance, a legitimate human right against occupation, be it military or civilian uprising, as terrorism with usual US unshakable support.

Israel responds to such claims that they withdrew from Gaza hence Gaza is not under occupation. As if the Palestinians in Gaza are free by any stretch of the imagination. Israel has locked them up in a virtual prison in the most inhumane way, and the world knows it. It controls all passages and all supplies to 1.5 million Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Israel then uses any resistance as a pretext for why Palestinians cannot be trusted followed by more Israeli military action or blockade to punish the occupied Palestinians into more pain, suffering, and submission, all in the name of self defense.

Muslims see this as a clear Israeli-US plan to make the Palestinians surrender any resistance to force them to agree to peace terms dictated by their over powering occupier helped and supported by the US. This has been going on for decades and continued despite the Oslo Peace Accord of the 90s.

To be positive, the speech is unique in many ways. I support his call for a stop to all acts of violence and terrorism. Time for the bloodshed to stop once and for all. But this should includes the bombing of Israeli civilian targets by Hamas as well as the Israeli government ceasing the oppression of all occupied Palestinians especially the more than 1.5 million Palestinians on the Gaza strip in a the most heavily populated piece of a few square miles on earth, both must stop immediately not Palestinian resistance alone.

Are these people who have been occupied for 60 years and who are without hope or choice expected to abandon their legitimate human right and the teaching of their religion to resist oppression and the occupation of their land, rights that France and America both invoked in their quest for freedom, just because of a great sounding speech? Only the day before Obama’s speech an Israeli minister blatantly challenged Obama that Israel will not stop building settlements on Palestinian occupied land in a clear rebuke and challenge to President Obama's call for all these settlement to stop immediately.

Palestinians have suffered for too long and have been lied to by too many, endured the indignity of occupation, destitution, and living in make shift shelters in refugee camps with tin roofs generation after generation need to see a lot more before they can trust. They have to be given more than just words to go on.

The truth is that all indicators show, as I believed, that the majority of Arabs and Muslims do like Obama as a man. They feel he is sincere, but they also believe he will not be able to pressure Israel or be able to stand up to the pressure by Israel and its lobby back in America.

This is Obama’s real challenge and his real opportunity to prove that “yes, he can”. If he can show he can make Israel change its thinking that Palestinians are also humans and deserve the same dignity and freedom as any Israeli than real long lasting peace has a chance at succeeding.

Future of Internet Governance: Towards an Accountable ICANN. And Moving Towards An Internationalized Internet Governance.

On May 5th, Mrs. Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, posted a video calling for an oversight by the international community when the ICANN MOU with the US Government (JPA) expires September 09. She also sounded her serious concerns over the US Government's singular oversight over ICANN and ICANN's monopolistic stance with a call on President Obama to act. Will he?

"A moment of truth will come on 30 September this year, when the current agreement between ICANN and the US Government expires. This opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN." she said . Her video was titled: Future of Internet Governance: Towards an Accountable ICANN.

Much of Mrs. Reding positions echo my many statements over the years regarding the ICANN / USG's monopolistic management of the as well as the JPA. As Chairman and CEO of MINC, The Multilingual Inyernet Names Consortium, I have called for the transitioning to an international community structure that is streamlined, effective with minimal bureaucracies possible at many international forums like the United Nations conferences of the WSIS, WGIG, IGF, at ICANN conferences, as well as thru US Government and ICANN consultations.

I always took the position that for any good, effective, representative and democratic Internet Governance to take shape the players and decision makers of the internet need to be accountable to not only a single government or organization but to the international community itself with transparency being of the highest standard.

With the authority to affect so many lives beyond traditional political borders there needs to be democratic and representative accountabilities beyond a single country control. And while I recognize that the US has performed this task admirably, I also believe that it is now time for the US government to replace its monopolistic role with ICANN and IANA in the management of the Internet with a leadership collaborative role with the rest of the international community.

I agree with Commissioner Reding’s points on ICANN and internationalizing Internet Governance. However, some parts of her proposal will need time and multilateral and multi-cultural collaborations with pressure to happen. Nevertheless, the foundation of what must be aimed at has to be crystal clear, and her position helps do that.

One of the challenges will be to show how this will not hinder innovation. I anticipate that those in the business sector who want a 100% private and business led ICANN model to continue unchanged, unregulated will claim this will hinder innovation and curtail freedom of expression - as if such freedoms should exist without personal, corporate and Multicultural Social Responsibilities.

Huge lessons should be learnt from the global banking and financial crisis where too much Laisser Faire and self regulation fostered greed and conflicts of interest at monumental proportions.

I recommend to readers to read MINC’s announcement on Mrs. Reding’s video and to send us comments about it at http://minc.org/news.aspx?id=410&lang=en. And remember to click on the read MINC in Arabic at the top of the page to see all MINC's announcements including the one about her video translated to Arabic in seconds, in front of your own eyes. This is what Arabic speakers who don’t speak English have been doing to follow on these developments.

What is alarming and should not go unnoticed is that the internet community has dragged its feet, by design or by ignorance, since the end of the WSIS summit in 2005. In the last 2 years particularly, no one seemed willing, at ICANN and IGF conferences to table any serious discussions and debates of significant levels on what to transition to, once the JPA expires this September 30th. It seems as if it was a white elephant that is sitting in the middle of your living room yet you go on pretending it does not exist.

I alerted and called on IGF Chairman Mr. Desai in February 2008 at the Geneva IGF conference that this subject should be tabled and made a priority at IGF, I am sad to say, it was not. This is also documented in MINC's announcement at http://minc.org/news.aspx?id=408&lang=en. Now we are in the 11th hour and there is too much to do, and very little time to do them.

EU Commissioner Reding’s address to President Obama is the correct diplomatic challenge and approach. President Obama has an opportunity to show that "Change" has come not only to America, which delivered him to the White House, but that this "Change" has come to the world to replace the divisive rhetoric of the Bush era.

I also believe, however, that this alone will not be enough to make President Obama act accordingly. International community support at Multi-cultural as well as, at grass root levels has to be coordinated and heard, especially from the non-English, non-Latin based language communities of the world (IDN communities) calling and supporting Mrs Reding and my repeated calls to Internationalize Internet Governance, and conducted with a serious sense of urgency befitting the looming deadline of September 30th, 2009 and the minimal change that await beyond it.

For example, the current Internet Governance is a non-committing and non-binding forum. So it cannot provide effective and regulated Internet Governance.

On the other hand, if unchanged, the ICANN Business led model that failed will continue to fail to deliver on many of its mandates of transparency and accountability. The new gTLDs program has become so contentious, supporting communities like the Trade Mark Association, the Business Constituency (BC), and the Intellectual Property Community (IPC) to name a few, and which have always been traditional ICANN supporters are now some of its biggest critics.

New mechanisms of cooperation are much needed between national law enforcement agencies around the world to combat current and future cyber wars, cyber terrorism, child pornography, spam, IP protection, and many others international challenges. It is true some of these are not part of the ICANN mandate, but nor are they the mandate of anyone else at present. Clearly, new enforceable mechanisms of cooperation and treaties will have to be created to replace and / or add to a new JPA. The US Administration may wish to consider mandating other international coordinating bodies to do some of these roles to minimize the ICANN monopolistic position it is in today.

Despite all these let downs, ICANN supporters who don’t want any change to the current ICANN model which has served them well insist on using statements like: " if it ain't broke, don’t fix it".

In closing, I believe we must aim at delivering a Truly Internationalized Internet Governance that is Representative and Democratic, but most of all, Accountable to all those it stands to Represent, Govern and Impact.

Failure cannot be an option, if we are to prevent what happened in the global banking and financial sectors from happening to the Internet. This will pale in comparison when we factor the prospect of cyber wars and cyber terrorism ramifications. Nations and citizens who depend most on Internet stability and security will be the ones at most and greatest risks.

Torture Advocates will Set the Military Back for Generations

This Article is posted in support of and courtesy of Brandon Friedman, Author of The War I Always Wanted, and Vice Chairman of VoteVets.org:

Know what these photos are?

These are Iraqi troops surrendering by the thousand to U.S. forces during the first Gulf War in 1991. These drafted Iraqi fighters chose to turn themselves over to Americans in droves because they knew they'd be treated better by U.S. troops than by their own government. They had faith in us that we wouldn't execute them, that we'd feed them and give them water, and that we'd provide them with shelter. To them, facing capture was a much better option than either retreating back to the care of Saddam and his sadistic sons or of fighting to the death.

This worked out well, because it meant that we, as Americans, wouldn't have to face a determined, cornered enemy that could've drawn out the war and inflicted unnecessary casualties on our side. It was seen as a great victory.

Know what this is?

This is a shot of German troops surrendering to Americans during World War Two. At the end of that war, German soldiers were so desperate to surrender to the Americans or the British that they actually fought to break out of areas on the Eastern Front just so they wouldn't have to surrender to the Russians. They knew that inhumane treatment, a long train ride to Siberia, and a likely miserable death awaited them if they didn't make it.

This also worked out well for us, because it meant that we, as Americans, had a much easier time in Germany than the Russians did. The Russians--battling men who were literally fighting for their lives during the push to Berlin--suffered 80,000 troops killed. On the Western Front, however, U.S. forces never faced that level of resistance.

Once upon a time, America was known around the world for its powerful, benevolent nature when handling captured enemy fighters. Even our adversaries knew they could hoist the white flag and expect to be treated humanely. In turn, this made them more likely to give up sooner. And it not only kept American soldiers out of countless bloody fights, but it made victory and success all that much easier for our troops.

For years, rank and file soldiers and insurgents around the world viewed surrender to the Americans as a reasonable option when finding themselves outgunned.

And then we went and did this:

Now, our opponents won't feel secure in surrendering to U.S. forces. In fact, I wouldn't expect to see images like those of the surrendering soldiers above for decades. It's just not going to happen anymore. If a hot war breaks out in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or anywhere else, we can expect to face an enemy that simply won't accept surrender. No Taliban fighter, no starving North Korean soldier in his right mind will surrender willingly if he thinks he's going to be tortured or beaten to death. Instead, he'll prefer a fight to the death, even as he becomes cornered. And this will get Americans killed.

This is what Bush administration torture policies have wrought. We no longer hold the moral high ground. We borrowed against it in an effort to get a few false confessions from Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, Abu Zubaydah, and others. And the next time we face an organized fighting force in the field, the cost of doing so will become readily apparent.

Not only does torture not work, but it directly endangers our troops fighting now.

This is Posted in support and courtesy of Brandon Freidman.

This posting can be read at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/torture-advocates-will-se_b_194316.html

U.N. report condemns Israel for Gaza operation. Israeli troops used 11year old boy as human shield in Gaza. Will The International Criminal Court Act?

A U.N. report on Israel's recent attacks on Gaza was published on March 23, 2009. It was highly critical of Israel citing many examples and calling the response by Israel "disproportionate" and using words like "new crime against humanity".

What is the civilized western world going to choose to do? Is it going to ignore this report by the UN? Or is it going to act upon it?

And what about President Obama and his advisers? Will they act to show that the CHANGE that came to America, and which was celebrated by people all over the world, also stands for justice for all?

Or will the western world squander another opportunity to dispel a perception believed by many around the world that western justice is the privilege of the special few and those with good connections to Washington - thus validating the finger pointing by the extremists as well as the moderates alike the world over at the west's double standards and the weakness in its moral arguments.

CNN.com , Aljazeera.net, as well as, The Daily Star amongst many others have reported on this UN report on March 24 2009.

The real questions are:

-Will the UN dare discuss sanctions?

-Will the International Criminal Court act? -To indict, or at least, to point the fingers of accusations at any Israeli on these crimes?

-Or is the International Criminal Court going to continue in its politically biased and motivated appearances?

Aljazeera.net writes:

- A senior UN official has suggested that Israel should be held accountable for a "new crime against humanity" during its January assault on the Gaza strip.

Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said Israel had confined Palestinian civilians to the combat zone in Gaza, a unique move which should be outlawed.

"Such a war policy should be treated as a distinct and new crime against humanity, and should be formally recognised as such, and explicitly prohibited," Falk said in a report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday.


CNN.com Writes:

- Israeli soldiers routinely and intentionally put children in harm's way during their 22-day offensive against the Palestinians in Gaza, according to a United Nations report made public Monday.

The report said a working group had documented and verified reports of violations "too numerous to list."

For example, on January 15, in a town southwest of Gaza City, Israel Defense Forces soldiers ordered an 11-year-old boy to open Palestinians' packages, presumably so that the soldiers would not be hurt if they turned out to contain explosives, the 43-page report said.

They then forced the boy to walk in front of them in the town, it said. When the soldiers came under fire, "the boy remained in front of the group," the report said.

It said the boy was later released.

Also cited were "credible reports" that accused Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that runs Gaza, of using human shields and placing civilians at risk.

But it singled out the Israelis for more sweeping criticism.

The Daily Star writes:

-Israeli troops used an 11-year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield during its war in the Gaza Strip, UN human rights experts said on Monday. The Israeli military ordered the boy to walk in front of soldiers being fired on in the Gaza neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa and enter buildings before them, said the UN secretary general's envoy for protecting children in armed conflict.

The boy was also told to open the bags of Palestinians - presumably to protect the soldiers from possible explosives - before being released at the entrance to a hospital, Radhika Coomaraswamy said.

She said the January 15 incident, which occurred after Israeli tanks had rolled into the neighborhood and during "intense operations," was a violation of Israeli and international law.

It was included in a 43-page report published Monday, and was just one of many verified human-rights atrocities during the three-week war between Israel and Hamas that ended January 18, she said.

My question remains::

-Will the UN dare discuss sanctions?

-Will the International Criminal Court act? -To indict, or at least, to point the fingers of accusations at any Israeli on these crimes?

-Or is the International Criminal Court going to continue in its politically biased and motivated appearances?

CNN.com added:

A spokesman for the Israeli prime minister called the report another example of the "one-sided and unfair" attitude of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which requested it.

The report cited two alleged incidents from January 3. In one, it said, after a tank round struck near a house, a father and his two sons -- both younger than 11 -- emerged to look at the damage.

"As they exited their home, IDF soldiers shot and killed them (at the entrance to their house), with the daughter witnessing," the report said.

In the second, it said, "Israeli soldiers entered a family house in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City. Standing at the doorstep, they asked the male head of the household to come out and shot him dead, without warning, while he was holding his ID, hands raised up in the air, and then started to fire indiscriminately and without warning into the room where the rest of the family was huddled together.

"The eldest son was shouting in vain the word 'Children' in Hebrew to warn the soldiers. The shooting did not stop until everyone was lying on the floor. The mother and four of the brothers, aged 2-12 years, had been wounded, one of them, aged 4, fatally."

The alleged instances occurred during Operation Cast Lead, which was launched December 27 to halt rocket attacks into southern Israel from Gaza and ended January 17 with a cease-fire.

The U.N. report called the response by Israel disproportionate.

Of the 1,453 people estimated killed in the conflict, 1,440 were Palestinian, including 431 children and 114 women, the report said.

The 13 Israelis killed included three civilians and six soldiers killed by Hamas, and four soldiers killed by friendly fire, it said.

The report said the Israeli operation resulted in "a dramatic deterioration of the living conditions of the civilian population."

It cited "targeted and indiscriminate" attacks on hospitals and clinics, water and sewage treatment facilities, government buildings, utilities and farming and said the offensive "intensified the already catastrophic humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people."

It said Israeli strikes damaged more than 200 schools and left more than 70,000 people homeless.

"There are strong and credible reports of war crimes and other violations of international norms," it said, adding that many observers have said war crimes investigations should be undertaken.

"The alternative is de facto impunity," it said.

It called for the end of Israel's blockade of Gaza and the free passage into the territory of food, medicine, fuel and construction supplies.

CNN.com added:

The Israeli military did accept criticism Monday on another matter -- the practice of some Israeli soldiers of wearing T-shirts that appear to condone acts of violence against Palestinians.

The Israeli daily Haaretz newspaper reported that Israeli soldiers who had finished basic training ordered the shirts, one of which showed a pregnant Arab in the crosshairs of a gun sight with a caption reading "1 Shot 2 Kills." Another showing a small child in a gun's sight was captioned, "The smaller they are, the harder it is."

"The examples presented by The Haaretz reporter are not in accordance with IDF values and are simply tasteless," the Israeli military said in a written statement. "This type of humor is unbecoming and should be condemned."

Israeli soldiers said last week that Palestinian civilians were killed and Palestinian property intentionally destroyed during Israel's military campaign in Gaza, according to Haaretz.

The IDF has said it is investigating the claims, but its top general expressed skepticism Monday.

"I don't believe that soldiers serving in the IDF hurt civilians in cold blood, but we shall wait for the results of the investigation," Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi, the chief of staff, said in a speech.

"I tell you that this is a moral and ideological army."

He blamed Hamas for choosing "to fight in heavily populated areas.

"It (was) a complex atmosphere that includes civilians and we took every measure possible to reduce harm of the innocent," he said, according to an IDF statement.


The Daily Star added:

Coomaraswamy accused Israeli soldiers of shooting Palestinian children, bulldozing a home with a woman and child still inside, and shelling a building they had ordered civilians into a day earlier.

"Violations were reported on a daily basis, too numerous to list," said Coomaraswamy, who visited Gaza and Israel for five days in February.

The envoy also said there were allegations Hamas used human shields or fired from heavily populated areas, and that UN officials are investigating.

Israel criticized the report as "unable or perhaps unwilling" to address rocket attacks from Gaza or the threat of terrorism, citing Saturday's failed attempt to detonate a car bomb in a Haifa mall parking lot as the most recent manifestation. But none of the evidence that has been made public links the attempted Haifa attack to any groups in Gaza.

"The report claims to examine Israel's actions while it willfully ignores and downplays the terrorist and other threats we face," Ambassador Aharon Leshno Yaar told the 47-nation Human Rights Council.

Leshno Yaar said "terrorists" use women and children as human shields when they launch attacks from schools, homes, hospitals and mosques. He did not address the report's allegation about the boy, but an army spokesman rejected the claim.

"We are an army to which morals and high ethical standards are paramount," said Captain Elie Isaacson.

Coomaraswamy said her list of Israeli violations constituted "just a few examples of the hundreds of incidents that have been documented and verified" by UN officials who were in the territory.

She was the only one of the nine UN experts who compiled the report allowed into Gaza following the war.

Also on Monday, Richard Falk, a United Nations expert on the Palestinian territories, said in a report that there was "reason" to conclude that Israel's military operation in the Gaza Strip was a war crime.

Richard Falk said in order to determine whether the war was legal, it was necessary to assess if the Israeli forces could differentiate between civilian and military targets in Gaza.

"If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful, and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law," Falk wrote in the report to be presented to the UN Human Rights Council.

"On the basis of the preliminary evidence available, there is reason to reach this conclusion," he added, pointing out that attacks were targeted at densely populated areas.

Furthermore, as the borders of Gaza were sealed, civilians were unable to flee from the attacks, Falk noted.

Falk had focused his report on the legal issues arising from the war, as he had been unable to enter Gaza to assess the human-rights situation on the ground.

He attempted a mission in December, but was detained by the Israelis in a facility close to Ben Gurion airport before being expelled a day after.

"Such a refusal to cooperate with a UN representative, not to mention the somewhat humiliating treatment accorded has set an unfortunate precedent with respect to the treatment of a representative of the UN Human Rights Council, and more generally of the UN itself," Falk wrote.

Falk has been highly critical of Israel's policies against the Palestinians, saying in early December that they amounted to a crime against humanity. - Agencies, with The Daily Star


My questions still remain and which no one seems to be asking:

-Will the UN dare discuss sanctions?

-Will the International Criminal Court act? -To indict, or at least, to point the fingers of accusations at any Israeli on these crimes?

-Or is the International Criminal Court going to continue in its politically biased and motivated appearances?

Iran can be President Obama's first and main international success in his first 100 days for America and the world to witness.

...Can Obama succeed? Will others permit him to succeed ?

...And That TV interview on alarabiya TV... How was President Obama’s viewed by Arabs and Muslims around the world?
By Khaled Fattal


The celebrations are over, the jubilation have sunk in, Dr Martin Luther king’s dream has been reached- a black man is at the mountain top. Now comes the inescapable reality. Can Obama succeed? Will Obama succeed? Is Obama sincere or was he another politician that made it? And if he is sincere will the Washington Bureaucracy and its puppeteers permit him to have his way or will they derail his plans just to remind him as to who is really in charge of the United States of America.

What challenges should President Obama tackle first and early to give him great early international success that America and the world can cheer? What success can help him in Washington against known and hidden warmongers, and those who wish to obstruct?

And was Obama’s interview on alarabiya TV real or was it Memorex? Why must Iran and the diffusing of the Iranian crisis with the US be his first task?

Everyone including President Obama recognize that fixing the economy will take years. He also knows that factoring responsibility in American society may take longer. I have been arguing for social and corporate economic responsibility for 27 years and I will talk about these at later dates). So what can be tackled now that can bear fruit in the next 100 days?

Many questions are being asked by Americans and people all over the world whether Obama will succeed or not, hoping he does. The alarabiya TV interview of Obama a few hours ago is part of the charm offensive by the Obama administration towards the Arab and Muslim world. But Arabs and Muslims are used to lovely words. What they have lacked and really want to see are actions, deeds and successes that touch their lives positively and now.

It is not enough for Obama to label terrorist groups who kill innocent civilians as evil. We all know they are. But he also needs to add that “government who kill innocent civilians can have no excuse and are also terrorist governments” and should be treated accordingly until they change their ways.

Obama's interview on alarabiya TV.

To Arabs and Muslims all over the world the difference between seeing President Bush or President Obama being interviewed on TV is minimal. They already loathed and hated bush for his deeds, actions, and double standards. They do like the words of Obama - but know for now they are only words. Words that sound sincere but nonetheless, just words.

Moreover, many who believe in the conspiracy theories think Obama is just another puppet with nice words the puppeteers put him there when their last agent, agent Bush failed miserably in succeeding in invading Iraq after Afghanistan, so that they continue to Libya, Syria etc... To change the map of the Arab world and the Middle East once again since Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 followed by the Balfour Declaration in November 1917 that changed the map of the middle east 100 years ago and laid the foundation for conflict for the next 100 years. (Anyone remembers the Bush and his Neo-conservatives' warmongering talk in 2002, 2003 and 2004 in America, Britain and Israel that aimed to change that same map once again?)

Today President Obama has a unique opportunity no other U.S. President had before him in modern times. He has a chance to be loved and respected by Arabs and Muslims the world over if he delivers on his promises with deeds and action they can see and feel changing their lives now.

To do this President Obama needs to succeed on all these issues:
* The Palestinian (humanitarian angle) issue,
* The Iraq issue
* The Iran Issue

The Palestinian and Iraqi issues will not be solved in the first 100 days. But the right foundation for their success is conditional on the correct ingredients being present in the first 100 days. (I will talk about this at a later time).

So what is fixable now and in the first 100 days? Answer: Iran.

IRAN is Obama’s great opportunity for early success. And just like other challenges, it appears unsolvable to many. But in my opinion it is very solvable and would take no more than weeks or months to resolve and within his first 100 days if tackled early, correctly, delicately and even handily and best under the radar screen until the agreements are ready to be announced so that those who wish to obstruct don’t get a chance to sabotage them.

Based on the platform of change that helped elect him on the supposed "change has come to America", if President Obama follows this advice he will get the world to cheer his early successes to such a level it will deafen those who wish to obstruct real peace and harmony between religions and the warmongers in Washington and other capitals around the world perhaps for generations to come.

Why Iran first?

When Senator Obama promised to pull the troops out of Iraq as an election promise, and then when became the Democratic nominee for President many of my friends and colleagues would recall my saying that Iran would be the first task I would tackle first because if Obama is sincere it is so easy to achieve, Plus, It can show great tangible success very quickly perhaps in the first 100 days to fix the Iranian crisis for the world to see.

What is in for the U.S.A?

President Obama wants US troupes out of Iraq in 18 months. Iran has great influence within the Shiite community in Iraq and with many of its political leaderships. Therefore:

• #1- No honorable withdrawal by America troops from Iraq is possible without cooperation from Iran. This requires Iran’s cooperation. Furthermore,
• #2- The US wants to insure the longevity of its US backed Iraqi regime not to tumble after the last US soldier leaves Iraq - unlike Vietnam. That also requires Iran’s cooperation.
• #3 –The US needs to ensure its interests are maintained in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. After the departure of the US troops from Iraq - Iran can be detrimental on this objective.
• #4- A friendly Iran can exert pressure on Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon to appease Israel and its supporters politically so that Israel can accept making much needed concession towards peace with the Palestinians. (The Israeli Gaza offensive left hundreds of innocent Palestinian women and children civilians dead, some were killed while taking refuge at UN schools and compounds, all to the dismay of the international community and Obama's silence).
• #5- Many other reasons exist why the US would benefit from this with the same conclusions.

Therefore, fixing the Iranian crisis is very possible , and doing it the first 100 day of Obama's administration is very achievable. All would serve the American strategic and tactical interests. The great advantage is that the Obama administration can label some of the problems it can't fix yet on the Bush administration that created them in the first place.

What's in it for Iran?

In return, Iran would be assured of its legitimate right and pursuit to develop nuclear power. Iran has officially and on many occasions declared it has no intentions of developing nuclear weapons but insisted on its nation's legitimate right to have nuclear power. The Obama administration can now call them on this commitment. then the US can acknowledge Iran’s right for Nuclear Power publicly. This would lay the foundation for Iran to climb down and re-allow UN nuclear inspectors to come back in and monitor that all developments are for peaceful means and objectives. All achievable in the next 100 days.

Iran won't need nuclear weapons when the US leaves Iraq in 18 months.

Satisfying US objectives and becoming part of the solution, and with the US troops out of Iraq in 18 months Iran will no longer have need for the deterrent of a nuclear weapon when the US troops leave Iraq. Iran will no longer be under threat of attack or invasion by US forces stationed in either Iraq and/or Afghanistan and this will give Iran the greater sense of safety thus also no longer needing the deterrent of a nuclear weapon should that have been their undeclared intention in the past.

Also, by Iran assisting the US to pull its troops out in 18 months from Iraq and to satisfy U.S. interests as I detailed above Iran becomes part of the solution instead of the problem. Furthermore, it will solidify Iran as the regional power in the Middle East. If so, such a plan can lead perhaps to normalization between Iran and the U.S. relations making it not just possible but perhaps imminent. If and when that happens, it will then elevate Iran’s role to a new geopolitical power of the Middle East and the region at the pleasure of Washington.

The American Iranian dance and choreography have already started

Already symbolic activities are appearing on the world stage indicating this to be the case. The New York times reports today : “Clinton Sees an Opportunity for Iran to Return to Diplomacy” it writes “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that Iran had a “clear opportunity” to engage with the international community, amplifying the conciliatory tone struck a day earlier by President Obama toward Iran and the rest of the Muslim world.

In Iran, the Tehran Times reporting today positively about President Obama and his leadership on climate change They report "U.S. President Barack Obama vowed to lead the world on climate change as he set about shredding Bush administration policies with new domestic measures to force the development of fuel-efficient cars".

I am sure Iranian papers may be drafting articles as we speak about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seeing opportunity for US to return to diplomacy” after Obama’s conciliatory tone TV interview on alarabiya TV hours ago.

The new US change of tone.

The US Bush administration frequently used analogies of the carrot and stick. These analogies must be thrown in the toilet. They are as offensive to Iran, Arabs and Muslims as the toilet itself or where Bush's legacy many feel belongs. Instead, the talk should be of mutual interests and of respect. And it appears Obama in his alarabiya interview has buried and replaced these Bush analogies with words like “Mutual respect”.

Final reflection at what is possible.

Can the Iran crisis be turned into an Obama success story? Answer: most definitely.

Can it in the first 100 days? I believe so.

If it does, whether in 100 days, longer, or ever is up to Obama's sincerity, his focus, and the priorities he lays for his team and their ability to execute them.

History will judge him based on what is possible.

If after 4 years in office the economy is still in ruin, Obama may be forgiven knowing he cannot control or influence that challenge singularly, he needs support from both houses as well. However, if US-Iranian relations are still in crisis there can be no forgiveness as all the ingredients are ready for him.

The next 30 days will show indicators if he will succeed or not or whether those who wish to obstruct and the war mongers are able in derailing him and his plans. Time and real results will answer the question: is President Obama real or is he Memorex?