423 E. 7th Street, # 528
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Ph. (213) 622-1508
US Senators, Representatives, Politicians and Government
Countries Parliaments, Governments and Leaders
United Nations General Assembly, EU Parliament, I.O. Chiefs
Kings and Queens, MM Gates, Turner, Buffet, Dell, Arnault, Kodorkovski…
Intellectuals, Universities…, Press and Media
ICANN (Vint Cerf,), GAC of ICANN, WGIG, Yahoo, AOL, Google, Verisign…
Los Angeles, November 29, 2005
Object: Previous letters (concerning the 65-age limit for country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs, the computer project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the world wide level, and related remarks), immunity for misrepresentation and War in Iraq, Petition at the Supreme Court (docket no 05-7408), causes of poverty, solutions and strategy to defeat poverty, WGIG report on Internet Governance.
Dear Madam, Dear Sir,
Referring to my previous letters concerning my two proposals, various lawsuits against the US and French administrations, and related remarks, I take the liberty of writing you again to make few additional comments on the different subjects I ‘discussed’ and also to present you a recent petition I filed at the US Supreme Court.
Government Immunity for misrepresentation, Petition at the Supreme Court, war in Iraq investigation, complaint at the ECHR.
In my previous letter of May 4 2005, I mentioned briefly the difficulties I had with the US justice (including a US attorney, and a Federal judge who ignored my refugee documents and asked for and granted the immunity for misrepresentation to the Federal Government and the LA County), so I would like now to discuss into more detail this particular issue (of immunity for misrepresentation) and explain why it concerns everyone (on earth) and why it is critical to bring it to the public attention. The US laws [state statute (GC 818.8 for California) and federal statute (28 USC 2680 h)] stipulates that administrations are immune for their civil servants (intentional or negligent) misrepresentations. This (would) mean that if a civil servant lies to rob ‘you’ some government benefits, to physically hurt you or to make you lose money in your business, you cannot sue the government (administration) to obtain a compensation for the lies that created your damages or injuries.
These laws on the immunity for misrepresentation are quite ‘old’, so, of course, they have been questioned on several occasions by victims of civil servants lies. As part of my lawsuit I was forced to research the different cases (state and federal) that address this issue, and it appears clearly that the courts - whose responsibility is to interpret the law- have decided that this immunity for misrepresentation should not hold for misrepresentations made in the context of the delivery of social services, or involving a risk of physical harm, or finally when the civil servants are guilty of corruption and malice such as a conscious intent to vex, annoy or harm injured the victim in his/her ‘business’ (see att. 1) [and should hold when the misrepresentations interfere with the financial or commercial interest of the victim]. Unfortunately this point of view is far from being accepted by the various US administrations - the LA County and US effort to obtain the immunity in my case certainly confirms this.
The CIA analysts dishonest representations of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that mainly caused the war [some influential US politicians have mentioned that they would not have supported the war in Iraq if they had known that there was no WMD in Iraq, and, of course, Mr. Powel’s speech at the UN – which certainly convinced some countries and people of the existence of these Iraqi WMD- was mostly based on these lies], or the silence on 65-age limit for leaders proposal (or ‘large scale lying to people of the world’) that prevented the international community from finding a peaceful solution to the crisis shows that the consequences of administrations (or politicians or the press and media,) lies or misrepresentations can be very serious. It is therefore critical to discourage everyone from lying in the professional context, and particularly civil servants by denying the immunity for misrepresentation to administrations.
Since the US investigation on the CIA lies has confirmed obvious wrongdoings, other investigations have pointed out some responsible individuals [in Italy an investigation has determined that a former Italian spy (paid by the French secret service) was responsible for forging one of the documents used by the US to affirm that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction], and the oil for Food program investigation has exposed grave frauds that may have indirectly caused the war, it would be wise to have an international investigation on what caused the war –including an analysis of decision processes and UN Secretariat’s responsibilities - to identify and propose specific steps that could help prevent future war like denying immunity to civil servants for lying or penalizing the withholding of solutions to crisis [as a parenthesis, if the international community makes an international investigation on the death of Mr. Hariri (1 person), it can surely try to find out who (or what) is responsible for the death of 100 000 of innocent Iraqis].
[As a parenthesis also, some of you may find disturbing that this Iraq war took place when it became obvious that the UN (under the ‘eye’ of its ‘influential member countries’) committed frauds in the oil for food program, like the war in Kosovo took place when it became obvious the European Commission was ‘corrupt’ (or at least negligent under the ‘eye’ of its ‘influential members’)! It should not become a habit to start a war every time there is (or to cover) a big corruption scandal in an important international organization!] Before an international investigation eventually concludes that countries should take steps to discourage civil servants from lying, my petition at the Supreme Court gives an opportunity to address this issue of immunity for misrepresentation, and gives ‘you’ the opportunity to express your point of view [through a amicus curiae brief, see Supreme Court Rule 37) to encourage the Supreme Court and/or US politicians to modify the law for everyone’s benefit.
This is the second time (in a short period) that I am faced with the problem of addressing in court an issue that is important for everyone, and unfortunately the first time the court (ECHR) refused to rule on the issue. In 2001, I filed a complaint against France at the European Court of Human Rights to, among other reasons, denounce the unfair French legal aid system [and the obligation to have a lawyer in front of the administrative Supreme Court (Conseil d’Etat) and appeal courts] that is not conformed with the European Convention of Human Right in the sense that it violates poor right to a fair trial -in particular the principle of ‘equality of weapons’ [poor are forced to use the legal help system (in cases against administrations) while administrations have unlimited resources to pay lawyers; given that lawyers of the legal aid system are paid about 30 dollars an hour (if paid) and the administration can pay its lawyer $200 an hour or more, there is necessarily a bias which is increased by the natural tendency of judges to cover their ‘colleagues’ wrongdoings].
Unfair legal aid system, US social services, accountability, causes of poverty.
My complaint was unfairly denied without explanation (I can not give the detail of what happened here) although it is obvious that the legal aid system in France (and many other countries) is not conformed with the European HR Convention. Unfortunately, the probability that someone criticizes it successfully through the court system is very (very) small because first, one must be victim of a system or legislation to criticize it at the EHCR, meaning in this case one must be a poor [a lawyer’s petition at the EHCR was already denied because the court thought that a lawyer - who accepted the legal aid system when he took his oath- could not be considered a victim]; and second, a victim has to criticize the unfair system in front of the national court system first [in this particular case it means that one must first refuse to use the system and denounce it at the national level, and therefore take the risk of loosing his/her case just on this ground - the lack of lawyer in front of the administrative appeal and supreme court results in a dismissal of case- like it happened in my case)].
So when the EHCR dismissed my case without addressing this particular issue, it did not just hurt me, it hurt all the poor in European countries (and even around the world) because the system will most probably not be denounced for many more years! And we can see that the supposedly self improving legal system does not work properly for the poor because first the unfair legal aid system limits the number of cases that could be judged in favor of the poor, and second courts tend to dismiss poor cases for no valid reason. This, of course, leads to a worsening situation of the poor while rich – who can present their cases to courts more easily- have more and more laws (or legal cases) that protect them. Politicians are aware of this, but don’t do enough to correct it. And lawyers -who perfectly know that the legal aid system is completely unfair and not conformed with HR conventions- obviously don’t care at all about the idea of justice, and make no effort to improve the system to continue to ask $200 to $500 an hour or more.
In the US, the legal aid system is even worse than in France since the legal aid is made (for civil cases) mostly by non-profit organizations or lawyers that can deny the aid to anyone without any justification (it is not considered discrimination to deny a case). In my case for example, I contacted many lawyers or legal aid organizations (ACLU, CCR, Public Counsel,) or even non-profit organizations like HRW, Amnesty, but they never accepted to help me (and most of the times did not even respond to me) even though the issues of my case are obviously important for everyone. Since the non-profit organizations giving the legal aid are financed by individual donations, they are mostly dependant on the rich and will not defend in court positions that would not be in the best interest of the rich that financed them (like denouncing the legal aid system)! This is of course another reason why the system does not improve itself for the poor or why many issues concerning the poor are not discussed publicly.
In the US again, a lot, if not most, of social aids is given through ‘non-profit organizations’ that have no obligation toward the poor and are not liable for their act toward the poor, or are not accountable. The homeless shelters, mostly run by faith based or non-profit organizations, is an example of this, they can impose outrageous rules on the homeless without being responsible or liable for their acts or policies! The government uses these non-profit organizations to escape its responsibility toward the poor and to discriminate them more easily, and of course it results in a large number of people living in extremely difficult condition (in the US about 2 millions become homeless every year, 35 millions live under the poverty level and about 45 millions do not have health care coverage) although we are in the richest country in the world! Unfortunately, this system is fully supported and even used by religious groups to ‘promote’ their faith (political ideas) and to promote charity – which is exactly the opposite of justice.
At the same time, the US law is filed with immunities for administrations and civil servants (like 11th amendment, immunity for violation of civil right given to the US, and to many civil servants,) that render the government not liable for the wrongdoings of its employees and/or make it very difficult to sue administrations to be compensated [recently, Mr. Cheney even asked some Senators behind close door to give the immunity for torture to the CIA!] Since the word ‘Accountability’ has been used often recently, in the context of the assassination of Mr. Hariri or the Oil for food program fraud, it is important to note that, in the US (and unfortunately in many other countries also), everything is done (by law or systems of law, administrations’ operations) to make sure that ‘non-profit organizations’, administrations or civil servants -who are dealing with (or helping) the poor- are not ‘accountable’ for their acts, and to make sure that the poor are denied justice in every possible way -which is of course a important cause of poverty.
The unfair ‘remuneration’ system I discussed in my previous letters is also an important cause of poverty. How we reward or punish people determines the relative contribution of everyone in society’s progress, defines the political systems we promote or embrace, and has a great impact on corruption. If executives can receive salaries of $200 millions a year, Marta Stewart can become a billionaire during a 5 months stay in Jail (+ about $500 millions for going to jail!), a 16 years old girl can make $10 millions for playing golf, the football coach of the University of Colorado can make $1 million a year, while the chief justice or ‘senators’ make about $200 000 a year (or a soldier ‘risks’ his life for $70 000), then the ‘rewards’ are not given based on everyone contribution to society’s progress, relative talent or integrity. The salaries are simply the result of the ‘will’ of a tiny group of people (rich mostly) who decide who is and who is not going to become rich based on their personal objectives and interest (like manipulation and underserved profits).
Unfair salaries, democracy, a ‘world of beggars’, corruption, causes of poverty.
Some try to link these unfair salaries to the ‘will’ of the market (offer and demand), but not only the market is completely manipulated, but it is also not representative of the ‘will’ of the people. Even if the market is, of course, an important indicator, it should remain an indicator instead of being a substitute to the best interest of the people, and in democracy it should be the ‘people’ who decide in what proportion or for what reasons one get rich or not, not the market (or not just the rich people) [unfortunately, the ‘people’ are never asked if they want that a 16 years old girl golf player make $10 millions while the senator and chief justice salaries are limited to $200 000 a year]. And establishing limits for civil servants salaries while at the same time there is no limit (or almost no limit) for the stars or executives salaries, is not ‘democracy’; it is not either ‘freedom’ (freedom of one stops where the freedom of the other starts), but a dictatorship from a tiny few.
The completely disproportionate salaries [and the related organization of society that forces ‘non–profit organizations’, universities and even politicians to depend on what they call ‘fund raising’ - and is nothing other than ‘begging’- to simply continue their ‘activities’] not only makes the entire society dependant on the ‘will’ of a tiny group of people, the rich, but also creates a society of ‘beggars’ where people lose their dignity [to determine politicians capacity to understand society’s problems and to propose solutions from their capacity to raise fund is absurd, and of course a ‘source’ of corruption]. Unfortunately, from what I understand, the UN now requires its high level managers to have experience (or talent) in ‘fund raising’ (in begging) to be considered for a position - which means that the UN fully supports this outrageous system and contribute to create a ‘world of beggars’ instead of creating and promoting a fair society where people respect each other work, talent, and integrity, and where everyone’s relative contribution to society’s progress is rewarded fairly.
Finally, the unfair salaries are also one of the main causes of corruption. When ‘you’ pay several hundred millions dollars an executive managing a 100 000 employees company, while ‘you’ limit to about $200 000 the salary of an administration chief managing the same number of employees, it is not surprising that civil servants feel they are not paid according to their responsibility and contribution to society’s progress, and that some try to use their ‘power’ (to be dishonest and stupid) to increase their revenue with corruption, even if it does not excuse it. [You will also note that the immunity for lying given to administration make the simple act of telling the truth (for a civil servant or politician) a cause for ‘compensation’, and therefore facilitate corruption]. Since corruption is one of the key poverty issues, the unfair remuneration system is, of course, another important cause of poverty.
In my last letter of May 4 2005, I gave you arguments explaining why so little was done to defeat poverty although it is in our best interest to do it rapidly, or discussed the lack of ‘will’ to defeat poverty due to, among other reasons, our environment problems – this reason is in some way a ‘psychological’ or ‘will’ cause of poverty. Today I wrote more about the systemic causes of poverty (a justice system that does not improve itself on issues that concern the poor, the lack of accountability of administrations or non–profit organizations that deal with poor, the various immunity for administrations, the unfair remuneration system,), or how this lack of ‘will’ to defeat poverty results in ‘ill designed’ policies and inappropriate behaviors that hurt the poor. Things are done, but in such a way that ‘we’ know will not lead to any significant improvement of the poor situation and of our society.
You may now see more clearly why the fundamental causes of poverty – whether there are the ‘psychological’ or ‘will’ reasons or systemic reasons - are in rich countries (and not in poor countries). The impact of these problems is simply tenfold in poor countries, and leads to the outrageous poverty statistic (about 3 billion people living under $2/day, etc). Poor countries cannot reform the international financial system to create a fair remuneration system, they cannot do research to find a honest legal aid system, they cannot prevent rich countries pollution or change the Internet Governance, only rich countries can do it, and it is critical to do it to defeat poverty. Since one of the advantages of our new information society is (or should be) that everybody is informed on the community’s problems, the obvious system’s imperfections should be resolved fast -in fact demonstrating our capacity to resolve these problems rapidly would be a better promotion for democracy than bombing a country (fortunately some countries remain to be convinced).
The fundamental causes of poverty are obvious: 1) The disrespect for the poor and for the new generations [symbolized by the silence on the 65 age limit for country leaders and IO Chiefs proposal; by the riots of the youth in poor suburbs of France -a country whose President is 72, 2nd political figure, President of the Senate, is 78, and no 5, Chief Justice, is 76; and by the rapes of the children by the priests of a church lead by old men who have lost their dignity and courage]; 2) Our environment problems (increasing greenhouse gas emission, global warming,) which create a fear to defeat poverty (fear to pollute more if ‘we’ give cars… to the poor); 3) The unfair ‘remuneration’ system (reward and punishment system) that points out the imperfections of ‘our democracy’; 4) The legal system that does not work properly for the poor (unfair legal aid system, promotion of charity instead of justice,); 5) The lack of accountability of administrations, and their tendency to show their power (to be stupid and dishonest) instead of assuming their responsibility to improve people’s life; 6) The Internet that is not used to resolve our global problems (poverty,). So we should see the various ‘components’ of society concerned pointing out these obvious imperfections and asking politicians to look for and to propose appropriate solutions.
Information society implications, solutions to defeat poverty, WGIG report on the Internet governance, the Internet Application.
For example, older than 65 leaders should come forward and explain the necessity to show more respect for the new generations that will inherit the earth we will leave them and for the poor that live 50 or even 45 on the average in some countries. The (sport, movie, pop,) stars, and highly paid executives should not only admit that the remuneration system is unfair, but they should also ask publicly politicians to find a fairer system [instead of going from campus to campus to tell students they must study math, Mr. Bill Gates should go around the world to explain that it is completely unfair that he can accumulate about 50 billions (2 billions a year since 1980) in going to work from 9 to 5 (or even 8 to 7) while the US President who has very important responsibilities only makes about $400 000 a year, and that we must reform the financial system and develop new business laws to change this; Mr. Gates’ life would not change very much if he only had 1 billion dollars and the control of Microsoft. He would not have to sell his house to feed his wife and kids! The only difference would be that he would not be running a 25 billions dollars foundation that does not make him a better person than Mr. Ellison who prefers to buy houses in Malibu (anyway)].
Mr. Kodorskovski – who says he is ‘innocent’ [and who would probably give 14 of his former 15 billions dollars to a judge that would prevent him from staying several years in jail]- should admit that the system that made him earn 15 billions dollars, about 1 billion a year (to work from 9 to 5 or even 7 to 9), while the president of his country or judges make probably less than $400 000 a year is not fair and should be reformed urgently, that the role of administrations is important in society, and that it is important to have honest and competent judges. Similarly, kings and Queens should explain the incompatibility between keeping them as head of states and democracy and human rights convention, and ask politicians to change the laws giving them unfair privileges. Finally, lawyers and judges should also ask politicians to find a fairer legal aid system that would bring more justice to the poor. We should not have to argue for years on these necessities.
Designing a better and fairer remuneration system or a fairer legal aid system may be a more difficult task than changing a constitution to ‘abolish royalty’, but if ‘we’ don’t look for better systems, our chances of finding them are very low even though these problems are not unsolvable. A new ‘business model’ that would dissociate the wealth of an entrepreneur from the control he has over the enterprise he has created, and where the entrepreneur remuneration would be based on the salary he receive from the company rather than from the variation of the value and number of his shares are certainly direction that should be investigated [this would require new laws or rules determining how companies are controlled, of course]. Sport, movies,, stars should not be able to receive revenues for doing commercials because the purpose is to manipulate the public opinion (not to promote honestly the product’s qualities or the firm that produces it)! And we should limit the possibility of the press and media to make profit with the private life of ‘stars’.
Finally, politicians should stress the importance of administrations in our modern and complex society, make them more accountable for their act (by, among others, denying the various immunities they generally have), and of course make sure they have the necessary resources to carry on their missions without having to beg (this requires to re-evaluate the cost of doing business in an honest society, of course) [and they should not accept to be humiliated with salaries not in relation with their important contribution to society’s progress]. The ‘churches’ must start thinking about what would be its role in a world free of poverty (it will certainly not be to run homeless shelters and to humiliate the homeless by forcing them to read the bible or to say a prier at night!); they must also promote more justice (human justice, not god justice) while continuing to encourage charity. And, of course, international organizations that have a critical role – a very intellectual role in our modern society- must identify the important issues to society’s progress, design plans of action to resolve our global problems, and raise the public awareness on these issues and solutions.
This leads me to talk about the Internet that should have a central role in our strategy to defeat poverty (and to resolve other global problems), and to make some comments on ‘the report of the working group on Internet governance’ (WGIG) because the report is not complete and not honest. The WGIG had been asked ‘to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005’. If it obviously did investigate a little, the ‘investigation’ was not complete since it omitted to discuss the proposals I presented you – project proposal to improve the transfer of statistical data and proposal to develop computer systems that can be used by all countries administrations - and it omitted to discuss the important Internet financial issues. It also failed to give a concrete action plan to resolve the problems it listed. An honest and complete report would have addressed all the important issues of the Internet Governance and would have made only one proposal supported with strong arguments and cost estimations justifying the necessary new institutional needs.
The ‘Internet’ (DNS,) is (first) ‘one’ computer application that is administered and maintained by several different organizations having different interests or objectives, and this is the main ‘Internet’ problem because it limits (1) the possibilities to improve this ‘one’ computer application (internet stability, security and cybercrime, spam,), (2) the possibilities to develop or improve the access to this application in poor countries, (3) the possibilities to develop the appropriate policies (IPR, Freedom of Expression, data protection and privacy rights, ) and finally (4) the possibilities to develop additional Internet based global applications that can be used by every country administration like the one I presented you and described in my 97 INCO proposal. If the WGIG report does mention the lack of coordinated approach and accountability (in no 15, 17, 18, 80) or the barriers to the multi-stakeholders participation in governance mechanism (in no 19,), or the interconnection costs and capacity-building problems (no 16, 20,), it fails to give possible solutions –action plan - (with supporting arguments and cost estimates) to tackle these problems (no 35 to 85 simply put the responsibility to design a plan of action on others).
There are about 76 millions registered Internet sites (according to ICANN) and the basic registration cost is about $6 per site / year (some registrars may charge up to $30 according to an OECD report dated May 2004,). This means that the overall Internet ‘administration’ revenues (recording the domain name and related information, running the servers,) are about $450 millions (minimum). But registries and registrars do not and cannot (because of their status and objectives) make any difference between the sites generating a lot of Internet traffic and revenues like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo,, and the sites generating very little Internet traffic and revenues like the local associations that give information about the weekend kids soccer games; or make a difference between the sites that are ‘live’, or simply used to protect a domain name for example, although it is clear that these different types of ‘sites’ use the Internet resources differently and benefit from the Internet differently, and therefore should be ‘taxed’ differently (or subject to different registration fees).
Internet governance problems, solutions and plan of action, Internet Organization.
This is a problem for everyone: (1) for small associations that pays like big Internet companies generating more traffic and revenues, and (2) for Big Internet companies because the Internet is limited in term of capacity-building and therefore in term of internet users [1 billion users is good, but 5 billions would be better for large internet companies, it could be the solution to Mr. Parsons’ problem of constant decrease in paid subscriptions at AOL for example!]; it is also a problem for (4)countries, (5) citizens and (6) internet users because (a) the Internet is not administered as efficiently as it could [no coordinated approach to tackle the Internet problems, Cybercrime, Spam,, ] and (b) it is not used to its full potential - to address our global problems [fight against poverty,, with the type of applications I proposed you to develop]. The actual structure has only 2 ‘short sighted advantages’, first the ‘benefits’ of the Internet remain in the US (Google, Yahoo, etc., are not taxed for the international development of the Internet although they benefits from the International exposure given by the network, and the main registry is a US company, Verisign), and second, the US Government is not directly responsible for the situation since several different organizations administer the Internet.
The solution to the Internet Governance problems is clear, it is to give to only one organization (1) the responsibility to administer and maintain the ‘one’ Internet application [ICANN (and associated technical entities) responsibilities + registries (including country registries) and registrars domain name registration and servers maintenance responsibilities + other root server operators responsibilities,], (2) the responsibility to develop new Internet based global applications like the one I presented you and to develop an Internet strategy to tackle our global problems, (3) the responsibility to develop the policies and technical solutions to tackle the various internet problems (stability, spam,), and to establish a fair registration fee for all domain name holders (taking into consideration the use of Internet resources, the revenues generated by this use, and the type of sites), (4) the responsibility to fund partly the improvement of the access to Internet in poor countries (possibly jointly with ITU). This organization would have for budget the domain name registration fees, an estimated $800 millions budget (and growing).
Giving the domain name registration responsibility and revenues to only one organization (1) would help to solve the Internet stability, security, cybercrime, spam, problems because it would simplify the development of a coordinated approach to these problems, (2) would make it easier to address other issues like IPR, consumer rights, multilingualism, data protection and privacy rights by allocating resources (set up professional teams) to analyze and propose solutions on these issues, and finally, (3) would make it possible to design and develop a more appropriate Internet strategy to tackle our global problems (poverty,). The Internet stability, security, cybercrime, spam, problems are technical, policy and resources problems that registrars, registries, and ICANN cannot resolve with the actual structure. ICANN has now ‘many 100s of agreements with registries and registrars around the world’ (see ICANN comment on WGIG report pages 12) and a $23 million budget about, while a unique administration would have only few different ‘general’ agreements with the different types of domain name holders (this would simplify the policies development); and it would have a significant budget to have teams of engineers developing tools to monitor (and monitoring) the ‘network activity’ and the sites activities ...
Moreover, it is obvious that it is not in the best interest of registries and registrars to be picky on the type of information and ‘commitment’ they require from the domain name holders, and to verify the content of sites and the accuracy of the information provided. On the other hand an International Internet administration -that is not limited by the profit objectives and that can coordinate its effort with other administrations- can require more precise information from the domain name holders, set up procedures to verify this information and the content of sites (based on complaint or in a random manner), and eventually take steps to immediately disconnect the sites that violate the contract agreements (for example sites that display child pornography should be immediately disconnected from the network and the evidences should be transferred to the local prosecution authorities. Finally, the development and maintenance of Internet based global applications that could be used by every administration is a complex and costly task requiring a dedicated organization.
ICANN knows about the shortcomings of its multi-stakeholder model (it even wrote it its comment on the WGIG report dated August 2005 page 15), but it demonstrates an obvious bad faith in stating that despite ‘its imperfections’, the ‘multi-stakeholder’ model should continue (if there are imperfections, ICANN should state them and act to correct them because they affect billions of people)! The US decision to reject the WGIG findings and ‘solutions’ is not surprising because the UN Secretariat did not present a concrete plan of action, and it omitted to discuss the cost issues and the possibility to develop other applications that could be used by every administration in the world. Who governs the Internet, is, now, not as important as what we want to do with the Internet and how we want to resolve the actual problems. Once we know what we want to do with the Internet and how we want to resolve the actual problems; then the choice of the appropriate structure or institution become obvious (as seen above).
Who governs the Internet now should not stop the creation of a unique organization [in fact the MOU between ICANN and the US stated, I believe, that ICANN should gain control of the root name servers, so it is not unconceivable that ICANN or a new Internet Organization gain control of the various servers used in the domain name registration process, instead of just the root name servers (we can probably find some appropriate compensation or indemnification for Verisign and the other organizations involved in this process). And like for the retribution of Hong Kong to China, we could imagine setting a date for the US to hand over the control of this new Internet Organization to the International Community (2099 or 2009 which ever comes first). I voluntarily did not talk about the ISPs, particularly the ones running the Internet backbones, although their work is critical of course (the internet application needs a reliable network to work properly) because the importance of their work is already stressed by the existence of ITU (an international organization dedicated to their ‘specialty’) and because I believe it is critical that the International Community understand, recognize and stress the role computer applications can play in the resolution of our global problems by dedicating an International Organization to this specialty.
It is not an exaggeration to say that computer applications have significantly improve corporations, businesses and even administrations operations and efficiency, and Internet based global computer applications can help us create a better world. [Choosing Mr. Nitin Desai, a 64 years old economist, as Chairman of the WGIG, to analyze computer applications related issues was another management mistake of Mr. Annan –which makes quite a few now. Very little progresses are made during international summits (New York 2005, Tunis 2005,) because Mr. Annan and his team do not do a professional job (to say the least). 3 G8 Leaders and many international organization experts (or managers) responded (even sent encouragements) to my letters presenting my computer project proposal, but neither Mr. Annan nor his management team responded to me, so of course when they are asked to prepare a plan of action for the Internet governance, they cannot present a strategy proposal or a computer project proposal they have constantly ignored, and again it is the people of the world that suffer the consequences of their incompetence (and me of course as you know and will see below, although I have done an important work for everyone).]
Lawsuits, behavior of the press and media, intellectuals, and politicians.
In this last section, I would like to mention again the unfair and undeserved problems administrations create me. Apart from the petition I submitted to the Supreme Court, I filed 2 new lawsuits against the US, Los Angeles County, the State of California and some of their civil servants. The first one, at the State Court, against the State of California is the complaint for misrepresentation to which the State of California had refused to respond to at the Federal Court! And the second one is a new complaint for civil rights violations, conspiracy, and negligence against the US, the LA County and various civil servants in their individual capacities (att. 2). As you will see, I have made many efforts to describe the wrongdoings in legal terms and to make precise references to criminal and civil laws. It appears fairly clearly that the wrongdoings were very serious (even criminal wrongdoings), and of course that the damage I suffered is very important. Sadly the responses of the defendants or prosecuting agencies (FBI, US attorney,) are not appropriate. 4 different courts are now studying my complaints since they are pending at the LA Superior Court, the Federal Court, the 9th Circ Appeal court, and the US Supreme Court.
They have been (or are) in front of 16 judges (including the 8 most senior judges in the country) and quite a few clerks [without counting the outside law firms, the US attorney, the State Attorney, the magistrate judges who granted the IFP, or the 11 (9 circ.) judges who studied my petition for rehearing] simply because (1) the Federal Government refused to be judged at the State Court, (2) the State of California refused to be judged at the Federal Court, (3) the 3 administrations used questionable immunities to refuse to discuss the issues of the case (and refused to use the ADR, alternative dispute resolution, designed to lower litigations’ cost!), and because (4) a federal judge let them do that and pretended that a valid refugee employment authorization is not an evidence of legal status! Recently the State of California even asked for a disqualification of the State Judge pretending that he would be prejudiced! The problem is not just what administrations do wrong, it is also what they do to cover their wrongdoings and escape their responsibility. They don’t’ hesitate to hurt an obvious victim and to spend in litigation costs an amount higher than the damages itself (in this case the litigation cost will probably be greater that the initial $1,7 million damage)!
The silence of the press and media on my lawsuits and my proposals makes it easy for administrations to harass me and to rob me, and it prevents the people from being informed on new solutions to resolve our problems. This silence is not only dishonest, but it demonstrates also an obvious bad faith because my case (and story) is unusual. First, I was fired and threatened to have problems for the rest of my life if I refused to be fired without a compensation by a very corrupt administration whose Senator-President was eventually sent to jail for his wrongdoings [even fired on the day his wife started to be paid for no work!]. These frauds were highly publicized by the press and media from 1997 to 2001, the year this Senator was finally sent to jail [because they involved also the wife of Paris Mayor and had serious political consequences], but the press and media never talked about my case although I won a first civil related lawsuit, although my case explained how some of the frauds were made possible, and although, at the same time, I presented my computer project proposal that concerns everyone (they let the administration and justice rob me and sent me in the street).
In 1997 I submit my proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the world wide level at the INCO European program, it is judged innovative and supported by many experts around the world and several high level politicians. Then in 2000, in a letter to G8 leaders and IO chiefs, I make the related proposal to limit at 65 the age of country leaders and IO Chiefs and explain why it would have a significant impact in our effort to defeat poverty and to maintain peace around the world. In April 2002, after Switzerland and Belgium deny me asylum, I arrive in the US and immediately write to 8 Presidents of large US universities to ask them for their intellectual support to defend my political asylum application and my proposals (I mention in my letter that the 65-age limit proposal could perhaps prevent a war in Iraq before the US had even started talking about it publicly). In September 2002 I am given the refugee status (or at least an evidence that I was granted the refugee status), and in November 2002 I inform the press and media of this fact which is very rare for a Frenchman, and also present them my proposals that had become more of actuality.
In January 2003, I write to US politicians and personalities (Bush, Senate House, Gates, Turner,) and to the UN and World Bank to recall them the importance of my 65 age limit proposal and the role it could play to prevent the Iraq war [and to discuss the difficulties I was having with the different administrations on my refugee status]. In this letter, I stress the importance of not lying for civil servants and in general [only the UN, in Mr. Annan’s name, sends an inappropriate response to my letter], and then the war starts based on lies on the Iraqi WMD! I eventually bring a lawsuit against 3 administrations including the US for intentional misrepresentation of facts and laws, and I am now defending in front of the Supreme Court the necessity to deny the immunity for lying to administrations – which obviously is more that appropriate and should even have been asked by the international community (or the UN) because the lies on WMD caused the death of many people in Iraq). All this is of obvious interest for the community and gives serious insight on what is really going in the world, and should be brought to the public attention! [Everyone understands what the ‘freedom of press’ is all about in the US and in Europe: Freedom to talk (several times a day) about Brad Pitt ‘holding the hand’ of Angelina Jolie in Kenya, Michael Jackson sleeping with children,, and of course about the violations of the ‘freedom of press’ in China and Chechnya; and Freedom not to talk about solutions to our global problems and the refugee proposing them being ‘beat up’ by administrations.]
The silence of intellectuals on my proposals is also very sad! Like scientists I build on the existing state of knowledge to make a difficult proposal. Like MM. Vint Cert and Berner Lee used the work of others like Gauss, the German mathematician, who did some pioneering work on conductivity in the 1800, and therefore helped developing the present day Internet network, I used the existing technologies to make an innovative and difficult proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistics, the fact that it is also indirectly a political proposal does not diminish the quality or difficulty of my work or its import. And, of course, the 65-age limit for leaders and the associated remarks - that have been proven pertinent (with the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was 65 in early 2003)-, demonstrate a good understanding of what is going on, and are proofs of a serious and significant intellectual work. Ignoring this work and rewarding me by sending me in the street or letting administrations send me in the street to make me sick to death does not show a lot of courage or integrity from the US scientific community!
Finally, the US politicians’ response is not excused by the war in Iraq or the 9/11 tragedy because my case issues concern everyone, and some of my difficulties are significant of serious problems in the US. I came in the US to ask for protection, I did not violate any law when I applied for asylum, and the political scandal I was victim in France and the two proposals I made explain easily why I was victim of persecutions even if it does not excuse it. After the INS gave me the refugee status (or at least an evidence that I was given the refugee status), I presented it to the appropriate entity and an administrative law judge, the DSS rehearing unit, and the Director of the DHS national refugee center confirmed its validity, so keeping incorrect information on the record to hurt me and harass me is extremely dishonest (6 month perhaps, but not during 3 years). It is also dishonest to ignore the refugee documents the INS gave me to win a lawsuit! The special work I made for the international community and the efforts I made to try to prevent the war in Iraq (that continues to kill US soldiers and innocent Iraqis) does not make me a dangerous criminal.
Letting your administrations ‘beat up’ a French refugee who happens to have studied in the US 5 years and came back because he was victim of a political scandal in France and has submitted 2 important proposals to the international community is not an expression of courage (separation of power doctrine or not). Being afraid of Saddam Hussein (or of what he could to ‘you’) is not an expression of courage either [he is/was not Hitler who had defeated the entire Europe, he made a 8 years war to Iran and probably did not win 1 inch of land; he did invade Koweit, but was kicked out 6 months later; and even in 1940 the US politicians were not afraid of fighting Hitler and Japan at the same time!). Finally, to accept (without saying anything) degrading salaries in comparison to highly paid executives and ‘NFL players’ shows not only a lack of courage, but also a lack of dignity! The US and the World need courageous US politicians that understand the important role they play in society, and are rewarded in relation to their important contribution to society’s progress, not politicians that let themselves humiliated by ‘a 16 years old girl golf player’!
To conclude, the results of the US investigation on the CIA lies on WMD and of the oil for food program investigation, and the silence on the 65-age limit for county leaders proposal (that could have prevented the war in Iraq) should encourage the international community to start an international investigation on the causes of (and the responsibility in) the war in Iraq, whose objective would be to propose steps to be taken to prevent similar conflicts in the future. In the mean time, it has appeared critical to discourage civil servants from lying, and therefore to make administrations liable for (intentional and negligent) misrepresentation of civil servants -my petition at the Supreme Court gives the possibility to address this issue.
To defeat poverty rapidly is good for everyone because it will lead to a steady growth in rich countries over a long period of time, and indirectly will bring more wealth and peace for everyone. But for that, we must focus more on the fundamental causes of poverty. We must address the ‘psychological’ or ‘will’ causes of poverty like (1) the fear of defeating poverty because of our environment problems (add poverty reduction objectives -behavioral changes,,- to the Kyoto protocol to fight this fear and to associate every country in the world to the protocol); (2) the lack of respect for the poor and new generations (set up a 65-age limit for country leaders and IO Chiefs,), and (3) the unethical behavior of ‘churches’ [ask ‘churches’ to think about what would be their role in a word free of poverty, and to promote (the people) justice while continuing to encourage charity].
We must tackle the systemic causes of poverty like (4) the unfair remuneration system that is a key issues to build an honest and fair society (reform the international financial system, business laws,) and the society’s organization that creates a ‘world of beggars’ (re-evaluate the cost of doing business in a modern and complex society,); (5) the imperfection of the legal system that does not work for the poor (creating a fair legal help system,); (6) the lack of accountability of administration (deny the various immunities, stress responsibility instead of power,). We must use the advantages of our information society more efficiently; (7) the various components of society (stars, executives, king and Queens, lawyers,) must speak up publicly and ask politicians to change the laws that give them unfair and undeserved salaries and/or privileges.
Finally, (8) The Internet should be at the center of our strategy to defeat poverty (and to resolve other global problems) because it will allow us to develop ‘global’ computer applications that can be used by every country administration, and therefore to bring progress to many countries at the same time. To develop this new Internet strategy and to resolve the actual Internet problems, we must create ‘one’ Internet organization that will have the responsibility to administer and maintain the Internet (ICANN + registries + registrar + root name server operators responsibilities), and that will be funded by the fees to register domain names ($800 millions). This new Internet organization will also ‘fund’ the improvement of the Internet access in poor countries (jointly with ITU).
These 8 points summarize the different remarks I made in my different letters and underline a comprehensive strategy to defeat poverty. I can help the International Community implementing this strategy to defeat poverty (and bring peace) forever, and must offer you again my service. I look forward to hearing from you and remain
Attachments. Att. 1: Petition to the Supreme Court (12 pages). Att. 2: New complaint against the US, the LA County and various civil servant in their individual capacities (17 pages).
PS: Please forward this letter to your colleagues, parliament members, UN missions, and don’t hesitate to contact me if you need additional documents (previous letters,) or did not receive these ones properly.