The Computer Project Proposal. The goal of the project (submitted on 9-24-97) was/is to create an international classification and codification of all the statistics used in IOs, to gather knowledge on these indicators, and to develop a methodology and an Internet based computer system to transfer this statistical data from country to IOs in real time. The more general objectives as described in (1.) are:
(a)To create a simple and secure system to collect and verify, in real time, statistical data from countries to international organizations. We will use Internet and advanced technologies like JAVA, CORBA, and artificial intelligence.
(b) To help developing countries learn about the standard indicators used in international organizations to measure, among others, economic, social, and health evolution by creating a classification for these indicators and an Internet accessible knowledge base.
| Project Proposal Related Documents |
| 1. Summary Proposal 9-24-07 (PDF) |
| 2. Detailled proposal submitted to the INCO-Copernicus program on 9-24-97 (HTM) |
| 3. Evaluation of the European Experts (PDF) |
| 4. Letters from IO experts (Unesco, UNIDO, FAO, ILO Eurostat, OECD, CIS, WFP) (PDF) [l2,l3,l4] |
| 5. Letters from country experts (Romania, England, Iran, Norway, Panama, Algeria,) (PDF) [l2,l3,l4] |
| 6. Letter from Mr. Chirac (PDF-F) |
| 7. Letters from Mr. D'Alema (PDF) |
| 8. Letters from a) the World Bank, b) the French Economy Ministry (F), and c) Mr. Nanda from WHO (PDF) |
| Letters (25.) and (22.) mention other responses that are not listed here |
(d) To simplify, in the future, statistical data integration in the given subjects by creating a codification of standard indicators.
(e) To speed up statistical knowledge diffusion by developing a real-time collection methodology using Internet and artificial intelligence.
(f) To simplify the work of researchers, economists, epidemiologists, consultants, etc. by identifying, locating, and classifying all standard indicators available for their research.
An important ‘feature’ of the system is that it could be used at the national level too (including in poor countries), and therefore that we can develop computer systems that can be used by every country in the world at the same time - this gives a real hope to solve the problem of poverty rapidly because (if we developed this type of systems,) poor country could ‘upgrade’ (part of) their information systems at no cost or almost no cost which would speed up their development greatly, of course [see (12.) for detailed explanation].
The proposal presented (s) only great advantages, and the fact that it was (is) not financed despite the supports from many experts, demonstrates that there were/are serious management problems at the UN and other International Agencies, and also some 'political' obstacles. As coordinator of the project it was my responsibility to analyze these problems and eventually to come up with some solutions, and as an unemployed it was my responsibility to continue to develop my expertise (on my unemployment project), to present my solutions and to maintain the contacts with (and to offer my service to) the ‘experts’ or politicians interested by this work. These are the main reasons why I made the various political and management proposals described below.
The Political and Management Proposals. The letter of November 29 2005 (10.) presented the comprehensive set of proposals mentioned here, but I had already addressed most of the issues in my previous letters (at the exception of the Internet govrnance related issues and the proposal to create a new Internet International organization). The proposals are based on the assumptions or accepted facts that (i) to defeat poverty rapidly is good for everyone because, apart from the humanitarian reasons, 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; and that (ii) the factor ‘time’ is critical to resolve the poverty problem.
The first set of proposals that are meant to address the ‘psychological’ or ‘will’ causes of poverty, are:
(a) to add poverty reduction objectives – including behavioral changes- to the Kyoto protocol (i) to fight the fear of defeating poverty people may have because of our environment problems [see (11.) ], and (ii) to associate every country in the world to the protocol;
(b) to set up a 65-age limit for country leaders and IO Chiefs, to show more respect toward the poor and new generations [this proposal would resolve several management problems also, see arguments in (17.) and (22.) ];
(c) to ask ‘churches’ (religious groups) to start thinking about what would be their role in a word free of poverty, and to ask them to promote (the people) justice while continuing to encourage charity. It is meant to coordinate the work of religious group and to address the unethical behavior ‘churches’ experience (d) (rape of the children by priest…).
The second set of proposals that are meant to tackle the systemic causes of poverty, are:
(d) to build a fairer 'remuneration system' that is a key to build an honest and fair society by reforming the international financial system [change business laws, re-evaluate the cost of doing business in a modern and complex society, prevent 'stars' from making money with commercials because it is a form of manipulation of the public opinion..., see explanation in (10.) ];
(e) to correct the imperfection of the legal system that does not work for the poor by creating a fair legal help system, make judges more accountable…;
(f) to make administration more accountable by denying the various immunities given to civil servants, and by stressing (or promoting) responsibility instead of power (and by paying civil servants and politicians salaries that are more in relation with their important contribution to society's progress).
Finally, the third set of proposals that are meant to use the advantages of our information society more efficiently, are;
(g) to ask the various components of society (stars, executives, king and Queens, lawyers,) to speak up publicly to request politicians to change the laws that give them obvious unfair and undeserved salaries and/or privileges; (Ask kings and queens head of state to immediately step down to respect the article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights);
(h) to put the Internet 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’s administrations (like the one I am presenting you here), and therefore it will bring progress to many countries at the same time] by creating ‘one’ Internet international organization that will have the responsibility to administer, to develop, to maintain the Internet (ICANN + registries + registrar + root name server operators responsibilities), and to develop and maintain new global computer applications including a new global application to compute a fairer (domain name) fee system, which will take into account the use of the resources and the revenues generated by the use of the internet (this organization will be funded by the fees to register domain names - an estimated initial budget of about $800 millions, and growing of course) (and including the computer application I am proposing you here also). This new Internet organization will also ‘fund’ the improvement of the Internet access in poor countries (jointly with ITU).
The Intellectual Process and Motivations. I started working on the computer proposal in 1993 after I was fired by the Department of Essonne (see detail in lawsuit FR). Every unemployed in France has for responsibility to analyze his/her qualification, experience, and interest to find a way to make himself useful to society. This process usually leads to the design of a ‘project proposal’ which can in term lead to the creation of an enterprise or to facilitate contacts with the organizations (companies, administrations,) needing the kind of expertise or skills the unemployed has acquired. In my case, of course, my experience, education, interest and age [I chose a project that I could realize during my remaining ‘working years’ -from 1993 to 2020 about] plaid a great role in the choice of the project (I studied applied mathematics, computer sciences, worked for a German companies on development of international information systems,). But, at the same time [and as explained in (12.)], the threat I had received from the administration that fired me also lead me to design a project proposal that would be good for everyone and therefore could eventually protect me from this threat.
In 1992, a UN report pointed out that the UN agencies collected a lot of data (statistical and other) from member countries, but that this data was difficult to analyze because of an imperfect information systems; so I first designed a very general project proposal whose objective was to develop a system to collect, store and distribute all the statistical data collected by the different IOs and the pharmaceutical industry in the domains defined as public health variables (almost all statistics that exists are considerd public health variables). This initial proposal guided me in my initial research, but after about 4 years of research on the subject and 2 new professional experiences at Reuters and Dow Jones Telerate, I narrowed down or limited my project proposal to designing an international classification and codification of all the statistics used in IOs and to developing a methodology and an Internet based pilot computer system to transfer this statistical data from country to IOs in real time.
Some international organizations collect and store exactly the same data under different codes or even sometimes names, which can create serious problems (duplication of data, possible inconsistency between the different data bases,). My arguments was that if we use the network (Internet) as primary technology of our information systems, then we can create a common codification and classification and common system for all the UN agencies and other IOs (Eurostat, OCED,) to facilitate the transfer and integration of the statistical knowledge they gather. The 3 distinct parts of the project justified each other - the codification was/is necessary to design the system, the system was/is necessary to store the knowledge on indicators, and the knowledge on indicators was/is necessary to create the codification and to design the system as well.
The Experts Evaluations and an innovative proposal. When I designed the project, I was fairly sure that if I received one letter of support from one IO, I would probably receive one from every other organizations (IOs) as well because it meant that they were not already working on a same project 'secretly'; and it almost happened that way. After I received the letter from UNESCO, most of the other international organizations also sent me their encouragements (4.). Unfortunately, few pretended that they did not understand the objective or that they were already working on the ‘same project’ like Mr. Nanda from WHO Copenhagen (8.3), which was not possible, of course, because if they had been working on the same project, the other agencies would have known it, and they would not have accepted to participate in the project presented here (Mr. Nanda pretended that he did not understand that our project intended to classify and collect all the statistics used in all IOs including the subset he was trying to indentify and collect for WHO Copenhagen)!
In fact, the European experts who first evaluated the proposal in 1997 for the INCO-Copernicus program found that the proposal was ‘innovative’ and beneficial for IOs (3.), but at the same time they blame me the coordinator who had done and financed all the work, found the partners, and wrote the proposal (2.) for being an ‘individual’, which was very unfair! I was told that they put the project in the second place of the reserve list, mainly because of me (about 1300 projects were submitted and only 200 were selected and financed!). The cost of the project was slightly above the 250 000 EUROs limit (but some costlier projects were selected, so this was not a real issue in comparison to the many benefits of the project, moreover the overhead cost was due to my work in the project which could have easily been covered by an IO by simply offering me a job I had been looking for for years).
As you can see in (5.), the responses from country experts show also that there is no doubt that no one was already working on this same project. Mr. Dinculescu, National Statistics Institute Director from Romania, did clarify the proposal that was designed to fit the requirement of the call for proposal, and therefore had to include or refer to some specific scientific objectives. Then the other experts simply confirmed their interest for the idea, so that a group large and representative enough (countries from various part of the world responded) can serve as pilot countries [Mr. Longva, Director of Statistics Norway, was Chairman of the Conference of European Statistician (at about this time) also, a group of experts that coordinates the work of IOs in the area of statistics, so he would not have sent his encouragement if a similar project had been going on and would have been informed if it had been the case].
The Negative Comments and Difficulties.
There were few negative comments, but I don’t think they were supported by strong arguments. For example, the infoDev program of the World Bank (that I contacted to try to have the WorldBank to cover the extra cost for the project and to respond or to comment the project because they had not responded yet) thought that the project was not beneficial for poor countries and that the team (2.) was not appropriate for the type of work we described (8.1), but they ignored that the project was designed to be a cooperation project with International organizations and therefore that IO would ‘lend’ their expertise. And they ignored the various benefits mentioned above including that the knowledge base on standard indicators would be very useful for poor countries or that the system brought a real hope to resolve the problem of poverty rapidly. I don’t think that their evaluation was a good and fair evaluation given their role in the world. Of course I agree that such a system would not be implemented every where in one day or 3 years, but since the system can be used to transfer the statistics at national level, and brings a lot of hope to resolve rapidly the problem of poverty as mentioned above, they should have been more helpful.The Statistic Directors at OECD (Mr. Kincanonn, at the time of this writting 2-07, Director of the US Census Bureau), at the UN (Mr. Habermann, until recently Deputy Director of the US Census Bureau), and at the IMF (Mrs. Carson), all of whom were US citizens, never commented the proposal in writing although they were primarily concerned by it, and should have been the main supporters of the project [Mr. Kincanon told me on the phone that he thought that it was the appropriate strategy, and that the European evaluation had been harsh on me when it blamed me for not financing the project, which is not much when one knows about the OECD duties in this area]. Perhaps they felt humiliated by the fact that it was an unemployed they had refused to hire that made this proposal (instead of them who were in charge of designing the strategy to develop the international statistical information system). And for sure there were political reasons too, the US tends to prevent the realization of projects it has not initiated, and to prevent the use of the Internet to resolve our global problems, so far…!
After I received the EC negative decision, I also wrote to Mr. Chirac to ask him for his support (the ‘support’ of France), I described the unfair ground for refusing to finance the project, and I explained the context in which I had worked on the project (illegal firing, frauds in the administration,). He responded by an ‘encouraging’ letter (6.) in which he mentioned that he had forwarded the proposal to the Economy Minister for review, but the French Economy Ministry acted stupid when it gave addresses of agencies helping to finance new business, he did not offer a job offer or any anything else (8.2). The French National Statistical Institute, INSEE, never even commented the proposal although as you could see above many other national institutes did send their encouragements for the proposals! Instead of helping me, the French administration created me a lot of difficulties in my trial against the administration (although there were obvious proofs that I was a victim and that I had suffered a grave prejudice), so I started presenting the proposal to G8 country leaders and IOs Chiefs, and to address political and management issues related to the difficulties I encountered.
The Presentation to Politicians. When reading the various letters presented here, you have to keep in mind the context in which I wrote them: my lawsuits against the French administration, the very advertised frauds at the administration that fired me, the political context in France (repeated corruption scandals, high unemployment level, ‘emploi fictive’ scandal,), in the US -the war in Iraq-, and the difficult conditions I lived in (bad housing, harassment, resulting health problems,). Even if I did mention some of the problems I was having in my letters when they contributed to my general arguments, I had to try to focus on the issues of general interest, and could not go into too much detail.
The first letter to G8 Leaders and IOs Chiefs on June 23 1999 (26.) presented the proposal, described the lack of support from the French administration, and talked about the unemployment problem in France that resulted in poverty. Then on November 23 1999, the letter to 7 IO chiefs (including MM. Annan, Wolfensohn …) (25.) commented into more detail the various responses I received from (international and national) experts around the world (or politicians), it pointed out my very precarious living situation, and of course, renewed my interest for a job in an IO to be able to continue my efforts on this project in a more appropriate environment (an IO).
The April 23 2000 letter to G8 countries leaders and some IO Chiefs (24.) stressed the importance of paying attention to the ‘time factor’ and of showing that we have a strong conscience to defeat poverty (it noted our ‘poor’ result on the fight against poverty around the world) and made additional comments on our problems in France. I first introduced the idea of respecting the 65 age limit for Country Leaders and IO Chiefs in this letter, but as you will see below all of my subsequent letters talked about this age limit proposal that was/is critical to resolve our global problems and to realize the project proposal I present you (older persons are more resistant to change and are not as familiar with the new technology as younger generations...).
The June 23 2000 letter to G8 Country leaders and IO Chief (23.) denounced the lack of response (to my letters and proposals) from the World Bank and UN Chiefs and from Mr. Kincannon, the OECD Chief Statistician, it brought some technical precisions on the project, and asked MM.Wolfensohn and Annan to resign from their posts -I asked Mr. Wolfensohn to respect the 65 age limit, and for Mr. Annan, I commented the UN report conclusion on the Rwanda massacre, and reminded him of his comment on the UN being the conscience of the world! (In May 2000, the Appeal Court reversed my justice decision and made me owe the administration $20 000, this was very unfair as you can see in the next page Lawsuit FR).
The November 1 2000 letter (22.) brings additional arguments justifying the resignation request for MM. Wolfensohn and Annan, addressed the issue of the selection of the UN Secretary General, and commented on the efficiency of our democracy. The March 27 2001 letter to G8 leaders and IO chiefs was also addressed to Pope Jean Paul II (21.2), and various other personalities (21.1). It talked about the implications of some scientific discoveries (atomic bomb, Internet,), and stressed again the importance of the 65 age limit proposal for Leaders [in 6/2001, the Administration pretended it made a new error on the payment of my housing assistance to make me owe it another $2000 and to sent me in the street (at the same time the Senator President of the administration that fired me was finally sent to jail!); so on August 1 2001 I went to seek political asylum in Switzerland]. The December 23 2001 letter from Switzerland was addressed also to all country leaders (20.1). It described my difficulties in the asylum process in Switzerland and again extensively discussed the importance and the benefits of the 65 age limit proposal -including to maintain peace around the world. In February 2002, I sought political asylum in Belgium, but my application was denied at the end of March 2002 with an illegal decision (non conformed with the European Convention of Human right, see ‘arret Conka’ sentencing Belgium). I wrote to 4 deputes and to the French Press and Media to forward my previous letters, but only Mr. Bayrou, candidate at the French presidential election answered (19.2) – I did not agree with his comments on the age limit being against the idea of democracy (19.1), but I appreciated the fact that he responded at least.
I arrived in the US on April 16 2002, applied for political asylum soon after and wrote to 8 University Presidents on May 29 2002 (18.) to ask them for their support to defend my proposals and my application for asylum in the US. In this letter I also mentioned that the 65 age limit proposal could eventually prevent a possible war with Iraq (Mr. Saddam Hussein was 65 in early 2003, and at the time no one had started talking publicly about a possible war in Iraq). The January 14 2003 letter to Mr. Bush, US Congress leaders, some personalities (MM.Turner, Gates, Schmalensee, Rehnquist, Greenspan, Mrs. Frechette, Mr. Stern,) (17.1) reminded again the importance of the 65 age limit proposal to prevent the then more than possible conflict with Iraq. It also stressed the importance of not lying in our information society and described my difficulties with the US administration (only the UN sent an inappropriate response on behalf of Mr. Annan(17.2), and the war started because of a lie on the weapons of mass destruction!).
The April 7 2003 letter addressed to the UNGA and UN Security Council (16.) denounced the silence of Mr. Annan on the 65 age limit. It discussed the issues behind the Iraq conflict, and reviewed Mr. Annan’s work in various area including the management reform, Africa... The November 10 2003 letter to the US Congress,, (15.) discussed some US problems (failure of political parties and universities to prepare young political leaders, unfair remuneration system,). The unfair remuneration system is an issue that is related to the 65 age limit proposal because political leaders who are not paid in relation with their contribution in advanced countries at least, tend to stay in power longer to increase their life long earnings. As you could see above and will see in my more recent letters, this is a critical issue – a recent study from the World Bank pointed out that growth was not enough to resolve the poverty problem - to redistribute the wealth fairly is also critical! I forwarded this letter to the European Parliament soon after (14.1). In early 2004 I also wrote to the Globe and Mail that had published an article on the mandatory retirement issue (14.2).
The August 23 2004 letter (13.) responded to Mr. Santorum’s response to my letter of July 14 2004 concerning my lawsuit against the US (I had asked politicians to end this ridiculous problem of my immigration status and to settle the lawsuit). It was also addressed to the US congress, the GA, IO Chiefs, and the Nobel committees, and explained the link between the 65 age limit proposal for country Leaders and IO Chiefs and the unfair remuneration system that limit civil servants salaries while there is almost no limit to executives’ salaries or stars’ salaries. The December 10 2004 letter to the US congress and government, the UNGA, EU parliament … described in detail my motivation, and experience to make my computer project proposal. It also mentioned the hope the computer proposal gives to defeat poverty rapidly, and addressed some US political issues related to my asylum application and difficulties (12.).
The May 4 2005 letter to the US Congress, Government, the UNGA, politicians around the world (11.) proposed to add poverty reduction related objectives (behavioral changes,) to the Kyoto protocol to fight the fear of defeating poverty (people may have due to the environment problems) and to associate every country in the world to the protocol. [It also asked King and Queens to step down to respect the article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fundamental principle of democracy]. It also described the various justice decisions on my case that ignored some basic legal authorities including on the immunity for misrepresentation of public entity (GC822.2 and 28 USC 2679).
The November 29 2005 letter to the UNGA, politicians and to personalities around the world (10.) presented some general remarks on our international problems (poverty, environment,) and proposed a plan of action (or ‘platform’) to tackle our most pressing international issues. It also discussed the conclusion of the WGIG and proposed to create a new Internet international organization to resolve the Internet problems (including develop a fair registration fee system) and to develop new global computer applications that could be used by every country in the world like the one I presented you. Finally, it described the petitions I filed at the US Supreme Court [to have the Court deny the immunity for misrepresentation (for lying) to civil servants] and at the European Court [to denounce among others the unfair legal aid system in France].
I wrote this page in 2007 and updated it in 2009, with the 6-14-06 letter to the UNGA (9.) that expressed formally my interest for the post of UN Secretary-General. This letter discussed some issues related to the UNSG selection process, came back on my platform to tackle our global problems – presented a timeline for the proposals, and commented the UNA-USA report on the UNSG selection process. It also proposed to reevaluate the Millennium development goal on extreme poverty. I also added the letters and pleadings pointed out with a ** , these letters are linked to more recent documents on my legal cases that are not presented in the following page. If you went that far you had quite a lot to read already, and have some thinking to do on the various proposals, and the next pages will give you more details about my various legal cases, up until 2008 about.
