Friend, attila@primenet.com did the list a service when he sent his message, "WTO an even worse possibility as Inet regulator." Basing the message "on an article from the (London) Finan- cial Times," he states that a very credible white paper is circulating for the WTO to establish an internet CZAR to regualate the Internet... and he asks: personally, the Feds and the FCC are bad enough --now they want to have a **global** bureaucracy play god -??? That 11 29 95 Financial Times newsstory is headlined: Global regulator urged for information highway Who's doing the urging? The Royal Institute of International Telecommunications Policy put out a report written by a Shell man and a think- tank woman. As regards encryption, the RIITP people ...point out that issues such as...encryption...have global rather than national aspects. Then they contradict themselves: "Encryption, for example, raises tricky and emotive issues connected with...national security and cannot be treated simply as a business problem." Whatever works! They "encrypt" the ultimatums of the New World disorder in any...key. At the very end of the newsstory: Global Superhighways, Chatham House, 10 St James Square, London SW1Y 4LE I'm guessing Global Superhighways is the title of the RIITP report. As for Chatham House... In 1919 [a group of young men who became the dominant influence in British imperial and foreign affairs up to 1939] founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor family (owners of The [London] Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations). --Carroll Quigley [Clinton's mentor]. Tragedy and Hope. A History of the World in Our Time. Macmillan, 1966. P 132. RIITP is probably a front for RIIA. I conjecture, though, that the real publisher of the report has his house in Washington. I agree with jamesd@echeque.com who writes: The main threat to freedom is still internal, rather than external. Looked at from the inside, of course. Cordially, Jim