Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 173
Netizens-Digest Friday, September 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 173
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] DNS: A voice from Africa
[netz] Re: [ifwp] NEW SPONSOR: DNS Forum - Users Conference
[netz] Re: [ifwp] DNS USER FORUM INCLUDES A CALL TO ACTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] DNS: A voice from Africa
I thought readers of the Netizens mailing list would find valuable this
message from Africa which I saw by way of the Universal Access - Canada
mailing list.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA>
Subject: Re: CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA
(fwd)
To: UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:25:47 +0200
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@LINUX.LISSE.NA>
Reply-To: el@lisse.na
To: AFRIK-IT@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Subject: Re: CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA
Hi,
I find the below statement of Niall O'Reilly on behalf of CENTR
entirely reasonable, and on behalf of the NA domain support it.
However I would like to point out that for the U.S. government to
privatize essential functions of the Internet in such a rush job
without prior consultation of the stake holders is quite incredible,
and then to encourage the two government contractors who have most to
gain to make up the proposal on how to do it, strikes me as an
unprecedented attempt at railroading the many smaller interested
parties. Parties which have created the Internet and brought it to
where it is today. Examples of the attempts at railroading can be read
in many reports from the recent meetings in Reston, Geneva and
Singapore.
I always thought that Democatization, Due Process, Avoidance of
Conflict of Interest and other democractic principle were fundamental
to the US government, at least that is what developing countries are
being told by the US aid agencies when it comes to funding requests.
But then I may be naive. However I am quite sure many lawyers will
make a lot of money of this.
I strongly urge to reconsider the deadline and move it back to at
least to the end of the year if not the middle of next year so the
privatization process (which I support in principle) can be done
right.
I urge (African) Domain Managers to come out strongly in support of my
above stated position(s) on this issue.
In message <3607DFB8.BB8D3404@ucd.ie>, "Niall O'Reilly" writes:
> CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA
>
>
> Edinburgh, 22 September 1998
>
>
> Scope of this Document
>
> CENTR is in a position to speak on behalf of the European ccTLD Domain
> Registries and has already (March, July 1998) made known:
>
> its position concerning the future governance of the Internet;
>
> its requirements of the organisation which will be the
> successor (the "New IANA) to the present IANA; and
>
> its readiness to participate in the definition of, and to
> support the funding of this New IANA.
>
> This document comments on the fourth draft definition (Postel, Battista,
> September 1998) of the Bylaws of the New IANA in the light of CENTR's
> clearly expressed position and requirements.
>
>
> Process leading to the Fourth Draft Definition
>
> We have understood that the diverging opinions expressed at the
> Singapore IFWP meeting were taken into account by Jon Postel in
> preparing the third draft definition (Postel, August 1998) of the
> New IANA. We find that this draft represents a reasonable consensus
which CENTR can support.
>
> We find it surprising that, in the process of preparing the fourth
> draft definition, a position paper from a particular stakeholder has
> apparently been given equal recognition to that accorded to Jon Postel's
> documentation, as we understood it, of a consensus process.
>
> This is a matter of global public interest and we believe that it is
> inappropriate that a private company should be allowed to have such
> influence in the process.
>
>
> Particular objections to the Fourth Draft Definition
>
> Section IV.1.d of the draft appears to have the intent of binding
> the New IANA to the terms of agreements yet to be made between third
> parties. It is our view that such a provision is entirely
> inappropriate. We cannot accept that the New IANA be bound in this way.
>
> The intent of Section IV.1.e is unclear. If the intent of this section
> is to ensure stability in the short-to-medium term, so that existing
> contracts and relationships, in particular delegation of TLD's, between
> IANA and involved parties are protected, the language of the section
> ought to make this clear.
>
> If the intent is rather to copper-fasten existing positions indefinitely
> and to offer protection against the introduction of competition, we find
> the section unacceptable.
>
> We fear that the headline set by sections IV.1.d and .e will lead
> to a situation where the process for establishing the proposed Domain
> Naming Supporting Organisation will also be dominated by similar
> private interests.
>
> We find that the terms of Section V.6 do not ensure a sufficiently
> broad spread of international representation, but rather allow a
> majority of members of the Board to come from a single region. We
> require instead that no more than one board member be elected from
> any support organization from each region.
>
>
> References
>
> CENTR, March 1998
> "RIPE CENTR Position Paper on Future Governance of the Internet"
> <http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/governance.html>
>
> CENTR, July 1998,
> "CENTR Position on the New IANA structure"
> <http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/response-white.html>
>
> Postel, August 1998,
> "New Proposed Bylaws - Third Iteration"
> <http://www.iana.org/bylaws3.html>
>
> Postel, Battista, September 1998,
> "A Brief Explanation of the Joint IANA and NSI Documents ..."
> <http://www.iana.org/intro-coop.html>
>
> Postel, Battista, September 1998,
> "DRAFT BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES
> AND NUMBERS" <http://www.iana.org/bylaws-coop.html>
>
> Postel, Battista, September 1998,
> "ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED
> NAMES AND NUMBERS" <http://www.iana.org/articles-coop.html>
>
>
> For Boudewijn Nederkoorn, CENTR Policy Group Chair,
>
> Niall O'Reilly
>
el
- --
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse\ / Swakopmund State Hospital
<el@lisse.NA> * | Resident Medical Officer
Private Bag 5004 \ / +264 81 1246733 (c) 64 461005(h) 461004(f)
Swakopmund, Namibia ;____/ Domain Coordinator for NA-DOM (el108)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] NEW SPONSOR: DNS Forum - Users Conference
I just got the annnoucement of a "forum" to discuss the
privatization of essential functions of the Internet
(root server system, domain name system, IP numbers, protocols,
etc.) and the "forum" is over whether
- -- the essential functions of the Internet are to be subjected
to either "OPEN COMPETITION OR MONOPOLY CONTROL?"
To phrase the question this way hides the genuine public
issue at stake here. This public issue is whether or not the U.S.
government can and should be privatizing what is an
international scientific and technical public trust that is involved
in the oversight of these essential functions of the Internet.
The forum was supposed to address the interests of Users -
but users are part of the international public treasure
that is the Internet. The basic question is why
these essential functions of the Internet have grown and flourished
in public hands and must stay in public hands to continue their
development.
The U.S. Government, without any explanation of its reasons
has decided to make a drastic change in the operation and
oversight and control of these essential functions.
This is a challenge to the world thrown out by the U.S. Government
Government.
In 1961, the writer C.P. Snow warned about the danger of
government decisions concerning matters involving science
and technology being made by too few people and with too
little knowledge of the scientific and technical issues.
> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
> announces its co-sponsorship of:
Social Responsibility requires looking for the public interest
and supporting it and so raising the issue of what is in the
public interest.
>
INTERNET PRIVATIZATION:
> OPEN COMPETITION OR MONOPOLY CONTROL?
> Featuring:
> MILTON MUELLER, Syracuse Univ
CHARLES NESSON, Harvard Univ Berkman Center
> MARCY GORDON, CPSR
> HANS KLEIN, CPSR and Georgia Tech
> PAUL GARRIN, pgMedia
> JESSICA GLASS, NY Free Media Alliance (moderator)
> 7 PM, Wednesday, Sept. 23 (tonight!)
> Meeting place:
> Cooper Union Foundation Building
> 7th Street & 3rd Ave. in Manhattan
> (NB: Room change is underway.
> Walking directions will be available at Foundation Bldg.)
> CO-SPONSORS:
> New York Free Media Alliance
> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
> Cyber Law Institute
So the original meeting has been cancelled for some unannounced reason
and there is a new meeting set up to discuss the topic of of how to
best privatize these essential functions of the Internet.
The Internet is an International Public Treasure for its users,
not some gold mine to be harvested.
It is important that there be a genuine forum, not an event
calling itself a forum, but presenting the same narrow set
of viewpoints that have been allowed by the U.S.
Government to be heard thus far.
>TAKING BACK THE NET: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE ON-LINE
>.net, .org, .art, .com, .media, .gov, .law, .edu
>These are Top Level Domains (TLDs), the critical part of your Internet
>Domain Name or Web address. They help define your identity on the
>Internet, and they tell people how to access your content.
>A single U.S. corporation has a monopoly over them. It decides which
This is NOT true. The U.S. Government has continued to be in charge
of certain domains over the past number of years just as they were
when the domain names were first introduced during the early days
of the Internet.
..
Those top level domains include only .net .org .com .gov .edu
They do not include .media or .law
>are valid. Now this domain name system may be further privatized. Find
The company distributing these domains was doing so under a contract
with the U.S. Government (the National Science Foundation). That
agency and the U.S. Government that it is part of are responsible
for not adminstering the contract appropriately.
The U.S. Government plan of privatization of the Internet is what
is responsible for the problems that have developed in the Domain
Name System. Now the U.S. Government is rushing to institutionalize
the privatization, and multiply the problems that have been created
many fold.
The announced forum is supporting the privatization, rather than
a needed discussion of whether or not users will benefit by
the privatization.
Clearly those rushing to do or support the privatization of
the essential functions that make the Internet an Internet,
rather than a single commercial network, do NOT want
any real discussion of the fundamental question of
HOW CAN YOU PRIVATIZE AN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC TREASURE?
Instead they have their schemes to make their money off the
Internet and users. The contributions and hard work
of people around the world to make the Internet what it
is today, these are of no consequence to the privatizers.
>out how this relates to the issues of free speech, public access,
>and freedom of choice, all of which are potentially at risk on the
>Net due to on-going discussions among a few self-interested
>stakeholders.
So the number of those who are to gain from the privatizing
is to increase, but the privatizing is to go unchallenged.
>IF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS MOBILIZE QUICKLY,
>THEY CAN BE PART OF THIS HISTORIC DEBATE
Where is the debate?
And there does need to be a historic debate about the continued
privatization of the international public Internet
>Some questions that will be addressed at the Cooper Union forum:
>* What do monopolies have to do with the Internet? How will this
>affect users?
What monopolies are to be discussed? If a U.S. Government contract
is to be called a monopoly, rather than the U.S. Govt challenged
to not allow abuse by its contractors, then the whole concept
of Government is to thrown to the wind. Instead we will have
multiple corporate big boys until one of them succeeds in routing
all the others as has happened in the U.S. with the operating
system industry. And important scientific large scale research
centers that give the world the needed new technology --
such as Bell Labs did -- or the U.S. Government support
for computer science research like the research that produced
the Internet -- these are to fade into the history books.
The people are to be left to the whims and wiles of the giant
corporate entities. And only product oriented research is
to take place, replacing the kind of long term
scientific and engineering research that has given the world the
Internet and that is still needed for it to continue to grow
and flourish.
The whole development of the Internet was through a very different
path than so called "competition" and that path needs to be continued
NOT abandoned. Models for how the future development of
the Internet should be managed must come from the growth
and development of the Internet itself, not from old corporate
models.
The development of the Internet was through public support
for computer science and engineering research and development.
The development of the Internet was through Government supporting
computer scientists and engineers and providing the needed funds
and protection from commercial and political pressure for the
technology to be developed.
That process is now being called "monopoly".
If so that is the kind of monopoly we need, large scale Government
funded research and support for networking and other computer
science developments.
What is not understood by the privatizers, is that users and their
computers are part of the Internet, the users are architectures of the
Internet.
Those privatizing the Internet have no understanding of the Internet
nor are they interested in the Internet.
So the choices of "private monopoly or competition" when it comes to
an international medium of worldwide communication are not choices.
>* Who wants to privatize the Internet? How is it being done? Why should
>we care?
This is an important question.
And it should be part of the fundamental question of the forum.
But it is only listed as a secondary issue.
Instead the issue of WHO IS DOING THE PRIVATIZING of the essential
functions of the Internet under the plan being rushed into
implementation by the U.S. Government (the Executive Branch
and the Congress are part of the support for the privatization
thus far).
>* How are free speech and freedom of choice on the Internet being
>jeopardized? What can we do about it?
>* What is public opinion about the future of the Internet, Top Level
>Domain monopoly control, and user representation on the governing board
>of the new central Internet authority? How can we affect the coming
>changes?
The whole privatization is being carried out under a veil of
secrecy. Who is behind it? Why is not being investigated
or examined by the press? Instead we are being told that these are
the "coming changes" rather than helping to examine what is being
planned, by who and thus having some way to deal with it appropriately.
This is the way so called "democracy" functions in the U.S. outside
of the Internet. Is that why the U.S. Government is moving
so swiftly to try to convert the Internet something controlled
by private corporate entities?
>WHAT YOU CAN DO: THE DNS.FORUM
>The goal of the three-pronged Forum is to educate the public about
>the current Internet DNS situation and create a constituency of
>independent Internet users who will have a say in the future governance
>and management of the Internet.
What governance??
The private sector is being handed the essential functions of the
Internet by the U.S. Government. They are trying to do what they
did with the giveaway of the NSFNET in 1995. However, now the
whole world is involved and they are giving to their corporate
cronies the public property that belongs NOT only to the U.S.
citizens but to people and nations around the world.
So this a harder trick to pull off, and in the announcement
of this upcoming forum, this expropriation is being called
-- "governance".
The Internet has had a form of "governance" where those
who are online can participate in contributing to the form
and content of what the Internet is and is becoming.
This is what is being attacked by the privatization that the
U.S. Government is trying to ram through.
How to defend the unique character and benefits of the Internet
is of no interest to those sections of the U.S. Government
trying to pull off this privatization.
But the U.S. Federal District Court in Pennsylvannia in the case
ACLU vrs Reno about the CDA law passed by the U.S. Congress
and signed by the U.S. President, that court said that
Internet is a unique new medium of world wide communication.
And the Court decision said that the U.S. Government had the
obligation to protect the autonomy of the average people not
only the media magnates.
The privatization of the essential functions of the Internet
that the U.S. Government is planning is the opposite of
providing that protection.
There is the need for a forum that allows the defense and discussion
of why there is the need for the continuation of public
ownership, oversight, control, and principles for the Internet.
Any forum that doesn't allow the real question to be raised
is not infact a forum but public relations for the support
of the privatization.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
I have some related articles at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:28:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] DNS USER FORUM INCLUDES A CALL TO ACTION
Responding to the post by Hans Klein of CPSR who wrote:
> INTERNET PRIVATIZATION:
> OPEN COMPETITION OR MONOPOLY CONTROL?
> sponsored by CPSR and NYFMA
>Wednesday night's User Forum was a great success! Despite the logistical
What is it you consider a success about it? It was in *no* way
a forum. The Chair didn't encourage discussion, but encouraged those
in the panel who basically agreed with each other and with the
proposal of the U.S. Government to privatize essential functions
of the Internet to take up most of the time.
>zig-zags most people found the hall and contributed to a lively discussion
I didn't see lively discussion, but the effort on the part of the
chair and the panel to try to prevent views other than theirs from
being heard.
It was announced as an Internet User forum, but only the self proclaimed
representatives of Users - the CPSR and a vendor who is a service
provider and his supporter were invited to speak or allowed to have their
views presented.
>of DNS issues. We had a good-sized audience of about 50 people, four out
>of five panelists, and the use of first-class facilities at the New School.
The hall had actually fairly few people and when I counted it seemed like
around 30 or so. Later some of the people mentioned they came as a result
of one of the speakers sending them email.
>For me the evening's most significant product was a call to action. There
I didn't hear a call to action. Instead I heard someone say that
people online should have some way of knowing what is going on
with all this.
He basically seemed to be acknowledging that in fact those online
have no knowledge of what is happening or of its significance.
>are only six days until September 30, at which time an Internet Corporation
>*may* be defined. Currently, two proposals for a corporation are being
>widely circulated, one from today's government contractors (IANA and NSI)
>and the other from a "Boston Working Group." Different versions of a third,
>public interest/user propopal are now also in the works.
You left out the proposal I submitted and which has probably been more
widely circulated than any of the others "The Internet an International
Public Treasure". This is a proposal that respects the Internet
a a new medium of worldwide communication." *
The others treat the Internet as Internet Incorporated, or as a new
cash cow to be milked.
They talk about "competition" but the Internet was built on a cooperative
and open process and scientific principles. And the essential functions
need to be administered on these same principles. Nobody
has made any arguments of why the cooperative open principles
are no longer needed or why and how the Internet could grow
and flourish if they are abandoned. Yet the proposals you
talk about for a new private corporation to be set up on
September 30 by the U.S. Government abandons the principles
and lessons of what has made the Internet possible.
These other proposals for privatization are giving away to an
unknown and private entity control over the essential aspects of
coordination of the Internet including the root server system,
the IP numbers allocation, the Domain Name System, and the protocols
and standards development process related to these key aspects of
the Internet. These are many of the functions that make the
Internet and Internet rather than a fragmented Net.
There is no talk in any of the proposals for privatization of any
way to protect the administration of these essential functions
from commercial pressures. Until the privatization of the NSF backbone
to the Internet in the U.S. which began in the early 1990's (and was
finalized on May 1, 1995) the U.S. government had provided the
necessary and important protection of the integrity of these systems.
Now however, the U.S. government is failing in that obligation and
instead of holding the government to its obligation and involving
the International community in the needed challenge, the U.S. Government
is moving to institutionalize the commercial and political pressures into
the private organization that it is setting up.
At the panel presentation, Milton Mueller said that the objective
was to set up a private corporation that was "insulated from government."
So these essential functions are to insulated from the one entity
that was able to protect them in the past, and they are to
be put into the control and ownership of an entity institutionalizing
the problems.
>As I and others at the forum noted, the public interest/user communities
>need to join together to finalize this public interest/user proposal. If
>public interest recommendations are incorporated into proposed by-laws on
>September 30, then the communities should all vocally express their
>collective support. If those recommendations are not included, then the
>communities should all vocally express a collective disapproval. Today's
>tasks are, first, to finalize a public interest/user proposal and, second,
>prepare to speak out together on September 30.
So you are deciding that CPSR is a self chosen representative for
Internet users?
That is how the whole offline society in the U.S. works, but the
Internet has made it possible for users to represent themselves and
the result has been a vibrant and cooperative culture and technology.
But you and the other self chosen advocates of Internet Incorporated
have decided it is time to end that, and instead to let you
folks take over from the millions of users around the world
who are quite able to speak for themselves but are being
disenfranchised by the privatization process.
>Like I said, I felt that this call to action was the most important product
>of the forum. But there was lots of other interesting dialogue.
Well if you call advocacy for Paul's company or Mueller's friends
proposal or your positioning to get a seat on the Internet Incorporated
board interesting.
To the contrary the Chair of the meeting continually tried to prevent
others from speaking who had a different position than the panel.
And another of the speakers admitted that others with different views
weren't invited to be part of the panel.
But then he made no effort to encourage the views to be presented.
Despite the effort of the organizers to prevent there from
being any forum, a few people did try to speak under very
difficult circumstances.
>Milton Mueller of Syracuse University spoke on free speech, trademarks, and
>domain names. Marcy Gordon from CPSR provided a detailed overview of CPSR's
He spoke on advocacy for privatization and support for Paul.
Those wanting free speech wouldn't be advocating privatizing the
Internet.
Private networks don't allow free speech.
And one has no recourse.
>policy positions -- which she sang and accompanied on guitar! (I thought it
>was going to be weird, but it turned out to be a real high point of the
She gave her sales pitch for the privatization in a song.
That is the way the media in the U.S. long operated, promoting
commercial products and aims with music.
I guess that is the future you folks feel should be in store for
Internet users.
>evening.) pgMedia's Paul Garrin gave a fascinating account of today's
>Internet governance structure. I talked about proposals for by-laws that
Where did he talk about any Internet governance structure? He talked
a little about his lawsuit against the federal government so
his company can become the MCI of the Internet.
But MCI has led to the death of Bell Labs and the substitution of
product oriented research for the long term scientific and
technical advances like the laser, the transistor and UNIX that
folks at Bell Labs were able to contribute to the world.
And the breakup of AT&T and U.S. Telecom regulation has led to
increasing prices for the home user and devastating for the
pay telephone system (in NYC it is often impossible to find
a working pay phone).
So the prospect of another MCI type victory, but this time with
regard to the Internet is no very appealing, to say the least.
And this is not indeed presenting anything that resembles
the public interest, but rather a way to substitute
self chosen representatives for the public to help those
fleecing the public to cover their tracks.
And talking about Internet governance would require talking about
the cooperative and collaborative efforts of people on line
to contribute to the Internet as a new medium of international
communication. Also it would require talking about the online
discussion that occurs to identify problems and solve them.
(I have several papers about this if anyone is interested.)
>would ensure public interest representation on the new organization's Board.
>Jessica Glass of the New York Free Media Alliance deftly moderated the
>feisty dialogue.
She continually refused to allow discussion and debate with the
narrow views of the panel.
Instead of the principle which has built the Net and which
Voltaire espoused "I may disagree with what you have to say
but I will duel to the death to protect your right to say it."
She cut me off anytime I tried to say anything and Hans, you
did nothing to defend the right to speak.
There was the need for a lively debate, but this panel of
self chosen user respresentatives was not there to promote
such debate, but to advocate for the privatization and for
themselves as the representatives of Internet users.
>While most people people discussed *how* to privatize the Internet, some
>participants questioned the very act of privatization. Ronda Hauben argued
>that the Internet should remain in public hands. This is a view that few
>groups in the U.S. have voiced, although it may be more popular outside of
>the U.S.
I didn't get any opportunity to argue as I was constantly cut
off by the chair.
But there were others at the forum who made an effort to
challenge the fact that the assumption of privatization
is the squelching of the debate over what should happen.
And I don't know about most groups in the U.S. and their
views about privatization of the Internet.
But I do know that there are many communities like librarians
scientists, programmers, etc. for whom it is important
that the Net continue as an international public treasure.
And I do know that there are many of users and probably many
groups who would be quite upset and frustrated with what is
going on and that is why the press (at least in the U.S.)
is so quiet about what the U.S. Government is doing.
In the U.S. privatization of the NSF backbone to the Internet has
benefitted the big corporate entities and made access to
the Internet impossible for some and at only rising prices
for others.
The freenets are being killed off by the U.S. Government's i
support for privatization.
And when there was the opportunity for a real debate among
the public, as happening in November 1994 in an online
conference sponsored by the NTIA, the majority of public
sentiment was against the privatization of th NSF backbone.
There are two chapters describing the debate and the
different views of the public in "Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet", the
URL is in my signature.
>In summary, it was an exciting evening with a lot of good discussion and a
>powerful conclusion. I think that some day we will look back and recognize
>it as an event that catalyzed the public interest/user community at this key
>juncture of the Internet governance process.
To the contrary, any advocates of users or the public would be
advocating a debate with the assumption of privatization, not
support for it.
And as one person who spoke from the audience, any true
public interest advocates would be advocating letting as
much of the public know of the problem of what is happening
as possible. (The U.S. press is either totally silent
or functioning as presenting public relations releases for
the U.S. Government actiions.)
The question raised by this all is a profound question.
What authority does the U.S. Government have to give away to
a private entity of its own creation essential functions
of a public international treasure.
The U.S. government was entrusted with the care and administration
of these functions, not with the ownership of them so as
to give them to its chosen corporate cronies.
The U.S. government has an obligation to the public in the
U.S. and to the International community to be protecting
these essential functions from exactly the kind of
abuse it is now subjecting them to.
It is important that those around the world who care about
the Internet and its future find a way to challenge this
attack on the cooperative technology and culture that
makes the Internet possible.
>Hans Klein
>Southern Regional Director
>Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
>Chair, CPSR-Georgia
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Also join the Netizens list to discuss how to support
the cooperative nature of the Internet and how to
help to spread this important worldwide communications medium
more broadly. And it would be good to discuss how
to let folks around the world know of what is
happening with this U.S. Govt privatization plan to
to change the cooperative and open nature of the Internet.
To join write: netizens-request@columbia.edu
Also to see draft proposal to protect cooperative
culture of the Internet and suggest begin to
find a means to involve the International community
in the process of changing the administration
and control over these essential aspects of the Internet
see http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #173
******************************
