Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 192
Netizens-Digest Monday, October 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 192
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: IFWP list postings
[netz] Benton 10/23/98: Constitutional Convention?
[netz] WSF article promoting privatization in name of eulogy for Postel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:07:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Luis G de Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: IFWP list postings
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Jay Hauben wrote:
> I am forwarding to the list the following posts that followed up posts
> on the IFWP list that also were sent to the netizens mailing list:
> ------------
> From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unir.com>
> To: <list@ifwp.org>
> Cc: <netizens@columbia.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:47:43 -0500
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
> <snip>
> >
> >>Thanks Ronda...you have helped to promote the plan you oppose...
> >
> >So then you are saying go along with one of the privatization
> >plans as the way to oppose privatization of the DNS and other
> >essential functions?
> >
>
>
> No, I am not saying that. I am NOW an advocate of recognizing
> that you will not be able to stop the implosion in the IPv4 Internet
> and the exploitation. You have to let that go and start working to
> build a NEW Internet [using the old model you advocate] around
> the outside of the rapidly imploding mass...which might best be
> described as the Internet Core...
>
>
> JimFleming@unir.com
> Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
> 0:201 .COM
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+@---<IPv8>---C+@--<IPv4>--(Java)VPC
> http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm
>
>
> @@@@ Here is a recent posting that might help clarify this more...
>
> The term "Internet" is highly dilluted. Some people
> might want to continue to dispute what company
> has trademark rights to the term, but the term is now
> used in so many ways that it ceases to have specific
> meaning. In order to provide more meaning, it might
> be good to consider the word Internet to be an
> adjective and to find a noun that this adjective can
> modify to provide a more precise meaning of what
> some people feel the Internet is. I suggest that the
> noun FRONTIER be used.
>
> One of the reasons for this suggestion is that the term
> Frontier is also highly dilluted and in most cases lacks
> specific definition. In the early days of the U.S., people
> could probably refer to the Frontier and have a good
> idea of where that was located. In todays day and age,
> if you asked someone to show you the U.S.'s "frontier"
> they might have a hard time or point to outer space.
> What once clearly embodied the spirit of westward ho,
> is no longer embodied in that one word.
>
> In my opinion, the same can be said for the Internet.
> In these long and drawn out DNS debates (names and
> numbers), it is now clear that some people refer to the
> Internet and that is no longer the Internet that people
> may have described 10 years ago. Likewise, people
> working out on the true Internet Frontier, might find it
> objectionable to see the "old guard" continue to casually
> use the term Internet, when they have sold out to big
> business and are rapidly imploding into the very
> bureaucracy that the Internet Frontier pioneers of 20
> years ago thought they were avoiding by routing around
> the expensive, centralized telecommunications core.
> It is also objectionable to see some of those very pioneers
> claiming to be working on the Frontier when they are
> clearly part of the imploding core and exploiting the
> tailings from their Internet mining activities that they
> conned the U.S. Government into funding.
>
> One of the major problems in trying to solve the DNS
> debacle is that the so-called Internet pioneers are
> assumed to be working on the Internet Frontier. Many
> people blindly follow their proposals assuming this will
> help the Internet Frontier. There are plenty of stooges
> willing to continue to promote this false impression and
> the Internet pioneers do not seem interested in noting
> that they are no longer personally working on the Internet
> Frontier. In other words, they help to perpetuate the myth
> in order to use their past accomplishments on the
> Frontier to fill their wallets as the gold mines now produce
> results.
>
> There is obviously no way this can be stopped and the
> general public and government officials will continue
> to be mislead about who are NOW the Internet pioneers
> working on the Internet Frontier. There is an old joke that
> you can tell the pioneers, they are the ones with the arrows
> in their backs. Maybe the new joke should be that you can
> tell who the Internet Pioneers are, they are the ones
> WITHOUT their wallets filled with money, or better yet, without
> their wallets and the arrows in their backs. What is somewhat
> ironic is that some of the old school Internet Pioneers are
> the ones that have been picking the new Internet Pioneers'
> pockets out on the Internet Frontier. I think that some of the
> people on the Internet Frontier are tired of hearing that they
> are the ones in this for the money. It is clear that the good
> old boy network are the ones that have all the gold and
> are busy selling it for whatever price they can get, while
> telling people they are the Internet Pioneers, just back
> from a hard day on the Internet Frontier.
>
> In my opinion, many of the old school Internet people would
> not know the Internet Frontier if they saw it. They are too
> busy picking people's pockets and telling people that they
> are not in this for the money and that others are. Follow the
> money...it tells the whole story...or the rest of it...
>
>
> From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unir.com>
> To: <list@ifwp.org>
> Cc: <netizens@columbia.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:05:07 -0500
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
> <snip>
> >
> >And the U.S. backbone networks were publicly owned and funded
> >but were handed over to private entities without listening to
> >the public outcry and complaint that was expressed during
> >the Nov. 1994 online conference held by the NTIA.
> >
> >And the privatization has already caused a whole host of problems
> >including the difficulty many people who don't have the means in
> >the U.S. have of getting online, just as the folks explained would
> >happen during the NTIA online conference.
> >
>
>
> Again Ronda....YOU ARE RIGHT...but you can not change that...!!!!
>
> The NSF handed some of the Internet Pioneers millions or
> billions in intellectual property assets without them having
> to pay one penny. Now the NSF is doing this again. YOU
> CAN NOT STOP IT....
>
> What can be stopped is the worship those Internet Pioneers
> receive for their noble work. Their wallets are filled with millions
> of dollars in cyber taxes and people still treat them as if they
> are volunteers working in a soup kitchen feeding the hungry.
> Maybe they did that 20 years ago. They now ride in limos, fly
> first class anywhere they like at a moments notice (airfare
> rates are not an issue) and they wine and dine at the finest
> hotels. They are not Mother Teresa or Ghandi or true volunteers.
> They are working these DNS debates for the money and they
> have been paid well for years, yet people treat them as if they
> are Red Cross workers.
>
> There ARE people that are continuing to work in the spirit
> of the Internet that you have articulated well. My suggestion
> is that YOU seek out those people and stop giving the
> gold plated volunteers your time and energy. That helps
> them and they are probably laughing at you from their Lear
> Jets flying overhead.
>
>
> JimFleming@unir.com
> Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
> 0:201 .COM
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+@---<IPv8>---C+@--<IPv4>--(Java)VPC
> http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm
>
Hello Everyone: In reply to Jim Fleming I say the following: The best
way to fight against the privatization of the Internet is by doing what
Ronda is doing, which is fight it. It is appalling that she hasn't
received more support, in spite of being a very important fight.
Ronda is fighting a brave and somewhat lonely battle against the
fat cats and to me the least all of us who share her feelings
is support her in the "Good Fight". You just don't give up fighting
and say "there's nothing she or we can do to change it", if our cause
is noble, righteous and pro-people, pro-little guy, then I think it
should be winnable, if we give it the support it deserves.
The corporations are not invincible. They can be stopped when we
the people unite in the fight. They are not infallible. It seems
to me the least we can do, instead of giving up and telling Ronda
"she will not succeed", is give her support and try to get her
support from everywhere, including the international community.
Let our battle cry be, just like the heroes defending the Spanish
Republic and democracy: NO PASARAN! THEY SHALL NOT PASS!
Sincerely,
Lou De Quesada>
>
>
>
> --PAA17044.909257561/konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu--
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:51:57 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Benton 10/23/98: Constitutional Convention?
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Fri, 23 Oct 98 18:23:06 CDT
From: Rachel Anderson <rachel@benton.org>
Subject: Communications-related Headlines for 10/23/98
A KIND OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE INTERNET
Issue: Internet
Legal observers are saying that the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a unique form of government for the global
computer network. Over the next few weeks, Government officials and
representatives from various groups will try to decide the structure and
rules of the new organization. "This is a constitutional convention in a
sense," said Jonathan Zittrain, a law professor at Harvard University and
executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, the
school's cyberspace research center. "That's why there's such great
interest" in ICANN and its birth, he said. David Post, a law professor at
Temple University who specializes in the legal issues of cyberspace,
added: "If there is going to be this one entity that has a great deal of
power, you'd have to say that the process of deciding how that power will
be exercised is constitution-making. This absolutely is a critical
moment." (See draft rules at <http://www.iana.org/bylaws5.html>)
[SOURCE: New York Times (CyberTimes),
AUTHOR: Carl S. Kaplan <kaplanc@nytimes.com>]
<http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/10/cyber/cyberlaw/23law.html>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:54:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] WSF article promoting privatization in name of eulogy for Postel
This was a post on Usenet that I added to and thought those
on the Netizens list would find it of interest.
Mentifex (mentifex@scn.org) wrote:
: Ronda http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt Hauben
: has once again dared and made bold to speak up for the freeedom of
: all us taxpayers' http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook Internet.
: Meanwhile, did everybody see the blatant exploitation of the death
: of Jonathan Postel (The Wall Street Journal editorial page A22) in
: the form of a 22.oct.1998 article by K. N. Cukier, a senior editor
: of Communications Week International? Well, George, or should you
: be called one of the "new Internet pipsqueaks" as Cukier calls us?
: Your Doublethink Duckspeak has lived beyond 1984 in the WSJ, where
: Mr. Cukier wrote how lucky Jonathan Postel is to have died and not
: have seen how "a handful of small-town Internet entrepreneurs snip-
: ing from their e-mail soapboxes have been calling on the U.S. gov-
: ernment to exert control over the new IANA." The still warm body
: of Jonathan Postel is exploited: "His vision was of a communica-
: tions network beyond the control of government." Please! Mr. 2X
: double-talk Cukier, the only avenue of control by ALL Netizens is
: demo-(that's Greek for PEOPLE, Mr. Cukier)cratic government. You
: end "The Internet Loses Its Head" by mouthing, "It's important to
: get the new institution up and running, and make sure governments
: stay out." Translated out of Doublespeak: Down with the people!
Good to see your account of this piece foul propaganda in
the name of a eulogy for Jon Postel published in the WSJ on Thursday,
October 22, 1998.
It was full of lots of other falsifications as well.
It was interesting that the WSJ hadn't carried any account of the
DNS giveaway but suddenly puts on its editorial page this piece of
clear propaganda.
For example:
WSJ article falsification:
"Indeed, the Internet was created by privately owned data networks
that voluntarily agreed to interconnect for mutual benefit,
and recognized the need for a central authority to make uncomfortable
yet binding decisions."
Internet history:
The Internet was created as a result of government funded and directed
computer science research and development by the U.S. government and
other governments around the world who supported the linking up of
the government or university developed networks in their countries.
In the process there were cooperative procedures like the Requests
for Comment (RFC's) and the IETF and Usenet newsgroups and
ARPANET and later Internet mailing lists that developed to make
possible collaborative processes to help solve many of the problems
that developed so people could work together and help each other
to use and spread the Internet.
This cooperation was supported by an Acceptible Use Policy where
the networks could be used reciprocally by different those in different
nations around the world as long as certain rules were followed and
the networks were open to the university or education community in
the diverse countries.
This is what has made it possible to have an international network.
One of the first points of the Acceptible Use Policy (the AUP) that
governed the early U.S. backbone to the Internet (the NSFNET) was:
"Communication with foreign reseachers and educators in connection
with research or instruction, as long as any network that the
foreign user employs for such communication provides reciprocal
access to U.S. researchers and educators." (See chapter 12
in "Netizens")
WSJ article falsification:
"If governments get to plunge their flagpoles into cyberspace,
his (Postel's) vision risks being destroyed. The Internet moves
too fast for governments to control. And since it is a weave of
private international networks, it's not clear what government
institution has legitimacy to determine Internet policies such
as adding new domain domain names--the `.com' or `org' suffixes
of many of today's Internet addresses. Why not a `.med' for
accredited medical institutions, for examle? Such questions are
much better left for industry itself to decide."
Internet history:
Government have been a crucial part of creating the Internet,
or as this WSJ propagandist calls it, cyberspace.
And Jon Postel worked for the U.S. government under a contract
and so to use him as a way to attack governments being involved
in the Internet is a gross misrepresentation.
The U.S. government and other governments played a *good* role,
not a bad role, in the development of the Internet.
The role the U.S. government played, was *not* one of control,
but of support for the networking community, and for cooperative
and collaborative processes that made it possible to develop
and maintain the Internet.
There are Internet processes and procedures for deciding what
should happen such as the IETF and Usenet newsgroups and Internet
mailing lists where problems of deciding whether or not to add
new domain names can be discussed to figure out what it makes
sense to do. However, instead of the U.S. government and
other governments supporting the use of such procedures,
they are being pressured by big corporate entities to turn
over the ownership and control of decisions like these
and of assets like IP numbers and domain names to private
corporations under the guise of privatizing these functions.
Cukier and the WSJ are campaigning for this great giveaway
of Internet assets and policy making power to "industry" by
this article.
WSJ article falsification:
"Or so reasons-believe it or not- Ira Magaziner, the failed health-
care commissar reborn as cyberpunk. Mr. Magaziner spearheaded an
international campaign to forge consensus among governments around
the world to defer to the authority of a new, private-sector-based
IANA. And when key parties in the process of building the new
institution failed to come to terms, he persuaded them to continue
discussions, knowing the consequences would otherwise be an
open door for Congress or Geneva buraucrats to storm through."
Internet recent history:
Where and how this whole privatization process of essential
Internet functions was conceived and begun needs to be unraveled,
but advisors to the U.S. government with interests in big
corporate entities are pressuring for this privatization
similar to how they pressured for the privatization of the
NSFNET backbone to the Internet.
Magaziner has been traveling around the world and encouraging
other nations to go along with the privatization.
He has been offering other nations seats on the board, despite
the fact that this is to be a supposed "private corporation."
Thus we are to have governments represented but under no obligations
to be accountable for this representation.
This is a new model that is being crafted under the advice of
some of the Internet guru's from the Internet society and other
such institutions of how to give away Internet assets and
policy making processes to the private sector.
Congress, according to the WSJ propaganda, should stay out.
But it is good to have Congress intervene and all sectors
of the U.S. govt intervene. The Office of Inspector General
of the NSF (who traditionally functioned under the authority of
Congress) issued a report on this all saying that this
would create a concentration of power that was very dangerous
and probably contrary to U.S. law.
And the report said that government cannot transfer policy making
power to private entities.
The U.S. people and people around the world need to know
what is happening and to have some way to intervene.
There needs to be broad public discussion, *not* silence and
propaganda press releases.
WSJ article falsification:
"All this reached a crescendo when Postel was hospitalized last
week for heart problems. So close to realization, his vision may
become the first casualty of the revolution he helped unleash: A
form of Internet self governance founded on the authority of the
Internet itself--the companies that invest in it and the individuals
who benefit from it. It's imoprtant to get the new institution up
and running, and make sure governments stay out."
Whose Vision of the future?
The Internet and Usenet have been created as a users networks,
where the users have created the content and the software
that has made them possible. (See testimony submitted to
Congress http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt)
And there has been a good role played by the U.S. government
and governments around the world to support those who have
worked to create and develop the Internet.
Also much taxpayer money of people in the U.S. and elsewhere
around the world has helped to fund the networks that are
now make the Internet a worldwide network of networks.
But this WSJ brand of supposed "Internet self governance"
is to replace the users and the support by government
for the cooperative processes and collaborative practices
with the "companies that invest" (i.e. reap the windfall of
the greatest giveaway in the history of the world), and
where users are reduced to "individuals who benefit from"
i.e. companies making profit off of them, is only the vision
of a very narrow set of interests who have no understanding
of nor concern for the Internet or the global communication
that it makes possible.
When I spoke with Jon Postel in Geneva this past summer,
explaining to him that I was a user, and that users
were left out of this IFWP (International Forum on the
White Paper) process that Magaziner had created, Postel
didn't tell me anything about this so called vision that
the WSJ is promoting. Instead he said to present what
I was saying to the meetings that were to be held about
the IANA privatization.
Thus to be promoting this giveaway in Postel's name,
and even in what is pretended as a eulogy for him,
is a demonstration of how little those promoting the
privatization of the Internet care for the Internet
and the people who have worked to make it possible.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #192
******************************
