Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 219
Netizens-Digest Thursday, December 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 219
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Interesting articles in Forbes and Chronicle of Higher
Education
[netz] Re: Users need to be able to speak for themselves
[netz] ICANN membership advisory applications?
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Users need to be able to speak for themselves
(Was: Re:Position of SOs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 22:17:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Interesting articles in Forbes and Chronicle of Higher Education
Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>> The Forbes article glides over this dilemma by quoting
>> Vint Cerf saying that if the ICANN messes up, then
>> someone, like the service providers, will come and fix
>> it.
>The day-to-day operational stability of the Internet is not
>now and never has been in the hands of IANA or ICANN. It is,
So the root server system isn't under IANA? or won't be under
the authority of ICANN?
Or is it that the root server system is *not* part of the
day-to-day operational stability of the Internet?
This is why this list is a real problem.
If someone on this list, which is claiming is to create the
"privatizing of these system, makes a statement like this
and everyone else ignores it, doesn't that say something
about the reliability of people on this list?
>has been, and will continue to be the responsibility of the
>network operators and the registries.
And *not* the operators of the root server system?
>Both ICANN and IANA could disappear in a puff of smoke and it
>would have no visible effect on the Internet. There would be
>a number of phone calls and meetings in various places to fill
>the hole, but there would be no interruption at all in the
>operation of the Internet.
This is very far from true. And if no one else recognizes that
this is far from true, then there is a very serious problem.
If the root server system disappears in a puff of smoke,
will that have no visible effect on the Internet?
It is clear that there wouldn't be this set of battles for
ICANN and IANA if this were true.
But that is also why my proposal of documenting the activities
of IANA and the problems and responsibilities was and is needed
as the above statements show that the wool is being pulled
over the eyes of folks
>The disappearance of the primary root name server would of
But not the root server system?
>course have an effect. But if someone were to nuke NSI, it
>would take only hours, not days, to appoint a new primary root
>name server, and during that time the remaining root name
>servers would continue to operate. Very few indeed would
>notice the absence of a.root-servers.net.
Who is going to appoint them if there is no IANA?
And what if there is competition to appoint one? And what if
there is rogue one?
>> But this denies that the obligation is to protect
>> these essential functions of the Internet, not to
>> put them in the hands of those who will make a mess of
>> them.
>>This is naive beyond belief. The essential functions of the
>>Internet are safe in the hands of the ISPs and the registries. It
>>is the reliability and usefulness of ICANN which is in doubt.
The ISP's I'm aware of have enough trouble making access available,
without too many interrruptions, are interested in the money
they make and *not* in providing an essential service.
And when there is an effort to organize a freenet so those
folks who can't afford access can get online, the ISP's arrive
and tell folks there is *no* need for a freenet as one can
pay them.
There is a distinct lack of public service or committment to
providing a reliable and cheap service among the service providers
I have encountered. One even told us that he carried a gun to
protect him from the other service providers in the area and
he claimed the service providers in the area were all trying
to knock each others systems out. And he threatened us that
if a freenet got started the service providers would make
every effort to get make it nonfunctional.
This is a very different kind of activity than someone who
is reliable and doing all they can to provide an essential
public service.
Even the way you are answering the issues I raised makes one
wonder about the sevice providers you represent is this
is the kind of way you respond to concerns about the
integrity and essential functions of the Internet.
You haven't explained why they are essential functions,
but instead introduced the issue of day-to-day operational
stability. As I responded to Zittrain's post, IP numbers,
especially, but also the DNS system and protocols etc.
are essential functions of the Internet and it will
be destroyed if these fall into the wrong hands.
>If this isn't clear enough: it is ICANN which might develop the
>capability of messing up the essential functions of the
>Internet -- IF the operators of the Internet are very very
>careless. Because any sort of transfer of real power to ICANN
>requires the consent of the network operators and the registries.
But if the IP numbers are abused, or the domain names are
treated in an irresponsible way, etc. it can make real trouble
for the Internet and its users.
>As it stands, ICANN has no such power. It has in fact no power
>at all.
I guess I don't know what power it has. The MoU seemed to
say it was in design and test mode. But if it designs
a monster, and that is approved by the DOC, then that is
real trouble for the Internet.
And who knows who will be administering the IANA contract
in January?
>> The article doesn't mention that Cerf is a Vice
>> Pesident of MCI/Worldcom which is part of the Global
>> Internet Project (GIP)
>That is, the author of the article didn't consider it important
>to mention that Cerf knows what he is talking about?
But it is also important to point out whose interest the
person can be serving.
>> The GIP claims they will fund ICANN, and are thus
>> a clue to who feels they will benefit from the
>> privatization of the essential functions of the Internet,
>> despite the jeopardy this might represent for the Internet.
>> (The assets of the Internet essential functions are worth
>> billions of dollars so the fact of someone having to
>> fund ICANN from private funds is a strange situation,
> as that is setting the basis to transfer these immensely
> valuable public resources over to them.)
> These are NOT public resources. You are talking about, for example,
You own the domain name system? Or the root server system
system? Or the IP numbers? Or the protocols? Or the port numbers,etc?.
>the assets of my company, a company registered in the UK. We are
> not a "public resource". Like most of the entities constituting
The domain name system, root server system, IP numbers and
port numbers are public resources.
Your effort to call these the assets of your company shows the
real problem this privatization process is creating.
>the Internet, we are private. We have never used any public funds
How does what you are saying relate to the root server system?
Or are you just trying to spread confusion?
>for any purpose. Most of our traffic remains with the UK. We pay
>for our own international bandwidth, unlike most US ISPs.
What does any of this have to do about the IP numbers? etc.
>These claims that the Internet is a US public asset are simply
>absurd, as absurd as the notion of the Internet not being safe in
>the hands of those who already operate it.
The claim is that the essential functions of the Internet,
the IP numbers, the domain name system, the root server system,
the protocols and port numbers etc. are public assets.
And you are trying to spread confusion instead of discussing
the importance of these essential functions.
- --
>Jim Dixon
>Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
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: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:31:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: Users need to be able to speak for themselves
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 03:57:46 -0500
To: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
At 07:46 PM 11/28/98 , Ronda Hauben wrote:
>edyson@edventure.com (Esther Dyson) writes:
>
>>Some further questions:
>
>>How do "users" count themselves? Am I a different person with regard to
>>(say) addresses vs. as an At Large member? How are the users who join
>>(whatever that means) an SO different from those who join the AL membership?
>>As a user, how do I want my influence mediated? Would I like my ISP to
>>represent me in the AL membership in some way? Is membership a burden that
>>I *want* to cede to someone who will go to (boring) meetings on my behalf,
>>study the issues, etc.? How are my interests similar to an different from
>>those of other users?=20
>
>At the Boston Meeting on Nov. 14 people spoke to this.
>
>And it was interesting that what was said was reflected in the Nov. 14
>NYT story and then removed in the edition that actually went into
>the print edition.
>
>Users speak for themselves on the Internet. The Internet is a far
>superior medium for people to participate and contribute to
>the clarification and solving of problems.
Hi Ronda,
Actually, you and Esther are not far apart on this one.
Esther Dyson also wrote:
http://www.ibm.com/services/newmark/mature.html
The Net's long-run impact on democracy, I believe, won't be one of
propaganda or information dissemination; CNN and the various national
broadcasters (private and public) do a fine job of that. The real impact,
if it works, will be to encourage citizen participation, to make people
feel that they can influence the discussion. Instead of choosing from
what's on offer, they can actually make suggestions and arguments of their
own. If you think a politician is brain dead, you can say why instead of
just giving your vote to someone slightly more alive. People want to
contribute their ideas as well as their votes.
++++
Jay.
>What is needed is *not* membership as membership ends up being
>manipulated by those who have the most ability to utilize it
>for their own purposes. And it is not to have one's ISP speak
>for users. The ICANN, models still seem to be that of user as customer,
>rather than user as citizen of the Net or net.citizen or Netizen.
>
>A citizen is the person who has to speak for his or her self,
>to clarify what is needed, and to contribute to determine the issues
>that need to be discussed, and how to frame the discussion, etc.
>The Internet makes this possible, and this is necessary for
>the Internet to continue to develop.
>
>What is needed are online forms that function to discuss the problems
>that have to be determined and to figure out the principles toward
>the needed solutions.
>
>That was part of the essence of my proposal that Magaziner asked
>me to submit and then was ignored by him and the U.S. Dept. of
>Commerce.
>(The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt)
>
>
>This is how the Internet has been built.
>
>The Internet makes possible participatory forms and encourages
>netizen participation, but ICANN is talking about "membership"
>and supporting organizations and "corporations" instead of having a
>ny understanding of the development of the Internet.
>
>I have previously offered to discuss this further with anyone
>interested, and it seems with regard to the U.S. Dept of Commerce,
>Magaziner's office and ICANN that *no* one is interested.
>
>Either one is interested in participatory processes that the
>Internet makes possible, or in imposing decisions on the Internet
>community. The latter flies in the face of the cooperative and
>collaborative processes needed for the Internet to function, and
>to grow and flourish.
>
>
>Ronda
>ronda@panix.com
>
>
> 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: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:59:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] ICANN membership advisory applications?
Following is the annoucement of the ICANN call for membership advisory folks.
I wondered what folks on the Netizens list felt about this and
whether we can figure out if anyone should apply.
My initial response is that it is a problem as the Internet is
not for "members" but for a new form of citizenship, and this
thing for members doesn't take that into account.
My sense was what was needed were open online processes
that all online could participate in and where all were welcomed
to be part of the process.
That is different from a membership structure. All membership
structures I know of don't work.
But I wonder what others think about this all
- --------------------------
Following is the ICANN Announcement from their web site.
ICANN
______________________________________________________________________
ICANN Membership Advisory CommitteeExpressions of Interest Sought by 5
December, 1998
______________________________________________________________________
The ICANN Bylaws call for a membership structure to be established to
elect At Large directors. (See Bylaws Article V, Section 9(c))
The Initial Board is establishing an advisory committee (see Bylaws
Article VII, Section 3(c)) to advise it on the appropriate membership
structure to satisfy the need for world wide representation on the
board, and in particular how to create a diverse and open membership
without subjecting the corporation to undue risk of capture by any
particular interest group. The advisory committee will consist of up
to ten members, and will include Initial Board members George Conrades
as Chairman, and Greg Crew. The Berkman Center for Internet and
Society at Harvard Law School has agreed to provide assistance to the
committee, including an independent study of membership issues.
Expressions of interest are invited from individuals willing to serve
on this committee, which will address specific issues including but
not limited to:
a) membership structures and arrangements that will provide a world
wide representative body to nominate and elect the 9 At Large ICANN
board directors (with the goal of recommending three to five options
to the ICANN Board).
b) appropriate rights and obligations of members, including membership
application and registration requirements, membership fee structures,
liability limitation of members, and voting rights and procedures.
c) requirements and procedures for various forms of membership,
including individual, corporate and association.
d) efficient procedures for members to nominate and participate in the
election of At Large directors, and to participate in general meetings
of the corporation.
The work of the advisory committee will be open and inclusive of all
members of the Internet community. Draft and final recommendations
will be posted on the ICANN web site, and suggestions and comments via
the Internet will be invited from interested parties. Recommendations
from the committee will be subject to the notice and comment
procedures set forth in the Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.
The ICANN Board will select the committee with the goal of assembling
a diverse and broadly representative group. Expressions of interest
to participate are to be directed to msvh@icann.org, by midnight, 5
December, 1998, US west coast time. Applicants are requested to state
what contribution they would expect to make towards the work of this
committee; such statements need not be more than 100 words.
The committee will commence work in December, 1998. Most of the work
of the committee will be conducted via phone or the Internet. A final
meeting is planned to be held in Singapore on 1 March, 1999, to
prepare a report to the ICANN board by the end of March. Committee
members will be expected to devote sufficient time to the work of the
committee to achieve this very tight schedule.
Pending the identification of an ICANN funding mechanism and the
actual receipt of funds, ICANN's resources to support meeting and
travel expenses of its committees is very limited. We ask that
committee members assist us by assuming personal responsibility for
their travel expenses, if possible. We will facilitate phone
participation in face-to-face meetings as necessary.
Contact:
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
Senior Advisor to the President and CEO
Staff to the Advisory Committee on Membership
ICANN
msvh@icann.org
Please send comments on this web site to: webmaster@icann.org
Page Updated 25-November-98.
______________________________________________________________________
(c) 1998 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
All rights reserved.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:24:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Users need to be able to speak for themselves(Was: Re:Position of SOs)
Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com> wrote:
At 07:46 PM 11/28/98 , Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>>edyson@edventure.com (Esther Dyson) writes:
>
>>>Some further questions:
>
>>How do "users" count themselves? Am I a different person with regard to
>>>(say) addresses vs. as an At Large member? How are the users who join
>>>(whatever that means) an SO different from those who join the AL membership?
>>>As a user, how do I want my influence mediated? Would I like my ISP to
>>>represent me in the AL membership in some way? Is membership a burden that
>>>I *want* to cede to someone who will go to (boring) meetings on my behalf,
>>>study the issues, etc.? How are my interests similar to an different from
>>>those of other users?=20
>
>>At the Boston Meeting on Nov. 14 people spoke to this.
>
>>And it was interesting that what was said was reflected in the Nov. 14
>>NYT story and then removed in the edition that actually went into
>>the print edition.
>
>>Users speak for themselves on the Internet. The Internet is a far
>>superior medium for people to participate and contribute to
>>the clarification and solving of problems.
>Hi Ronda,
>Actually, you and Esther are not far apart on this one.
We seem to be on the questions she posed above and the fact that
she didn't bother to respond to my comments.
>Esther Dyson also wrote:
>http://www.ibm.com/services/newmark/mature.html
I looked at the site and you can't see the file in ascii and
I use lynx so I can't read the file. If someone wants to send
me a copy in ascii, that would be helpful
Interesting that this site doesn't make provisions for people using
a txt browser
Also it was interesting to note that Esther was on the NII committee.
>The Net's long-run impact on democracy, I believe, won't be one of
>propaganda or information dissemination; CNN and the various national
>broadcasters (private and public) do a fine job of that. The real impact,
>if it works, will be to encourage citizen participation, to make people
>feel that they can influence the discussion. Instead of choosing from
>what's on offer, they can actually make suggestions and arguments of their
>own. If you think a politician is brain dead, you can say why instead of
>just giving your vote to someone slightly more alive. People want to
>contribute their ideas as well as their votes.
And they can help to frame the questions so the discussion of the
problem gets somewhere instead of going in circles.
Good to see you agree this is important.
But also the Internet has been built on this new form of participatory
contribution and netizenship and really requries it to function properly.
>Jay.
But I don't see Esther or anyone from the NTIA concerned with this
issue and trying to figure out a way to make such online participation
helpful.
And the issue of membership actually excludes such participation by the
online community rather than making it possible.
>>What is needed is *not* membership as membership ends up being
>>manipulated by those who have the most ability to utilize it
>>for their own purposes. And it is not to have one's ISP speak
>>for users. The ICANN, models still seem to be that of user as customer,
>>rather than user as citizen of the Net or net.citizen or Netizen.
>
>>A citizen is the person who has to speak for his or her self,
>>to clarify what is needed, and to contribute to determine the issues
>>that need to be discussed, and how to frame the discussion, etc.
>>The Internet makes this possible, and this is necessary for
>>the Internet to continue to develop.
>
>>What is needed are online forms that function to discuss the problems
>>that have to be determined and to figure out the principles toward
>>the needed solutions.
>
>>That was part of the essence of my proposal that Magaziner asked
>>me to submit and then was ignored by him and the U.S. Dept. of
>>Commerce.
>>(The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt)
>
>
>>This is how the Internet has been built.
>
>>The Internet makes possible participatory forms and encourages
>>netizen participation, but ICANN is talking about "membership"
>>and supporting organizations and "corporations" instead of having a
>>ny understanding of the development of the Internet.
>
>>I have previously offered to discuss this further with anyone
>>interested, and it seems with regard to the U.S. Dept of Commerce,
>>Magaziner's office and ICANN that *no* one is interested.
>
>>Either one is interested in participatory processes that the
>>Internet makes possible, or in imposing decisions on the Internet
>>community. The latter flies in the face of the cooperative and
>>collaborative processes needed for the Internet to function, and
>>to grow and flourish.
>
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
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 #219
******************************
