Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 197
Netizens-Digest Saturday, October 31 1998 Volume 01 : Number 197
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] (Fwd) Re: Spam here
[netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
[netz] Re: [ifwp] ITU Actions
Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: ITU Actions
Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:06:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] (Fwd) Re: Spam here
Kerry Miller wrote:
>More constructively, if -what? 2, 3 years ago - we, the public, had
>been more widely aware of the need to preserve public space, and
>obstinately insisted that commercial traffic form its own list, we
>might now have a very strong precedent for net-businesses forming
>their own domain, and leaving the rest of the system to a
>publicly-responsible administration. We might have been able to
>carry forward Barlow's vision of the WWW as the beginnings of global
>government.
Even if commercial traffic was restricted to its own networks, that
would not solve the spam problem.
I get a lot of spam from people who represent the interests of
non-profit organizations. People who are telling me who I should vote
for; who I should donate my money and time to; what people are being
oppressed in various parts of the world; and so on.
Spam is the problem, not commercialism.
With regards to the general issue of public space that you raised,
let's assume you are right, and the net-businesses went away and
formed their own commercial networks. In other words, all of them
went over to MSN, AOL, etc, or formed their own networks. In
addition, they formed application-level gateways between themselves as
they saw fit.
What would be left? Academic networks using private
telecommunications infrastructure (leased telco lines, microwave,
satellite, etc.), with public networks allowed on as guests when
resources permit. (In other words, how the old ARPAnet and other
research-oriented nets were run.) How would this further any aims
towards global government? The government that ran this would be
whoever was paying the money for it. If they didn't want to let you
on, no outside entity would have to power to order them to do so.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:53:32 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Ingo inscribed,
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Ronda Hauben wrote:
> > I agree, as the people can represent their own needs and desires,
> > but corporations can't and have no basis to represent people.
>
> Non Governmental Organizations can represent people. Corporations are
> NGO's, with the added function of generating money. That is not, in itself,
> a hindrance to the function of representation.
>
It's to deal with this *potential* conflict of interest that the 'toplevel domain'
of human affairs has to be defined as being without conflict in itself. The
issue underlying the present debate is whether any self-constructed entity
('corporation') can perform this TLD role. Since there are, at least in name,
other entities ('governments') that presently collectively occupy this role, this
translates to the question as to why they should abdicate.
> To make them represent you, you have to influence them. Whereas
> corporations are primarily influenced by money, governments are influenced
> by votes.
Here, however, the cart gets in front of the horse. Influence is not to be
equated with representation (although it may the historical precedent of
alienation that has developed between people and their governmental
*structures* which has allowed so much discussion (I would say rant) to go
on *as if* influence is the only channel). In the more fundamental perspective,
a corporation should be 'influenced' by its charter -- its articles of
incorporation -- which is issued by the government, i.e. on behalf of the
people, to perform some particular function *as if* it is an individual citizen.
> Those are just two different means of reaching the same goal and
> they work equally well, if used properly. Its much easier to use money,
> though, than to vote. I believe that simple fact is the heart of the free
> market theory.
>
Rather, of free market practice.
> The differences begin when the primary means of influence don't work
> anymore. Everyone knows politicians who disregard the voters opinion and
> corporations who disregard the buyers opinion.
>
This is why it is important to argue from _principle_ rather than
empirical 'evidence' - and why the internet should certainly not become a
corporate 'playing field' before its charter is clearly understood. Otherwise we
are simply indulging in a game of 'who can be more cynical than the other' in
respect to whether gov't represents people, and whether vote buying is more
efficient than honest deliberation of the merits of the case. One could even
argue that the net should be preserved as a public domain *precisely* to
educate the global citizenry to perform this kind of deliberation. If, then, they
decide to incorporate it, I dont think there would be much argument ;-)
...
> They most important way of influencing governments, when you can't do it
> with votes, is to *participate* -- and they have to let you. They can't
> just throw you out. Its hard work, but it is possible and its the most
> important thing in the world. We should not dismiss it lightly.
>
I entirely agree, and its hard to conceive of any better opportunity to
participate in a global 'constitutional convention' than the internet presently
provides.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:10:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Ingo Luetkebohle <ingo@devconsult.de> wrote:
>I couldn't resist to put in my 2 cents...
Good you couldn't resist :-)
>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>> I agree, as the people can represent their own needs and desires,
>> but corporations can't and have no basis to represent people.
>Non Governmental Organizations can represent people. Corporations are
>NGO's, with the added function of generating money. That is not, in itself,
>a hindrance to the function of representation.
Isn't it the opposite, that Non Governmental Organizations are corporations
that aren't supposed to be generating money, but doing some other
function.
What is a non Governmental organization in Germany (Is that where
you are writing from?)
In the U.S. they are they are still private corporations, which means
they are run by some power clique and I don't know any means for
influencing them to do what is worthwhile.
>To make them represent you, you have to influence them. Whereas
>corporations are primarily influenced by money, governments are influenced
I don't know of any way to make any non-Governmental organization
represent people.
The only entity I know of that one can get to represent citizens
interests is a public or governmental entity.
>by votes. Those are just two different means of reaching the same goal and
>they work equally well, if used properly. Its much easier to use money,
>though, than to vote. I believe that simple fact is the heart of the free
>market theory.
But the "free market theory" doesn't function for the ordinary person,
it only enriches the wealthy.
>The differences begin when the primary means of influence don't work
>anymore. Everyone knows politicians who disregard the voters opinion and
>corporations who disregard the buyers opinion.
But there is a difference. I can walk up to a politician and challenge
him or her. With a corporation I can't do anything, except try to
sue, and they have much deeper pockets than I do and I can only
get into a deep whole.
>With corporations, when you can't influence them with money, and they are
>not doing anything blatantly illegal, you're out of luck. Of course, in
I found even when a big corporation is doing something blatantly
illegal, you are out of luck.
I found they control the newspapers, the courts, etc.
That they have the money and power and they use it.
That the ordinary person is totally helpful against them.
>theory you could always start a competing company, but if the market is
>mature (which is the case in 99% of markets), your influence will be
>negligible for a long time, if not forever.
When there are two or three big corporations that dominant
in a country, you can't start another corporation, as the
biggies keep others out.
>Governments, on the other hand, have various other means of influencing
>them, should voting fail, because a lot of people knew that it would be
>necessary some time or other and they put restrictions in the right places.
>This is a direct consequence of the fact that the *sole* reason for
>governments is to represent us, whereas corporations have a few other
>things to do.
Yes, with governments one can battle with them to do what the
citizens needs done, but with corporations, one doesn't have a chance.
>They most important way of influencing governments, when you can't do it
>with votes, is to *participate* -- and they have to let you. They can't
>just throw you out. Its hard work, but it is possible and its the most
>important thing in the world. We should not dismiss it lightly.
This is very important. This is what I have found too. That government
does have procedures to use to participate and to fight against
the lack of representation of a citizen's interests.
With corporations this isn't true.
When I was in the strange situation of working in a private
corporation as a public school teacher, I found that I only
had rights with the government entity to try to challenge the
situation. I had *no* rights with the corporate entity.
They had *no* reason to listen and could even forbid one to
try to talk to them.
These different entities are like apples and oranges, they are
totally different.
I found that the only procedures existed with government.
That the private corporate entity made it *impossible* to
have public school classes.
One needed to be under public school control to have the
ability to have public school classes.
One couldn't put public school classes under the control
of a private school and still have the public school.
This is similar with the Internet. If one puts the public
Internet *under* the control of a private corporation,
those of us who care for the Internet will loose the
ability to have the Internet.
The private corporation will *control* the Internet for its
purposes and the public purposes that have been allowed
to develop, and that were supported under government,
will be gone.
Do you think that this isn't true? Do you think that
the public purposes of the Internet and the public processes
that have grown up and have helped the Internet to grow
and flourish *can* continue to exist if the essential
functions of the Internet are put under the control
(and ownership) of a private corporation?
What is to provide for the public processes and purposes?
>oh, well, it became more like 2$, but who cares ;-)
Good it was more than 2 cents :-)
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: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:47:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] ITU Actions
Tony Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
>Milton,
>As I indicated several days ago, there was significant
>concern regarding ITU Plenipotentiary conference actions
>concerning Internet in general and "governance" matters
>specifically.
>A few hours ago, NTIA released an *urgent* fax advisory
>request to its Internet industry advisory group to respond
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
What is this?
Who is on it?
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: 31 Oct 1998 12:47:37 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> writes:
Can't resist submitting my own 2 euro-cents :)
> >> I agree, as the people can represent their own needs and desires,
> >> but corporations can't and have no basis to represent people.
I totally agree.
> >Non Governmental Organizations can represent people. Corporations are
> >NGO's, with the added function of generating money. That is not, in itself,
> >a hindrance to the function of representation.
>
> Isn't it the opposite, that Non Governmental Organizations are corporations
> that aren't supposed to be generating money, but doing some other
> function.
That's the way I'd understand it, with a French point of
view.
Anyway, I don't see the point. No organisation, be it non- or
for-profit, can represent a "customer" unless it has a mandate (e.g.. a
law firm will have that mandate in certain circumstances).
> The only entity I know of that one can get to represent citizens
> interests is a public or governmental entity.
Well, unless they have a mandate. On the other hand, a non-elected
governement (or, at least, one not approved by the people), or any
entity legitimated only by that government, cannot
represent its country's people either (although they may claim
otherwise), but only the country. And, speaking of today's situation
on the Internet, I don't think that the US governement can represent
other countries' people.
>
> >by votes. Those are just two different means of reaching the same goal and
> >they work equally well, if used properly. Its much easier to use money,
> >though, than to vote. I believe that simple fact is the heart of the free
> >market theory.
>
> But the "free market theory" doesn't function for the ordinary person,
> it only enriches the wealthy.
>
Well, it has proven to enrich most people this far (even if the rich
get richer faster than the others), at least as long as the market is
really free (i.e. as long as there is competition). But, again, I
cannot see how this is related to representation.
> But there is a difference. I can walk up to a politician and challenge
> him or her. With a corporation I can't do anything, except try to
> sue, and they have much deeper pockets than I do and I can only
> get into a deep whole.
I doubt that _one_individual_ will manage to change anything with a
politician either.
> This is very important. This is what I have found too. That government
> does have procedures to use to participate and to fight against
> the lack of representation of a citizen's interests.
>
> With corporations this isn't true.
Hmmm... as long as there is sufficient competition, they will
certainly try to make their customers happy. This might involve the
defence of the clients' interests to some degree. I wouldn't say that
this means representing them, but I think that this what some of the
previous posters meant.
>
> When I was in the strange situation of working in a private
> corporation as a public school teacher, I found that I only
> had rights with the government entity to try to challenge the
> situation. I had *no* rights with the corporate entity.
>
> They had *no* reason to listen and could even forbid one to
> try to talk to them.
Well, in this case, _you_ (or the school) were de facto the provider
and they were the clients. This makes the situation a little
different, unless they wanted to control the curriculum of _all_
classes.
OTOH, if we compare this to the problems with the Internet, you can
expect, if the context is right and to some degree, a company to
defend its clients' interests _related_to_the_service_ the clients pay
for.
In your example, the "client" was the corporation, not the school.
> This is similar with the Internet. If one puts the public
> Internet *under* the control of a private corporation,
> those of us who care for the Internet will loose the
> ability to have the Internet.
Well, all those who care for it don't _have_ it ;-)
Of course, they will never get a chance to change this, if a
corporation takes over control. The main reason being that it will be
_control_ and not competition.
> The private corporation will *control* the Internet for its
> purposes and the public purposes that have been allowed
> to develop, and that were supported under government,
> will be gone.
Probably, yes.
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:25:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: ITU Actions
Tony Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
>>>A few hours ago, NTIA released an *urgent* fax advisory
>>>request to its Internet industry advisory group to respond
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>
>>What is this?
>
>>Who is on it?
>This is not an advisory group in the formal sense, but
>simply an array of 50 people representing diverse groups
>and companies who are informed and tapped for reactions
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
Do you know what companies are on it? Since it is called
an "industrry advisory group" one would expect it were
companies.
>on international Internet developments by the NTIA's
>International Affairs office.
>It focusses predominantly on OECD, UNCITRAL and ecommerce matters.
>Anyone can be on the list. There are lots of similar groups around.
Then why is it called an "industry" advisory group, if it
is for "anyone"?
>Dept of State has one; USTR another; etc, etc.
>--tony
Who does one ask to put them on the list?
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:45:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com> writes:
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> writes:
>Can't resist submitting my own 2 euro-cents :)
Good to have a bit of variety, after all this is the "Netizens" list :-)
>> I agree, as the people can represent their own needs and desires,
>> but corporations can't and have no basis to represent people.
>I totally agree.
Good - a point of agreement :-)
Now for the debate!
>> Isn't it the opposite, that Non Governmental Organizations are corporations
>> that aren't supposed to be generating money, but doing some other
>> function.
>That's the way I'd understand it, with a French point of
>view.
>Anyway, I don't see the point. No organisation, be it non- or
>for-profit, can represent a "customer" unless it has a mandate (e.g.. a
>law firm will have that mandate in certain circumstances).
The original discussion had to do with someone who claimed that
corporations "represent" the interests of the customer, or consumer.
So the point was whether or not a corporation, for profit or non-profit
can represent someone - and my point was that it is governments
that are created to "represent" the interests of people, i.e.
of people as citizens. And it is *not* that corporations, for profit
or non-profit can "represent" interests of the people.
I see what you are saying about a lawyer representing his client,
but that is as a hired person to do a particular job.
But the reason for this discussion is to consider whether the
private corporation the U.S. government is forming to take
over the essential functions of the Internet can be something
that can represent the interests of the public (the public
in the U.S. and of other countries as well.)
And I was challenging that any private corporation, especially
a private corporation which is being given what is potentially
billions of dollars (or euro-dollars :) can represent the
public's interest. Instead my sense is that as long as it
is private, is that the public (of the U.S. and of other
countries around the world) is being left out, and is having
the access and ability to contribute to the Internet taken
away from them by this action of the U.S. government (with
what seems like at least some other governments, or government
organizations agreement.)
My study of the development of the Internet is that it grew
up to allow for the public of countries around the world
to participate because governments around the world were
involved in a *good* way.
And that to take away that *good* role of governments,
by putting these assets into a *private corporation* that
doesn't allow *any* open government participation (but in
fact does allow covert government participation as governments
are selecting the people who are the interim board, etc.)
is to create a structure that is hostile to the continued
development of the Internet as a place where users can participate
and contribute, and is to create a controlling mechanism
that gives the worst elements of the private sector the
ability to grab control of the public assets.
Up to now the U.S. government has been obliged to act
in a way to protect the public trust. And at times the
U.S. government did function that way, as for example,
when they allowed, or supported IANA (which was under
contract to the U.S. govt) to allow country codes to
be administered by someone in a country, as long as
the government of that country didn't object. But that
they, I have heard, recognized the right of a government
to determine who would administer the country code
domains in a country.
It wasn't that the U.S. government (as far as I know)
directed IANA to give the country code domains to
U.S. private corporations. But now with this new
private organization, I saw a set of people who weren't
country code administrators taking over and planning
a Domain Names council where they would have the power
to determine what would be done with the country codes,
or the board of the private corporation would have that
power.
.
Some of the country code administrators had been connected
to governments. Now that is being forbidden. Some of the
country code administrators tried to spread the Internet
in their countries. These people will now find themselves
at the mercy of the big private and corporate interests
who will come to get the country code domains for the
interests of hoarding or speculation, or who knows what else.
As of 1995, when the NSF let NSI charge for domain names,
and for a yearly fee for anyone who had a domain name,
from then on the U.S. govt allowed abuses in the registration
and practice of hoarding, speculation, etc. of domain names.
That was an abuse of its responsibility by the U.S. government
but there is an entity that can be held responsible for
this abuse. Also, however, the U.S. government was doing this
as part of its plan to privatize these essential functions,
rather than as part of a recognition that it needed to be
responsible to the public in how it administered these
essential functions.
So the problem with the NSF was *not* that the domain name
functions need to be privatized, but the opposed. The problem
has arised because the NSF needed to be responsible for the
*public* administration of these functions.
>> The only entity I know of that one can get to represent citizens
>> interests is a public or governmental entity.
>Well, unless they have a mandate. On the other hand, a non-elected
>governement (or, at least, one not approved by the people), or any
>entity legitimated only by that government, cannot
>represent its country's people either (although they may claim
>otherwise), but only the country. And, speaking of today's situation
>on the Internet, I don't think that the US governement can represent
>other countries' people.
You leave out the fact that the Internet has developed via a
process whereby governments and peoples of different countries
cooperated and so an International communications network of
networks was created.
It wasn't that the U.S. government represented other countries'
people.
The U.S. government provided people and funds to create the network
in the U.S. and supported the use of it to communicate with people
in other countries as long as those governments also opened provided
what was needed to build their networks and to allow the people of
their countries to communicate with those in the U.S.
I contributed a proposal that would build on this process to
make the administration and protection of essential functions
of the Internet something that would be built on this cooperative
process that made it possible to build the Internet. The proposal
I contributed, would involved governments and people of any
country that wanted to participate and that supported the
participation with funding and researchers.
And this would be based on the kind of international scientific
collaboration that built the Internet.
My proposal is at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
There is a draft version in French, and a later version
in English.
The file in English is dns_proposal.txt
in French it is dns-proposition.txt
(We didn't have time to update the French version
when the original proposal was posted at the NTIA web site,
but I can see if the person who translated it into French
can update it now.)
I don't see how excluding governments from the process that
the U.S. government is creating can create any international
structure. It can only create a "private" structure, which
is hostile to the Internet as a public network of networks.
>
> >by votes. Those are just two different means of reaching the same goal and
> >they work equally well, if used properly. Its much easier to use money,
> >though, than to vote. I believe that simple fact is the heart of the free
> >market theory.
>
I don't find the "free market" theory functioning either with
regard to creating or distributing wealth, or with regard to
government.
In fact, the long history of labor legislation and factory regulation
shows that it has arisen as a result of the "free market" theory
to provide a good life for people.
Before labor and factory regulation, children were maimed and injured
and their fathers were thrown out of the factories onto the streets.
There were 50 years of devastation to the British population in
the 1800-1850's until the shorter hours legislation was passed,
and even then it was a fight to have it implemented.
It is still, at least in the U.S., that some workers are working
long hours, while many others have trouble finding jobs. And
in the workplace, people who try to take a lunch hour find themselves
not getting promotions and then getting laid off, while those
who work through their lunch time, get promotions.
Without legislation and regulation, corporations must all lower
the standards of their workers, and of their products, in their
supposed competition with the other corporations.
The Internet was built by a very different process. It was
built by the government funded and supported scientific and
technical research. This is the kind of process that provides
progress and it is the kind of process that needs to be
continued to support the Internet's growth and development.
>> But the "free market theory" doesn't function for the ordinary person,
>> it only enriches the wealthy.
>
>Well, it has proven to enrich most people this far (even if the rich
>get richer faster than the others), at least as long as the market is
>really free (i.e. as long as there is competition). But, again, I
>cannot see how this is related to representation.
See above for my reasons for disagreeing with the ability of the
"free market" to provide enrichment to most people.
But the point about representation is that in the U.S. those
who take as what seems to be their religion the "free market"
(and who then are part of the largest corporations that dominate
the economy), are saying that the Internet is a "market" and
that that will be the future of the Internet.
That the big corporations need to control the Internet and
what they do will represent the interests of the users.
But the Interenet is a place where the users represent themselves.
And as the big corporate entities are given the public assets
and control over the Internet, we will no longer have
an Internet, but a commercenet of their content and their
e-shopping malls, etc.
That is *not* desirable, to say the least.
>> But there is a difference. I can walk up to a politician and challenge
>> him or her. With a corporation I can't do anything, except try to
>> sue, and they have much deeper pockets than I do and I can only
>> get into a deep whole.
>I doubt that _one_individual_ will manage to change anything with a
>politician either.
Well I was able to walk up to Ira Magaziner (the senior advisor to the
U.S. president on Internet affairs when I saw him in Geneva and try to
talk with him, as he was a government official.) And he wouldn't
talk with me in Geneva (at the IFWP meeting there) but said he
would get back to me if I sent him email. And I did talk with
him a few times to express my complaints about what is being
done by the U.S. government with the Internet.
He told me I would have to put my complaints into a proposal form
if I wanted them considered, so I put them into a proposal form.
I agree that they haven't yet been considered, but the battle
isn't over yet.
On the other hand, I also went to talk to a VP of MCI/Worldcom.
And he said he didn't have to talk to me and walked away.
So there is a very different situation with respect to
government officials and private corporate entities.
(Which is also what I found when I was assigned to teach
public school in a private factory.)
>> This is very important. This is what I have found too. That government
>> does have procedures to use to participate and to fight against
>> the lack of representation of a citizen's interests.
>
>> With corporations this isn't true.
>Hmmm... as long as there is sufficient competition, they will
>certainly try to make their customers happy. This might involve the
>defence of the clients' interests to some degree. I wouldn't say that
>this means representing them, but I think that this what some of the
>previous posters meant.
This is not my experience. Companies lower the kinds of working
conditions of their workers, cut back on the products they
produce, etc.
It is scientific and technical research that produces better ways
to make products and improve life for people, not industry
competition. (In the U.S. the telecom deregulation has
led to higher prices for the home user, fraud in the way
people have their telecom carrier changed without their consent,
lots of annoying phone calls from telephone vendors, etc.)
And we have lost Bell Labs, the preeminent research laboratory
that gave the world Unix, the transistor, the laser, etc.
This is what competition has wrought, at least in the U.S..
>
>> When I was in the strange situation of working in a private
>> corporation as a public school teacher, I found that I only
>> had rights with the government entity to try to challenge the
>> situation. I had *no* rights with the corporate entity.
>
>> They had *no* reason to listen and could even forbid one to
>> try to talk to them.
>Well, in this case, _you_ (or the school) were de facto the provider
>and they were the clients. This makes the situation a little
>different, unless they wanted to control the curriculum of _all_
>classes.
This is interesting. It shows the two different viewpoints of
public and private.
As a public school or university teacher I didn't think of myself
as providing a service for a client who was the administrator
of the public school or university. Rather I was hired to
provide something for the public.
I was there to serve the public by providing the best education
I could.
But as you point out above, when I went to work to provide public
education on the premises of a private corporation, the corporate
head felt that he was my client and that I should only teach
what he wanted.
However, I was being paid (at least in part) by public funds.
And I was a public official, a teacher. So I couldn't as a public
official, as a public school teacher be serving a private
client. My obligation was to the public, *not* to the private
corporate entity.
So these two entities can't mix. They have a different nature.
And that is the same as what is being done trying to put the
public resources of the Internet into the ownership and control
of a private corporation.
>OTOH, if we compare this to the problems with the Internet, you can
>expect, if the context is right and to some degree, a company to
>defend its clients' interests _related_to_the_service_ the clients pay
>for.
>In your example, the "client" was the corporation, not the school.
> This is similar with the Internet. If one puts the public
> Internet *under* the control of a private corporation,
> those of us who care for the Internet will loose the
> ability to have the Internet.
>Well, all those who care for it don't _have_ it ;-)
But we do have the ability, to at least some extent, to care for
the Internet now. I can contribute my posts.
Disney hasn't won the battle yet to keep me off the Internet.
Nor has MCI/Worldcom yet won the battle to raise my rates for
access, to change tcp/ip to something where they can charge
for packets and priorities of packets, though they will aim
for such a situation.
>Of course, they will never get a chance to change this, if a
>corporation takes over control. The main reason being that it will be
>_control_ and not competition.
Interesting. But I don't understand how you feel competition can
build a computer-communications network.
Communication requires agreement and cooperation, *not* competition.
At the IFWP meeting in Geneva this summer, service providers
came to protest the creation of the IP numbers council.
They said that those who sell them numbers are being empowered
to control how the number sales will be made.
That the vendors are getting to form a council of vendors to
regulated themselves. And those who are the customers of those
vendors, the service providers, will be even more at the mercy
of the vendors. The U.S. government is setting up a self
regulatory structure of the largest and most powerful entities.
But it is the RFC cooperative process and the Usenet newsgroup
or mailing list discussion that are what is needed to figure
out how to develop the Internet and to solve its problems,
not competition.
>> The private corporation will *control* the Internet for its
>> purposes and the public purposes that have been allowed
>> to develop, and that were supported under government,
>> will be gone.
>Probably, yes.
- --
>Carsten Läkamp
>claekamp@mindless.com
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 #197
******************************
