Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 216
Netizens-Digest Sunday, November 29 1998 Volume 01 : Number 216
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz]
[netz] Closing the Knowledge Gap
[netz] Future of the Internet?
[netz] Archives of this list
[netz] Users need to be able to speak for themselves(Was: Re:Position of SOs)
[netz] Re: IP: My presentation at the PITAC on Wednesday on DNS issues - in rtf format
[netz] The new contract between ICANN and the U.S. Dept of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:18:19 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz]
Jay, are Netizens posts archived anywhere?
kerr
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:35:02 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Closing the Knowledge Gap
http://www.sciencemag.org/
Closing the Knowledge Gap Between Scientist and Nonscientist
Takashi Tachibana
[...]
Most nonscientists who like to think of themselves as knowledgeable about
modern science really know only about technologies -- and specifically those
technologies considered likely to bring economic profits in the short term
("This research can strengthen our economy." "Our future lives can be made more
convenient thanks to this technology."). This is also the mind-set of most
government officials and lawmakers who consider themselves sympathetic to
science and technology budget requests. Thus in countries that pride themselves
on having substantial budgets for research in science and technology, most of
the money is given to industry-connected technologies. Even when major funding
is channeled to pure science, it usually targets an area of clear benefit to
industry such as condensed-matter physics, useful for the semiconductor
industry. Thus science for homo economicus and homo faber is flourishing, while
science for Homo sapiens is diminishing.
Given this scenario, it seems that the ascent of man has been left in the care
of homo ignorantis. Within this fortress, the "Better Living Through Science"
crowd is busy trying to monopolize science and technology funding and is, in
the process, choking off what remains of funding for pure research. As we
struggle to counter their court intrigues, we may one day wake up to find
barbarians at the gate, in the form of an upsurge in "new" science--that is,
not science at all--promoted by one or another fundamentalist religious or
occultist group ready to lead us into a new Dark Age.
How can we respond to these threats? We who understand real science need to
court more allies, and this can be done by ensuring that far more people join
us in that knowledge. What we must urgently do is renovate education and
significantly raise the basic level of scientific knowledge, for, as C. P. Snow
warned four decades ago, we must "educate ourselves or perish."
===========
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:07:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Future of the Internet?
A story in Wired says that the U.S. government is rushing
ahead with its plan to give away the cooperative public
assets to the private corporation it has created.
URL: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16469.html
What started out as a situation to deal with making decisions
over domain names has become an excuse to give away key
control over the Internet to unknown people and powers.
There was a great deal of dissent at the meeting in Boston
on Nov. 14 where the ICANN Board of Directors appeared,
and explained that they didn't know anything about the
Internet and that was why they were asked to serve on
the Board of Directors. But this Board of Directors is
for a private corporation to make policy decisions and to
get ownership and control over the essential functions
of the Internet, including the domain name system, the
IP numbers, the root server system, and the protocols, etc.
This is no small matter for some people who know nothing
about the Internet, and so it all raises the very
serious question what is behind this, why is the U.S.
government doing this, and what is their plan for the
Internet if they are rushing ahead with a time table
that makes no logical sense to many of those who are
concerned about the present and the future of the Internet.
Also the fact this has all been carried out via a very
secret process, where no one knows who has made the
decisions of who should be on the Interim Board of
Directors, how the bylaws and article were created
for the new corporation, etc. raises the question of
who has to hide behind the scenes to carry this out
and why.
There has been a problem with domain names that
needed to be solved. A recent post on Usenet
suggested that domain names should be distributed
like license plates, by an appropriate government
agency for an administrative fee.
This is only one of the kinds of proposals that could
be discussed if that were the purpose of some group
to solve the domain name controversy.
But it is clear from the events surrounding the
creations and formation of ICANN that its charter
is to encompass control over the Internet's
essential function, and it is to be given these
precious assets, and thus it is *not* being created
in any fashion to genuinely solve any problem,
but instead to create a new and very serious
problem for the Internet and its present and future.
Several weeks ago I was invited to give a talk
in Vienna about Internet governance and the lessons
from the history of the Net toward understanding
what principles would guide genuine Internet
governance.
(http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/talk_governance.txt)
What is happening is the very opposite of creating
any form of Internet governance because it is removing
any of the important decisions regarding the present
and future of the Internet from the Internet
community and from those who have an understanding
of the growth and development of the Internet and
it is putting those decisions into unknown hands to
solve in a way to serve very narrow and particular
interests.
At the meeting, some folks talked about the need
for an international public utility to administer
these essential Internet functions, rather than
a private corporation.
However, the U.S. government wasn't listening, and
doesn't seem to be able to hear anything people have
to say at this point. Instead they seem to have
a time table that is being moved along on, despite
the concerns or contributions of people.
So the problem to me seems to be that it is impossible
for people to be able to communicate with the U.S.
government officials conducting this give-away.
And they are creating a Board of Directors and a
private corporation that is equally shielded from
any two way communication with the Internet community.
Thus its policies and procedures can only be harmful
to the Internet. And by giving this private corporate
entity unbridled power and the ownership and control
over very large sums of financial wealth (which
belongs to the Internet community), the U.S. government
is dooming the ability of this private corporation
to serve any but a very destructive role regarding
the Internet.
But this raises the questions of what is needed
to own, control and administer these very essential
functions and assets of the Internet?
It seems the U.S. government has become incapable
of playing any of the good role it has played
in the past in both the building and the
administration of the Internet. What then is to
be done by the Internet community?
At the meeting in Boston, the issue was raised that
there are procedures that have developed as
part of the Internet's development for making decisions.
Why aren't these procedures being built upon?
What is needed at this point to move forward?
The Internet has been built by encouraging user
participation and by encouraging cooperative
processes and procedures. And the Internet itself
has made these possible.
The creation of ICANN by the U.S. government flies
in the face of these processes and procedures and
is being used to fundamentally change the course
of direction of the Internet. It is an important
matter to be discussed and for the Internet
community to determine what means are needed to
deal with this urgent situation.
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:13:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Archives of this list
Hi,
A short while ago Kerry asked "Are Netizens posts archived anywhere?"
Sometime this summer the netizens-digests which each contain about 20,000
bytes began to be archived at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/netizens/digest/
The earlier digests have been compressed using the unix compress command.
All the most recent digests are there uncompressed.
Please feel free to access the digests there or let me know if you need
earlier digests or some of these mailed to you.
You might also send an email message to majordomo@columbia.edu with the
word help in the body. There might be a way that majordomo provides for
getting archived posts or digests.
Lastly, you might look at http://www.columbia.edu/hauben/ and see if
there are any pointers or links there to archives of posts to this the
netizens mailing list.
Take care and Happy American Thanksgiving.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 19:46:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Users need to be able to speak for themselves(Was: Re:Position of SOs)
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.
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: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 15:29:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: IP: My presentation at the PITAC on Wednesday on DNS issues - in rtf format
Dave - was this your report about what was happening with ICANN
to the Executive Branch of the U.S. Govt? (I was in Europe when
I first received this from IP, but it is important to understand
why the report was somewhat one sided, so I am asking my questions
below, even though it is a few weeks later.)
Is there any reason you left out any mention of my proposal,
or any critique of the Geneva IFWP meeting?
You have left in here only a report on those who are commercially
interested in the issues, rather than including those with
no commercial interest.
On Nov. 7, 1998, Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Domain Names: Implications on the health of the Internet
>David J. Farber
>Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunications at
>The Moore School of the=20
>University of Pennsylvania
>Presented at PITAC Nov 1998
What exactly is the PITAC?
>History of change
>=B7 Name and IP Assignment IANA -- historical duties=20
>=B7 Formation of NSI and community unhappiness with semi-monopoly
>=B7 desire of the USG to =93get out=94
>=B7 IAHC -- privatization try one
>Government action as a result
>=B7 Green paper issued 2/98=20
>=B7 White paper issued in 6/98 =20
>=B7 After heavy commenting on GP. =20
>=B7 Limited functions to be transferred to a new non-profit =20
>=B7 to be organized by private sector =20
>Many activities started
>=B7 Postel with assistance from JonesDay started planning for the =93n=
>ew IANA=94
>=B7 IFWP informally formed to reflect international non government=
> concerns=20
>=B7 three large open meetings -- Reston, Geneva, Singapore=20
The Geneva meeting declared "consensus" and was fundamentally hostile
to participation and discussion that would be necessary to really
figure anything constructive out.
(My Report from Geneva is at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt )
>=B7 Small network based groups =20
>=B7 ORSC =20
>=B7 BWG etc.=20
You left out my proposal which was submitted at Ira Magaziner's request
and also submitted to the NTIA and posted there
And it was a constructive and helpful proposal providing for a
prototype to build an international public administration for the
DNS functions, rather than excluding users, the public sector etc.
as the private IFWP process has systemmatically done.
The proposal is at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/dns_proposal.txt
>Warning that a failure of community action -- IP
>=B7 could destabilize the internet though uncoordinated private=
> actions
>=B7 cause intervention of governments though national and=
> international
You left out that the ramming through of ICANN can destablize
the Internet by imposing a hostile control structure over the
cooperative and collaborative processes that are necessary
for the Internet to function and to grow and flourish.
>actions =20
>=B7 WIPO and ITU involvement in IAHC/POC=20
>Bylaws of new organization drafted
>=B7 5 versions produced by Postel group=20
>=B7 various changes proposed by other groups
>=B7 a set of meetings with NSI
>=B7 submitted to USG along with proposals by ORSC and BWG
>ICANN formed
=B7 USG responds favorable to IANA proposal =20
=B7 asks that ICANN consult the ORSC and BWG along with other parties=
The USG helped to create the IANA proposal (as IANA is its own
contractor).
You left out that my proposal was ignored by the NTIA.
And that the USG didn't ask ICANN to figure out the importance of
the proposal I submitted to include all who wanted to participate,
and to build online processes to include all users in what was done.
Also you left out that my proposal didn't exclude the public, by
limiting itself to the private, but included all.
=20
=B7 incorporation of differences when possible -- many have been done
already=20
=B7 Interim Board formed
=B7 set of telephone meetings and physical meetings to gain community=
input
prior to adoption of bylaws
Where are we
=B7 Still a lot of disagreement among and within the groups=20
=B7 a residual of distrust
=B7 ICANN Board is working to reduce the above
What are the outstanding issues
=B7 openness
=B7 accountability
=B7 freedom of expression
=B7 membership
=B7 structure of SOs
Why do we care
=B7 the DNS problem is a predictor of future public sector not for=
profit
organizations
The IFWP process is forming a private sector organization, *not* a public
sector organization.
That is the fundamental problem with what is being done with regard
to the IFWP, and as such it excludes the public, users, etc. from
the process.
Try to post on the IFWP mailing list with public concerns or in
favor of users, or in support of the history and development
of the Internet being built on, and you find that the U.S. govt
has carefully structured the whole process, to exclude the public
and public concerns.
To maintain the Internet there is the need to have an open nad
inclucive process, *not* something that is limited to the
so called "private" or commercial sectors as those to be
controlling the Internet.
>=B7 it raises the issue of the existence of a community and it=92s=
> stability
>=B7 it will decide whether =93adult=94 supervision of the internet is=
> needed
>the stability of the internet structure is critical for:
>=B7 the economic growth of the business
>=B7 the use of the network for commercial and research purposes
>=B7 it is the highway on which our IT economy depends on
The good role played by the U.S. govt in the growth and development
of the Internet was to encourage and help to develop grassroots
processes for determining what was needed for the Internet to
grow and flourish.
That is fundamentally changed by the IFWP process and the Framework
for Electronic Commerce which takes a particular application
and sector and puts them in control of the Internet's essential
functions.
This is a fundamental paradigm shift in the development of the
Internet and you don't mention that this is being carried out
without any discussion allowed of whether this should be happening.
The Internet community has *not* been consulted about whether
this should happen, only they are told they can make input
into *how* it happens. And then their input is ignored anyway.
But the more fundamental issue is who has decreed that this
should happen?
And why have they decreed this?
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: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 23:24:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] The new contract between ICANN and the U.S. Dept of Commerce
It would be good to discuss the U.S. govt. contract that they
signed the day before the U.S. Thanksgiving with ICANN:
Here is the URL. Or we could put it on the Netizens list.
It would be good to both discuss it, and also to compare it
with the proposal that I submitted.
Memorandum of Understanding, Dept. of Commerce and ICANN URL:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
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 #216
******************************
