Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 174
Netizens-Digest Thursday, October 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 174
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Digest of Netizens mailing list
[netz] DNS Controversy gets to Germany
[netz] Summary of Internet an International Public Treasure Proposal on DNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Digest of Netizens mailing list
Hi all,
I have trying to archive the digest form of this newsgroup for the last little
while. The digests I have archived are at :
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/netizens/digest/
Somehow I missed Digests numbered vol 1 171 and vol 1 172. If anyone still
has copies of those digests that can be sent to me, please send me email
letting me know. I will answer all email messages letting you know if I still
need the digests you have or if I have already gotten them. It would be best
to email me at jrh@ais.org.
I have two other questions. Is anyone else archiving the list or the digest?
Has anyone had any trouble accessing the digest archive that I have at the
above URL?
Thanks.
Take care.
Jay
,_ /\o \o/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above graphic is from the director of a French gov't research center.
He says it is the internet: someone is in trouble and someone else is coming
to help.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:16:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] DNS Controversy gets to Germany
The following post appeared on a German language Usenet newsgroup.
I thought readers of the Netizens mailing list would find it interesting.
The person in Germany saw the original posted on an English language
Usenet newsgroup, reformatted it, wrote an introduction and then posted
it. His reformating captures some of the needed debate over the privatization
plans of the US government with respect to the Internet.
Jay
- ------------------------------------------------------
Subject: (fwd) Mysterivses Gesprdch |ber derz. Internet-Privatisierungsbestrebungen der US-Regierung
ZUR ALLGEMEINEN KENNTNISNAHME / BITTE AUSHÄNGEN UND WEITERVERBREITEN!
Bi-ismi-l-lahi-r-Rahmaani-r-Rahiim
Im Namen Gottes, des Gnädigen, des Barmherzigen
Hallo, liebe Usegroups-Nutzer,
Hiermit reiche ich Euch eine E-Mail weiter, die ich aus der
Newsgroup "misc.activism.progressive" herausgefischt habe
und deren mysteriösen Inhalt ich Euch zur Kenntnis bringen
möchte. Der Beitrag wird sicherlich eine Reihe von Fragen
aufwerfen, auch im deutschen Usenet. Vor allen Dingen wirder
richtig verstanden und interpretiert wer- den müssen, um
genau einschätzen zu können, was sich da eigentlich wirklich
abspielt. Vielleicht kann der eine oder andere von Euch
dabei helfen, den Sachverhalt aufzuklären.
Es handelt sich dabei um ein kontroverses Zwigespräch von
zwei Computerfachleuten, Ronda Hauben und Hans Klein, die
beide an einem Forum teilgenommen haben, auf dem die
derzeitigen Internet-Privatisierungsvorhaben der
US-Regierung im engen Kreise abseits der breiten Öffent-
lichkeit erörtert werden sollten. Wie es scheint, plant die
US-Regierung, die andministrativen Aufgaben zur Leitung der
Internetverwaltung, ohne großes Aufsehen und vorbei an den
großen Medien, in die Obhut eines Privatunternehmens zu
geben.
Zur besseren Verständlichkeit des Artikels habe ich die
Dialogteilnehmer sowie fehlenden Text in eckigen Klammern
eingefügt und die Unterstützungskommentare der Mail in
Kursiv gesetzt. Im übrigen war der Text zerhackt, sodaß ich
ihn wieder zusammensetzen mußte. Ich hoffe, daß ich dies in
der richtigen Reihenfolge getan habe. Der Beitrag wurde von
Ronda Hauben in die oben genannte Newsgroup gepostet.
Mit freundlichem Gruß,
Achmed
- --------------------------------------------------------------
There was a meeting at the New School in NYC on Wednesday,
Sept. 25, 1998 presenting itself as a forum for users of the
Internet to discuss the U.S. government plan to privatize
essential functions the of Internet. A description of the
meeting was posted by one of the organizers who is from
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. I also
attended the meeting and feel it is important there be a
real users forum. Debate on this issue needs to break into
the public arena, and particularly to happen on the
Internet, since it seems the U.S. government won't allow
open public discussion on this issue of Internet
privatization.
Responding to the post by Hans Klein of CPSR who wrote:
INTERNET PRIVATIZATION:
OPEN COMPETITION OR MONOPOLY CONTROL?
sponsored by CPSR and NYFMA
[Beginning of the dialogue]
[Hans:] Wednesday night's User Forum was a great success!
Despite the logistical zig-zags most people found the hall
and contributed to a lively discussion of DNS issues.
[Ronda:] I didn't see lively discussion, but the effort on
the part of the chair and the panel to try to prevent views
other than theirs from being heard.
[Hans:] We had a good-sized audience of about 50 people,
four out of five panelists, and the use of first-class
facilities at the New School.
[Ronda:] The hall had actually fairly few people and when I
counted it seemed like around 30 or so. Later some of the
people mentioned they came as a result of one of the
speakers sending them email.
What is it you consider a success about it? It was in *no*
way a forum. The Chair didn't encourage discussion, but
encouraged those in the panel who basically agreed with each
other and with the proposal of the U.S. government to
privatize essential functions of the Internet to take up
most of the time. It was announced as an Internet User
forum, but only the self proclaimed representatives of Users
- - the CPSR and a vendor who is a service provider and his
supporter were invited to speak or allowed to have their
views presented.
[Hans:] For me the evening's most significant product was a
call to action.
[Ronda:] I didn't hear a call to action. Instead I heard
someone say that people online should have some way of
knowing what is going on with all this. He basically seemed
to be acknowledging that in fact those online [people] have
no knowledge of what is happening or of its significance.
[Hans:] There are only six days until September 30, at which
time an Internet Corporation *may* be defined. Currently,
two proposals for a corporation are being widely circulated,
one from today's government contractors (IANA and NSI) and
the other from a "Boston Working Group." Different versions
of a third, public interest/user propopal are now also in
the works.
[Ronda:] You left out the proposal I submitted and which has
probably been more widely circulated than any of the others
"The Internet an International Public Treasure". This is a
proposal that respects the Internet a[s] a new medium of
worldwide communication." * The others treat the Internet as
Internet Incorporated, or as a new cash cow to be milked.
They talk about "competition" but the Internet was built on
a cooperative and open process and scientific principles.
And the essential functions need to be administered on these
same principles. Nobody has made any arguments of why the
cooperative open principles are no longer needed or why and
how the Internet could grow and flourish if they are
abandoned. Yet the proposals you talk about for a new
private corporation to be set up on September 30 by the U.S.
government abandons the principles and lessons of what has
made the Internet possible. These other proposals for
privatization are giving away to an unknown and private
entity control over the essential aspects of coordination of
the Internet including the root server system, the IP
numbers allocation, the Domain Name System, and the
protocols and standards development process related to these
key aspects of the Internet. These are many of the functions
that make the Internet an Internet rather than a fragmented
Net. There is no talk in any of the proposals for
privatization of any way to protect the administration of
these essential functions from commercial pressures. Until
the privatization of the NSF backbone to the Internet in the
U.S. which began in the early 1990's (and was finalized on
May 1, 1995) the U.S. government had provided the necessary
and important protection of the integrity of these systems.
Now however, the U.S. government is failing in that
obligation and instead of fulfilling its obligation and
involving the International community in the needed
challenge, the U.S. government is moving to institutionalize
the commercial and political pressures into the private
organization that it is setting up.
At the panel presentation, Milton Mueller said that the
objective was to set up a private corporation that was
"insulated from government."
So these essential functions are to [be] insulated from the
one entity that was able to protect them in the past, and
they are to be put into the control and ownership of an
entity institutionalizing the problems.
[Hans:] As I and others at the forum noted, the public
interest/user communities need to join together to finalize
this public interest/user proposal. If public interest
recommendations are incorporated into proposed by-laws on
September 30, then the communities should all vocally
express their collective support. If those recommendations
are not included, then the communities should all vocally
express a collective disapproval. Today's tasks are, first,
to finalize a public interest/user proposal and, second,
prepare to speak out together on September 30.
[Ronda:] So you are deciding that CPSR is a self chosen
representative for Internet users? That is how the whole
offline society in the U.S. works, but the Internet has made
it possible for users to represent themselves and the result
has been a vibrant and cooperative culture and technology.
But you and the other self chosen advocates of Internet
Incorporated have decided it is time to end that, and
instead to let you folks take over from the millions of
users around the world who are quite able to speak for
themselves but are being disenfranchised by the
privatization process.
[Hans:] Like I said, I felt that this call to action was the
most important product of the forum. But there was lots of
other interesting dialogue.
[Ronda:] Well if you call advocacy for Paul's company or
Mueller's friends' proposal or your positioning to get a
seat on the Internet Incorporated board interesting. To the
contrary the Chair of the meeting continually tried to
prevent others from speaking who had a different position
than the panel. And another of the speakers admitted that
others with different views weren't invited to be part of
the panel. But then he made no effort to encourage the views
to be presented.
Despite the effort of the organizers to prevent there from
being any forum, a few people did try to speak under very
difficult circumstances.
[Hans:] Milton Mueller of Syracuse University spoke on free
speech, trademarks, and domain names.
[Ronda:] He spoke on advocacy for privatization and support
for Paul. Those wanting free speech wouldn't be advocating
privatizing the Internet.
Private networks don't allow free speech. And one has no
recourse.
[Hans:] Marcy Gordon from CPSR provided a detailed overview
of CPSR's policy positions -- which she sang and accompanied
on guitar! (I thought it was going to be weird, but it
turned out to be a real high point of the evening.)
[Ronda:] She gave her sales pitch for the privatization in a
song. That is the way the media in the U.S. long operated,
promoting commercial products and aims with music. I guess
that is the future you folks feel should be in store for
Internet users.
[Hans:] pgMedia's Paul Garrin gave a fascinating account of
today's Internet governance structure.
[Ronda:] Where did he talk about any Internet governance
structure? He talked a little about his lawsuit against the
federal government so his company can become the MCI of the
Internet. But MCI has led to the death of Bell Labs and the
substitution of product oriented research for the long term
scientific and technical advances like the laser, the
transistor and UNIX that folks at Bell Labs were able to
contribute to the world. And the breakup of AT&T and U.S.
Telecom regulation has led to increasing prices for the home
user and has devastated the pay telephone system (in NYC it
is often impossible to find a working pay phone). So the
prospect of another MCI type victory, but this time with
regard to the Internet is not very appealing, to say the
least. And this is not indeed presenting anything that
resembles the public interest, but rather a way to
substitute self chosen representatives for the public to
help those fleecing the public to cover their tracks.
Talking about Internet governance would require talking
about the cooperative and collaborative efforts of people on
line to contribute to the Internet as a new medium of
international communication. Also it would require talking
about the online discussion that occurs to identify problems
and solve them. (I have several papers about this if anyone
is interested.)
[Hans:] I talked about proposals for by-laws that would
ensure public interest representation on the new
organization's Board. Jessica Glass of the New York Free
Media Alliance deftly moderated the feisty dialogue.
[Ronda:] She continually refused to allow discussion and
debate with the narrow views of the panel. Instead of the
principle which has built the Net and which Voltaire
espoused "I may disagree with what you have to say but I
will duel to the death to protect your right to say it,"
she cut me off anytime I tried to say anything and Hans, you
did nothing to defend the right to speak. There was the
need for a lively debate, but this panel of self chosen user
respresentatives was not there to promote such debate, but
to advocate for the privatization and for themselves as the
representatives of Internet users.
[Hans:] While most people discussed *how* to privatize the
Internet, some participants questioned the very act of
privatization. Ronda Hauben argued that the Internet should
remain in public hands. This is a view that few groups in
the U.S. have voiced, although it may be more popular
outside of the U.S.
[Ronda:] I didn't get any opportunity to argue as I was
constantly cut off by the chair.
But there were others at the forum who made an effort to
challenge the fact that the assumption of privatization
is the squelching of the debate over what should happen.
[Ronda continuing:] And I don't know about most groups in
the U.S. and their views about privatization of the
Internet. But I do know that there are many communities
like librarians, scientists, programmers, etc. for whom it
is important that the Net continue as an international
public treasure. And I do know that there are many users
and probably many groups who would be quite upset and
frustrated with what is going on and that is why the press
(at least in the U.S.) is so quiet about what the U.S.
government is doing. In the U.S. privatization of the NSF
backbone to the Internet has benefitted the big corporate
entities and made access to the Internet impossible for some
and at only rising prices for others. The freenets are
being killed off by the U.S. government's support for
privatization. And when there was the opportunity for a
real debate among the public, as happened in November 1994
in an online conference sponsored by the NTIA, the majority
of public sentiment was against the privatization of th NSF
backbone.
There are two chapters describing the debate and the
different views of the public in "Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet", the
URL is in my signature.
[Hans:] In summary, it was an exciting evening with a lot of
good discussion and a powerful conclusion. I think that
some day we will look back and recognize it as an event that
catalyzed the public interest/user community at this key
juncture of the Internet governance process.
[Ronda:] To the contrary, any advocates of users or the
public would be advocating a debate with the assumption of
privatization, not support for it. And as one person who
spoke from the audience, any true public interest advocates
would be advocating letting as much of the public know of
the problem of what is happening as possible. (The U.S.
press is either totally silent or functioning as presenting
public relations releases for the U.S. government actiions.)
[Ronda's final thoughts:] The question raised by this all is
a profound question:
What authority does the U.S. government have to give to a
private entity (of its own creation) the essential functions
of a public international treasure?
The U.S. government was entrusted with the care and
administration of these functions, not with the ownership of
them so as to give them to its chosen corporate cronies.
The U.S. government has an obligation to the public in the
U.S. and to the International community to be protecting
these essential functions from exactly the kind of abuse it
is now subjecting them to. It is important that those
around the world who care about the Internet and its future
find a way to challenge this attack on the cooperative
technology and culture that makes the Internet possible.
__________________
Hans Klein
Southern Regional Director
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Chair, CPSR-Georgia
- ------------------
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Also join the Netizens list to discuss how to support the
cooperative nature of the Internet and how to help to spread
this important worldwide communications medium more broadly.
And it would be good to discuss how to let folks around the
world know of what is happening with this U.S. government
privatization plan to change the cooperative and open nature
of the Internet.
To join write: netizens-request@columbia.edu
* Also to see the draft proposal to protect cooperative
culture of the Internet and suggest begin to find a means to
involve the International community in the process of
changing the administration and control over these essential
aspects of the Internet see:
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:25:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Summary of Internet an International Public Treasure Proposal on DNS
Comments welcome:
Summary of Proposal Submitted to IRA MAGAZINER on 9/4/98 at his request
by Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
The U.S. Government has a great responsibility that must be taken
into account before changing the ownership, control and administration
of the essential functions of the Internet that are being included
in the proposed transfer and privatization of IANA and NSI
contractual functions.
I - Proposal: The Internet an International Public Treasure
1. Stop the rush. Withdraw the deadline date and instead institute
a more responsible and considered process for identifying and solving
the problem. Tentatively the problem is that the Internet has become
international but essential functions of the Internet are controlled
and administered by one nation. What is to be done to solve this
problem? (Don't assume the answer before raising the problem.)
2. The U.S. Government is to fund a group of researchers and welcome
other nations or regions of the world to collaborate by also funding
their teams of researchers who will work collaboratively to do
the following:
A. Within a finite period of time, these researchers will undertake
a series of obligations to identify the problem to be solved. The
researchers will utilize the Internet as much as possible to carry
out their work. The tasks of the researchers will include the
following:
1) Identify and describe the essential functions to be maintained.
2) Examine how the Internet and those essential functions involved
in this transfer are serving the communication needs of the diverse
communities of users on the Internet.
3) Develop and maintain a well publicized and reachable online means
to support reporting and input into their work. Explore the use of
Usenet newsgroup, mailing list and web site utilization, and where
appropriate, RFC's, etc.
4) Produce a proposal which will include:
a) An accurate history and analysis of the unique nature of the
development of the Internet and the functions that are to be
transferred. Include the benefits and special characteristics of
the Internet.
b) A discussion of the vision for the future of the Internet to
help guide any changes. Include functions and features that must
be preserved.
c) A description of the role the essential functions contracted to
IANA and NSI play in the administration and control of the Internet,
including any problems that have developed in their operation or
administration.
d) A proposal for transferring the administration of these essential
functions. Include a set of requirements to preserve the Internet's
unique character.
e) A description of the problems and pressures that can be a danger
for the administration of these essential functions and a description
of how these problems and pressures have been handled in the past.
A proposal for how to protect against these problems and pressures
in the future or a statement of research that must be undertaken
to solve the problems identified.
f) A plan and procedure for wide distribution of the proposal,
both to online users and to the public that is not yet on the Internet.
g) An evaluation of the process of collaborative work undertaken
by the international group of researchers.
h) A means of protecting the researchers from commercial and political
pressures. (In the past an Acceptible Use Policy has been helpful.)
The full proposal is at:
in English: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
in French: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns-proposition.fr.txt
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 #174
******************************
