Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 204
Netizens-Digest Thursday, November 12 1998 Volume 01 : Number 204
B
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] New Bylaws
Re: [netz] New Bylaws
[netz] Re: New Bylaws
[netz] ICANN representing us "users" and your role as advisor to U.S. govt
[netz] About privatization of controlling points of Internet
[netz] Re: ICANN representing us "users" .....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:28:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: Re: [netz] New Bylaws
The ICANN may have issued new by-laws formulated in secret to appear to meet
some of the objections from within the privatization process, but it has not
done anything to answer the question of how does it justify being the recipient
of the gave away by the US executive branch of a unique and important public
treasure: the control oversight and administration of the crucial functions
of the Internet. The ICANN's secretly chosen Board has made no effort that
I know of to consider or investigate or even raise any questions about
the serious proposal made by Ronda Hauben for creating a prototype
international collaborative for studying and incorporating in any changes
the lessons and implications from the the unigue nature of the Internet and
for examining the consequences for the future of a communications Internet
of private versus public oversight and administration.
The privatization effort maybe continuing but those who have unleashed it,
who will benefit from it and who are being put up to as the ICANN have not
and appear unwilling to argue or debate or justify why this process is
anything but an attack on the communications essence of the Internet.
Jay Hauben
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:16:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] New Bylaws
Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org> wrote:
>The privatization effort maybe continuing but those who have unleashed it,
>who will benefit from it and who are being put up to as the ICANN have not
>and appear unwilling to argue or debate or justify why this process is
>anything but an attack on the communications essence of the Internet.
>From reading what has been written on ifwp, my guess is they don't
feel they have to justify it because it expands markets and promotes
business.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:59:45 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: New Bylaws
> The ICANN may have issued new by-laws formulated in secret to appear to
> meet some of the objections from within the privatization process, but it
> has not done anything to answer the question of how does it justify being
> the recipient of the gave away...
I know it's a lot of fun to rant, I've been known to do it myself sometimes, but
why don't we at least try to work out some terms of reference - specifically,
so we can tell when we're *contributing* to an emergent process, and when
we are just *scrutinizing the process from outside.
Yes, *if* there are secret deals and unconscionable agendas behind some
_de facto_ state of affairs, then there is no question but that scrutiny is the
appropriate stance. But what if - purely as a hypothetical, now - what if
'ICANN' is still in the formative stages, is amenable to being shown where its
priorities should be, and even ready and able to adjust its bylaws in response
to public input? Shouldnt we then be able to stand on the other foot,
generate some tentative bylaws, explore how best to integrate them into a
practical package, perhaps be helpful in pointing out inconsistencies
between such a guideline and others that may be otherwise adopted?
But I dare say, we shouuld just wait until someone comes and asks us for
our input; it could be dangerous prematurely to reveal that we know too much.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 14:14:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] ICANN representing us "users" and your role as advisor to U.S. govt
Dave, what you have written (which is at the bottom of this
response) is disturbing. It is good that Gordon
Cook has tried to clarify how U.S. govt officials who claim
to know *nothing* about the Internet are carrying out decisions
on the advice of people who do have the knowledge that should
be the basis for better decisions than are currently being made.
As a long time Internet pioneer and a current advisor to the U.S.
government on policy, you do have a great responsibility.
Being open in what you are doing is a way of carrying out that
responsibility.
It is with great frustration that one wonders *where* and *how*
the current U.S. government decisions that will *fundamentally*
change the course of the Internet are being made.
These decisions to privatize key functions of the Internet
will put very great wealth and power in the hands of those
who get control of this private organization.
And the fact that these decisions are already being made through
such a secret process demonstrates that these are decisions
which can only result in great harm.
The advance represented by the Internet is several fold.
1) That users have been part of the process of both contributing
to and creating the needed programs and discussions to help
the Internet to grow and flourish.
2) That government has been involved in a good way (up to the
privatization beginning in the 1990's) and the involvement
supported an ever growing and more valuable content and structure.
3) That the new uses of the network were recognized as valuable
and important and an effort was made to support and study them
so that they could continue to grow and flourish.
4) That online prototypes were created to see the problems that
would develop and the benefits of the online forms and so these
could be learned from and further developed.
What is happening now is vastly different.
The ICANN form has been created in a way that is fundamentally
hostile to the development of the Internet.
There has been *no* effort to create working online prototypes
that would explore how to solve the problems like those that
developed with the domain name system. Instead a form fundamentally
hostile to the Internet, a private structure, peopled by
several people with *no* knowledge or concern with the development of
the Internet, has been developed by the U.S. government, under
what is seems is advice from advisors like yourself.
This is a serious responsibility.
If you do indeed, which I hope you do, want the best for the Internet,
then it would seem that you would need to have taken much more
seriously the concerns about what is happening and tried to intervene
with the U.S. government to have them change what they are doing.
There is *no* way for users to be part of what is being developed.
Essentially, the ICANN structure is disenfranchising users.
I have participated in Usenet and the Internet for several years,
and I have spent several years studying how the Internet and Usenet
have developed.
I know of your long involvement. But that makes me even more concerned
about the fact that users are denied any access to the current
changes being made.
I have gone to the IFWP meeting in Geneva, been on the IFWP list,
spoke with Ira Magaziner and Becky Burr, and I have even less
understanding today of how the decisions regarding this substanial
change of U.S. govt policy with regard to the Internet are being
made, than I had before I made an effort to participate in the
process.
I, as a user, *don't* want to be *represented* by this secret and private
process and organization that it seems you are blessing with
your support and blessing.
And as a user I have in the past *not* had to be represented by
self appointed representatives as I have been able to represent
myself.
And if folks disagreed with what I had to say, that didn't matter,
as they respected my right as a user to express my views. The
Voltaire motto "I may disagree with what you say but I will duel
to the death to defend your right to say it" was practiced
not merely given lip service, as it is in the rest of the U.S.
political process.
And the result was that a great variety of views could be
expressed and discussed, and often those views seen as wrong
were later recognized as having made an important contribution.
But the new structure of ICANN instead empowers a set of people
over users so that users views will no longer have any impact
on what is done with the Internet.
I can understand your having your own personal views about what
the future of the Internet should be and working to implement them.
If, however, you are functioning as an advisor to the U.S. government,
you have a different obligation, than if you are just lobbying for
your own views.
If you are an advisor to the U.S. govt and are encouraging them
to carry out a policy that will affect the lives of millions of
Internet users, you have an obligation to hear from those users
and to understand their needs and concerns.
When I met Fernando Corbato, the pioneer of time-sharing (CTSS)
and Project MAC, several years ago, he suggested I read a
book of a conference held at MIT in 1961. The proceedings of
the conference, published in the book "Management and the Future
of the Computer" edited by Martin Greenberger, opened with
a talk by C.P. Snow about Scientists and Decision Making.
Also commenting on the issue was Norbert Wiener.
C.P. Snow explained that government officials would be making
decisions about the computer that would be very important decisions
and it was crucial that they have advice from those who understood
the nature of the computer and the impact that the decisions would
have.
And C.P. Snow described the serious harm that could come to
our society if the decisions that were being made were not
good decisions.
Norbert Wiener reinforced this concern, explaining how the
computer was not capable of having an ethical system, and
so could not be blamed for the harm it could cause. That
it was up to the humans to oversee the computer and to
see that the decisions about its use were taken with the
greatest care and concern.
C. P. Snow proposed that the way to carry out this care
and concern was to have the broadest possible discussion
among the broadest possible set of people about the decisions
that were being made. And he gave as an example how the
decisions to do strategic bombing of civilian populations
during W.W. II by Great Britain was presented by the advisor
to the government as a plan that would shorten the war.
That instead the decision lengthened the war and was responsible
for the deaths of many people. C.P. Snow explained that
this decision was made in secret by very few people.
C.P. Snow believed that the more people involved in discussing
and making a decision, the more likely it was that it could
be a good decision.
The Internet makes it possible to involve a large number of
people in the discussion of a decision. And I have both
seen and also been part of many situations where the Internet
has made it possible for there to be good decisions made
because of this advantage of involving a large number of people
in an open process.
However, with regard to the decision about whether to remove
open responsibility of government from the oversight over the
central points of control over the Internet, this significant
change in the governing structure of the Internet is being
made in secret with very few people involving in the process.
This is a very dangerous and mistaken situation.
Regardless of your own personal beliefs about how correct this
decision is, I am asking you to recognize the ethical and
social responsibility you have assumed by being an advisor
to the U.S. government on this issue and to open up the process
of decision making on this issue.
I will be glad to discuss this with you further and hope
you will be willing to do so as the Internet is too important
a part of many many people's lives to have key decisions
about it made in such a closed and secretive process.
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
Dave Farber (farber@cis.upenn.edu) wrote:
: I made a mistake and sent a reply to Gordon -- a private one ( I
: never learn, do I) so I will own up to it. I told him MY (there I
: go using capital letters like Cook) goals which I committed myself
: personally to help at the beginning of the whole domain name issue (back
: in the IAHC days). I have not varied much from them. I did not represent
: them as the goals of anybody or organization other than myself. I stated
: them repeatedly in IP messages to the IP list and others. They have not
: changed. I stated them openly at the IFWG meetings I went to and the
: endless discussions I had with people. The other day I restated them at
: the US PITAC (that is presidential Information technology Advisory Council)
: o meeting when I briefed them on the DNS issues (I am on that).
: I never even intimated that they were the goals of anyone other than me.
: For those of you who read IP you will remember I criticized often with
: great vigor IANA, IFWG, IAHC and others when they, in my opinion,
: strayed from the path I though right -- that is my right as a citizen
: of the USA and Cyberspace. As a publisher of IP I did and will continue
: to give space to those with opposing opinions who can write well
: reasoned responses.
: I .personally believe that ICANN offers the best path to a
: representative stable organization. I see it moving to correct
: errors in the old draft bylaws in a adult fashion. I want an Internet
: not controlled by governments (ITU USG, EU) and not controlled by the
: big corporate interests. I spent a lot of time and energy in the EFF.
: EPIC, CDT, ACLU fight to preserve liberty in Cyberspace. I will
: continue to fight for directions I believe leading to an open,
: representative, stable organization which can be a model for the future
: governance of cyberspace.
: I am sure I will get impassioned responses to this note. I will answer
: any reasoned ones and will trash any emotional tirades
: Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 14:23:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] About privatization of controlling points of Internet
I have just returned from a visit to Vienna and a one day visit to
Budapest where I got to learn abit about what was happening with
the Internet in both Austria nad Budapest. I will try to write
something about the trip as soon as I have some time.
Also I made a presentation about MsgGroup mailing list and the
lessons for Internet governance in Vienna and I will try to
type out the presentation and made it available because it was
a way to consdier what is happening with the privatization of the
key functions of the Internet from a bit of a different
perspective.
Following is a response to a post on com-priv mailing list that
I felt those on the netizens list would find of interest.
Subject: (fwd) Re: Gracefully Dismantling Old Institutions
Newsgroups: ctr.mail.com-priv,alt.culture.internet
Reply-To: rh120@columbia.edu
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> responding:
Ken Meyering (ken@define.com) wrote:
: What will be the best way to make the public transition from "atom
: style" politics to "bit style" politics?
: Electronic democracy replaces the need for physical politcal
: representatives to be located in physical offices (e.g., "Capitol
: Hill").
I recently met with a government advisor who pointed out that
government recognized the need to make Internet access available
to all citizens. That is *not* something that private sector
understands or is concerned with.
: Since the internet is not yet ubiquitous, there will continue to
: be a need for the old style public theater, at least for show, until
: another arrangement is created.
: What is the best way to handle the transition?
: Does anyone have any suggestions for how the ceremony of retiring the
: physical facilities of government should take place, in a manner that
: is not too shocking to citizens?
If the Internet has been built successfully via government,
and the situation that exists is that very few of all the
citizens who have contributed their tax funds to this process
are yet connected, isn't it crucial that *no* one be able
to unilaterally declare that the time has come to "retire
the physical facilities of government", as you declare.
Otherwise there is indeed a SHOCK heard round the world,
especially since most citizens and netizens have been
denied knowledge of what is being done in their names.
When a mere 50 or even 100 folks (to be generous) are allowed
by the U.S. govt to be involved in a decision impacting
on all the millions of people who are current users of the
Internet, a decision that will have a great impact on their
use of the Internet, or their hopes to use the Internet,
then there is indeed a shock.
And more seriously, the need to scale the Internet as a means
of worldwide communication will be made impossible by the
U.S. government mandated privatization of the central points
of control of the Internet.
I recently gave a talk about the current changes the U.S. Govt
is unilaterly imposing on all Internet users, and about the
comparison with that and the process of building the Internet
via the kinds of processes like that which started MsgGroup
mailing list. And someone in the audience commented that
the importance of the users in the early developments was
what made the Internet possible, but that the current
developments are putting the Internet in private hands who
can't and won't be able to consider the needs and desires
of users.
Internet users are being disenfranchised by the current
changes, and that is harmful to the development of the Internet
as well as to the users.
: While it might be cathartic to stage an "Independence Day" style
: demolition of the old buildings, this isn't practical and would lead
: to panic. However, in all seriousness, the physical facilities are
: antiques, like the gavels are podiums of days past.
: We need to put our heads together and find a way to gracefully retire
: this public pageantry, pomp and circumstance. What can we do?
Maybe the coup will be stopped before you can carry it out,
or at least folks will realize the usurpation that is being
carried out.
: -------------------
: ken@define.com
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:57:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: ICANN representing us "users" .....
[The following response to Ronda Hauben was recived from Dave Farber]
From: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: ICANN representing us "users" and your role as advisor to
U.S. govt
Your note is long and complex and I will have to read carefully prior to
any reply. You might want to read this
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
To: bwg-n-friends@fibertron.com
Reply-to: Stef@nma.com
Cc: farber@cis.upenn.edu, vcerf@mci.net, sob@harvard.edu,
mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us, ira_c._magaziner@opd.eop.gov, lhl@cs.wisc.edu,
com-priv@psi.com, list@ifwp.org, telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu,
DOMAIN-POLICY@lists.internic.net
Subject: Retraction Re: ICANN: as a Means of Adult Supervision (or Martial Law)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:39:36 -0800
In all fairness to Dave Farber, I want to retract any implication my
enclosed message contained regarding Dave holding the position that he
supports any imposition of Adult Supervision onto the Internet.
My message does apply to those parties who are trying to impose Adult
Supervision, but I agree with Dave that he is not one of them,
regardless of how much Gordon wishes to lump Dave with such moves.
Dave's point is that
"the community should come together and stop battling, else the
governments would be forced to impose "adult supervision" --
see NYT and IP (InterestingPeople) uotes on that."
Dave also points out that:
"I NEVER advocated the need for it nor do I think the process
we are going through is part of such supervision."
I wish to offer my sincere apologies to Dave for not distinguishing
his positions from those of others. I do note that Dave has been more
open about his involvement in the whole process, and from very long
collegiate association, I know that he opposes such supervision.
Best...\Stef
+++++ Text of my message for your reference +++++++++++++++++++++++
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:26:25 -0800 I wrote:
} Hello Gordon, et al --
}
} I think that there is another way to look at all this, than the one
} you deployed below.
}
} BTW, I hope you have an enjoyable trek on the Everest Trail. I can
} both envy you for it, and hate you for doing it without me, but
} somehow I find that I have already spent as much time in really remote
} and primitive places to allow that I can do without need to go for
} more. This of course includes my 38 year trek through Cyberspace,
} which began when people were only dreaming about computers that can
} communicate.
}
} But, back to the present situation. See below...
}
} From your message Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:17:31 +0300:
} }
} }an after thought. dave farber said he supports ICANN. It is clear that I
} }am not the only one who sees ICANN as a vehicle without any accountability
} }set up so that it can do whatever it wants. IE Establish adult supervision
} }martial law or what ever your choice of words may be. Dave has observed
} }that the internet so far has been incapable of solving these problems.
} }Therefore he supports the imposition of a solution....and WHAT a solution.
} }I would rather the government assume control than for the Internet to place
} }itself under this benevolent dictatorship. This is a dark day staring us
} }in the face....... And although Dave may want to surrender our fate to the
} }ICANN junta..... I want the junta changed into an organization that is
} }responsible and accountable and therefore not a junta. The importance of
} }what is before us is well worth the effort.
}
} I think that the Internet has already spawned some of the richest
} means ever known to man for cooperative and collaborative efforts to
} enrich the life of the world, and done it in natures way of self
} organizing life in the midst of bounded chaos. Yes, I think that the
} Internet is alive;-)... It reacts as a whole to being stimulated, and
} if you don't believe me, just poke it with a stick and watch what
} happens. You will find that it reacts as though it is alive.
}
} The Internet has always managed to keep itself within the region of
} bounded chaos, always growing a bit faster than we think can be
} handled, but never quite going out of bounds. Unbounded chaos is
} damage, and the Internet (community) in its collective wisdom seems to
} always find a way to route around such damage.
}
} So, what we are seeing here is not a problem that can be solved with
} adult supervision, especially when we are no longer able to identify
} who are the adults among us who should impose the presumably needed
} supervision. So, we now have a big argument among the would be adults
} as to which of them is more adult than the other, and thus more
} entitled to impose the supposedly required adult supervision.
}
} So, my efforts are focused on trying to locate the real crux issues
} and get them out on the table for all to see, touch, feel, and
} internalize. All the secrecy so far has only delivered massive losses
} of mutual trust and mountains of conspiracy theories. Gordon being
} one of the primary conspiracy seekers among us. But, conspiracy
} theories are born more of secrecy than of any other ingredient!
} Secrecy provides the fertile breeding ground of conspiraaaaacy
} theories, and exposing the secrets is what kills the theories.
}
} So, lack of trust, and the need for trust building processes has
} become the primary meta problem to now be resolved.
}
} It (the destruction of trust as we knew it) all stemmed from the root
} (pun intended) cause of a major market structure failure at the root
} level of the DNS, with arbitrary restrictions on the number of TLDs
} permitted to be inserted in the "authoritative DNS root". This led to
} the rise of the NSI monopoly as a symptom, and in turn to efforts to
} stomp out the symptom in the name killing the infecting virus.
}
} Of course we all know about how one cannot kill a virus by treating
} only the symptoms, so in the end, all that we have killed is our
} mutual trust, upon which the Internet depends for the very existence
} of the fabric of The Internet itself.
}
} Now, it appears to me that with so much trust already destroyed, that
} the Internet should have already collapsed long ago, but in fact, it
} is still standing, almost as though nothing has been happening, and
} still growing at the rate of doubling every 13 months. It is now at
} least 8 times larger than it was when the DNS wars started in 1994.
}
} How can this be, in the midst of the first cyber world war?
} Why is our beloved Internet infreastructure surviving?
} ANSWER: Because of our collective enlightened self interests!
}
} Well, it just turns out that our Internet technology and community is
} much more durable, stable and resilient than our ability to manage our
} management of its parts. Frankly, I think that the so called adult
} supervision theory is way off the mark, and that the fact of the
} existence of a certain level of bounded chaos offers no evidence of
} poor management or a need for adult supervision. Our proper job is to
} learn how to use our bounded chaos, not to stamp it out.
}
} All we need is a cooperative way of coordinating the administration of
} a few things, like a Coherent, Comprehensive, Robust, Secure, Stable,
} Reliable, and Open DNS ROOT, with or without a czar to impose "order"
} on the people who do the cooperating. Enlightened self interest is
} vastly more powerful than any adult supervision czar will ever be.
}
} Clearly there is no need for a czar to deal with registration of
} Protocol Names, Numbers, and Parameters and their Values, as the IETF
} has managed to supervise this for a very long long time alredy, and
} does not need a new God Given Authority to now take it over. The
} sevret of the IETF success is tha hey emply some of the most truly
} open fair hearing processes ever known to man.
}
} And, it is clear to me that the IPv4 number allocation scheme can also
} be resolved with an open system with appropriate fair hearings given
} to the stakeholders, in properly open processes. The secret of the
} success of the IETF is in its openness, not its secrets.
}
} Secrecy in the name of being "adults" is not a required ingredient in
} my model for Internet Governance. It is not at all clear to me that
} being an adult is enhanced by being secretive. I have always
} associated being secretive with not being adult about things.
}
} So, my thrust in all this is to attempt to shine a light on all that
} matters in forming ICANN, and in forming the new DNSO, and I am
} working to bring it all out in the light of day, so we can all behave
} as adults, instead of finding ourselves being treated as children by
} the secret keeping self declared adults, and thus turning us into the
} children we are being treated as.
}
} It is a well known concept that if you treat an adult as a child, they
} will respond as a child. So, it is not adult to treat adults as
} children, unless you want them to behave as children. It takes a
} really serious adult to resist the power of being treated as a child
} by another person.
}
} By the way, I have worked much too long and too hard to reach my
} current age of 68 years and 10 months, to now give it all up to a
} secretive bunch of people that think I need more adult supervision
} because I am not behaving in concert with their secret keeping.
}
} And Yes, I am now standing on my soap box, to the great annoyance I am
} sure, of some of our secret keeping self declared would be adult
} supervisors, but I challenge them to show the world how I am less
} adult than they.
}
} I say "Put your arguments on the line in public, and lets see just who
} is adult here and who is not!"
}
} Then maybe we can do something about rebuilding our mutual trust.
}
} Cheers...\Stef
- - ------- End of Forwarded Message
- ------- End of Forwarded Message
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #204
******************************
