Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 180
Netizens-Digest Friday, October 9 1998 Volume 01 : Number 180
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: The Domain Name System
[netz] Against Privatization of the Internet
[netz] govt hearings (fwd)
Re: [netz] govt hearings (fwd)
[netz] Re: Internet Privatization - Some Suggestions for the near Future
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:11:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: The Domain Name System
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner)
In article <199810030410.AAA28822@panix3.panix.com> Ronda Hauben writes:
>When the U.S. Govt privatized the NSFNET in the U.S. in the 1990-1995
>period, there was similarly no discussion that considered what
>affect that would have on the hope for universal access in the U.S.
>And it was acknowledged that the privatization would lead to only
>those living in profitable areas getting connected to the Internet,
>and rural or poor or less profitable areas would not have a way
>to get connected.
My guess is that when the NSFnet was privatized, it was felt that
opening it up to commercial interests would also open it up to
commercial ISPs that would provide Internet access.
>That has come to pass in the U.S. Even in a large city like NYC
>there are major sections of the population that have no possibility
>of access to the Internet, and the same situation is repeated in
>other areas around the U.S.
Well, you don't need anything more than a phone line and a computer to
access the Internet. I don't know of any parts of NYC that don't have
phone service. On the other hand, I imagine some parts of NYC do not
have ISPs within their local calling area.
>The U.S. Govt went ahead with the privatization anyhow. It
>was only interested in objectives that would enrich the largest
>corporations in the U.S. (There is a chapter on this in Netizens.
>It is chapter 12. The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook)
I disagree. The privatization allowed NSI to recover its costs.
I suspect at this point, perhaps there should have been discussion as
to what sorts of "industry" was acceptable for the Internet. However,
in terms of setting policy, once you've let one commercial interest
on, you have to let all of them on, if you want to be considered
fair.
>When Usenet was first formed, it was understood to
>be a "users" network. It was the users who were
>to make the decisions.
In a sense this is true. However, decisions of significance were made
by people with significant political clout in Usenet (the backbone
admins). Whether or not to carry a group, or a hierarchy, was
something that was largely influenced by the backbone cabal. One
could always set up one's own newsfeeds, but that was of prohibitive
cost if one was not part of AT&T or did not have free or low-cost
long-distance phone service. Many people opted to live by the cabal's
rules until Internet access became ubiquitous (which was largely due
to privatization). The backbone shifted to the Internet, and its
policies followed soon after.
>Now we are being told that users are only "customers" and we can vote
>with our feet if we don't like the service our current overlord
>provides.
This was the case even in the early days of Usenet, as I wrote above.
>This is a backwards step to be sure and one that will have only
>harmful effects for the Internet. Already the U.S. Govt process of
>privatization of the Internet has made a mess of the domain name
>distribution procedure, so that we get junk mail from domain name
>holders who have given phony names and addresses and phone
>numbers. But NSI has made money on their registrations and that is
>all they have been concerned with. However, this is a problem of the
>NSF administration of the NSI contract, not only a problem of NSI's
>activities.
You make it sound as if NSI does not care about spammers. This is
untrue. Also, how would one go about determining the accuracy and
legitimacy of a registration? This is a time-consuming process, which
would ultimately be passed on to customers. So either way, NSI would
need to charge incrasing amounts of money to maintain a high degree of
service.
You can't compare what NSI does to what the SRI NIC did years ago.
The Internet was much smaller then and more homogeneous in its use.
>Also, on Sept 30, the Youngstown Freenet closed. It was from
>the Youngstown Freenet that I was able to access the NTIA
>online conference in 1994 and participate in it. With the closing
>of such important portals between community folks and the Internet,
>it will be less likely that the kind of work to increase the
>input of citizens in government decisions will be able to occur.
>It is very sad to see that the result of the policy of privatization
>of the Internet in the U.S.
How is the closing of the Youngstown Freenet related to privatization?
Maybe they just ran out of money, or they didn't have enough
volunteers to keep it going. Could you please elaborate on this?
>There are *no* good models for the U.S. Govt plan to create a private
>corporation for Internet governance.
This much I agree with. The Internet is a "new" medium (with respect
to other media such as cable and TV). I think more time is needed to
come up with a framework for governance. A problem is convincing
people who feel NSI or IANA should be out of the business of Internet
namespace management immediately of this.
>The talk I have heard on the IFWP and related lists is about how to
>carve up the Internet, how to carve up the distribution of domain
>names, of IP numbers, etc.
It doesn't surprise me that this is how the talks are going. They are
basically using extant models, such as how TV and radio frequencies
are allocated.
- --gregbo
gds at best.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Against Privatization of the Internet
Lou DeQuesada submitted the following to the Netizens mailing list:
To: dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Against Privatization of the Internet
Dear Sir/Ladies: I am in favor of Ronda Hauben's proposal and against the
privatization of the Internet. The Internet belongs to we, the people and
privatization would gradually remove us from it, making room in it for
just the priviledged and the wealthy.
Sincerely,
Lou De Quesada
Columbia University
Health Sciences Library
701 W.168 St. RmLL1-23
N.Y.N.Y.10032
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Netizens mailing list <netizens@menno.com>
Subject: [netz] govt hearings (fwd)
Sorry if this is old news. I just joined the group at
Rhonda's suggestion. Background: IS professional with
10 years experience in technical computer networking.
Have been using internet for email since late 1980's
via a home connection and various university systems
back as far as late 1970's. In terms of the
various communications tools on the internet (ie.
chat, email, Usenet, etc.) -- been there, done that.
(Anyone else remember the frequent postings by
the fellow at U of Toronto Zoology Dept?)
Forwarded message:
> House Committee to Hold Domain Name Hearing Next Week
> San Jose, Calif. -- The U.S. government extended its contract
> with Network Solutions, Inc., to run the top-level Internet
> domain name system (DNS) for seven days, after an industry
> working group failed to form a non-profit corporation to run
> the system by the Sept. 30 deadline.
> Increasingly alarmed by the lack of progress in transitioning
> the domain name system to the private sector, the House
> Science Committee next week will hold an informational
> hearing to see what progress the working group has made in
> the past six months.
> The Clinton Administration's top Internet adviser Ira
> Magaziner, spent the last year trying to facilitate a plan for
> handing the DNS over to a private body with international
> representation. Magaziner said this week that he expects to
> resolve the outstanding issues and receive a proposal for
> creating the new Internet governing body. By Kate Gerwig
> http://www.internetwk.com/news1098/news100198-6.htm
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:17:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] govt hearings (fwd)
>Sorry if this is old news. I just joined the group at
>Rhonda's suggestion. Background: IS professional with
>10 years experience in technical computer networking.
>Have been using internet for email since late 1980's
>via a home connection and various university systems
>back as far as late 1970's. In terms of the
>various communications tools on the internet (ie.
>chat, email, Usenet, etc.) -- been there, done that.
>(Anyone else remember the frequent postings by
>the fellow at U of Toronto Zoology Dept?)
Welcome abroard :-)
You must mean Henry Spencer - wonder if we could get him
to join the Netizens list. I haven't been in contact
with him lately. Thanks for reminding me.
I just had an interesting conversation with someone else
from Canada (not the University of Toronto) about what
this DNS privatization is all about. What's underneath
what's going on.
It's seems to me there is something behind what we see
on the surface. But it is hard to figure out what.
The talk helped me to think over some of what I heard
in Washington at the house subcommittee hearing of
the Committee on Basic Research when I was there on
Wednesday.
The acting Chairman of the Committee said that what was
being attempted was about "transferring the Internet's
Domain Name System to private sector control....Although
it has its critics," he explained, "the idea behind
the White Paper is, in many ways, classicly American."
What someone else said is that the new entity they
were creating was to have the kinds of powers of
government but without the obligations of government.
The spokesperson from NSI, Gabriel Basttista said that
what was being attempted was really an experiment
"the first-ever attempt within the Internet to organize
on a global scale for true self-governing organization."
And Tamar Frankel who is a Professor a Boston University,
I think, of business law, also indicated that this was
a significant experiment to form a global corporation
that could be a model for other such entities.
The problem with all this is all my study of the
important development of the Internet and even of
Usenet had to do with the fact that this development
was connected to a public sector, to oversight by
the U.S. Government or other governments of the
comparable networking developments in their countries
which joined with the NSFNET in the U.S. to make an
Internet.
Or it had to do with developments by university graduate
students and professors etc.
So to now experiment on a very massive scale with
a form that eliminates these constructive influences
and instead is creating some new but specifically
"private" (or "corporate"?) form to oversee the
most critical functions of the Internet seems
a very strange experiment and a harmful one as well.
It seems that this is the effort to substitute
"governance" by some private entity with no social
obligations for "Government" obligation.
The Internet is a very important human-computer
communications system for people around the world.
It's hard to understand who would want to conduct
a massive experiment with it, rather than recognizing
that there is a need to treat it with protection
and support.
Also there are ways to conduct research, to acknowledge
what one is doing is research and carefully set up
a situation where what is being done is structured
in a way to explore something. But this is different
from taking a critical and important communications
system, and capturing its critical functions and
putting them under the control of an entity that
is a new and untested and unaccountable form.
The Internet was created via a cooperative effort
where many people worked together, often in
an environment where a Government or a university
(which was often connected to government) provided
a protection from commercial pressures.
This new entity being created institutionalizes
the commercial pressures inside it and it is
being held out for the folks involved that they
will have the inside info to make a killing.
So what is being proposed by the U.S. Govt here
is a new kind of company, one with none of the
obligations of Government, but one that is being
put in charge of "governing" the Internet.
(At the hearing on Wednesday, the Acting Chairman
said that the Internet revolution was over and
now was the time to write the constitution.)
So it seems strange that there is such a massive
and significant experiment, one that flies
in the face of how the Internet has been created,
being conducted, when the obligation it would
seem of responsible parties would be to take
as little risk as possible and try to find a
way to enlist governments to protect these
important Internet functions. Instead it seems
there is an effort to let governments off the
hook and put the Internet under the control of
something that has no social purpose or social
obligations.
In one of the previous hearings I got copies of
while I was in Washington, I read that the
problem they noted with this experiment is
that the Internet has grown up under government.
I don't know if the above is at all helpful, but
when trying to figure out what is happening with
this privatization of the key functions of the
Internet I get the feel I can see the shadows
on the wall, but not what is happening to cast
those shadows. And what is casting the shadows
seems very important to understand.
I may not be able to respond for the next few
days as I am going to a conference later today
and I don't know if I will have any net access
while there.
But welcome onto the Netizens list.
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: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:45:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Internet Privatization - Some Suggestions for the near Future
I was asked to send Achmed's comments onto the Netizens list. I
am doing this along with my response.
Achmed Abdel-Rahim <achmed.abdel-rahim@heim3.tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
>From: Achmed Abdel-Rahim <achmed.abdel-rahim@heim3.tu-clausthal.de>
>Subject: Re: Internet Privatization - Some Suggestions for the near Future
>Bi-ismi-l-lahi-r-Rahmaani-r-Rahiim
>In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Merciful
>Dear Ronda,
>Thank you for your efforts of the last days. I will try
>to confront you with some suggestions which are intended
>to lead you to more effectiveness in the work you do.
>Partly they arise from the testimony you submitted to the
>Subcommittee on Basic Research; partly from the proposal.
>Your conclusions you have made in your contributions to
>the government etc. are of valuable and readable constituency,
>but of general type. On the other side policy is about
>making decisions in legislative form. What is needed are
>conclusions of a type that must be advisory, decision-forming or
>in a certain way practical. The best general ideas and
>conclusions will have no effect if practical concepts are
>not derived from them and if they are not explicated in
>decision-mode contributions. The bureaucrates of the government
>will ask themselves: "What does Ronda want? We are making
>decisions here...". (Of course these words are not meant to
>hurt you but to open your eyes.)
>So a work plan for your proposal concretizing the research
>project you already suggested is needed. As you know, the
>government is not alike to wait very long with its decisions.
>Especially the suggested research project would lead to a
>sort of "time delay" in the legislative decisions. (And a
>government is always under the pressure to have obtained
>viewable results at the end of a parlamentary period in
>order to win the following elections. So this sets pressure
>on them.) So in order to have any realistic chance to implement
>this project I propose to you to limit the time for research to
>an edge of one year maximum. And even then it will be very
>difficult to convince the Department of Commerce to do this,
>I guess, because the other groups (especially the ones with
>commercial interests) will continously set pressure on
>it. (You are now in a situation of competition.)
>What else is important in relation with such a work plan?
>You should have proposals for the Department of Commerce
>which kind of auxiliary works they could perform while the
>research project is running (in order to support your arguments
>and to succeed in convincing).
>Another point you have to tell them about, is, who will
>lead the research project. For example a small staff of
>professors from universities in the U.S.(and may be elsewhere).
>(The netizens should help you in this.)
>One of these professors could be the leader. We could
>devide the whole research field into four areas:
>1. the cultural and societal aspect of internet privatization;
>2. the technological aspect of internet priv.;
>3. the economic aspect of internet priv.;
>4. other aspects of internet priv.(diverse: legislative and many
>others).
>Each field will need one or several working groups. The
>second will possibly be the widest. The above-mentioned
>professors will have to lead them and elaborate a division
>of the necessary tasks and topics. (For the first of the
>four areas I considered Prof. Neil Postman of New York University
>might be an appropriate person, but I know that he is also a hard
>citicizer on all type of media, so this would demand hard work
>of convincing. Possibly one could win him for this research
>if one succeeds in pointing out to him that its negotiation
>would lead to even more evil results for the public welfare.
>Is he already retired? May be you will not find him at the
>university, but it would be good if you speak with him.)
>What should be the output of the research work?
>In the first phase of the project the groups could work separate
>(exept their leaders and professors because they have to
>perform a coordination or at least delegate this coordination
>of the working groups). This phase must be dedicated to the
>analysis of the internet privatization from the viewpoint
>of the area of research each group stands for.
>The second phase would be a cross-disciplinary debate about
>the obtained results in order to find an adjustment of the
>working groups among each other, may be somekind of common
>outlook, may be a minimal consensus, onto the obtained results
>and on the future perspectives that can arise from it.
>The third phase would lay in the derivation of legislative,
>advisory and management-specific imperatives for the government
>from the previously obtained results. Then all would have to
>be written together (the analysis works only surveyed and the
>derived imperatives in full detail) and discussed again for
>last refinements. The whole work then should be presented as
>an expertise to the government.
>So far my suggestions. You can forward the material to netizen
>or discuss it with me first of both or quote only part of it
>for the others. I let you freely decide about this.
>With kind regards, sincerely,
> Achmed
I have forwarded the above remarks to the Netizens list.
It is helpful to hear the concrete ideas suggested, but the one
difference I have is I am not proposing studying "Internet privatization"
but instead how to adminster these key functions of the Internet
via a means of shared international oversight where governments
support the researchers who will be involved in the support
and protection for those carrying out these key functions.
I was proposing studying the key functions themselves and the
Internet and how it is helpful to the diverse communities
and users. I am proposing how the Internet has developed in
a general form, rather than its potential for a single
community.
Also I am proposing studying how the communications function
of the Internet is serving the diverse users. The privatization
plans are concerned with other than communications functions
for the Internet and are *not* concerned with the communications
functions.
Also I am proposing a role for governments around the world,
and that is to take up some of the obligation and role that the
U.S. Government was responsible for with regard to the Internet.
That role is to protect those administering these key functions
and to help them deal with the needs they encounter.
But I am proposing that the way this be done is via the support
for a set of scientific researchers who will cooperate to
help those administering these key functions of the Internet.
I am proposing *not* replacing government's role, but making it
an international role.
I am *not* proposing studying privatization. I am proposing
learning from and building of the Internet to understand
how government or university supported environment is needed
to support the proper functioning of the technology.
So I am proposing a prototype that builds on the fact that the
Internet is a technical and scientific achievement and needs
an international public and responsible cooperative structure
to continue its development and functioning.
Also I had an idea for who might head the project, and that
was to see if some of the researchers who helped to develop
time-sharing via Project MAC at MIT might be helpful. One
of those people went on to create a packet switching network
in France and to pioneer some of the important theory of
how an Internet is a network of independent networks.
These are some of my thoughts. I agree that there is a
need for discussion on these issues and for elaborating
the aspects of the proposal.
But help is needed from others to do this.
I may not have access to the Net this weekend but I will by
Monday. I am going to a communications conference and it is
interesting that Neil Postman will be at the conference
as well so I will make an effort to speak with him about
my proposal.
I am presented a paper about the early days of Usenet and
how the social compact that has nourished Usenet was created.
How Usenet was developed as a users network where the users
were to make the important decision.
That is what I feel is so precious about the Internet and Usenet
now, and the new private corporation that is being created
by some forces to take over the Internet is considered as something
that will give away this control and decision making power to
others who have different interests from those of the users.
Ronda
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 #180
******************************
