Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 199
Netizens-Digest Sunday, November 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 199
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: ITU Actions (repost for non-member)
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Conflict of interest
[netz] Re: ITU Actions
[netz] Contributions by those at Bell Labs to the Internet
[netz] Similarities between Bell Labs and Internet research styles
[netz] (Fwd) New mailing list for UK cyber-rights issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 15:18:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: ITU Actions (repost for non-member)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 08:38:11 -0500
To: list@ifwp.org
From: Tony Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com>
Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: ITU Actions
Cc: netizens@columbia.edu
In-Reply-To: <56590-16722@lists.interactivehq.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Do you know what companies are on it? Since it is called
>an "industrry advisory group" one would expect it were
>companies.
Perhaps you don't appreciate that "industry" in the
telecommunication and information policy field includes
just about everyone. This has always been the case
(for at least the past 100 years or so).
Thus, this group consists of CIX, CDT, Silicon Valley SIC,
MPAA, IIPA, SPA, IIA, CSPP, ISOC, USTA, DMA, EMA, ITAA,
ITI, ATIS, TIA, CNRI, ISA, Commercenet, CSIS/GIIC, USCIB,
RSAC, RIAA, and APSI.
As well as IBM, AOL, General Magic, Netscape, Cybercash,
Oracle, Microsoft, Time Warner, Compuserve, ATT, MCI,
Piper Marbury, CERTCO, EDS, BellSouth, Nynex, and Disney.
Are you concerned about Mickey Mouse?
- --tony
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:31:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Conflict of interest
edyson@edventure.com (Esther Dyson) wrote:
>>At 12.37 am 10/31/98 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>How does a "non-profit" open something up to competition.
>>>
>>Isn't there a basic contradiction between supposed "non-profit"
>>and "competition" which is for profit?
>
>No, competition does not have to be for-profit. It means only that two or
>more organizations or people are competing. There can be competing
>governments - e.g. Delaware and California competing for incorporations, for
>one purely hypothetical example. Or charities competing for your dollars at
>Christmas.
This strays from the topic of the earlier post, which was that there
is a need for a public entity to oversee the Internet's essential
functions, for a disinterested and responsible management, *not*
for something that is to foster competition.
So I don't really understand how the examples above relate to
the placing of the essential functions of the Internet into
*a private corporation to foster competition*.
But I do agree that there are times when states were forced to compete
against each other. (Though I don't see the relavance to this discussion.)
But such examples are exactly why it has been learned over a long
period of time that the people *need* government and regulation.
In the 1930's different states would be played off against each
other by big corporations, making the states compete for the
locations etc. of the corporation. Corporations would make the
states give them different concessions and financial incentives
that hurt the states and their budgets. The result was at least
10 of the states got together and agreed that they wouldn't allow
themselves to be played off against each other, and they got
the U.S. federal government to pass the social security law
setting a standard by which the states couldn't be played off
against each other.
Competition lows the level of all sorts of things, like working
conditions, the kind of product that is produced, etc.
The Internet is a communication medium.
This requires cooperation, *not* competition.
>The Internet opens up a lot more things to competition: TRUSTe,
>for example, is attempting to establish a jurisdiction for control of
>personal data ("privacy") that in some ways would compete with the FTC or EU.
I guess I don't understand what this example refers to. I do know
that the EU and its member countries are very upset about the
U.S. government's lack of support for the privacy laws that they
feel crucial to protect their citizens. And the U.S. corporations
don't seem to have any regard for the rights of European
citizens or their governments to hold U.S. corporations responsible
for violating those laws.
So I don't understand what you mean by "competition" with this
example. The Europeans I have heard from on this issue regard
the U.S. government model of "self regulation" as a refusal
to treat the rights of other people respectfully.
So I don't see any of this as a matter of the Internet opening
up areas of "competition" but the opposite. That the U.S.
corporations and the U.S. government are trying to ignore
other countries laws.
That is very far from competition.
But again that seems a straw horse with regard to the issue
of what is disinterested and responsible management of the
essential functions of the Internet and how can that be
achieved, and once again, that *cannot* be achieved by
a private organization that is trying to pass the public
and cooperative assets and power over to some private entities.
That is "conflict of interest", "unethical" and "irresponsible"
management of public assets and power.
>And of course there's competition for airtime on lists,
>competition for good ideas, etc.
Maybe you are trying to defend "competition" but that is *not*
what the Internet is about.
My experience on the Internet and my research about the
development of the Internet shows that it has been about
developing cooperative processes and working together to
solve problems.
The point is that the Internet those with a need to create a
mailing list or newsgroup, etc. It is *not* that we have
to compete.
And as one user told me when I first got on Usenet, "We are
all ears!" That is that one did *not* have to compete but
rather that there is the capacity for all to be able to
speak. This is what the Federal District Court in Philadelpia
in the CDA case spoke about as well. That the voice of the
ordinary people can be heard for a change. They don't have to
compete with the media monguls.
This new medium was created to make this possible. It make
cooperation and discussion possible, and in fact necessary.
The creation and development of the Internet is about a
scientific process that functions to scale the Internet.
It is about applying this scientific process in new and better
ways to solve the new problems.
This is the very opposite of "competition". This is what
Internet governance is about. It builds on the lessons
learned from creating the Internet. It does *not* throw
those lessons away and adopt *corporate models" to control
and divy up the assets of the Internet.
This is the very opposite of competition. Cooperation and collaboration
that is necessary for communication to be possible, for the
Internet to have spread and continue spreading around the world.
>But more relevant, a nonprofit that controls allocation of profitable rights
>can ask contractors to compete for those rights, on the basis of everything
>from low cost to customers, to service, to meeting all kinds of standards
>(reasonable or not).
This is very far from solving the problem that has developed
with the domain naming system, and can only cause further havoc
with it.
This is very far from being able to provide the proper protection
for the allocation of IP numbers.
The effort of the National Science Foundation to privatize the
domain name system has caused the current mess that is in.
It has led to the speculation in domain names, to the misunderstandings
about trademark and domain names and to the fact that one can't
find an accurate name or telephone number for holders of domain
names that splatter the Internet and its users with junk mail.
These all undermine the integrity of a communication system.
These are all problems that have developed from the failure to
care about that integrity and from the failure to recognize
that primarily the Internet is a system for human to human
communication.
Anyone who recognizes that there are real problems to be solved
in the management of these essential functions of the Internet
would *not* be carrying on this cherade of transferring
the public assets and policy making power to a private corporation,
but would be trying to utilize the wonderful functions that the
Internet makes possible to figure out the problems and how to solve
them.
That so far has *not* been happening.
Anyone who had any interest in doing that be seriously discussing
the proposal that I submitted to Ira Magaziner, at his request,
and to the NTIA. That proposal builds on the lessons learned
during the development of the Internet (not on some non network
models of "competition") to create a cooperative process involving
multiple governments and users (building on the process of building
the Internet as a unique new medium of worldwide communication).
The U.S. Federal District Court in Philadelphia, in the case
overturning the Communications Decency Act, (and affirmed by the
U.S. Supreme Court), said that the Internet is a unique new
medium of worldwide communication and to create laws or change
policy regarding it, one must understand its unique nature,
*not* disregard that nature.
To talk about the Internet fostering competition is to fundamentally
misunderstand the unique nature of the Internet. My testimony
to the U.S. Congress submitted on March 7, is available for
anyone interested in considering and discussing the unique nature
of the Internet. (http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt )
>Sorry if this is a little off the main thread, but it's important...and
>relevant when you think about governance. What constrains the power of an
>organization that does *not* have competition (whether it's a government or
>a commercial monopoly? ....without tying it up in red tape? That is what we
>are trying to work out.
Interesting. Government is *not* about red tape. It is about procedures
and due process.
I understand that a factory owner will consider laws requiring that
his or her workers have a lunch period mandated as "red tape".
But this is *not* red tape, but a means of the society of excercing
mandatory support for the health and welfare of the workers.
In the law case Holden versus Hardy in 1898 (over a 100 years ago)
it was recognized that unless the government supported the right
of workers to a limitation on the hours they work, then competition
among employers would drive them to work their workers 24 hours
a day, resulting in injuries and bad health, etc of the workers
in the society.
That there is a need for government to protect the health and welfare
of those in society whom otherwise would be at the mercy of those
with more power.
(The court also said that workers need to eat and thus have to take
the jobs that are available and are not able to fight individually
against the continually worsening hours of work or working conditions.)
This is of course considered red tape by the employers, maybe *not*
all but enough.
Thus if one is worried about "red tape" one cannot be learning from
what made it possible for the government to build the Internet.
There is an Request for Comment process (RFC) for creating standards.
This process was created under the government support for
the developing Internet. This is, of course, red tape.
All standards can only be created by processes involving
"red tape."
Open standards, involve a process of cooperation.
About your question. You can't be giving public assets and
policy making power to a private organization and then
claiming to "constrain the power of an organization"
>Esther Dyson
My proposal represents a prototype of an open and cooperative
form. It is *not* a form that provides for the fight over
power. It protects the essential functions of the Internet
from that fight over power.
The corporate form is a power form, especially when it will
control billion dollar assets.
By discussing my proposal there will be lessons learned
about how to prevent the usurpation of power over the Internet,
as the Internet was created (and Usenet as well) through this
very process.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 17:21:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: ITU Actions
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> You might be surprised by their understanding. Might
> I suggest that Internet development and Bell Labs R&D
> are somethat orthogonal at best.
Depending on what you consider to be R&D, Bell Labs (pre- and
post-breakup) people such as Mark Horton and Phil Karn were key
players in Internet development.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 20:57:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Contributions by those at Bell Labs to the Internet
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
>Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>> You might be surprised by their understanding. Might
>> I suggest that Internet development and Bell Labs R&D
>> are somethat orthogonal at best.
>Depending on what you consider to be R&D, Bell Labs (pre- and
>post-breakup) people such as Mark Horton and Phil Karn were key
>players in Internet development.
> --gregbo
And folks at Bell Labs created Unix and the Internet made it possible
for folks to create Linux.
Also folks at Bell Labs made Usenet possible, and Usenet helped
make the Internet possible, as Steve Bellovin pointed out, Usenet
helped to make the ARPANET available to a broader set of people.
Some even called Usenet "The Poor Man's ARPANET". And several of
the folks on Usenet eventually got to contribute to the ARPANET
mailing lists, and ARPANET mailing lists carried on Usenet helped
to make Usenet more attractive.
So there were important connections between the folks at Bell Labs
and the development of the ARPANET and then the Internet.
Greg, I know about some of Mark Horton's important contributions
to the Internet, but can you tell me a bit about Pete Karn. I
have noticed his name, but don't know much about his role in
these developments.
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, 1 Nov 1998 12:28:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Similarities between Bell Labs and Internet research styles
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> wrote:
>At 07:05 AM 11/1/98 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>>I think we all know many people at the Labs who were
>>remarkable in making direct and indirect developments
>>to Internet technology and its evolution, or whose
>>careers were otherwise shaped by their experiences
>>there.
>
>>It's not clear, however, that the Labs itself as an
>>institution played a particularly strong Internet
>>role given the directions at that time of the parent
>>company.
>Alas, these are entirely contradictory statements.
>It was the peculiar and excellent institutional NATURE and STYLE of the
>Labs which led to the opportunity for these individuals to make their
>contributions, just as it was the NATURE of the Labs which permitted a
>couple of wayward researchers, there, to invent Unix.
Can you say more about what you mean by the institutional NATURE and
STYLE. This is important and needs to be much better understood.
It wasn't quite that the UNIX pioneers were "wayward researchers".
As Dennis Ritchie points out UNIX built on the lessons of
Compatible Time Sharing System (CTSS) and MULTICS created by folks
at MIT and Bell Labs and GE as part of the MULTICS project.
BTW a goal of MULTICS was to have a time-sharing computer utility
available to all.
But the its important, Dave, that you point out the institutional
support that Bell Labs gave its researchers, which is some of what
is the great loss that has occurred now with the loss of Bell Labs.
It wasn't product oriented research. Because of the government
regulation of AT&T, AT&T was under obligation to have the most
advanced technology, as that would ensure the best possible service
at the lowest cost, and that required it to develop, support and
maintain Bell Labs.
I wondered if the support for research that was true at Bell Labs
isn't similar to the support for research that ARPA and then
DARPA gave to the contractors and researchers who worked on early
ARPANET and Internet research.
So isn't that another similarity between Bell Labs and the development
of the Internet?.
Folks interested in knowing more about this all would probably
be interested in reading chapter 9 of Netizens, which is about the
development of UNIX. Also the chapters on the development of
the ARPANET, chapters 5-8 and the Usenet history chapter, chapter 10.
Also I am now working on a presentation about the management style
and support for research done by DARPA for early MsgGroup mailing
list. Weren't you involved in the development of MsgGroup mailing
list in 1975, Dave?
>d/
>Dave Crocker
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, 1 Nov 1998 19:19:48 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] (Fwd) New mailing list for UK cyber-rights issues
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
For Immediate Release: 30 October, 1998
CR&CL (UK) Press Release - New Mailing list launched
LEEDS - Today Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) launched a new
mailing list called cyber-rights-UK. The new list will be a public
list open to anyone interested.
This list is devoted to discussions of cyber-speech, censorship,
government policy and politics, cyber-privacy issues including the
encryption policy and interception of communications. The
cyber-rights-UK Mailing List will have a UK oriented audience but
because of the nature of the Internet, there will be space for
discussions on international issues, especially on the European
Union's policy together with the US Administration's policies on these
important issues.
The list is intended for concerned netizens, journalists, researchers,
students, academics, and for anyone who has an interest on these
subject matters including government representatives and policy
makers.
"I believe the list will be beneficial to anyone who has an interest
in these important policy issues and it is open to any concerned
netizen. All welcome and join the list!" said Yaman Akdeniz, director
of Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK).
According to Yaman Akdeniz:
"Information sharing and discussion of these important issues is very
important and learning is a never ending process. Therefore, the list
will be beneficial to all."
To subscribe to cyber-rights-UK, send a message to
imailsrv@cyber-rights.org with the following message:
subscribe cyber-rights-UK your_full_name
in the body of your message (not on the subject line).
Notes For the Media:
This press release will be at http://www.cyber-rights.org/press/
Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) is at http://www.cyber-rights.org
Contact Information:
Mr Yaman Akdeniz
Address: Centre For Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds, LS2
9JT. E-mail:lawya@leeds.ac.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yaman Akdeniz <lawya@leeds.ac.uk>
Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) at: http://www.cyber-rights.org
Read the new CR&CL (UK) Report, Who Watches the Watchmen, Part:II
Accountability & Effective Self-Regulation in the Information Age,
August 1998 at http://www.cyber-rights.org/watchmen-ii.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #199
******************************
