Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 201
Netizens-Digest Monday, November 2 1998 Volume 01 : Number 201
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Re: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
[netz] Today's Quote...
[netz] Re: citizens not customers
Re: [netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
[netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
[netz] A real threat
Re: [netz] (Fwd) Re: Spam here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:40:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Ingo Luetkebohle <ingo@devconsult.de>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Kerry Miller wrote:
> It's to deal with this *potential* conflict of interest that the
> 'toplevel domain' of human affairs has to be defined as being without
> conflict in itself. The issue underlying the present debate is whether
> any self-constructed entity ('corporation') can perform this TLD role.
> Since there are, at least in name, other entities ('governments') that
> presently collectively occupy this role, this translates to the
> question as to why they should abdicate.
In practice, the question is not wether they should abdicate but wether
they should seize the control they don't exercise at the moment.
I recognize that I created some confusion by talking about "corporations".
As far as I know, no one has proposed a for-profit organization. So, the
question is not one of profit or not, but rather wether a
*self-constructed* organization can represent us or if we need a
organization that is legitimated directly by the users.
> Here, however, the cart gets in front of the horse. Influence is not to
> be equated with representation (although it may the historical
> precedent of alienation that has developed between people and their
> governmental *structures* which has allowed so much discussion (I would
> say rant) to go on *as if* influence is the only channel). In the more
> fundamental perspective, a corporation should be 'influenced' by its
> charter -- its articles of incorporation -- which is issued by the
> government, i.e. on behalf of the people, to perform some particular
> function *as if* it is an individual citizen.
This reminds me that we might need a precise definition of
"representation". IIRC we are talking about a body that is supposed to
develop rules and procedures for registering domains.
>
> > Those are just two different means of reaching the same goal and
> > they work equally well, if used properly. Its much easier to use money,
> > though, than to vote. I believe that simple fact is the heart of the free
> > market theory.
> >
> Rather, of free market practice.
>
>
> > The differences begin when the primary means of influence don't work
> > anymore. Everyone knows politicians who disregard the voters opinion and
> > corporations who disregard the buyers opinion.
> >
> This is why it is important to argue from _principle_ rather than
> empirical 'evidence' - and why the internet should certainly not become a
> corporate 'playing field' before its charter is clearly understood. Otherwise we
> are simply indulging in a game of 'who can be more cynical than the other' in
> respect to whether gov't represents people, and whether vote buying is more
> efficient than honest deliberation of the merits of the case. One could even
> argue that the net should be preserved as a public domain *precisely* to
> educate the global citizenry to perform this kind of deliberation. If, then, they
> decide to incorporate it, I dont think there would be much argument ;-)
>
> ...
> > They most important way of influencing governments, when you can't do it
> > with votes, is to *participate* -- and they have to let you. They can't
> > just throw you out. Its hard work, but it is possible and its the most
> > important thing in the world. We should not dismiss it lightly.
> >
>
> I entirely agree, and its hard to conceive of any better opportunity to
> participate in a global 'constitutional convention' than the internet presently
> provides.
>
> kerry
>
>
>
Ingo Luetkebohle / 21st Century Digital Boy
dev/consulting Gesellschaft fuer Netzwerkentwicklung und -beratung mbH
url: http://www.devconsult.de/ - fon: 0521-1365800 - fax: 0521-1365803
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:13:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Ingo Luetkebohle <ingo@devconsult.de>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Ooops, this one was sent accidently. Its not finished. Please ignore
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Ingo Luetkebohle wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Kerry Miller wrote:
> > It's to deal with this *potential* conflict of interest that the
> > 'toplevel domain' of human affairs has to be defined as being without
> > conflict in itself. The issue underlying the present debate is whether
> > any self-constructed entity ('corporation') can perform this TLD role.
> > Since there are, at least in name, other entities ('governments') that
> > presently collectively occupy this role, this translates to the
> > question as to why they should abdicate.
[...snip...]
- --
Ingo Luetkebohle / 21st Century Digital Boy
dev/consulting Gesellschaft fuer Netzwerkentwicklung und -beratung mbH
url: http://www.devconsult.de/ - fon: 0521-1365800 - fax: 0521-1365803
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:32:59 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Today's Quote...
"We still maintain a republican form of government, but who has control of
the primaries that nominate the candidate? The corporations have. Who
control the conventions? The corporations. Who control the machinery of
elections? The corporations. Who own the bosses and the elected officials?
The corporations. Are they representatives of the people or of the
corporations? Let any fair-minded man answer that question truthfully."
"If the corporations do all this -- and they surely do -- can we any longer
maintain that this is a government by the people? It is a government by a
distinct class, but not a government for the greatest good of the greatest
number but for the special advantage of that class. Laws are passed for the
benefit of the corporations, and such laws as are not to the advantage of the
corporations are ignored. The people are neglected because they have
ceased to be important as a factor in the government."
-- William Randolph Hearst
(quoted in _Forerunners of American Fascism_ by Raymond Gram Swing. Freeport,
NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1969; page 139-140.)
From: Randy.Edwards@sol.whb.org (Randy Edwards)
============
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:32:59 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: citizens not customers
> > Since there are, at least in name, other entities ('governments') that
> > presently collectively occupy this role, this translates to the question
> > as to why they should abdicate.
>
> In practice, the question is not wether they should abdicate but wether
> they should seize the control they don't exercise at the moment.
>
> I recognize that I created some confusion by talking about "corporations".
> As far as I know, no one has proposed a for-profit organization. So, the
> question is not one of profit or not, but rather wether a
> *self-constructed* organization can represent us or if we need a
> organization that is legitimated directly by the users.
>
I wouldnt put much trust in the 'non-profit' status: it sure doesnt mean what
it used to mean, and nothing Ive seen stipulates that ICANN couldnt be
transformed or converted or bought out.
> > Here, however, the cart gets in front of the horse. Influence is not to
> > be equated with representation (although it may the historical precedent
> > of alienation that has developed between people and their governmental
> > *structures* which has allowed so much discussion (I would say rant) to
> > go on *as if* influence is the only channel). In the more fundamental
> > perspective, a corporation should be 'influenced' by its charter -- its
> > articles of incorporation -- which is issued by the government, i.e. on
> > behalf of the people, to perform some particular function *as if* it is
> > an individual citizen.
>
> This reminds me that we might need a precise definition of
> "representation". IIRC we are talking about a body that is supposed to
> develop rules and procedures for registering domains.
>
Yes, I was reading
www.domainhandbook.com/ifwp.html
last night, and it appears that in bringing in commercial issues - trademark
in particular - into what was a 'statutory body' the NSI has opened a real can
of worms, which all the 'stakeholders' who see their self-advantage are happy
to pretend is perfectly fit and proper procedure. Corporate 'representatives'
will just naturally do all the proper representing that is necessary, and
nobody needs to think about what representation might actually mean.
(The other little insight I got was from the summary of comments and
response to the Green Paper:
"The organizing documents (Charter, Bylaws, etc.) should provide that the
new corporation is governed on the basis of a sound and transparent
decision-making process, which protects against capture by a self-interested
faction, and which provides for robust, professional management of the new
corporation....
"The new corporation does not need any special grant of immunity from the
antitrust laws so long as its policies and practices are reasonably based on,
and no broader than necessary to promote the legitimate coordinating
objectives of the new corporation."
First they invoke the free market faith that everything will balance out, then
they leave the basis of legitimacy open to question, so essentially it's up to
the corp to decide what its objectives are (e.g. in conflict resolution), and if
we don't like it, we can sue. That's public interest, for sure.)
Back to representation: here's a nice summary of the issue:
"In what Grossman (1996) calls the "Electronic Republic", the power of
individual citizens is increased is several ways... There is greater
access to those who represent the individual in the political system, and
to information about issues, decisions and pending legislation that might
affect the individual. There is greater influence both as an individual
who can more easily communicate his or her views on a topic directly to
elected representatives, and indirectly through easier access to issue
advocacy organizations.
"There are other, more subtle implications of this
shift in public power for elected representatives and for citizens
themselves. For representatives, this could mean the transformation in the
definition of their role -- from the more traditional conception of the
representative as someone who is selected to represent his or her
constituents by considering the facts surrounding various issues and
making carefully reasoned decisions on that basis with the interests of
his or her constituents in mind [to] someone who is merely a proxy for his
or her constituents, adding up the constituency responses on a given issue
and voting accordingly.
"The electronic media has given a larger percentage of constituents than
ever before the ability to easily and quickly transmit their opinions on
public policy issues to their representatives. The danger is that whereas
a representative is supposed to consider what is best for his or her
district as a whole (including all members of the district), a proxy is
constrained to represent the majority viewpoint...."
-- Dana Ott, Power to the People: The Role of Electronic Media in
Promoting Democracy in Africa, at
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_4/ott
(An abridged version is at http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/ott.htm)
It might be very interesting to see how the Bylaws read, substituting *proxy*
for 'representative.'
Cheers,
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:26:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
>
> Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org> wrote
>
> >Jeff Williams a =E9crit:
>
> >Do you mean in the U.S.? Well, even a change of government here won't
> >alter their (U.S.govt-ed) position on the Internet, which is that
> >it must continue to be run for American interests.
>
> Which means the interests of large corporations, *not* the interests
> of the American people who want an Internet for communications
> with others around the world, *not* and Internet that is a
> propagandist for large corporate interests of any nation.
>
> The U.S. government position at the moment is hostile to the
> position of the U.S. people on the issue of the operation
> and growth and development of the Internet.
>
> <...>
>
> >a sort of splitting of the root, and this will be favored by the
> >Europeans because it=20 aids them to break the DOC's grip.
> >This is the vicious circle that's been set in motion,=20
> >and it will get much worse before it gets better, IMHO.
>
> None of these players show *any* concern for the best interests
> of the Internet.
>
> That is what this whole situation demonstrates.
>
> But the people of the world *do* care about the Internet and about
> the communication that it makes possible to connect them to each other.
>
> It would seem that this helps to explain the collaboration of
> the enemies of the Internet to try to fragment it and make that
> global communication among the peoples of the world no longer
> possible.
>
> (See my testimony to Congress:
> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt)
>
> But the battle isn't over yet, and the death of the Net has been
> predicted many times before :-)
>
> The Office of Inspector General of the NSF tried to raise a cry
> of the trouble that the privatization of the essential functions of
> the Internet would all cause, and now Congressman's Bliley's
> letter to the Department of Commerce and to Ira Magaziner raises
> some of the problems of what has gone on in the name of
> privatization. (See my letter to congress
> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/letter_to_congress.txt )
>
> The scientific development of the Internet made it possible to
> have a cooperative process to solve the problems. Anyone who
> cares for the continued growth and development of the Internet
> will eventually recognize the need to return to that scientific
> process and collaboration to create a way to protect the DNS
> and IP numbers and other essential functions of the Internet
> from the wrangling and battle of interests.
>
> That's why my proposal needs to be taken seriously, see:
> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
>
> 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: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:08:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> The U.S. government position at the moment is hostile to the
> position of the U.S. people on the issue of the operation
> and growth and development of the Internet.
I would like to propose a means by which we could get an idea of how
many people feel this way.
Would it be possible for every domain name contact (from the WHOIS
database) to be advised of these proceedings? The contact would be
encouraged to publish this information so that it is publicly
accessible. The best way to do this, I think, would be for the
contact to mail a short informational message to everyone at their
site explaining the situation, possibly directing them to web pages
that contain links to additional sources of information, which would
include these mailing lists.
I really do think it is important to try to gauge end-user concerns.
While we aren't likely to reach everyone, we could perhaps reach
enough people to get a statistical sample of concerned individuals.
I have a feeling that there is a range of user concerns, all of which
need to be identified. I don't think it is an either/or thing; there
will be people who will want to use the Internet for a variety of
purposes.
>Any legitimate business could set up its own network and connect
>or *not* connect it to the Internet, as it wished.
>If it connects to the Internet, it needs to abide by the common
>agreements necessary to be part of the Internet, *not* impose on the
>Internet business requirements.
This is basically happening already. There are lots of companies with
Intranets who connect to the Internet. I don't see this changing.
What perhaps should happen is that the rights and responsibilities of
connecting organizations should be clearly spelled out.
>IANA was a contractor for the government. There is a requirement by
>the U.S. government that that contractor privatize. That is the
>problem that IANA has faced.
>The U.S. government has *no* valid reason to be requiring the
>privatization of IANA.
This is another issue that I think needs to be clarified. However,
I'm at a loss to know how we would get at the "truth" of this matter.
It seems to me that it's like voting in a public election; because the
voters in most cases do not know all the facts and can't reasonably
get them, they must trust their gut instincts about the candidates or
propositions they vote on. Also, I don't get the sense that the
American public, at least, is open to having their Internet usage
taxed to pay for IANA service.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: 03 Nov 1998 02:06:44 +0100
From: lakamp@capway.com
Subject: [netz] A real threat
Hi,
I think some of you already have heard about Microsoft's "Halloween
Document". ( http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html ). Its primary
target is Open-source software but there is one point which does
threaten the Internet directly:
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server
applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized,
simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new
protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."
(OSS stands for Open Source Software)
Of course, not only "OSS" developers would be barred from access to
those "extended" protocols. If this idea gets around in the industry,
the whole net will develop into a set of proprietary networks, maybe
using the same physical means of transmission but with separate
protocols that will make them incompatible.
It isn't exactly what has been discussed here during the last days
but it is clear how those issues are related.
Most of all, it does show the ideas that can come up in some corporate
minds.
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:46:35 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] (Fwd) Re: Spam here
Greg,
>
> Spam is the problem, not commercialism.
Spam is a symptom -- of too many folks who arent thinking about the
*development of this space, only its utility to them at the moment.
In a sense, this may also be the problem the business interests also see:
too many amateurs who think they are *taking advantage* of a free
marketplace to run whatever scam they can think of: seriously trying to
establish an enterprise is not where theyre at.
Both aspects deserve to be dealt with (if we can ever get down to discussing
*how* to implement a structure-that-is-not-a-structure ;-)
> let's assume you are right, and the net-businesses went away...
> What would be left? Academic networks... public networks... How
> would this further any aims
> towards global government? The government that ran this would be
> whoever was paying the money for it. If they didn't want to let you
> on, no outside entity would have to power to order them to do so.
>
I think we use the term 'government' differently. I (academic-hanger-on that
I am) call a group of folks who work to preserve the status quo ante a
'bureaucracy,' while the process of governance relates to sorting out and
keeping track of what *should be kept from before -- in order to get on with
making the necessary changes in a way that they can then get sorted out in
their turn.
Thus I have no problem in visualising a network that 'runs' itself, academics
and public and entrepreneurs altogether *if they grasp the need to sustain
this kind of ongoing-ness -- what used to be called education, but that term
too has been subverted or reduced or stultified to a bureaucratic exercise.
(There may even be a causal relation, what do you think?) People 'get' an
education in exactly the same way as they 'get' a government; that is,
without ever becoming aware that they have a responsibility to define what it
is.
That's why the present argument about what should or shouldnt be done with
the DNS is so dismal: it is as if people - on all sides - are ready and eager to
take up polarized positions first -- and (maybe!) figure out what the
implications are afterwards; in any case, not recognizing that the polarities
have been set up for them by their own negligence of very simple concepts.
kerry
"But at some corporations, it's considered
important that the employees are properly educated.
They offer company-sponsored educational programs."
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #201
******************************
