Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 206
Netizens-Digest Saturday, November 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 206
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: ICANN representing us "users" .....
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] U: Is The Internet Heading for a Cache Crunch?
[netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Do Internet Users exist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:01:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
>I share some of Ronda's concerns about having user (netizen)
>representation. However, I don't see how we would gauge user
>representation practically.
Greg I'm not talking about representation but users being able to
speak for themselves.
>A while back, I proposed that each of the domain name contacts in the
>WHOIS databases be contacted and asked to spread the word about the
>developments being debated here. Only one person (Jeff Williams)
>responded. I take that to mean that there isn't much interest in that
>idea.
But what is happening doesn't just affect domain name holders
but all Internet users as we are all affected by the transfer
of the ownership and control of the essential functions of the
Internet to the private sector.
There was an NTIA online conference that did succeed in gathering
lots of views. An account is in Netizens and the archives is still
as far as I know online at the NTIA.
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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:12:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
On 13-Nov-98 Bob Allisat wrote:
>
> WIlliam wrote:
>> Without the privately owned networks that permit the users to
>> communicate, socialize, and work on the Internet, we wouldn't
>> be able to communicate with each other as we do.
No there are many publicly owned networks, and the so called
"privately owned networks" couldn't exist without govt protection
of their existence and so they are far from private.
Also a communications network really can't be privately owned,
it is a public utility not some set of products in a store.
It isn't as it is a public infrastructure.
If corporations are involved they have a public obligation and are
receiving funds from the public.
>
>> It would not exist without us and
>> when we decide to move on it will
>> collapse in upon itself. I need
>> only mention FIDONET, CB Radios,
>> Disco... etc. We the people are
>> the source, the impulse, the drive
>> and energy. Without us ya'll are
>> kindly f*cked.
>Bob,
>You just hit the nail on the head.
>Without customers, businesses can't survive.
>That is the role of customers and businesses.
BUT Many People Online Are NETIZENS Not CUSTOMERS.
That's what it seems corporate entities can't seem to understand.
>Removing the current monopoly over TLDs will permit the DNS business to be a
>free market economy, and this will be the REAL benefit to the users/customers.
That is always the claim. But the real interest is in making
money.
And the problem of all being able to have access to the
Internet is no wheres even being considered in this discussion.
Instead the only concern is how to make money.
>It will force business to have policies and services that are responsive to the
>users/customers needs. And if they aren't, as you so aply pointed out, there
>are alternatives they can go to.
Just like Microsoft is forced to be responsive?
No that isn't how the business world works, though that is the
line.
The Internet was built by a public process and public funds,
and now instead of looking at the issue of how all can
have access (which was seen by pioneers like J.C.R. Licklider
and Robert Taylor as the crucial issue of whether the Net would
be a benefit or harm), this discussion about how to to privatize
these key functions of the Internet, never considers the real
issues, but instead has replaced them with luring different
sectors of the business world into support for policies so
they can make more money for themselves.
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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:39:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: ICANN representing us "users" .....
[The following is another response to Ronda Hauben from Dave Farber.]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:42:28 -0500
To: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>, list@ifwp.org
From: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: ICANN representing us "users" and your role as advisor to
U.S. govt
Cc: netizens@columbia.edu
Ronda, since I am not, for some reason, able to get in the ifwp list,
please forward this.
I for one have NO idea what the US Government is trying to do. It was,
in my opinion, a great misfortune when they weighted in the way they did.
Their competitive solicitation which established the semi monopoly of NSI
started the problem. It was competitive but there was no effective mechanism
to allow input from the community on the terms and conditions and it caused
the same problems that the agreement with ANS did many years earlier.
Then the Green paper which established the USG role in the net governance
mechanism ended damaging , in my opinion, the consensus mechanism that
existed in the community and to almost quote Crocker -- we will suffer
from years from that.
Your notes are substantial in length and content and I don;t want to
shortcut my responses so I will promise this weekend to have at it
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:38:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Do Internet Users exist?
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>Greg I'm not talking about representation but users being able to
>speak for themselves.
I should have been more specific. I actually meant that I share some
of your concerns about individuals not being able to speak (ie. vote).
>But what is happening doesn't just affect domain name holders but all
>Internet users as we are all affected by the transfer of the
>ownership and control of the essential functions of the Internet to
>the private sector.
I made the suggestion of contacting the WHOIS domain name contacts in
the hope that they would be able to pass that information on to users
in the domains they manage.
>There was an NTIA online conference that did succeed in gathering
>lots of views. An account is in Netizens and the archives is still
>as far as I know online at the NTIA.
OK, I'll take a look.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:05:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
Ronda Hauben wrote:
>Greg, is it you feel Human-Nets was junk?
>Or pre-1995 Usenet?
Neither. I was just pointing out the irony in your statements. You
decry technologists, yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that many
of the Internet's founders were technologists. Or perhaps I am not
understanding what you mean by technologist.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:05:56 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Do Internet Users exist?
> I should have been more specific. I actually meant that I share some of
> your concerns about individuals not being able to speak (ie. vote).
>
Hold it there a minute: 'speak, i.e. vote' conceals a major missing
ingredient - *who's setting the agenda*? Why not 'speak, i.e. formulate the
choices to be made'?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:16:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
Kerry Miller wrote:
>Hold it there a minute: 'speak, i.e. vote' conceals a major missing
>ingredient - *who's setting the agenda*? Why not 'speak,
>i.e. formulate the choices to be made'?
I think you are taking my comments too literally. I have no problem
with anyone being able to participate in the policy-setting process.
However, the practical reality is that people who have demonstrable
credentials (e.g. years of technical, operational, and administrative
experience with the Internet) will tend to get more support for their
views than people who don't. This would be the case in any
organization.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 19:49:51 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
Greg,
>> Hold it there a minute: 'speak, i.e. vote' conceals a major missing
> > ingredient - *who's setting the agenda*? Why not 'speak, i.e. formulate
> >the choices to be made'?
>
> I think you are taking my comments too literally. I have no problem
> with anyone being able to participate in the policy-setting process.
> However, the practical reality is that people who have demonstrable
> credentials (e.g. years of technical, operational, and administrative
> experience with the Internet) will tend to get more support for their
> views than people who don't. This would be the case in any
> organization.
>
I absolutely concur - first, on the fact that many too many people do not
read what they write *literally*, and then find themselves embroiled in tedious
and pointless argumentation that is the hallmark of internet 'communication.'
Second, experience does indeed amount to a demonstrable credential -
because in the course of gaining such experience, people must
*demonstrate* that they understand the implications of their actions.
The more people those actions affect, the more this demonstration becomes
concentrated in verbal form, and the more important it becomes that they
recognize that 'the problem' may not be the technical, operational, and
administrative aspects that they were assigned to 'solve,' but the need to
communicate what they are doing in order to gain the support of their
'electorate.'
I hope our agreement on these two points in particular will be so profound as
to allow us to move on from this almost-argument we've been having, and to
join forces in trying to explain these simple facts to USG/DoC and ICANN's
board pro-tem - I really do, for out of *their learning to communicate may
come just the kind of 'bylaw' which will secure honest, dedicated, struggling-
to-understand communication (shall we call it 'dialogue'?) a place in a
technically and operationally competent, and corporate-administered, net.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:04:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
In article <199811131401.JAA10707@panix3.panix.com> you write:
>>A while back, I proposed that each of the domain name contacts in the
>>WHOIS databases be contacted and asked to spread the word about the
>>developments being debated here. Only one person (Jeff Williams)
>>responded. I take that to mean that there isn't much interest in that
>>idea.
>There was an NTIA online conference that did succeed in gathering
>lots of views. An account is in Netizens and the archives is still
>as far as I know online at the NTIA.
The suggestion I made above would (hopefully) spread the word to a
much larger constituency, something on the order of the size of the
DNS itself, which would (hopefully) give a better idea of what the
Internet user consensus is on the DNS privatization.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:40:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
In article <19981113224801.AAA745@LOCALNAME> Kerry Miller wrote:
>I hope our agreement on these two points in particular will be so
>profound as to allow us to move on from this almost-argument we've
>been having, and to join forces in trying to explain these simple
>facts to USG/DoC and ICANN's board pro-tem - I really do, for out of
>*their learning to communicate may come just the kind of 'bylaw'
>which will secure honest, dedicated, struggling-to-understand
>communication (shall we call it 'dialogue'?) a place in a technically
>and operationally competent, and corporate-administered, net.
Honestly, I think the only way this situation would not have come
about is if DARPA/NSF/etc had continued to fund the evolution of the
Internet. Once the NREN bill passed, the cat was pretty much let out
of the bag. It was only a matter of time before commercial interests
would dominate the net. It probably would have happened even sooner,
if the web had evolved faster. Once there were applications that
allowed any Internet user to easily download accessible content, it
established a demand for said content, and thus, commercial business.
I don't know if we can ever go back to the old days. There are just
too many powerful entities with substantial stakes in pushing the
privatization forward.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 22:04:13 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] U: Is The Internet Heading for a Cache Crunch?
http://www.goforit.com/cache/default.htm
Is The Internet Heading for a Cache Crunch?
By Russell Baird Tewksbury
Originally published in the January/February 1998 issue of OnTheInternet
Magazine, an international publication of the Internet Society and the
publication of record for Internet standards.
The Hidden Dangers of Proxy Caching
On the Internet, traffic jams and bottlenecks, or what is known as flash
points and hot spots, have become daily occurrences. As network
administrators are faced with the difficult challenge of how to provide more
efficient bandwidth and server utilization to their customers, many are turning
to network/proxy caching as a solution. The negative by-products
associated with a proxy cache solution for management of network
congestion could prove to be detrimental to the advancement of the network
itself . . . by posing a significant threat to the freedoms and civil liberties of
those who use it.
Today, the development of an international hierarchical network cache
system is well under way. Referred to as global mesh, these national and
regional cache systems are designed to create a worldwide caching
infrastructure. With the global mesh in place, could the Internet's status as
an independent, world-wide medium of communication be at risk? Will
these "clearing-houses" of cached web pages become primary targets for
tampering, censorship and abuse? Furthermore, will governments choose to
enact control over the flow of information into and out of their borders?
According to several well-respected industry experts, the answer to these
questions is YES.
[...]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:41:26 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
Greg,
> It was only a matter of time before commercial interests would
> dominate the net. It probably would have happened even sooner, if the web
> had evolved faster. Once there were applications that allowed any
> Internet user to easily download accessible content, it established a
> demand for said content, and thus, commercial business. I don't know if we
> can ever go back to the old days.
Why consider it as going back? I'm suggesting that we organize *as if* our
interest in open communication for the advancement of human understanding
has corporate standing - the height of irony of course, since 'incorporation'
was conceived as giving business the standing of an individual! The worm
has turned 180; we're only insisting it should continue on around.
Now, the first consideration has to be that our product is *free* speech,
where the corporate Net is likely to levy charges per byte or pixel or some
such (I mean, why not? There is no *informational* distinction between
advertising and any other data flow.) By our joint efforts, we can establish
that such charges should be tied to annual revenues, so 'big' speakers (from
what we *used to call corporations) pay proprotionately more than little ones -
and since our product, I mean our accessible content, is mere
understanding, of course there is no revenue - only *venue. Are you with me?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:41:27 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Do Internet Users exist?
> In article <199811131401.JAA10707@panix3.panix.com> you wrote:
> >>A while back, I proposed that each of the domain name contacts in the
> >>WHOIS databases be contacted ...
> The suggestion I made above would (hopefully) spread the word to a
> much larger constituency
So, did you execute your proposal? What's the next step?
kerry
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:41:26 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Do Internet Users exist?
Ingo wrote,
> Hi Kerry,
>
> private reply? Why?
>
Only because between my mailer that insists on replying to sender, and the
netizens list which leaves the Reply-To entry blank, I forgot to edit the To line!
Anyway, it appears you have quoted me in full, so I'll let it stand, and add
some thoughts below:
> anyway, even though its late, some unsorted thoughts...
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Kerry Miller wrote:
> > 1) it was subsidized
>
> Firstly, thats the reason whereas I just wrote up the fact :-) Secondly,
> that was at the beginning. Its still subsidized in part, but I argue that
> large parts of the *current* Internet are not subsidized anymore.
>
> > 2) it *barely worked - but it was fun
>
> Compared with a lot of more commercial networks, it worked just great. The
> fact that it didn't work very well was because the technology was immature.
> It might not have worked great, but the point was that it worked near the
> practical maximum, which could not be said of other networks. Many things
> that didn't work that good, were missing alltogether from other networks.
>
> > 3) everyone who was interested in connecting for connection's sake could
> > *because* they weren't millions
>
> Again, that was the early Internet. I aimed at writing up the reasons why
> the Internet became a *commercial* success, *too*.
>
> > 4) the AUP that was in place was honored in the breach
>
> ?? I don't understand that. I always thought that the commercial backbones
> did not have an AUP.
>
> > That to my mind is plenty idealistic - or do you imagine that anyone
> > actually > set out to design and produce the Internet Shopping Channel?
>
> No, but they didn't develop e-mail and the web for idealistic reasons but
> because they were usefull.
>
> > All too true, which suggests there is a major flaw in conventional education
> > practice,
>
> Einstein said: "Its a miracle and true proof of human intelligence that it
> survives formal education."
>
> > which suggests that a *primary* use of a public internet would be to
> > convey 'ways' -- which, imo, would establish experimentalism as a
> > fundamental feature of human existence.
>
> Well, we have to face it: (western?) Humanity got scared and
> experimentalism was lost in the upheaval that followed. Some people still
> have it and they are called "hackers" and are one of a crowd. This created
> some pretty interesting results, socially speaking.
>
> > Turning that off in the name of efficiency and 'done deals' consigns
> > (the wired portion of) our species to consumer idiocy (sometimes known
> > as the dustbin of history).
>
> People have the tendency to be single-minded. That makes business people
> forget that they are running businesses to have a life and not as an end in
> itself. Luckily, not all people are business people. Educational research
> has produced interesting results over the last two decades, some of which
> is slowly making its way into mainstream education now. I'm eagerly
> awaiting the outcome, we might be looking at a whole new generation. I
> wonder what they'll think of us dinosaurs :-)
>
> --
> 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
>
In brief reply:
a)
If you're dealing with a rapidly changing phenomenon, it's better to try to take
'snapshots' of it at various points than to try to summarize it all at once.
The net of 1993 is not the net of 95 or of 97 or 99.
b) Things worked increasingly better as more nodes/operators got the hang
of TCP/IP, no doubt about it. Nonetheless, noone has yet issued any
guarantee that you wont have to dial up 200+ times in a row to get on, like
we have done in times not so long past.
c) I thought you'd recognize the 'honor in the breach' - "all communications
are to relate to official duties or to research," as I recall it. But no sysop was
interested in making the call as to what was research and what wasnt.
d) " Humanity got scared and experimentalism was lost in the upheaval that
followed....People have the tendency to be single-minded...." Excuse me,
but dont generalizations like these do more harm than good in *any*
conversation? Experimentalism is not lost, and plenty of people are not
singleminded (nor even tend to be), even if we knew how to measure such
factors exactly.
e) " I'm eagerly awaiting the outcome, we might be looking at a whole new
generation." I'm more optimistic perhaps, but Im absolutely sure we're
looking at a new generation. I would just like to think I had done what I could
to make the transition a friendly one.
kerry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #206
******************************
