Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 189
Netizens-Digest Friday, October 23 1998 Volume 01 : Number 189
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] comments on the new NSI/IANA proposal
Re: [netz] comments on the new NSI/IANA proposal
[netz] Re: Copy of comments... (fwd)
[netz] Re: Copy of comments...
Re: [netz] comments on the new NSI/IANA proposal
[netz] Re: CPT Comments
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Copy of comments...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:36:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] comments on the new NSI/IANA proposal
Responding to Greg Skinner < gds@best.com >:
>>Secondly, there already exist alternate root servers, despite the
>>"existing rules" about who can have what name. People are free to use
>>those servers if they wish. (Whether or not they can actually usefully
>>contact systems whose addresses are obtained from those root servers is
>>another matter entirely.)
>I'll follow up to my own post by saying that I feel this is the most
>crucial aspect of Internet access, and thus far it has seen the least
>amount of attention. I think the agreements that Internet exchanges
>and ISPs hold need to be examined in more detail, particularly when
>considering what Internet policy will be. The reason is because
>despite having a domain name, an IP address, and even a modem and phone
>line, if the backbone won't pass your traffic, you're effectively not
>on the Internet.
Isn't this why there is a problem with the U.S. Govt having
privatized the backbone to the Internet? This was raised
during the NTIA online conference before the NSFNET was
privatized. And now more essential functions are being
privatized.
>--gregbo
You may be interested in reading through chapters 11, 12, and 14
of Netizens as this is where there was opposition to the
1995 privatization. The U.S. Govt went ahead and the result
is the mess of spam, and junk postings, and unresonsive and
dictatorial backbone operators, and the problems with
NSI and domain names, etc. etc. and etc.
And instead of looking for how this privatizing of the Internet
has just led to a mess, there is the rush by the U.S. govt
to push through more privatizing.
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: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] comments on the new NSI/IANA proposal
Ronda Hauben wrote:
>The U.S. govt (without the authority as far as I can tell) is handing
>over to this private corporation public property and public policy
>making power.
Do not be so sure that DNS names, IP addresses, etc. are "public
property." Many of those addresses, for example, are held by private
corporations and universities.
Also, there is no law that declares it unconstitutional for the US
government to relinquish its oversight of the Internet name and
address space. In fact, this whole issue will (in my opinion)
ultimately cause new laws to be enacted, that may (or may not) give
governments certain authority over Internet names and addresses (in
the same way that radio frequencies and call letters are allocated and
assigned, respectively).
>What proposal? There are bylaws and articles of incorporation
>that basically are setting up a policy organization to run
>and own these key functions of the Internet.
Read http://www.iana.org/submitted/sub-letter.html.
It is a PROPOSAL. It is subject to review, and from what I have read,
is indeed being reviewed by the Department of Commerce. The response
so far is that the DoC would like them to consider some of the
requests that have been made of them by the Boston Working Group and
the EFF. So, nothing is cast in stone; there are still questions that
need to be answered and details that need to be worked out.
See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/icann102098.htm.
>I am of the impression that there are lots of way around that as NSI
>being a govt contractor demonstrated by not only making millions but
>even offering shares on the stock exchange. If the public resources
>and powers can be transferred to a private corporation, we are in a
>no man's land where the rules get made up to fit the needs of those
>with the power.
NSI is a private for-profit corporation. The proposed new corporation
is a non-profit with no financial interests in any organizations that
do the actual registration of Internet names and addresses.
>Greg, isn't there any thing about this plan that bothers you?
I didn't say that I endorsed the plan. I am just pointing out some
misconceptions you have about the plan.
>But still, the creation of this new private corporation and the
>U.S. Govt rush to give it the key elements of the Internet is somehow
>surrealistic.
It seems to me that a lot of the rush is because lots of organizations
and individuals are unhappy with the current NSI/IANA administration
and want it put to an end quickly.
>Do you have any idea who is running IANA now that Jon is no longer
>there. Early on in the IFWP meeting in Geneva it seems that his
>lawyer was doing the documents and yet using Jon Postel's name on
>them.
I don't know who is running IANA now. My guess is that Dr. Herb
Schorr of ISI is running it, but I don't know. They provide contact
numbers:
+1-310-822-1511 (voice/mail)
+1-310-823-6714 (facsimile)
I have worked with several ISI people in my career, and have also been
there for meetings. They are, in my opinion, very ethical,
professional people. They are not, in my opinion, conspiring to
secretly seize control of Internet name and address management for
their own ends.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Copy of comments... (fwd)
- ----- Forwarded message from Peter Deutsch -----
>From peterd@Bunyip.Com Thu Oct 22 15:41:46 1998
Message-Id: <199810222239.SAA24203@mocha.bunyip.com>
From: peterd@Bunyip.Com (Peter Deutsch)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:39:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: Greg Skinner's message as of Oct 22, 15:05
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: Copy of comments...
Cc: ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
Hi,
[ You wrote: ]
. . .
> Would you please explain and give examples of what types of conflict
> would arise from the Hauben proposal?
As I read it, Ms Hauben's proposal calls for another round
of discussion before in effect engineering a new process,
leading in turn to a new proposal. To me, this is not
realistic in today's environment. In addition, this
proposal was not the result of a widely supported public
process with multiple contributors, but rather the output
of one individual. This violated the entire process
outlined by the U.S. government.
With IANA, BWG and ORSC there are now three relatedJ
proposals, which were produced with input from many, many
people who had multiple feedback opportunities and which
between them are endorsed by a wide cross-section of the
net community. Telling these people (some of whom have
built up some significant scars in the battles over the
past few years) that they can or must set aside their work
and start again would (IMHO) absolutely certainly lead to
the reopening of old wounds and the restating of old
demands, all with an added layer of resentment and thus
additional potential for conflict.
This, to me, means conflict. It just wont work. The
existing open process, while not perfect, is in my opinion
infinitely preferable to starting again.
> I have been discussing several of the Hauben proposals with Ms. Hauben
> and several other interested parties on the netizens@columbia.edu
> mailing list, and several usenet newsgroups that focus on DNS-related
> issues, such as comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains, net.internet.dns.policy,
> and alt.culture.internet. I have made several comments in those
> forums on Ms. Hauben's proposal, and pointed Ms. Hauben and others to
> additional sources of information (both technical and historical) on
> Internet development.
I have restricted my participation to the ifwp list, along
with some interaction with the ORSC and BWG teams. You are
free to repost this if you wish, but I really don't have
the time or resources to join additional forums on this
topic. As you will see, I've restricted my CC to the ifwp
list.
- peterd
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch, (514) 875-8611 (phone)
Bunyip Information Systems Inc. (514) 875-8134 (fax)
<peterd@bunyip.com> http://www.bunyip.com
"The survey is not designed to permit statistically valid comparisons
with past ones. Still, the tables show some interesting trends."
- from Dun & Bradstreet's fifth annual
exclusive survey for Marketing magazine
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Deutsch -----
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Copy of comments...
You wrote:
>The Ronda Hauben Proposal:
>I have given some study to the proposal submitted by Ronda Hauben,
>although I admit that not to the level of attention I have devoted
>to the others. This is because it became clear, upon first reading,
>that this document is a significant departure from the approach
>taken by the others, calling for additional study and work before a
>final draft could even be contemplated.
>I believe that the White Paper process has already consumed far too
>many resources to be reset in the way proposed and would encourage
>its author to join into the final consensus-building process needed
>to merge the IANA, BWG and ORSC drafts. Any other course of action
>is, in my opinion, unacceptable given the history and potential for
>future conflict that such an approach would likely engender.
Would you please explain and give examples of what types of conflict
would arise from the Hauben proposal?
I have been discussing several of the Hauben proposals with Ms. Hauben
and several other interested parties on the netizens@columbia.edu
mailing list, and several usenet newsgroups that focus on DNS-related
issues, such as comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains, net.internet.dns.policy,
and alt.culture.internet. I have made several comments in those
forums on Ms. Hauben's proposal, and pointed Ms. Hauben and others to
additional sources of information (both technical and historical) on
Internet development.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] comments on the new NSI/IANA proposal
In article <199810210459.AAA20249@panix3.panix.com> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>I have posted at the IANA site several times and no one answers.
As a matter of fact, someone did comment on your proposal. See
http://www.iana.org/comments-mail/msg00034.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:42:56 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: CPT Comments
Greg
{ >As things stand today, while the role of consumer is glorified, in
{ >actuality Web browsers (whether or not they purchase, or even intend
{ >to purchase, anything) are being exploited as *producers -- of
{ >personal ('demographic') information.
{
{ Without passing judgment on this practice, I'll point out that for
{ most commercial media (TV, radio, etc.), programming decisions are
{ largely made on the basis of demographic information.
{
True enough, and used as the precedent for WWW commerce doing the
same, *despite the fact that user data is largely donated unwittingly.
{ On the other hand, there are sites that collect demographic data on
{ web users, but they do not attempt to conceal this purpose.
What do you think the *commercial* point of 'portals' is, then?
{ >The depth of interest indicated by one's persistence in *trying* to
{ >buy might well be more valuable than anything else. (Do any of the
{ >'redesign' proposals for the net address this possibility?)
{
{ This goes beyond the scope of the 'redesign' proposals.
...
{ The DNS was not designed for the type of identification that is being
{ asked for.
But here we are in the midst of the redesign process, with very legitimate
concerns surfacing about its hows and whys and wherefores, and it seems
as reasonable to me to start from scratch (What do we want from network
connectivity?) as to just hand over the kit and cobbled-up caboodle to
somebody and saying, essentially, Here, see what you can do with this
mess.
Domain names are all I'm addressing, on the simple basis that they could
meet a clear need for *degrees of confidence* independent of what sites
"say about themselves" *after* you've stepped into the parlor. This does not,
in any way whatsoever, interfere with anyone's
{ deciding for oneself if the site offers something of interest.{
Given the historical moment, why shouldn't this be considered within the
scope of administrative proposals? Do you forsee a better time or place?
...
{ This is not to say that site designers should feel free to
{ lie or disguise their intent, but they should not be held accountable
{ if for some reason their content is not self-explanatory.
{
It's all information, but 'self-explanation' is only a small part of credibility; other factors,
facilitating access to a *spectrum* of sources, or reviews, or whatever. The
human mind puts its credence in *density* of info, not ads or packaging or
testimonials. A 'credit-rated' domain name would simply be a first brick in the
wall of densification - and a corresponding alert to the possibility that your
consumer data will be monitored.
Note: Im not saying that some domain name should be read as a stamp of
approval. It seems quite likely that many sites would choose to *under-rate
themselves, simply because they wouldnt want the overhead/ responsibility
of 'doing it up brown.' ( Another possibility is that the same supplier would
distribute her offerings across several domain-names: why not? Think of
the added value of tracking hits then!)
Whether the Web pursues commercial strategy in the end or not, the idea
that each site, page, and pointer is some kind of *product* (not just an
announcement or advertisement of a product) deserves to be held onto,
because - lo and behold - there are easily recognized parallels in the world of
printed text. There is a full gamut of 'literature' out there, and the typeface,
the footnotes, the centerfold, the kinds of headlines, the weight of the paper,
the quality of proofreading and so on all work to establish one degree of
credibility or another -- and they are all *free for the perusal*. (No press ever
built its reputation by simply saying, We've got a book; cough up some
(informational) coin before we'll let you 'decide for yourself' whether you want
to go further and actually buy it!)
It would be lovely if website producers recognized the need for self-
organization along similar lines - 'web-rings' are a step in the right direction -
but I sense that a little help from the public will be in order before it happens
on any consistent basis.
{ The site www.contentious.com is for the discussion of Web content.
I think you have to give them credit for a good pun!
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Copy of comments...
>peterd@Bunyip.Com (Peter Deutsch)
>replying to Greg Skinner's message as of Oct 22, 15:05
wrote:
>> Would you please explain and give examples of what types of conflict
>> would arise from the Hauben proposal?
>As I read it, Ms Hauben's proposal calls for another round
>>of discussion before in effect engineering a new process,
Creating a prototype is different from engineering a new
process. Pete didn't you and I just have a discussion
a day or so ago where you told me that you now understood
that my proposal was to create a prototype?
Why then are you now in public not saying that, but instead
creating some fabrication about my proposal creating some
"process"?
>leading in turn to a new proposal. To me, this is not
Well what are you talking about?
The essential point of my proposal was to create a prototype
for the kind of collaborative oversight of the essential
functions of the Internet which would involved the
international community.
I asked if you were interested in my proposal and if so
offered to go through it in detail with you and you never
responded.
Why now are you slandering it?
>realistic in today's environment. In addition, this
>proposal was not the result of a widely supported public
>process with multiple contributors, but rather the output
>of one individual. This violated the entire process
>outlined by the U.S. government.
But this is exactly how the Internet has been built, by
users contributing what they have to contribute.
Throughout much of the development of the Internet the
U.S. government supported and encouraged this process.
Why *now* has the U.S. government changed so that it
is 1)having its own contractor have a lawyer write
a proposal to privatize essential assets of the Internet
and essential policy making processes.
and 2) encouraging others to get lawyers to write proposals
for them to get control of these essential assets and
policy making powers.
Do you do anything that the U.S. government asks, rather than
figure out whether it is in the long and short term best
interests of the Internet?
>With IANA, BWG and ORSC there are now three relatedJ
>proposals, which were produced with input from many, many
>people who had multiple feedback opportunities and which
>between them are endorsed by a wide cross-section of the
>net community. Telling these people (some of whom have
First of all, you have failed to even look at or comment
on the merits of my proposal, so it is clear you have
no way to challenge any of its points.
Secondly, the entities you mention are *not* produced
by the input of many people, but very few people, or
by lawyers. This is in no way endorsed by the
net community, unless you consider the few entities
who managed to comment during the very short and
barely publicized comment period that the NTIA
allowed.
>built up some significant scars in the battles over the
The scars are only going to get much worse with this
new mess that this private corporate entity is creating.
Also the main problem with all that is happening is
that it has *no* regard for the well being of the
Internet or the Internet community, but is only
being carried on by commercially minded folks who
want to get their commercial piece of the pie
that the U.S. government has been offering to
those who help it to convert the public resources
of the Internet into the private goldmine of a few.
>>past few years) that they can or must set aside their work
>>and start again would (IMHO) absolutely certainly lead to
The public purposes and public interests need to be
involved in figuring out how to solve these problems.
The point is they can't be solved by those trying to
take care of their own commercial interests.
The problems can only get worse.
>the reopening of old wounds and the restating of old
>demands, all with an added layer of resentment and thus
>additional potential for conflict.
All this resentment and wounds are only going to
be part of the result of the privatizing.
Keeping these resources under public oversight and
protection is the only way to heal any scars and for
anyone to continue to be able to contribute to
and benefit from the Internet.
>This, to me, means conflict. It just wont work. The
>existing open process, while not perfect, is in my opinion
>infinitely preferable to starting again.
This is all a sham. The real truth is that privatizing
these public assets and policy powers is what won't work.
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #189
******************************
