Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 177
Netizens-Digest Monday, October 5 1998 Volume 01 : Number 177
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Being thrown back 10 years?
[netz] U.S. Dept of Commerce asking for comments on future of Internet
[netz] Battle over Internet and related help needed
[netz] Re: Battle Heats Up - but the real issues are still being hidden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:48:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Being thrown back 10 years?
This post from the Universal Access - Canada list is part of a thread
discussing the fragmentation that is a possible result of the US gov't's
efforts to privatize the Internet.
The poster is Russell McOrmond <russell@FLORA.OTTAWA.ON.CA>
Sender: Universal Access Canada <UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA>
Subject: Re: ICANN (New IANA) as a Pawn in an Economic Struggle Between US
and Europe and Asia - A Hypothesis (fwd)
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Michael C. Richardson wrote:
> Except that it is bullshit. It is just too easy to set up an alternate
> root name server. The rest of the world is just too well organized for that,
> and if the MAI debate has taught the world anything, it is that the Internet
> communicates information too fast too be dismantled overnight.
> Getting enough v4 IP addresses could be a problem, but IPv6 is out.
I for one am worried - it's not about the technology and the ability of
the techies to do interesting things, it's about being thrown back 10
years in "access" progress.
This getting around of this control may be true for all those people
like us that are technically competant enough to deal with our own network
connections, but the 'Internet' has come to mean something different than
we are able to make it. As long as we can make connections between
agreeing computers, a network with the decentralized nature of UUCP will
always be possible. The problem then becomes "how does the person
connected to some big-business internet provider then connect to us"?
Right now I am reliant on this whole mess for the 'flora.org' name to
have any meaning, and for packets to get to my computers. Yes, an
alternative can be made, but it definetely won't be something I'll be able
to put on a T-Shirt and have anyone know what it means.
It's one thing to be promoting a community-minded site given that all I
need to do is 'advertise the address'. When one must also advertise the
technology needed to get there, then there are problems.
There will never be any way to control all communications channels, but
are we ready to give up on all the growth that we have seen and go back to
the old days of a few thousand people worldwide being "on *THE* net"? This
list is all about "Universal Access", not being thrown back to the 80's
version of elite-networks. Welcome back Fidonet...*sigh*
Yes, it's a governance issue - electronic democracy is too frightening
for these legacy centralized governments and they want to do what they can
to push us back to the days before democracy was a threat to them.
- ---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.org/russell/work/>
http://www.flora.org/russell/work/open-links.html Y2K,Green,Coop,Microsoft?
New Announcements at FLORA soon: http://www.flora.org/
Intel,Netscape back Linux: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,26926,00.html
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 02:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] U.S. Dept of Commerce asking for comments on future of Internet
The proposal "The Internet An International Public Treasure:
towards an Intenational Public Administration of Essential
Functions of the Internet- The Domain Name System"
is one of the three proposals published by the NTIA and up
for comment. Following is the information of how to read
the proposal and to submit comments on it.
This is an important issue as it involves the future of the
Internet. Please help to let people know that the U.S.
government is now taking comments on the 3 proposals it has
received for the future administration of these essential
functions of the Internet, and hence on the future
vision of how to administer and support the growth and
development of the Internet.
The US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration has published several proposals received for
the New Domain Name Corporation. These can be found on:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm
See in particular
Proposal of Ronda Hauben (English Version)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html
and Proposal of Ronda Hauben (French Version)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben-fr.htm
Electronic Filing on the Private Sector Proposal for New Domain Name
Corporation
The address for comments submitted in electronic form is
dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted in electronic form should
be in ASCII, WordPerfect (please specify version), or Microsoft Word
(please specify version) format and should be included as attachments
to the electronic message. Receipt of your message will be
acknowledged. If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt,
please contact webmaster@ntia.doc.gov or call +1 202-482-1304.
Comments filed electronically at the above address or any other
official address will be posted on the Web at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/comments/comments.html
Best wishes
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: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:53:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Battle over Internet and related help needed
I posted the following on Usenet in a few newsgroups and welcome comments on it
on this mailing list.
But also, I may be able to put some testimony into the record at one
of the hearings at the U.S. Congress related to this all.
I wouldn't be allowed to testify but only to contribute something
for the record about the issues raised in my proposal.
I welcome any suggestions anyone has for what seems most important to
include.
Also someone suggested that I make trenchent arguments why the
same processes and methods needed to build the Internet are still
needed today to solve the problems and continue in its development.
I wonder if there are any thoughts or suggestions on this avenue
of argument.
following was my post to Usenet.
Subject: (fwd) Battle over the Internet heats up - comments requested at NTIA
An important prototype battle currently is going on over the question
of who is to control the Internet?
Is the Internet to be allowed to continue to be a place where the
people (users/ netizens) can represent themselves, or is someone's
selected set of corporate representatives to take over to fundamentally
change the nature and environment of the Internet.
Up to now the Internet has been recognized as a way to make
possible "power for the people", at least online.
People can have their say and the U.S. Federal District court even
noted that the U.S. Govt must protect this autonomy of the people
that the Internet makes possible. (in the ACLU vrs. Reno case)
The U.S. Government, however, has been saying that the essential
functions of the Internet must be turned over to the private sector
so they can own and control the Internet and make their millions off
of it.
The U.S. Govt is offering to set up a private corporation
for them to be able to carry on their control over the Internet
with no accountability or oversight over what they do.
With this melodrama in the background, an important real battle
appeared on the front lines:
This issue is that as the Internet becomes more and more international,
it is important that control over the essential functions be shared with
the international community rather than the U.S. Govt. feeling it
can determine who to give control to.
So there is a battle on in Washington and around the world
with the press being basically silent about what it is all
about.
The U.S. Govt has just posted 3 proposals for comment. Two are
to privatize into a non accountable corporation ownership and
control over the essential functions of the Internet (and
big bucks will be possible for those who get control and the
favor of this new entity. So there is quite a fight going on
to get some of the handouts.)
This might be comical except for the fact that it is our Internet
the U.S. Govt is proposing to give away :-(
It is the ownership and control of IP numbers, of domain names,
of protocols, etc. These are the result of huge amounts of tax
money, lots of cooperative contributions by many people around
the world etc.
Therefore, third proposal is one I was asked to write by Ira
Magaziner, who is a senior policy advisor on Internet policy
to the U.S. President, after I complained to him and the world
online and at ISOC in Geneva, about what was happening in
privatizing these essential functions.
My proposal is based on study of the history and impact of the
Internet and Usenet.
It proposes a prototype collaborative international research
project to do work to figure out how to protect these essential
functions of the Internet and how to put them into hands that
will represent the cooperative International community.
I expect the much of the commercial media will ignore my proposal
as it doesn't help anyone to make their millions off the Internet,
but I hope any media and those users online who care for the Internet
as a precious means of worldwide communication will help get the word
out that my proposal is up for comment and that there needs to be
discussion on it.
(One online hearst newsletter already totally obliterated the
fact that there is a third proposal for comment at the NTIA
online site.)
Following is the information needed to get to the NTIA web site
where the proposals are posted and the comments are being taken:
The US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration has published several proposals received for
the New Domain Name Corporation. These can be found on:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm
See in particular
Proposal of Ronda Hauben (English Version)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html
and Proposal of Ronda Hauben (French Version)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben-fr.htm
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:00:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Battle Heats Up - but the real issues are still being hidden
>Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>>At 04:05 PM 10/5/98 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>The U.S. Govt is offering to set up a private corporation
>>for them to be able to carry on their control over the Internet
>>with no accountability or oversight over what they do.
>With all due respect, I don't believe that's an accurate description of the
>current IANA proposal. There are three "supporting organizations" that have
>this oversight. They are explicitly not US in origin, and are intended to
>be international. There is also a specific comment about the make-up of the
So you are saying that the supporting organizations have oversight
over the Board and that the Board is accountable to them?
According to the lawyer who spoke at the Geneva IFWP final
Plenary Session, that would be illegal according to American
corporate law as the Board has to be in charge.
But even if that weren't true how can the supporting organizations
be oversight over a Board of Director?
The form of the IANA proposal is that of a corporation. In a
corporation the Board has to be in charge.
There was an interesting effort in Canada with one of the Freenets
to explore whether it was possible to have a democratic non
profit structure. They document the roadblocks they hit and
some of the problem was that the Board had responsibility to
be in charge of the structure and so would keep running up
against their legal obligations and the ideal they had.
And there there was an online community that was an integral
part of the effort.
So even in the most favorable circumstances, where no one had
any special interests to pressure for, having a democratic
participatory structure proved to be basically not possible.
And the situation being created with IANA is where some of the
supporting organizations have people pressuring for their
special interests to support their financial investments
(as in the Names Council meeting I went to in Geneva). So
the situation being set up is that the forces I saw operating
at the Names Council needed someone to oversee them. It
wasn't that they were in any way capable of being the oversight
over anyone else.
Someone I know when to the group that was going to form
the Protocols and the Numbers Councils. (Two separate groups)
The service providers at the meeting said what a difficult
time they had getting IP numbers and getting any response
from the Number registry. They said they were little guys
and so there was no response to their needs. Then they
said it was like forming an organization of your vendors
to oversee your vendors relationship with you. (I.E. the
one to be overseen is in charge of the organizational
form.)
So it demonstrated that without government there was no place to
go with a complaint.
When I originally presented a comment about this kind of situation
at an ISOC meeting where some of the large U.S. backbone and service
providers were speakinxg and other providers at the time
were speaking (it was in Montreal in 1996), one of the large
service providers said I could always "vote with my feet" if I
didn't like what they were doing. I could go to another one.
I don't call that voting and I don't call that oversight.
I call that removing the necessary regulation that is needed to
have something worthwhile and legitimate happening.
That's some of the reason for government to exist. And these
efforts to remove government from the process leaves the process
open to the worst possible abuses.
>Board (if it's still in the current draft) which suggests an equal number
>of persons from each major geographic region of the planet.
I didn't think it was equal numbers of persons from each major region,
but I would have to look again as well.
But it was clear from the people named to the board that many regions
or countries and all users had no recourse via the Board. And the
principle of the user being able to speak for oneself, which is
the principle that has helped to build the APRANET and then the
Internet is gone. Instead there is a group of people that someone
has chosen to be in control of us. That is contra what the
U.S. Federal District Court in the CDA case, backed by the U.S.
Supreme Court required of the U.S. Govt. The court decision required
that the U.S. Govt protect the autonomy that the Internet provides
to the ordinary citizen as well as the media magnate.
That autonomy is gone via this board.
Also, to have some members from different countries or regions of
the world is not in any way "international". There are many
corporations in the U.S. who have people who work for them who
are from different countries. That in no way makes the
corporation "international".
To be international involves a relationship among nations, not
of people of different nationality.
The Internet, on the other hand, is international.
That is because it is the development of communication supported by
different nations and peoples around the world.
The Acceptable Use Policy governing the development of the NSFNET
offered to allow communication with people in other nations as
long as those other nations granted the right to communicate to
the people from the U.S.
And my proposal is international as it proposes a prototype form
(based on the research I have done about how the ARPANET and
Usenet were formed and developed) that supports cooperative work
among researchers supported by their nations or regions of the
world.
I have other examples of international if you want me to describe
others -- like for example the cooperative efforts that helped
UNIX and Usenet to spread to Europe and Australia etc. It involved
work by people at mc in Amsterdam, at inria in France, I think at
cern in Switzerland, etc. These were cooperative efforts with
the support from the computer science research centers in different
countries. Most often these centers were connected with or
under government support and funding.
This is how science can be international.
>>Therefore, the third proposal is one I was asked to write by Ira
>>Magaziner, after I complained to him and the world
>>online and at ISOC in Geneva, about what was happening in
>>privatizing these essential functions.
>As I understand your proposal, you would have the US government, with other
>countries who choose to participate, fund a project to write a proposal.
>That proposal would include a record of history about the DNS, and suggest
>a way to manage it.
No that is not my proposal. That is a piece of my proposal. But it
is good you raise the question and that you are making the effort
to understand my proposal.
Basically my proposal is to create a prototype for the kind of
international cooperation and collaboration that is needed to
protect the integrity and functioning of these essential functions
of the Internet.
To create the prototype I have proposed the first essential work
that this prototype cooperative collaboration would undertake,
which has to do with the 3 points I outline in Part IV.
But before looking at that aspect of the proposal it is important
you look at Section III.
This section requires the researchers to utilize the Internet
as much as possible in carrying out the work they will do for
section IV.
This means "they will develop and maintain a well publicized
and reachable online means to support reporting and getting
input on their work."
This means they have an obligation as an integral part of the
proposal to establish a way to both report on what they are
doing and to welcome input via the Internet on the work they
are doing. This becomes a problem they have to solve as part
of their work, much as the folks on early MsgGroup mailing
or on Usenet were using the Network they were developing to
solve the problem of creating the Network.
Here the researchers have to solve the problem of both using
the Internet to cooperate in their work together and in
also maintaining contact with and input from the online
community who are interested in participating in what the
researchers are doing.
The last part of Section III requires that the reseachers
"explore the use of Usenet newsgroup, mailing list and web
site utilization, and where approprite RFC's etc." in their
work.
That means that part of their research is to see how each
of these forms can be helpful in the objective of both doing
their coordinated work and also in the reporting to and
gathering input from the online community.
For example, I used to be able to access the IETF mailing
list via a newsgroup I could get connected with Usenet.
That made it easier for me to stop in and check on whether
what was being discussed was something relevant to my
research. I haven't been able to get the IETF mailing list
as a newsgroup any longer, and I don't have room for multiple
mailing lists so it is harder for me to look in on and
see if the discussion going on is something relevant to
my work.
It would be an obligation of the researchers to try to see
how to create online means to make it possible for people
online to be able to both learn of and be part of discussing
the work tha was being done.
>First, check me on that - do I correctly understand your proposal?
Does this description of parts I, II, and III help you to
see that your quick statement about my proposal didn't
really look at what the proposal was outlining? (all of the
above is basically in the proposal, with the exception of the
example of the ietf newsgroup.)
Part IV describes in more detail the duties of the research group.
Those duties are not trivial. And they are duties that will help
to make possible the transfer of the task of protection of the
essential functions of the Internet to an international collaborative
group as
1)they outline what functions are, what is known about
them and what RFC's have been created,
2)they provide for an examination of how the Internet is serving
the communication needs of its users and the different communities
of users on the Internet, so that a broad and general view is
the focus of the work to be done and so that the special and
valuable characteristics are identified so that they won't be lost
in trying to solve some more particular problem.
3)they provide for an examination of the essential functions that
are to be transferred so that the problems that have developed
are identified and so that there is an understanding of the critical
nature of the functions that are being transferred, and what must
be protected. (This means involving the people who are part of
adminstering these essential functions now in the examination
the international group of researchers is doing.)
4)that out of this analysis and research into the general and important
characteristics of the Internet, and the online reporting and discussion
with interested online participants will come a proposal that is
produced as a result of this online process and particular examination
of the special and general nature of the Internet.
5) The proposal has several other specific requirements which I will
be glad to further elaborate on, and which are designed to determine
how to protect these essential functions and to learn from the
prototype work done doing this cooperative work, how to form the
kind of needed international and cooperative body of people to
oversee and provide for the needed administration of the essential
functions of the Internet.
(See part IV(3)(a-h) ) in the proposal.
I will be glad to describe each part and how it is integral to the
development of the needed cooperative model to solve the problem
of sharing control and support for the essential functions of the
Internet including root server system, management and distribution
of IP numbers, protocols, domain names etc.
>Second, assuming that I do understand it, let me say that I believe that we
No you didn't understand it, so perhaps you can look over what I
have elaborated and then see what your thoughts are.
>are past the time for a research project. We are at a point where the
That is strange. It seems to me that the private corporation being
proposed by both different other proposals to manage the essential
functions of the Internet and to determine public policy with regard
to this strategic and important communications and people system,
that these other proposals are in fact conducing research, but
without acknowledging that and without building on the lessons
principles and models that have grown up as part of the Internet.
So what these proposals are offering is the most irresponsible form
of research because it is imposing a model hostile to the development
of the Internet to take over control of essential functions of the
Internet.
>>discussions that needed to happen have for the most part happened, and most
I was in Geneva at the IFWP meeting and when I asked for discussion I
was told that wasn't allowed. Instead there was the vote for
consensus with no discussion permitted.
If you want to see my report from the meeting in Geneva of the
Names Council, it is available at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
So it is clear to me there is no discussion that has taken place,
or the secret negotiations that have gone on wouldn't have had to
be secret, and the views and input of others would have been
welcomed, but it wasn't.
>of the parties understand each other's viewpoints. Now is the time for
Who are these parties that you are referring to?
The Internet community is primarily a community of users- and it has
been from its earliest days.
That is one of the essential characteristics of the Internet as the
users contribute and it is a users network.
Clearly what you are referring to is not an Internet or a users network
but something else. If that is true maybe you and those who feel
that users are no longer needed to be the architects of the Internet,
maybe those parties should go off and form the kind of experimental
research network you have in mind.
I don't understand why you think you can take over the Internet,
disenfranchise the users and the public who has supported its
development with public funds and all kinds of other volunteer
contributions.
If you think you can build a better network without users, go and
build it.
But why do you think it is ok to get rid of the Internet as a users
network to do your experiments on?
In the early 1980's there was compuserve and there was the ARPANET
and Usenet.
Clearly the ARPANET grew and developed into the Internet with the
help and support of Usenet.
And compuserve was fine for a commercial network, but it didn't
have regenerative capability to grow and develop into an
international and worldwide network of networks like the Internet.
Therefore if you have a model more like compuserve which is the
kind of network run by a corporation, then that's fine.
But in the early days of networking folks explained that those wanting
to do commercial networking would see as a problem a public network.
That seems to be the case now.
The forms and structures of the Internet have made it possible to
evolve and develop a worldwide communications system that is one
of the proudest achievements of our past century.
But it seems that there are those who find the principles and
forms that have nurtured the growth and development of the Internet
no longer what they deem worthy of support.
Then they should go and do their experiment in forming a network
built on the corporate model and controlled by a corporate model.
But it is a curious question why those who think that the corporate
model is so powerful, why they don't just gather their money
together and form their own network based on their corporate
model.
Why are these folks trying to take the Internet which has done
fine via the cooperative and collaborative processes, why the
folks who want to experiment with creating a corporate
modeled communication system, why they don't just leave the
Internet alone, and go off and do their experiments with their
own funds?
Why this effort to take the the public and international Internet
and experiment with it?
I realize that as long as there is an Internet then the corporate
model may have some of the so called "competition" that seems
to be the buzz word of those who are the proponents of
how the corporate model can build a better network.
If so, then the folks doing this shouldn't need to take over
the Internet to perform their experiments.
Or is it that in fact the Internet, with its old fashioned cooperative
ways and collaborative methods has proven superior for creating
a human-computer network of network communications system?
Is it in fact that the corporate model has lost out in the
"competition" with the cooperative and collaborative Internet mdoel
model?
Is that what is underlying this effort to grab private control over
the essential elements of the Internet?
Is it that otherwise those speculating and devoted to the success
of the victory of the corporate model are worried?
>closure and action.
When I walked into the Names Council meeting and the call was made
for consensus, and I asked what about discussion, and was told
none was needed, that was the same kind of call for "closure and
action."
Interesting.
This is time to discuss the different proposals.
That means examining the details and processes and the principles
behind each of the proposals.
To claim that it is too late for a proposal makes it seem as if
you have no logical analysis of the problems of the proposal
and that the only way it can be dismissed is on an excuse like
saying "this is the time for closure and action."
To the contrary, Sept 30 has come and gone. There is *NO*
proposal with the support of the great majority of the Internet
community to be implemented. And implementing some of the proposals
created after the Sept. 30 deadline is not only outside any
mandated procedure but would also be outright irresponsible
as the proposals to form a corporate structure to own and
control resources that have been created in a public process
and cooperative agreement.
Thus there is no basis to give over such resources to a privately
owned and formed corporation. That is an illegitimate activity.
So maybe it would do well to stop claiming that the time for
figuring out the problem is over.
And instead it would be a good idea to support the discussion
of the real issues involved in how to make the DNS and other
functions of the Internet that are the essential functions
and that need to be protected, to support the discussion of
how to create the kind of international cooperation to
provide the needed support and protection.
My proposal does provide a prototype to do that.
So it deserves to be considered and discussed with the greatest
of seriousness and then accepted and implemented.
It is good that you have begun this 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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #177
******************************
