Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 213
Netizens-Digest Friday, November 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 213
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
[netz] Re: [ifwp] RE: Need for public ownership of essential functions of t
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
[netz] Don't applaud your actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:13:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
"John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.nu> wrote:
>How are e-commerce and e-mail mutually exclusive? And how could ICANN or
>any other potential NewCo stifle the latter in favor of the former, given
>that its responsibilities are limited to domain names, IP address
>allocation, and protocols?
Good you asked.
The fact we can send email so widely and broadly now is because
IP requires the least possible to make it possible to have
communication between very diverse networks. The earliest
Internet, created in 1983 was the split of the ARPANET
into two networks, and ARPANET and MILNET. Both had very
different purposes and requirements. But both agreed to
use IP to communicate with each other. ARPANET was open and
for research purposes, MILNET had very strict security as
it was for operational purposes of the military. But both
agreed to a minimum requirement that would let them use
tcp/ip to communicate between them.
That is the model for an Internet.
It wasn't that MILNET required the strict security that it needed
of the ARPANET. To the contrary, it did what it wanted in its
network, and it was up to the ARPANET folks to determine what they
would do in their network.
That is the opposite of what is happening today.
The Framework for Electronic Commerce along with the Green Paper
and White Paper are manifesto's of the takeover of the Internet
to make a Net safe for commerce.
That is not required by the design of an Internet.
But that design is changing.
Instead the declaration of several of the board memebers of
the new commercenet declared that they know about commerce
and that is why they are fitted to sit on the board as decision
czars over what will happen with the essential functions of
the Internet.
The decisions are no longer to be made according to what will
benefit an Internet considering the technical requirements
of requiring the least so it can be as all inclusive and open
to all networks who want to be part of it.
Instead the decisions are to be made by what will benefit corporate
interests in their creation of a commercenet to serve their
business needs.
It is the domain names, IP address allocation, and protocols and
root server that provide for central control over the Internet.
But these in the hands of those who are Decision Czar's (in the
words of someone I spoke with at Saturday's meeting) and
they can fundamentally change the Internet and create their
CommerceNet to replace it.
If that weren't what was happening, then there would have been
a way to make a decision about any problems that exist about
the Internet without creating this elaborate new private
corporate structure that excludes the public and users,
and puts centralized control in a few hands.
By changing the protocols (which this corporate entity is being
set up with the power to do) many networks will no longer
be able to connect to the Internet as they will not have
the capability to meet the new requirements.
The Internet is based on a design of equality of networks,
not of a centralized power center. It has been administered
with the equality and cooperative processes functioning until
this power grab and the creation of this new private entity
to be put in control of its central functions.
It is the equality and the fact that only a minimum requirement
was necessary to be part of the Internet that has made it
possible to send email to the far corners of the globe.
Changing the nature of the Internet, will change who can connect
to it and make very different its nature and who can be
connected. And it will make it impossible to send email to
the many who are now connected.
So instead of scaling the Internet it will change it to more
of the kind of model that the GIP has as their description of
a Net.
There were several articles in the current issue of the Economist
describing the desire of several governments around the world
to have people online involved in commerce but to stop the
email and newsgroup communication. This is what the U.S. govt
is doing as well.
You should look at the testimony I submitted to
Congress on Oct. 7 1998 as I describe the significance of the
Internet as a network of networks which can include a commercenet,
but how making a commercenet dominant leaves out and replaces an
Internet.
(http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt)
> Hauben
> Sent: Thursday, 19 November 1998 21:14
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Cc: netizens@columbia.edu
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
>
On Thursday, 19 November 1998 21:14 Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> The consequences will be significant as the killer application
> of the Internet is email and this is a primary application for
> all the communities and people online, including businesses,
> hobbyists, scientists, students, medical people, etc.
>
> And since communication is to be subordinated to "competition"
> and "ecommerce" in the creation of this new private corporate entity,
> the communication that the Internet makes possible will be
> substantially diminished under this new CommerceNet Board and
> corporation.
>
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: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:26:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] RE: Need for public ownership of essential functions of t
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>
William X. Walsh <william@tjns.tj>, replying to Ronda Hauben:
>> We live in a free market economy, and the resources that bring the internet
>> to the global community are privately owned and funded. They should be
>> privately managed as well.
No to the contrary. The Internet has been built with a great
deal of taxpayer money and the essential functions of the Internet
like the DNS, the root server system, the IP numbers and the
protocols are publicly owned and cooperatively administered.
We live in a country where there is a government and a public
sector, not in a wild wilderness of your so called "free market economy".
There are public resources that are publicly owned, though I realize
that after the private corporate entities grab the central points
of control of the Internet they will head for the parks, and
the rivers, the streets, the roads etc. (I realize there is already
in places an effort to privatize the roads).
>Mr. Walsh, it's useless. I happen to know from previous dealings with
>Ms. Hauben that she is a socialist. Her belief in "public ownership"
>and the intrinsic wickedness of the private sector is unshakeable. In her
>world-view, all you're doing by stating the above is defining yourself as
>either member, minion or dupe of the oppressor class.
If anyone who recognizes there is a government and a public in
the United States is a socialist, I guess the name is synomous
with citizen and is a supreme compliment.
Businesses derive their money from the people they are supposed to
be serving. It isn't that they are supposed to be lording it over
the population and using their power to get more and more political
and economic control of a society.
But that is what is happening with this great givaway of the
Internet assets to a private corporate entity.
The anti trust laws in the U.S. were passed in the name of
businesses who were upset with the lawlessness of the most
powerful.
I guess Netscape is socialist as well for being part of an anti
trust suit against the wonders of the so called "free market"?
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: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:22:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
peterd@Bunyip.Com (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
>Okay, one last time...
>As regular readers will know, I've responded several times
>to Ronda Hauben's postings with both specific data which
>contradicts her position and specific requests for data
Peter, there is a whole book published by the IEEE Computer Society
press with specific data about the public and taxpayer
supported 30 year period of development of the Internet.
And you don't have to buy a copy as a draft is online at
the URL in my signature of almost every post I do.
And the chapter were posted on Usenet as they were written.
So your claim of innocence about data that documents the
taxpayer funds that have built the Internet is very strange
to say the least and in fact very difficult to have any
way to answer because since you were at a univesity
developing Internet resources (though you claim that the
funding and support for you weren't adequate) in fact you
have the direct experience of the funding by the public
sector of the Internet. In fact, you also must be familiar
with the fact that the University of Toronto gave Henry
Spencer some support to develop C news (along with Geoff Collyer)
and pine is developed at the University of Washington
so the public development even in the U.S. goes on.
And I was just in Austria and Hungary and learned about the
university networking and public school networking supported
by public funds in both those countries.
"Private" is a religion it seems, denying the basic facts of
our society that government and the public sector make
the society function as the corporate private entities are
in general interested in their own narrow bottom line,
and they deny there is a present or future that needs
to be attended to.
>which supports her view. She has consistently ignored my
>postings (sniff... :-) Still her misrepresentations are
>serious enough that I feel obliged to try one more time.
I haven't ignored them, but it is clear that you are
only interested in presenting an ideological position.
You deny the whole development of the Internet and the
public sectors still involved with it.
[ Ronda Hauben wrote: ]
. . .
>> And the public assets and taxpayer funds that have gone into
>> building the public Internet should *not* be seized by the
>> U.S. govt to give to a private corporate entity.
>Could you pleased let us know what percentage of spending
>to build the Internet came from U.S. government funds and
>what from private sources? From my own limited personal
With regard to the public assets the U.S. government is
now trying to privatize (if they haven't already) 100%
The domain name system, the IP numbers, the root server system
and the protocols have all been developed by a public
cooperative process and supported by taxpayer funds with
the small exception of the fact that most recently the public
subsidy of the IETF meetings was removed.
>experience it would seem that, at least during the past 10
>years, the numbers would not support your claim but i'd be
>more than willing to be educated.
Good - then you are talking about from 1988 to the present.
And that includes the 100% of the public funding for the
NSFNET till 1996 and then the giveaway to private interests
of the public investment so that companies like ANS
were able to make a killing by selling what they got to other
companies, etc.
And the U.S. govt still has a big contract with MCI funding it
and there are many other public networks both from 1988 and
onto today that are part of the Internet and that make
the Internet possible.
That there are a few private companies charging users to
have access is in no way a demonstration of the great god
given gift of the supposed "free market" to the Internet.
Users are paying for their access and so it is in fact the users
who the companies should be serving, not yelling that they
have to get more from the public trough and also exert their
power as kings over those who are paying their way.
Kings were overthrown years ago but I guess they constantly
try to ressurect themselves - and now it is that the people
are supposed to be the subjects of a corporate oligarchy who
have seized all the property and political rights.
Well that is very far from what has happened thus far with
regard to the Internet though I realize that that is your
fond wish and that is why you are encouraging the seizure
by a private corporate entity of the essential points
of control of the Internet.
If you are serious that you would like to understand the nature
of the Internet, I suggest you read Netizens, as it is the
users, the people, who are the architects of the Internet,
and that is what stands to be lost by this great givaway.
That users (some of whom you may call technologists) but they
were part of the Internet and using it, they contributed
C News and created Usenet, they contributed email programs
and have developed linux and made it broadly available,
they have written FAQs and maintained mailing lists,
and contributed to discussion and the software and the fight
against spam.
Netizens is what makes the Internet and Usenet something different
from what has existed before, and it is what is at stake
in this battle.
Do a few corporate interests get to seize control over the
central functions of the Internet, corporate interests like
MCI/Worldcom as it has folks backing what is happening, IBM,
and who knows who else is functioning behind the scenes.
And is it that others say its ok just as long as I get my
cut?
Or is it that folks say *the Internet is a treasure, a public
cooperative treasure* and that it is not to be stripmined
because a few big powerful entities get the U.S. govt
to give them what has been created by a very great amount
of cooperative effort and contribution.
That is the question confronting everyone on this list
and everyone who knows anything about what is happening.
The Internet is a wondrous attaction to those who know about
Usenet and mailing lists and the way one can send email
to someone across the globe and get back a response in seconds.
Whether a corporate entity owns a few of the wires is not
the issue. The fact that they thereby say they have the
right to grab control of the users and their machines
who make the Internet possible, that is the issue.
I realize that only a small portion of the U.S. population
and an even smaller portion of the population of other
countries around the world have access to Usenet and Email
and mailing list. And so there are only a small portion
of the population of the world who can understand what
this battle over the right to maintain this communication
medium in the public sphere is all about.
Already there are those who come online to be besieged by
advertisements and then go to web sites to get more ads
and they don't think the Internet is anything special and
wonder why they are paying to have an account.
That is the battle we have already lost. As the battle of
the folks on the NTIA online conference in Nov. 1994
(before and against the privatization of the NSFNet)
was that everyone have access to email and Usenet newsgroups
and mailing lists and ftp sites.
We realized if we lost the battle against the privatization
of the NSF backbone we would lose the battle for a long
time in the U.S. for universal access for all, and that has
been true.
And we realized that if someone were paying for his account he would
feel he had the right to send junk mail around the Internet
and that has come to pass.
So the questions were never acknowledged as legitimate by
Larry Irving and the NTIA who lauded the conference but
ignored its concerns.
And the problems predicted have come to pass, and instead of
learning any lessons or valuing the bit of the Internet and
Usenet that remain after the assault that the privatization
has unleashed, the same U.S. govt officials and private
corporate representatives who were promoting the privatization
of the NSF backbone are once again promoting privatization,
but this one not to only affect the U.S. users but users
around the world.
I was invited at that time to make a presentation at a Harvard
forum on the privatization. I submitted an abstract about
the need to consider the debate over the privatization. I wasn't
selected to be part of the forum and the privatization went
on as planned as if no one has ever uttered a world about the
problems it represented.
The Internet and Usenet are communication mediums. They need
care and concern and cooperative efforts to make them
function. They have gotten that up to now. But we are now
being faced the appointment of Decision Czars who are taking
over and most have no understanding of the Internet or they
wouldn't have been selected to take it over and they would
have accepted the job.
And if I dare to complain I am called names, told I know
nothing, etc.
I guess there are *no* arguments to make to support what is
being carried out and so an effort has to be made to try
to discredit anyone who dares to speak with a concern for
the Internet and its future.
It has been good to see that a few folks on this list did
speak up and say these are important issues. I had almost
given up on this list and felt it worthless to be on it
and wasting my time.
But this has been declared the forum for the discussion
of the issues by the fact the IFWP was supposedly a
international forum on the white paper, so let's indeed make
it a FORUM.
. . .
>> We are *not* dealing with any private network now. If so I wouldn't
>> be able to be on it, and I wouldn't be able to complain about
>> this givaway on it.
>As I've told you in recent postings, prior to the arrival
>of commercial Internet Service Providers it was *not*
>possible for you to gain access to the internet unless you
>were affiliated with a suitable research and development
>organization and agreed to a quite restrictive Appropriate
>Use Policy. In effect you, as a private citizen, could
>*not* go onto the net during this period.
That is absolutely untrue. I did in fact participate in
comp-priv on the Internet in 1992 from freenets that had
begun to spring up around the U.S. and then into Canada.
So there are other means of access that also should exist,
but the service providers and others try to kill them
off.
When we tried to form a freenet in NYC (where most people don't
have access) we had people come to our meeting from service
providers and do what they could to interfere with the efforts
to start a nyc freenet.
> - peterd
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: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:46:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Don't applaud your actions
>New Internet group urged to be more accountable
> New York Times
> WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration on Thursday told the new
> nonprofit group that hopes to manage the Internet to make itself more
> open and accountable to the public and to do it soon.
> ``I think they've made some progress, but I don't think they've gone
> far enough,'' said Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's top Internet
> adviser.
Was Karen Rose at the Saturday meeting?
If so she should have conveyed to you the great frustration
with what they and you have done.
> Becky Burr, a senior Commerce Department aide who has been working
> closely with Magaziner as the government divests itself of
> responsibility for the Internet, said she hoped to have revised bylaws
> from the group, known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> and Numbers, as early as Monday.
Giving away public assets, *not* divests self of responsibility.
> The message was applauded by Internet activists who have complained
> that the group's proposed bylaws do not adequately protect the
> Internet from being dominated by special-interest groups.
The message is not applauded, but another sign that the time table
ticks off regardless of the public views expressed.
> ``We had a good, frank, open and very lively discussion,'' Ms. Burr
> said. ``I think they heard our concerns loud and clear. They told us
> they would go back and talk about it and get back to us.''
We've heard this before and the result is the same as if
nothing has happened. The self appointed chairperson of the board
was informed in July that she would be on the Board despite
any comments or concerns you have heard from anyone.
Why don't you just put out your scenario rather than press releases
that try to cloud the real situation.
> Magaziner has said he wants to complete the groundwork before he
> leaves soon.
The dirty deal is to be done?
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 #213
******************************
