Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 223
Netizens-Digest Monday, December 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 223
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Nerds 2.01 (fwd)
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
[netz] Re: Nerds 2.01 (fwd)
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Re: [netz] Re: Electronic constituency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:32:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Nerds 2.01 (fwd)
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Path: news3.best.com!news2.best.com!news1.best.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsroute.bconnex.ca!news.lightlink.com!news.magicnet.net!gateway
From: michael@memra.com (Michael Dillon)
Newsgroups: info.inet.access
Subject: Re: Nerds 2.01
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.981126201608.20234B-100000@sidhe.memra.com>
Date: 27 Nov 98 04:20:53 GMT
References: <3.0.32.19981126204517.01c65710@mercury.shreve.net>
Sender: rd@comet.magicnet.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: list@inet-access.net
Distribution: info
Organization: Memra Communications Inc.
Approved: michael@memra.com (Michael Dillon)
Lines: 33
Xref: news3.best.com info.inet.access:32643
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Allen Marsalis wrote:
> >> Both AT&T and IBM declined on this basis as I remember.. Does
> >> make you wanta smile..
> >
> >If that's true about IBM then they learn quick. They built the routers for
> >the NSFnet. RS6000 AIX boxes running gated.
>
> I think this was during the IMP (honeywell) stage at ARPANET.. (first two
> nodes) So how quick is quick? RS6000's came alot later right? Given years,
> even an elephant can turn around..
AT&T *STILL* has not turned around. They still have a haphazard and
half-hearted way of approaching the Internet. IBM, on the other hand,
embraced the net. They built the NSFnet routers, they were the first
international dialup access provider with service around the globe, and
they were the first company to support Internet protocols in their
shrinkwrap OS, OS/2. And now they are pushing ecommerce like there's no
tomorrow. They are a major push behind Java, both technically and in the
marketplace.
Meanwhile, AT&T stumbles along. Mark my words, the fate of AT&T will be
similar to that of DEC. They'll be bought by some upstart Florida telecom
company and be no more.
- --
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com
- -
Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request@inet-access.net' to leave.
Eat sushi frequently. inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address.
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:39:28 -0800
From: "richard bohn" <richard-bohn@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
I have been listening in upon the conversations of the Netizens for the
past 5 or 6 months and feel moved now to twine my own voice into this
Byzantine chorus. Mine is not the economical voice of an information
professional nor does it reverberate with the deep basso profundo of a
learned academic , but just the solitary voice of another human being. One
who senses the vast spaces that have long separated the human family are
slowly becoming filled with the sweet simple song of Hope. These are a few
of the melodies that continue to repeat themselves to me:
1. It seems that ICANN may actually make some money from selling addresses.
Is it possible that a little of the money be used to finance Rhonda's
research project?
2. ICANN might consider funding another separate non-profit organization
who's membership would be drawn from those who buy time from an ISP. In
other words, everyone who has a mailing address. The purpose of this Global
Organization of Users would be to scout the terrain ahead , with the aid of
Rhonda's or a similar group of explorers, and formulate the questions and
decisions that arise into a question aire that would be mailed out weekly,
to all the people on the internet , with the generous support of all the
ISP's. The completed form would then be simply returned to sender.
Completely voluntary.
The results would be a Global Polling Site. Everyone would have the
information before them and everyone would have the privilege of voting.
The results of the week's questions would be mailed back to the
participants.
Each separate country would also have a national chapter which would of
course discuss and formulate questions which would be pertinent to itself,
and also submit questions for it's own citizens to vote upon. All resultant
polls would be available to all members of all countries. 100% Transparent.
It would be up to the board of ICANN to evaluate the results. Maybe polls
so far have been regarded as ineffectual or not truly reflecting the mind of
humanity , but we can try. Reflect for a moment upon how the voice of
public opinion was heard by the CEO of Nike regarding that companies
archaic and brutal labor practices.
There is something deeper calling to us now. Perhaps it is the voices of
those who will come after us ..... singing a song of gratitude ..... to us.
Thanks for hearing me..... Richard Bohn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 15:57:22 -0500
From: Mark Lindeman <mtl4@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Greg and I seem to have attained harmonic convergence.
>But the offline audience might have opinions about how Internet policy
>should be made. Failure to use other established media to reach them
>is just as wrong (imho) as failure to acknowledge that societal issues
>must be recognized in determining Internet policy.
And when Ted Koppel comes to me for that interview, I assure you that I
won't scorn or spurn him (except to direct him to someone more competent!).
Ronda is happy to show folks her press clippings -- it's not as if she's
ducking mainstream publicity in favor of 'pure' netizenry!
>>If I were convinced that there were a clear and present danger to the
>>survival and integrity of these lists, and if I could convince a few
>>moderators of the same thing, then thousands of people would get the
>>word within 24 hours or so. If _they_ were convinced, then via "six
>>degrees of separation," a whole lot of people would get the message
>>pretty soon.
>
>There's a lot of "ifs" in there. :)
Yep, and every single one was needed. I entirely agree that at the moment,
only a tiny handful of people are interested in discussing this issue.
>>What number of Internet users do you suppose got some degree of
>>_on-line_ education about the Communications Decency Act? I'm
>>thinking pretty high.
>
>I don't know. The CDA got a lot of online and conventional media
>press.
True. Hmm -- an interesting research project for some communications
scholar, but a bit late now.
Always a pleasure chatting with you, Greg.
Mark Lindeman
MTL4@columbia.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:31:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Nerds 2.01 (fwd)
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Path: news3.best.com!news2.best.com!news1.best.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news.magicnet.net!gateway
From: smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)
Newsgroups: info.inet.access
Subject: Re: Nerds 2.01
Message-ID: <52af18c9ax.fsf@sean.ebone.net>
Date: 1 Dec 98 12:53:58 GMT
References: <Pine.BSI.3.93.981126164432.18759B-100000@sidhe.memra.com>
Sender: rd@comet.magicnet.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: list@inet-access.net
Distribution: info
Lines: 32
Xref: news3.best.com info.inet.access:32982
Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> writes:
> If that's true about IBM then they learn quick. They built the routers for
> the NSFnet. RS6000 AIX boxes running gated.
Actually the first NSFNET boxes supplied by IBM were
RT-PCs with some special-purpose hardware, which had the
unfortunate habit of catching fire.
These later found themselves in CA*Net, where the groups
of them retained the name PSP/E-PSP.
The routing architecture was originally done by IBM TCS in
Milford (Rick Boivie), which was augmented by the
T.J. Watson people later (Yakov Rekhter, Jeff Honig).
It is pretty safe to say that the first NSFNET backbone
was essentially IBM and MERIT.
The second introduced ANS into the mix. IBM and MERIT
certainly remained real partners. (One could argue that
MERIT called the shots, really, however that leads into
really interesting ANS vs ANS CO+RE politics and I'm too
tired for that right now).
Anyway, suggesting that IBM somehow wasn't involved with
IP from early days does not match with my memory.
Sean.
- -
Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request@inet-access.net' to leave.
Eat sushi frequently. inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address.
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:59:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Mon Dec 7 09:12:51 1998
Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (cu9478@mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id JAA27905
for <ronda@panix.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:12:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA08626
for netizens-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 08:52:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from icx.net (icx.net [206.96.250.2])
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA08601
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 08:52:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from icx.net (pm3am.kxl.icx.net [207.51.7.150])
by icx.net (IDG-2.7/1.3nr) with ESMTP id IAA28461;
Mon, 7 Dec 1998 08:52:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <366BDDCC.76230F78@icx.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 08:53:16 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Organization: Electronic Media Design and Support
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: netizens@columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
References: <199812062337.PAA25281@shell5.ba.best.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Status: R
P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net> wrote:
>Greg and Ronda,
>I am on several lists. Are there a sampling of
>URLs I can pass along to increase public awareness.
>Just a sentence or two of what the say 5 links
>contain.
>Descriptions should be free of emotionality but
>selected to get at the content intended to pass
>to the public for educational purposes.
>P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
I'll try to put something together in the next few days.
Yesterday I was working on the upcoming issue of the
Amateur Computerist which will be devoted to this
subject and thus hopefully when it comes out folks
can let people know about it as it is mainly distributed
online. It should be available in about 2 weeks.
Also I am working on writing something for a library journal
that has asked me to send an introduction and summary along with the
earlier testimony, proposal etc.
Also I have a web site with a number of things at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
But I will have to write a description later. Also there
is the ntia site which has all the proposals and
the current MoU (Memorandum of Understanding between NTIA and
ICANN).
The general site is http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
I'll think about other sites that should be included.
Maybe if anyone thinks of one you can write submit it to
this list and also write a description and that way we
will get started with the 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
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:16:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Mark Lindeman <mtl4@columbia.edu> wrote:
>I think Kerry is right on about this -- although he may come across as mad
>at _you_ for bearing the unhappy tidings. Right now ICANN is defined as a
>technical issue. If people decide that ICANN is a political issue, one
>that "gets them where they live," then all bets are off. It may not happen
>with ICANN, but sooner or later, some "technical" issue will get
>politicized just as the CDA was. (My guess -- I'm not a prophet.)
>Mark Lindeman
Mark,
I was just talking with someone I met in a cafe and she commented
that the Internet is very important for a new form of democracy
and that she sees that there are corporate entities trying to change
that. When I told her about the current battle over DNS, she wanted
to know what the DNS was, what IP stands for in IP numbers, etc.
She was *interested* in the technical and the political as her
intuition was that this kind of thing was happening in general
and was very interested in hearing the details of the particular
situation.
Also she felt there are people online who understand how important
it is to have the cooperative culture on the Internet and that
if this corporate oriented change takes place, it will take
away the Internet from people. So she felt that folks online would
find a way to take up the challenge.
So it does seem that some folks, at least, have an intuition there
is an important battle on, even if they don't know the details,
and they will welcome learning the details. And if people on
line take up to spread discussions and understanding of it, that
will help.
To Greg - I have had a bad experience in NYC with service providers.
So a list of service providers may not be the best place to try
to send info, and especially not the best place to judge other places
by the reactions of service providers on a list.
When the victory against the CDA came from the U.S. federal district court in
Philadelpia, I went to the celebration sponsored by the local
NYC service providers. The speaker they had invited from somewhere didn't
come, so we were just sitting and waiting. I asked if we could discuss
the decision. I was told *no* and almost threatened. Finally they
had a service provider make a statement about the decision.
In NYC at least, the service providers are *not* a set of folks with
any sense of a social or public spirit.
But I don't know what the situation is elsewhere.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:19:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Good to see that Greg started to give some URL's where there is
info on this as well.
Also it would probably be good to add the URL's of the newspaper
articles that are online of the Nov. 14 meeting in Boston.
I'll try to find those as well once I finish the work I have to
do for this library journal submission which is due today.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:51:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Electronic constituency
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Mon Dec 7 13:38:31 1998
Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (cu9478@mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id NAA08341
for <ronda@panix.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:38:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA07637
for netizens-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:02:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136])
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA07466
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:01:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from gds@localhost)
by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/best.sh) id JAA26600
for netizens@columbia.edu; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:31:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Message-Id: <199812071731.JAA26600@shell5.ba.best.com>
To: netizens@columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Electronic constituency
In-Reply-To: <19981207043054.AAA13310@LOCALNAME>
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Status: R
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
>kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>>*Therefore*, the goal is to create a forum which not only 'reaches'
>>but *involves* a large number of poeple; not only do I not see any
>>way around this, I don't see any reason *why* a socalled
>>'representative' process should pretend to get along without covering
>>this point.
Well when the last privatization of the Net happened in the U.S.,
in the early 1990's, folks went to the NTIA public meetings and
complained about what was happening and that the pbulic was
excluded. At that time a corporate group of folks with a few
technical people had been formed as part of the NII Agenda
for Action plan. By the way Esther Dyson was on that corporate
group as well as on this one.
I went to the two open meetings they had in NYC in September of 1994.
The first was at Columbia and I complained at that one about what
was happening and someone from the NTIA came up to me and told
me they were planning to do something to include the public.
I also went to the meeting they held at the NYC Public library
the next day, and Ron Brown came to that one, and I and others
complained there as well.
I later saw the minutes of the open meetings they had had in
other cities and saw that people had complained at those meetings
as well.
Two months later I saw a notice in the Chronicle of Higher Education
that the NTIA was having an online forum on several issues
including universal service, access, etc.
That online forum happened on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday before
Thanksgiving. And more and more people kept joining it. Itwas
a very valuable discussion and involved lots of people. Also
the NTIA supported public access terminals being opened up in
libraries, etc. around the country so even those who didn't have
online access or a computer could take part.
The forum was a great success as it involved a large number (compared
to any other online forum I know of) of people,there was debate
and discussion over the differences that went on in a good way,
and there was a clear sense that there was a need to have
a social policy and government involvement to make universal access
more than a myth.
The problem was that the NTIA never seemedto do anything with the
feedback they got during the online forum. They went ahead with
the privatization of the NSFNet backbone on May 1, 1995 anyway.
No government official who was part of planning that privatization
was online or explained why it was happening.
But I had seen such government officials on the com-priv list,
with the folks who were pushing for the privatization.
(The NTIA online forum is described in Netizens in chapters
11 and 13, the privatizaton in chapter 12)
>>That's why I think it's important that people with 'considerable
>>backgrounds' take notice of the fact that they are missing the boat:
>>the Internet is a societal mechanism, not just a technical one. You
>>all are not in Oz anymore: this is Kansas, big as life -- and in
>>>about 2 years 'nerd' *will be a dirty word when people figure out
>>that those who had *technical authority sold civilization down the
>>river because they were too busy talking among themselves to learn to
>>listen to anybody else.
>You have to convince the people with the technical backgrounds (who
>are in positions of influence over international telecommunications
>policy) to recognize the need for societal responsibility. I'd say,
>offhand, those individuals include Vint Cerf, Dave Farber, Einar
Well it seems that Vint Cerf and Dave Farber at least are supporting
this privatization.
They were on the advisory IANA committee that Gordon Cook described
as acting behind the scenes to promote this privatization.
Also they are on the Internet Society Board of DirectorsBoard of
Directors I think and they are particularly the folks omoting
ICANN and the privatization of the DNS system, etc.
I have gotten encouragement from different peopole when I have
sent out my articles like Report from the Front, etc.
>Stefferud, and a few of the other notables who participate in these
>forums. They have worked in the field for a very long time, and have
>the trust and respect of the international policy makers (and the
>people who develop the technology).
But aren't thre others who are trusted?
It would be good to understand the position of ohters on all this.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #223
******************************
