Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 191
Netizens-Digest Sunday, October 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 191
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
[netz] Re: IFWP list postings
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
[netz] Re: IFWP list postings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:19:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
"Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unir.com> wrote:
>The plan that you submitted is not a plan. It is a non-plan.
On what basis do you say this?
I submitted a proposal for how to solve the problem that
supposedly exists.
My proposal provides a way to create a prototype of researchers
working together, supported by their governments, to explore
the problems that need solving.
This is based on how the Internet was built and is a form
that draws on the lessons learned from the development of
the Internet.
So when you are saying my plan is *not* a plan, are you saying
that the prototype process that was used to build the
ARPANET and then Internet is not a process?
That the design for the ARPANET was not a design, and the
ARPANET didn't get built via this prototype process,
and there is therefore no Internet?
The other proposals use the corporate business model to create
a private entity to solve who knows what problem, but to
create a whole host of new problems by giving the immensely
valuable public resources and the power to determine the policy
about what happens with these resources to an unknown,
private and nonaccountable entity.
Also my proposal requires that the researchers not only investigate
the domain name situation issues from a public perspective
(rather than from the perspective of those who see some commercial
advantage to themselves and so they will have no interest in
the public perspective.)
And my proposal requires that the work be done utilizing the Internet
and by making as much of it public online as possible, and by
providing well publicized means for people online to be able to
take part and make their input into the work the researchers are doing.
This is a form that also grows out of the unique nature of the
Internet and builds on the lessons of that unique nature.
So if anyone is interested in solving any real problems they
would help to get my proposal implemented.
However, anyone interested in getting themselves a piece of
the public treasure that the Internet represents will fight
over which private entity should be given that treasure as
a private set of riches to be exploited.
>It actually HELPS the ICANN plan. Is it any
>wonder the U.S. Government will push the ICANN plan forward ?
No, actually it is the opposite. It is only by opposing any
of the privatization plans is it possible to defeat privatization.
Whether the ICANN privatization plan or some other is to
be adopted doesn't make any difference. It is like fighting
over the heist. The point is to stop the heist.
>Thanks Ronda...you have helped to promote the plan you oppose...
So then you are saying go along with one of the privatization
plans as the way to oppose privatization of the DNS and other
essential functions?
This is a self serving statement as it says support yours over
theirs, but support privatization.
No I don't support privatization. No one who cares about the
public interest and thinks about what the privatization proposals
- -- any of them -- will do, can support privatization.
And the Office of Inspector General of the NSF also opposed
privatization and recommended that the NSF stop doing what would
lead to privatization. The NSF ignored the fact that it had
an oversight body to listen to. And it is then up to Congress
to do something to make the NSF respond to its oversight
body.
Unfortunately, certain government processes seeem to have
broken down. But they do indicate the very deep problem
that this privatization represents and the very great
concentration of wealth and power that any private
corporation is being given.
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: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:31:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
"Richard J. Sexton" <richard@vrx.net> wrote:
At 10:10 AM 10/24/98 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>As soon as a network is privately owned, it is the owners who one
>>must defer to for the decision about what will happen.
>>>
>>But on public networks the users themselves can and will discuss
>>the problems and they can determine how to solve them.
>Please enumerate what part of the Internet is "public". I don't
First of all the Domain Name System, the root server system,
the IP numbers, etc, in short all that which is still administered
by IANA or NSI under the contracts they have with the U.S. government.
Also there are many backbone networks in various countries around
the world that are owned by universities or other government funded
entities that are publicly owned.
And there are many networks around the world, including inside the U.S.
that are part of the Internet that are publicly owned, including networks
like MILNET, various U.S. government networks.
And the U.S. backbone networks were publicly owned and funded
but were handed over to private entities without listening to
the public outcry and complaint that was expressed during
the Nov. 1994 online conference held by the NTIA.
And the privatization has already caused a whole host of problems
including the difficulty many people who don't have the means in
the U.S. have of getting online, just as the folks explained would
happen during the NTIA online conference.
And it is very difficult to know what the backbone providers are
up to or to have any way to give them feedback as they tell you
that you can go and "vote" with your feet if you have a problem
with what they do.
So the transfer of ownership of the U.S. backbone of the Internet
has created a whole host of problems which are now to be
compounded million fold by the proposal to transfer the
assets of the essential functions of the Internet to the
private sector.
>think you can. It's all privately owned. I've asked you this questin
>3 times in the last month and have never received an answer.
I have answered any time any of your responses that I have seen,
so I don't know what you are referring to, but despite that,
it is strange that you don't know about publicly owned networks
around the world.
Why would you think that the Internet is all privately owned?
Do you not know of public networks that are part of the Internet
in the U.S. or Canada or elsewhere?
What do you understand the Internet to be?
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: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: IFWP list postings
I am forwarding to the list the following posts that followed up posts
on the IFWP list that also were sent to the netizens mailing list:
- ------------
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@vrx.net>
Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA
(long)
Cc: netizens@columbia.edu
At 10:10 AM 10/24/98 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>As soon as a network is privately owned, it is the owners who one
>must defer to for the decision about what will happen.
>
>But on public networks the users themselves can and will discuss
>the problems and they can determine how to solve them.
Please enumerate what part of the Internet is "public". I don't
think you can. It's all privately owned. I've asked you this questin
3 times in the last month and have never received an answer.
- --
richard@culture.getty.edu "It's all just marketing"
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:50:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bob Allisat <bob@fcn.net>
To: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@vrx.net>
cc: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>, netizens@columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
Richard Sexton:
> Please enumerate what part of the Internet is "public".
Any server or site generally
accessible to any citizen, any
similar facility that processes,
sends or recieves third party
mail or traffic often refered
to as ISPs (Internet Service
Provider). This does not apply
to close or private hobby
systems such as Sexton's VRx.
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net
http://fcn.net/allisat
From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unir.com>
To: <list@ifwp.org>
Cc: <netizens@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:01:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
- -----Original Message-----
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
<snip>
>
>Though the real problem is that this list and IFWP situation has
>been developed by the U.S. government, those engineers or other
>folks who have technical knowledge should be making clear that
>there are public concerns and obligations that the engineering
>community is responsible to uphold.
>
>Why is none of that happening here?
>
Ronda,
In my opinion that DID happen hear. I am not sure that people
like yourself listened. You followed the crowd to Geneva from
what I am told. You spent time trying to meet with Ira Magaziner.
All of that provide the people that you claim are doing the wrong
thing with legitimacy. In short, you did exactly what they wanted
you to do and the press followed you and the others. Meanwhile,
other people are working on plans and systems that put into
practice many of the approaches that you advocate. It is ironic
that you have probably spent no time educating yourself about
that work. If you did, then maybe you would not be making the
statements that you are making that give MORE credibility to
the people that you oppose. Think about it. The press and the
people in the U.S. Government read your inaccurate statements
and your view is that NOTHING is being done for preserving
Internet resources via public trustees. If that incorrect view
serves the people you oppose then they will gladly let it stand
and hope that you continue to tell people that nothing is being
done. In summary, you are hurting the cause and the people that
support the direction that you want to go. This would be like all
of the Republicans only going to the Democrat's rally and yelling
about their candidate and never promoting the Republican
candidate. The result of that would be that the Democrat's
candidate would become well known for BOTH the positive and
negative press. The Republican would be totally unknown. Who
do you think people would vote for ?
Look at the people in the U.S. Government. They back the plan
that they hear about, even if they hear negative comments about
it. They can not vote for a plan that they have never seen and will
never take the time to look at. The plan that you submitted is not
a plan. It is a non-plan. It actually HELPS the ICANN plan. Is it any
wonder the U.S. Government will push the ICANN plan forward ?
Thanks Ronda...you have helped to promote the plan you oppose...
JimFleming@unir.com
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
0:201 .COM
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+@---<IPv8>---C+@--<IPv4>--(Java)VPC
http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 18:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>As soon as a network is privately owned, it is the owners who one
>must defer to for the decision about what will happen.
>But on public networks the users themselves can and will discuss
>the problems and they can determine how to solve them.
>This is demonstrated in two papers I have written, one about
>early MsgGroup mailing list, and another about early Usenet.
>On both of these the users were able to determine what should
>happen.
This is not totally true. As I have pointed out before, the usenet
backbone admins were able to determine what happened to a considerable
extent. Witness the demise of the newsgroup net.flame in 1984, when
the backbone admins refused to carry it.
For a more recent example, witness the first great renaming of
newsgroups into the soc, talk, comp, etc. hierarchies. Even back
then, there was a recognized bureaucracy (the backbone admins).
Users (who were not themselves backbone admins) had little choice but
to follow their rules.
What made the backbone admins able to enforce their rules? They had
bandwidth and connectivity. They were at AT&T, and/or on sites that
had Internet access.
>And the lesson from the development of the ARPANET and the Internet
>is that government needs to be involved and playing the good role
>that it has learned to play to make it possible for the Internet to
>continue to be a public network where there can be the needed
>participation by users to solve the problems of network growth and
>development.
The decisions that were made that I described above had little if
anything to do with "government" and much to do with how the backbone
admins perceived their roles with regards to what types of traffic
they thought they should pass.
A good deal of early Usenet traffic transited AT&T internal networks.
A bit later, it transited AT&T internal networks and the Internet,
until the backbone shifted to the Internet with the coming of NSFnet.
At any rate, the backbone admins, interpreting the overall policy of
their companies and supporting organizations, set policy that affected
everyone else.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:45:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: IFWP list postings
I am forwarding to the list the following posts that followed up posts
on the IFWP list that also were sent to the netizens mailing list:
- ------------
From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unir.com>
To: <list@ifwp.org>
Cc: <netizens@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:47:43 -0500
- -----Original Message-----
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
<snip>
>
>>Thanks Ronda...you have helped to promote the plan you oppose...
>
>So then you are saying go along with one of the privatization
>plans as the way to oppose privatization of the DNS and other
>essential functions?
>
No, I am not saying that. I am NOW an advocate of recognizing
that you will not be able to stop the implosion in the IPv4 Internet
and the exploitation. You have to let that go and start working to
build a NEW Internet [using the old model you advocate] around
the outside of the rapidly imploding mass...which might best be
described as the Internet Core...
JimFleming@unir.com
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
0:201 .COM
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+@---<IPv8>---C+@--<IPv4>--(Java)VPC
http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm
@@@@ Here is a recent posting that might help clarify this more...
The term "Internet" is highly dilluted. Some people
might want to continue to dispute what company
has trademark rights to the term, but the term is now
used in so many ways that it ceases to have specific
meaning. In order to provide more meaning, it might
be good to consider the word Internet to be an
adjective and to find a noun that this adjective can
modify to provide a more precise meaning of what
some people feel the Internet is. I suggest that the
noun FRONTIER be used.
One of the reasons for this suggestion is that the term
Frontier is also highly dilluted and in most cases lacks
specific definition. In the early days of the U.S., people
could probably refer to the Frontier and have a good
idea of where that was located. In todays day and age,
if you asked someone to show you the U.S.'s "frontier"
they might have a hard time or point to outer space.
What once clearly embodied the spirit of westward ho,
is no longer embodied in that one word.
In my opinion, the same can be said for the Internet.
In these long and drawn out DNS debates (names and
numbers), it is now clear that some people refer to the
Internet and that is no longer the Internet that people
may have described 10 years ago. Likewise, people
working out on the true Internet Frontier, might find it
objectionable to see the "old guard" continue to casually
use the term Internet, when they have sold out to big
business and are rapidly imploding into the very
bureaucracy that the Internet Frontier pioneers of 20
years ago thought they were avoiding by routing around
the expensive, centralized telecommunications core.
It is also objectionable to see some of those very pioneers
claiming to be working on the Frontier when they are
clearly part of the imploding core and exploiting the
tailings from their Internet mining activities that they
conned the U.S. Government into funding.
One of the major problems in trying to solve the DNS
debacle is that the so-called Internet pioneers are
assumed to be working on the Internet Frontier. Many
people blindly follow their proposals assuming this will
help the Internet Frontier. There are plenty of stooges
willing to continue to promote this false impression and
the Internet pioneers do not seem interested in noting
that they are no longer personally working on the Internet
Frontier. In other words, they help to perpetuate the myth
in order to use their past accomplishments on the
Frontier to fill their wallets as the gold mines now produce
results.
There is obviously no way this can be stopped and the
general public and government officials will continue
to be mislead about who are NOW the Internet pioneers
working on the Internet Frontier. There is an old joke that
you can tell the pioneers, they are the ones with the arrows
in their backs. Maybe the new joke should be that you can
tell who the Internet Pioneers are, they are the ones
WITHOUT their wallets filled with money, or better yet, without
their wallets and the arrows in their backs. What is somewhat
ironic is that some of the old school Internet Pioneers are
the ones that have been picking the new Internet Pioneers'
pockets out on the Internet Frontier. I think that some of the
people on the Internet Frontier are tired of hearing that they
are the ones in this for the money. It is clear that the good
old boy network are the ones that have all the gold and
are busy selling it for whatever price they can get, while
telling people they are the Internet Pioneers, just back
from a hard day on the Internet Frontier.
In my opinion, many of the old school Internet people would
not know the Internet Frontier if they saw it. They are too
busy picking people's pockets and telling people that they
are not in this for the money and that others are. Follow the
money...it tells the whole story...or the rest of it...
From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unir.com>
To: <list@ifwp.org>
Cc: <netizens@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Re: Re: Sources of Authority and the Role of NTIA (long)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:05:07 -0500
- -----Original Message-----
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
<snip>
>
>And the U.S. backbone networks were publicly owned and funded
>but were handed over to private entities without listening to
>the public outcry and complaint that was expressed during
>the Nov. 1994 online conference held by the NTIA.
>
>And the privatization has already caused a whole host of problems
>including the difficulty many people who don't have the means in
>the U.S. have of getting online, just as the folks explained would
>happen during the NTIA online conference.
>
Again Ronda....YOU ARE RIGHT...but you can not change that...!!!!
The NSF handed some of the Internet Pioneers millions or
billions in intellectual property assets without them having
to pay one penny. Now the NSF is doing this again. YOU
CAN NOT STOP IT....
What can be stopped is the worship those Internet Pioneers
receive for their noble work. Their wallets are filled with millions
of dollars in cyber taxes and people still treat them as if they
are volunteers working in a soup kitchen feeding the hungry.
Maybe they did that 20 years ago. They now ride in limos, fly
first class anywhere they like at a moments notice (airfare
rates are not an issue) and they wine and dine at the finest
hotels. They are not Mother Teresa or Ghandi or true volunteers.
They are working these DNS debates for the money and they
have been paid well for years, yet people treat them as if they
are Red Cross workers.
There ARE people that are continuing to work in the spirit
of the Internet that you have articulated well. My suggestion
is that YOU seek out those people and stop giving the
gold plated volunteers your time and energy. That helps
them and they are probably laughing at you from their Lear
Jets flying overhead.
JimFleming@unir.com
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
0:201 .COM
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+@---<IPv8>---C+@--<IPv4>--(Java)VPC
http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm
- --PAA17044.909257561/konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu--
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #191
******************************
