Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 194
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, October 28 1998 Volume 01 : Number 194
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [ifwp] NTIA Comments on ICANN draft
Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] NTIA Comments on ICANN draft
[netz] Brave new world... two examples
[netz] Re: NTIA Comments on ICANN draft
[netz] Re: Brave new world... two examples
[netz] Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:42:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] NTIA Comments on ICANN draft
Milton Mueller wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > Deutsche
> > Telecom, CENTRE, IBM,
> I have no doubt that IBM supports ICANN because it has bought a big
> chunk of it via GIP
> > Scott Bradner, APNIC, RIPE, ARIN, POC, PAB, IAB,
> > IETF, ISOC,
> Well, we know who these people are. ISOC, IAB, Bradner, and IETF are
> the pillars of Postel's empire who designed the successive IANA
> proposals in order to preserve their position. APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN
> would be automatically given a board seat under the ICANN
> draft. These are the insiders who already have a piece of it. POC?
> PAB? CORE? EC-PoP? How many hats can the same people wear? It is
> unsurprising that MoU people see this as the reincarnation of their
> earlier failed effort.
> > AOL, COMPAQ, MCI-Worldcom,
> GIP, GIP, GIP. Buy, buy, buy.
It is only natural that individuals and organizations (even large
organizations) will financially back a proposal that favors them.
However, we should not assume these organizations are acting solely
out of greed or a desire to disenfranchise the people of the
Internet. In fact, these organizations represent significant numbers
of people who use the Internet -- people who buy Internet products and
services.
This is why I stressed the importance of reading old RFCs. I think
it's particularly important that people who have doubts about the
legality or constitutionality of Internet privatization read RFC 1192,
which gives the motivation for commercialization of the Internet.
Look at the bottom of the RFC and see who the workshop participants
were.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:09:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] NTIA Comments on ICANN draft
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
(I had to give a talk yesterday and have other obligations today so
I haven't had the time to be able to answer some of the early posts
from you and others that I would like to be able to answer, but don't
know if I will have the time for the next few days.)
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>> Kent Crispin wrote:
>> > Deutsche
>> > Telecom, CENTRE, IBM,
>> I have no doubt that IBM supports ICANN because it has bought a big
>> chunk of it via GIP
>> > Scott Bradner, APNIC, RIPE, ARIN, POC, PAB, IAB,
>> > IETF, ISOC,
>> Well, we know who these people are. ISOC, IAB, Bradner, and IETF are
>> the pillars of Postel's empire who designed the successive IANA
>> proposals in order to preserve their position. APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN
>> would be automatically given a board seat under the ICANN
>> draft. These are the insiders who already have a piece of it. POC?
>> PAB? CORE? EC-PoP? How many hats can the same people wear? It is
>> unsurprising that MoU people see this as the reincarnation of their
>> earlier failed effort.
>> > AOL, COMPAQ, MCI-Worldcom,
>> GIP, GIP, GIP. Buy, buy, buy.
>It is only natural that individuals and organizations (even large
>organizations) will financially back a proposal that favors them.
>However, we should not assume these organizations are acting solely
>out of greed or a desire to disenfranchise the people of the
>Internet. In fact, these organizations represent significant numbers
>of people who use the Internet -- people who buy Internet products and
>services.
These corporations are acting out of the regard for their bottom
line, *not* for the good of the people who are Internet users.
And Internet users are *not* someone's customers, they are the people
who contribute to the Net and who have made the Net into the important
development that it is today.
(See my testimony submitted to Congress for the Oct. 7, 1998 hearing
at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt )
>This is why I stressed the importance of reading old RFCs. I think
>it's particularly important that people who have doubts about the
>legality or constitutionality of Internet privatization read RFC 1192,
>which gives the motivation for commercialization of the Internet.
>Look at the bottom of the RFC and see who the workshop participants
>were.
Strange that you refer to this RFC as it is about the by invitation
only meeting held at Harvard in March 1990. There were *no* legitimate
reasons given to privatize the Internet, and there was *no* public
discussion at the time of this meeting.
I found an account of this meeting at world.std.com in 1992 which
was more extensive than the RFC account and made clear that the
same kind of secret and closed door activity was behind the decision
(on someone's part- who knows who) to privatize the NSFNET backbone
to the Internet.
See chapter 12 "Imminent Death of the Net Predicted" of Netizens
at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
Also it is interesting that Brian Kahin was involved in that meeting
supposedly. Isn't he in the administration now?
It seems as if the same scenario that was used to privatize the
NSFNET is being used to carry on this privatization, only of much
greater resources, and this time into a newly created private
corporation, though last time certain corporations were created
then as well.
Also the Inspector General's Office of the NSF, on March 23, 1993
wrote that "The record is uterly barren of documentation of
NSF's reasoning for allowing commerce use of the network....Important
program decisions, particularly those involving a program as large
as NSFNET must be both well-reasoned and well-documented. (Review
of NSFNET, p. 27-28)
If there were any legitimate reason or basis, the Inspector General's
Office of the NSF would have found the records, but they didn't.
Also the account of the March 1990 by invitation only Meeting at
Harvard that discussed privatizing the NSFNET gave many reasons
why it was cheaper for the U.S. govt and more beneficial *not* to
privatize the NSFNET, and that the so called "market" would only
result in "cream-skimming", which is wiring those areas that
would yield high profits, and not wiring those that wouldn't.
At the meeting according to the account were representatives from
IBM, RAND, OTA, Rand, Brookings Institute, Sprint International,
NTIA, AT&T, MCI, DEC, UUNET, CNRI, Litel Telecommunications,
State of Ohio, NSF, DARPA, and Research Libraries Group.
> --gregbo
Not until Nov. 1994 (three years later) was there any public
discussion allowed about the privatization, at the NTIA online
conference, and there many many people were opposed to it.
See chapters 11 and 14 in Netizens.
But the U.S. govt did the privatization anyway.
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: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:07:51 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Brave new world... two examples
Hey leave Ronda be please. Life is not easy for
those of us wishing to keep up or stay afloat.
Roadblocks from software, hardware manufacturers,
government, and others... Let's all agree its not
easy being us please.
Let's just hope the taxation plan that everytime
we connect to an ISP we get charged never flies.
==========================================================================
#80 - - - October 27, 1998 - - - 20,201 Readers
TechLearn Trends --- Technology & Learning Updates
The MASIE Center http://www.masie.com Elliott Masie, Editor
- ------ Countdown to TechLearn '98 -- 19 Days to Go! -----
(Special Report From Buffalo, NY: Training & Employment Conference)
1. Microsoft NT To Change Name to Windows 2000
<snip>
1. Microsoft NT To Change Name to Windows 2000: Say goodbye to the name
NT.
Microsoft today announced that starting with NT 5.0 the operating
system, workstation and server technology will change it's name to
Windows 2000.
NT Workstation 5.0 will become Windows 2000 Professional and will be
designed for notebooks and desktops. NT 5.0 server will become Windows
2000 Server and will have features such as Active Directory and Kerberos
security, which provides a secure mechanism for verifying the identity
of E-mail users. NT 5.0 Enterprise Edition will be dubbed Windows 2000
Advanced Server and will include clustering technology and TCP load
balancing.
"While we plan to ship the product in the Year 1999, the year 2000 is a
big issue for our customers," said Brad Chase, Microsoft's vice
president of
Windows marketing and developer relations. "We want to signify that it's
ready in a way that shows our customers that we're ready for Y2K. And we
want to show that we're ready for the new millennium."
</snip>
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Filtering Update - Oct 27
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:14:26 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
_________________________________________________________________
ALAWON Volume 7, Number 134
ISSN 1069-7799 October 27, 1998
American Library Association Washington Office Newsline
In this issue: (154 lines)
[1] CONGRESS FUNDS LSTA AT $166.2 MILLION FOR FY99; INCREASE IS
FOR NATIONAL LEADERSHIP GRANTS AND SPECIFIC PROJECTS
[2] NO FILTERING OR BLOCKING SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS FOR
LIBRARIES
OR SCHOOLS
__________________________________________________________________
<snip>
[2] NO FILTERING OR BLOCKING SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS FOR
LIBRARIES OR SCHOOLS
The conference report (H. Rept. 105-825) on the omnibus package
(H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277), specifies that the Istook amendment
attached to the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill was
dropped by House-Senate conferees. The McCain amendment attached
to the Senate Department of Commerce Appropriations bill was also
dropped by conferees. Thus no requirement was imposed on
libraries or schools to install and use blocking and filtering
software as a condition of receiving federal funding or the
e-rate telecommunications discounts.
_________________________________________________________________
</snips>
- --
P.A. Gantt
<mailto:pgantt@icx.net> <mailto:pagantt@technologist.com>
Electronic Media Design and Support
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
"Growth means change and change involves risk, stepping from
the known to the unknown." *George Shinn
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:11:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: NTIA Comments on ICANN draft
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> These corporations are acting out of the regard for their bottom
> line, *not* for the good of the people who are Internet users.
But if the people who are Internet users also buy products and
services from them (or use facilities that make use of said products
and services), the corporations have a vested interest in keeping
these users happy, which will also satisfy their bottom line.
The tricky issue is distinguishing the aspects of "user" from
"consumer", as Dave Crocker has pointed out. As a "user" of an ISP, I
might have an interest in a certain set of "user" rights; however, as
a "consumer", I also have some requirements that may be in conflict
with said "user" rights. It's too simplistic to say "overthrow the
big corporations" when some of them, at least, provide the products
and services that enable me to engage in this discussion.
> And Internet users are *not* someone's customers, they are the people
> who contribute to the Net and who have made the Net into the important
> development that it is today.
See above.
> Strange that you refer to this RFC [1192] as it is about the by
> invitation only meeting held at Harvard in March 1990. There were
> *no* legitimate reasons given to privatize the Internet, and there
> was *no* public discussion at the time of this meeting.
My only purpose in referring to this RFC was to indicate that the
process of privatization has been going on for some time now. It was
no secret. It was perhaps not widely publicized. However, at the
time, there were even fewer individuals who would have understood what
was being discussed or what the implications were. I'm not offering
these as excuses or trying to defend practices; just placing things in
perspective.
(I actually *do* recall the media covering the NREN bill; that was
about the time when phrases like "information superhighway" came into
vogue. Unfortunately I don't remember details of the coverage.)
> Also the Inspector General's Office of the NSF, on March 23, 1993
> wrote that "The record is uterly barren of documentation of
> NSF's reasoning for allowing commerce use of the network....Important
> program decisions, particularly those involving a program as large
> as NSFNET must be both well-reasoned and well-documented. (Review
> of NSFNET, p. 27-28)
> If there were any legitimate reason or basis, the Inspector General's
> Office of the NSF would have found the records, but they didn't.
Ultimately it will come down to a matter of opinion. The OIG thinks
the NSF should continue to fund (and carry out) this generation's
Internet research; the NSF doesn't. But like I told you before, the
OIG cannot order the NSF to do things. Congress may set up a new
contract and allow other groups to bid on it, but in the meantime,
what would we do about the current problems? Aside from the issues
you have raised about the process by which the privatization is being
carried out, there are many other groups and individuals with equally
legitimate concerns. How long can we afford to wait until a solution
is reached that is agreeable to all parties? Would we ever have such
a solution?
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:53:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Brave new world... two examples
P.A. Gantt wrote:
> Hey leave Ronda be please. Life is not easy for those of us wishing
> to keep up or stay afloat. Roadblocks from software, hardware
> manufacturers, government, and others... Let's all agree its not
> easy being us please.
> Let's just hope the taxation plan that everytime we connect to an
> ISP we get charged never flies.
It seems to me that taxation would be more in line with Ronda's
goals. After all, it was tax dollars that paid for the creation of
the ARPAnet and Internet. The government would award funds to NSF (or
whoever is responsible for running the new net). As individual
voters, you would decide who would be the government.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:58:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
At 10:09 PM 10/27/98 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
I didn't write the following about representation, I was quoting
the post I answered which was by Greg Skinner.
GS>>Internet. In fact, these organizations represent significant numbers
GS>>of people who use the Internet -- people who buy Internet products and
GS>>services.
>"Representation" is at best a fuzzy concept in this sort of discussion.
>As such, we should discuss it with some flexibility, rather than slamming
>at each and every candidate group. As it is, we have people claiming that
>a self-organized group of 3 or 4 people who claim to represent others, but
>who have no basis other than their intent, are taken seriously. On the
>other hand, we have groups with long history of providing service to large
>numbers of people being dismissed as concerned about nothing but money.
Corporations are *not* representatives of the people. That is
what governments have been created for. Corporations exist to
sell a produce, and supposedly they should be doing a service.
However, as this situation with the privatization of the key
Internet functions shows, corporations have gotten protection
from governments to have power that they have no constitutional
right to have.
Citizens, who are supposed to be soverign have had their political
rights and powers usurped by corporations. That is what is happening
in this Great Give-away by the U.S. Government.
>>These corporations are acting out of the regard for their bottom
>>line, *not* for the good of the people who are Internet users.
>A long-standing belief behind the idea of competitive capitalism is that
>pursuing the bottom line well is a very good way of pursuing the interests
>of customers.
This is the kind of topsy turvy argument that equates political
rights of citizens with the usurpation of those rights by
big coporations.
Corporations only sell products.
They have *no* way of knowing, or being concerned with the
"interests" of their customers.
They are to provide a good or service.
Citizens, however, have supposedly created governments to represent
their interests. This was supposedly done in a time when the
nations became too big, and the means for citizens to represent
their own interests were *not* then available.
With the development of the Internet and Usenet, however, citizens
now can speak for themselves and governments need to find a way
to open up the political processes so that this input from citizens
has a way of being part of the whole process.
Or citizens need to find a way to create governments that will
be able to govern based on the new kinds of participatory processes
that the Internet and Usenet make possible.
This GREAT GIVE-A-AWAY of control over the Internet to corporate
entities by the U.S. government (with it seems some other governments
going along with it rather than opposing it or helping those
who are trying to oppoe it), or at least alerting their citizens
to the tremendously significant implications this will have to
their Internet access, this comes at a time when the U.S. government
especially, and other governments in general, are faced with the
challenge of opening up their political processes to more
participation. And the way the U.S. Commerce Dept and the
President's Office, have failed to protect the rights and
property of citizens, shows that the U.S. government is failing
in its obligations. The U.S. federal district court in
Philadelphia, in the Communications Decency Act case, in
a decision affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, said that
the U.S. government had to protect the autonomy that the
Internet gave to the ordinary citizens as well as the media
magnate.
And the Inspector General's Office of the NSF said that
the U.S. government had to protect the huge tax investment
made on the Internet by the U.S. public.
What the U.S. government is doing by putting this
concentration of public power and public resources
into the hands of a private corporation, is the opposite
of protecting this autonomy.
Also the Inspector General's Office of the NSF said that
the U.S. government *cannot* give away *policy making*
powers.
And that is what it is doing in creating this private
corporation. So maybe that is why this whole process
is going on behind closed doors and in such a secret
fashion.
This is an experiment by the U.S. government trying
to transfer the rights of its citizens to corporate
entities. This is something that is contrary to the
constitutional provisions that define the U.S. government.
The political power that the U.S. citizens have delegated
to the U.S. government *cannot* be transferred to
private entities.
Any other government that claims it wants to be involved
in the administration of these essential functions should
be informing their citizens of what the U.S. government
is doing and trying to understand how the Internet was built
by a coopeative process rather than such a privatization process.
(My proposal describes how to create a prototype that will
help to solve any real domain name system problems and will
do so by building on the lessons on how an international
collaboration of nations built the Internet).
The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
>>And Internet users are *not* someone's customers, they are the people
>>who contribute to the Net and who have made the Net into the important
>>development that it is today.
>The term "user" is typically taken to mean "consumer", as in one on the
Obviously we have a difference. Internet users are citizens *not*
somebody's customers or consumers.
They are citizens of their respective countries, and have functioned
as citizens of the Net, or Netizens.
The Internet was created as a users network. The users were protected
by the U.S. government from commercial pressures to be able to
make their complaints, even when their complaints were against
companies that had supervisors on the Internet. For example,
in some of the early ARPANET mailing lists dealing with
work stations, ARPANET users complained that a company bringing
out a new workstation (the Xerox Star) was *not* making
a programming language available with the Workstation.
Therefore those who bought the Workstation would be dependent
on Xerox or others to pay for programs and this would be a
much greater cost than the cost of the Workstation.
Through these complaints, the Workstation did include
a programming language and people were saved from being
left at the mercy of the Corporate designs.
And computer technology was able to develop. And the computer
industry was able to develop.
So the government protection of those online to be able to
voice their complaints served government in many ways.
A similar situation existed during on Usenet in the period
I studied, and in some of the experiences I have had on
it as well, at a much later period.
During the early period I have archives for, when the
people in a position to make decisions that would affect
the users thought of a change that they felt should be made,
they presented the change to the users and asked for
their views on it pro and con.
In the process those who were part of the discussion online
figured out what was desirable.
During this period Mark Horton was fond of saying "I'm not God"
and welcoming discussion.
What happened during this period is a model for governments
to learn from today, and from citizens to learn from to
be able to shape governments so that they can genuinely
serve their citizens interests.
The Internet is a unique new medium. It is built on the users
contributions, both of content, of software, and of participation
in solving the many problems that develop.
This is what I have found in my research, and Dave, I even
found you involved in constructively contributing to and
helping to solve the problems that were identified.
And the U.S. government (as in the early period of MsgGroup
mailing list in the 1975-80 period) protected the people
who were on the mailing list so they could contribute
to solving the problems.
This is what is being taken away by the transfer of such
lucrative public resources and power to a private corporation
by the U.S. government by this non democratic
process that violates the constitutional obligations of
the U.S. government to its citizens.
>receiving end. When money is involved, they do the paying. As such, the
>term "customer" correlates well with the term user, though not perfectly.
We have a very deep difference. Maybe you are referring to the
producer of some products like computers, or furniture. But I
am referring to the Internet
This is a unique new medium of worldwide communication. It is
not a product some producer sells.
The federal district court in Philadelphia said that to make
any laws or decisions regarding this unique new medium, you
had to study this new medium in its particularity, not
apply some general idea about other entities to it.
Making a significant policy change, such a transferring
ownership and control over essential functions of the Internet
to a private corporation is a *significant policy change* .
Therefore there is a need to consider the unique nature
of the Internet and its development and to plan to build
any proposed changes on the lessons from understanding
this unique nature.
None of that has been done in planning or executing this
GREAT GIVE-A-WAY, of this public treasure to a private
corporate entity with no basis to care for the Internet
to support its continued growth and development.
>On the other hand, "contribute" is less clear; those who develop Internet
>technology and run Internet services would be thought of as contributors,
Again we disagree. Those online who have contributed to the
creation of Linux are the folks I am talking about, *not*
Microsoft. Those who contribute to the newsgroups, to
the programs to run Usenet like tin, etc. are the folks
who are the contributors to the Net.
Someone like Microsoft is a corporate entity that is *not*
contributing to the Internet, but to its bottom line,
and also trying to control whatever it can control.
This is *not* what I was referring to.
But it is not too surprising that the U.S. government would
be helping Microsoft get rid of that which can create
linux as the U.S. government seems to feel that its
purpose is to protect corporations like Microsoft rather
than its citizens who need linux and who have found
the international collaboration that the Internet has
made possible, that which has helped it to create linux.
>but they are definitely not classed as "users" --
>although they/we of course are ALSO users, when wearing a
>different hat.
No corporate entities are *not* the users who should be
in control of the Internet.
Do we agree?
Or do you think corporate entities should be in control of the Internet?
.
>>Not until Nov. 1994 (three years later) was there any public
>>discussion allowed about the privatization, at the NTIA online
>It would be interesting to see the basis for this claim.
>"Allowed"? This is a remarkably silly claim, on two counts. One has to do
>with a minor matter concerning U.S. laws about free speech. The second is
>that the Internet started privatizing aggressively in 1989, with the
>creation of private ISPs.
Not at all, as Gordon Cook pointed out, people who protest are
jeopardizing their jobs.
I was harrassed when I complained about the Internet privatization
in 1992 on comp-priv list - I was harrassed by people on the list
and there was no discussion of what I was saying or examination
of it.
Also papers challenging the privatization that were submitted to
ISOC for their conferences were *not* accepted, but papers promoting
privatization were given all the time in the world.
This is an important policy change and involves the citizens of
the U.S. and people around the world.
The U.S. government should be asking what people think,
instead of trying to ram through a solution to an unnamed problem.
The U.S. govt is only allowing discussion by those who agree
to privatization.
The govt is *not* allowing discussion over *whether* there should
be privatization.
My proposal was against privatization, but the NTIA didn't
ask if people agreed with the privatization, only wheich of the
proposals to privatize was preferable.
And the U.S. govt never considered my proposal or discussed the
details with me, but only asked me what I could include in
the private corporation to take into account my concerns.
Only in Nov. of 1994 was the public given the opportunity to speak about
the NTIA plan to do the privatization of the NSF backbone to the
Internet. Many people then spoke against the plan and urged the
government *not* to privatize the NSF backbone.
The archives are available online and they are described in
two chapters of our book, chapters 11 and 14.
You have to welcome participation if you are interested in what
people have to say, not penalize them.
See also chapter 12 of Netizens.
>d/
>Dave Crocker
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #194
******************************
