Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 202
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, November 4 1998 Volume 01 : Number 202
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] NTIA: Letter to the Internet
[netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
[netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
[netz] Re: Wrangling over Internet vrs Cooperative processes
[netz] Re: Wrangling over Internet vrs Cooperative processes
Re: [netz] Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Re: [netz] (Fwd) Re: Spam here
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
[netz] Office of Inspector General Report 2/7/97
[netz] Re: Spam here
Re: [netz] Office of Inspector General Report 2/7/97
Re: [netz] Re: Spam here
[netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
[netz] Re: Spam here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:46:35 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] NTIA: Letter to the Internet
LETTER TO THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
Issue: Internet
"Based on a review of ICANN's submission, other public submissions, and on
public comments on those submissions, the Department of Commerce regards
the ICANN submission as a significant step towards privatizing management
of the domain name system. Overall, the submissions we received supported
moving forward with the ICANN structure. We note, however, that the public
comments received on the ICANN submission reflect significant concerns
about substantive and operational aspects of ICANN. We strongly recommend
that you review and consider the many thoughtful and constructive comments
posted at <www.ntia.doc.gov>. The submissions of the Boston Working Group
and the Open Root Server Confederation, among others, articulate specific
concerns, many of which we share. As you refine your proposal, we urge you
to consult with these groups and others who commented critically on your
proposal to try to broaden the consensus." [SOURCE: NTIA
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/icann102098.htm>
via Benton.org]
=====
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:26:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
Roeland Meyer wrote:
> I see this cutting both ways here. By this same argument, I should NOT have
> to be forced to pay the folks at MERIT for the sources for the current
> GateD. Yet, to even use the binaries will cost MHSC upwards of $2000US.
> GateD was developed with US University $$$ which is to say, a substantial
> portion of the taxes I, personally, have paid. Being forced to pay their
> license fees for it is making me pay twice. It is also the reference
> implementation of BGP4. IETF reference implementations are *supposed* to be
> non-commercial open-source product. This is why qpopper is still source
> available, even though QualComm owns it (a commercial company, FYI).
> Strange, a commercial company is giving away what a University is charging
> for. I also hear that Washington University is considering charging for
> wuFTP and they already charge for PINE. Both developed with US tax dollars,
> BTW. It seems pretty scummy to me ...
When Ronda writes of (paraphrased) "protecting the Internet from
commercial or political pressures," I believe this is the sort of
thing she's addressing. I am sure a lot of the need for MERIT to
charge for gated has to do with the cost of maintaining it and making
it available. I think it's unfortunate that it's now necessary to pay
for the sources. There was a time when you could get it for free. I
personally benefitted from being able to study the gated sources. It
can be a valuable instructional tool for those who want to understand
how routing protocols work.
The issue remains, however, that someone has to pay for it, in the
end. Like I keep saying, Internet users do not seem particuarly
enthused about usage taxes.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:03:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
Peter Deutsch wrote:
> Yeah, I've never seen such a blatant rewriting of history
> in the guise of "research", which appears to be not much
> more than a statistically insignificant rereading of old
> mailing lists. Given that most of the people who posted to
> those lists are still alive I've been wondering why she
> doesn't simply interview the participants and get the
> story right, but she hasn't answered this question or
> commented on my previous corrections to her postings.
Actually, she has contacted and interviewed a few people. Some of
this is on some web pages she maintains (unfortunately I don't
remember where). There was an interview with Henry Spencer that I
think some of you might find interesting. Also, on the netizens WWW
board, you can find comments by other folks who were around during the
old days, such as Brad Templeton.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:40:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Wrangling over Internet vrs Cooperative processes
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
>Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>The U.S. government has *no* valid reason to be requiring the
>>privatization of IANA.
>This is another issue that I think needs to be clarified. However,
>I'm at a loss to know how we would get at the "truth" of this matter.
It seems to me that it's like voting in a public election; because the
voters in most cases do not know all the facts and can't reasonably
>get them, they must trust their gut instincts about the candidates or
>propositions they vote on. Also, I don't get the sense that the
>American public, at least, is open to having their Internet usage
>taxed to pay for IANA service.
>
>--gregbo
The Office of Inspector General of the NSF in their report on this
issue showed that the Amercian taxpayers have contiubed much tax money (
and I would add so have taxpayers of outerh countries as well)
to the development of the Internet.
And the OIG said that the U.S. Govt had th obigation to be protecting
this investment, and that the resources the
NSF was giving away very lucarative resources.
So it seems the opposite of what yu say, Greg, that in fact the U.S. Govt
has an obligation to protect the investment already made
and *not* to be misusing the result of the
investment by privatizing IANA, but instead protecting it
and thereby protecting the ability of the
U.S. taxpayers to utilize the
Internet, so theiur investment is not
squandered.
This is in fact one of the best uses ever of U.S.
taxpayers money, and it shouldnt be abused by giving the
benefits only to commercial interes.
Ronda
I'm on a very slow connection, so I will send this
email even though I know there are typos.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:48:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Wrangling over Internet vrs Cooperative processes
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> The Office of Inspector General of the NSF in their report on this
> issue showed that the Amercian taxpayers have contiubed much tax money (
> and I would add so have taxpayers of outerh countries as well)
> to the development of the Internet. [...]
But the NSF says differently. So one of them (at least) is not
accurate. How does the Netizen who is not employed by either of those
organizations decide?
> So it seems the opposite of what yu say, Greg, that in fact the U.S. Govt
> has an obligation to protect the investment already made and *not*
> to be misusing the result of the investment by privatizing IANA, but
> instead protecting it and thereby protecting the ability of the
> U.S. taxpayers to utilize the Internet, so theiur investment is not
> squandered.
I said nothing of the sort. I just presented the respective positions
of the OIG and NSF.
Furthermore, you have been reading all of these posts from people who
will pull out of the Internet and establish alternative roots, if the
USG does not step aside. How will this help Netizens? It'll help the
Netizens who are technically savvy, because they can make arrangements
for application-level bridging between net fragments, but what about
all the other Netizens?
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:47:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
> Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> wrote:
>> 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.
I think you have contradicted yourself here. Microsoft IE is a tool
that allows one to contribute to newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. So
there are people out there who can use a commercial product to
contribute to the net. The notes on what a Netizen is say:
My initial research concerned the origins and development of the
global discussion forum Usenet. For my second paper, I wanted to
explore the larger Net and what it was and its significance. This
is when my research uncovered the remaining details that helped
me to recognize the emergence of Netizens. There are people
online who actively contribute towards the development of the
Net. These people understand the value of collective work and the
communal aspects of public communications. These are the people
who discuss and debate topics in a constructive manner, who
e-mail answers to people and provide help to new-comers, who
maintain FAQ files and other public information repositories, who
maintain mailing lists, and so on. These are people who discuss
the nature and role of this new communications medium. These are
the people who as citizens of the Net, I realized were Netizens.
So, it does not matter what types of tools one uses to contribute to
the Net; all that matters is that the contribution help others in some
way. So, by extension, Microsoft is helping contribute to the net,
because it is creating tools that can be used to help others
contribute to the net.
Not everyone is going to want to use tools like tin because they may
not understand them, or may not feel comfortable using them. This
should not disqualify them as Netizens because they're unwilling to
use the public domain tools. For example, my mother uses AOL, but is
part of a group who actively do geneological research and share their
results with each other. The research is not for pay; it helps others
learn the process of tracing their roots. I think she would like to
be thought of as a Netizen.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:41:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] (Fwd) Re: Spam here
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>Spam is a symptom -- of too many folks who arent thinking about the
>*development of this space, only its utility to them at the moment.
OK
>That's why the present argument about what should or shouldnt be done
>with the DNS is so dismal: it is as if people - on all sides - are
>ready and eager to take up polarized positions first -- and (maybe!)
>figure out what the implications are afterwards; in any case, not
>recognizing that the polarities have been set up for them by their
>own negligence of very simple concepts.
I agree, but there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about it.
Some of the people in this debate insist that they be able to do as
they please, and are going to take steps to do what they want even if
it winds up fragmenting the Internet.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:53:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
"Richard J. Sexton" <richard@vrx.net> wrote:
>At 07:03 PM 11/2/98 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>Actually, she has contacted and interviewed a few people. Some of
>>this is on some web pages she maintains (unfortunately I don't
>>remember where). There was an interview with Henry Spencer that I
>>think some of you might find interesting. Also, on the netizens WWW
>>board, you can find comments by other folks who were around during the
>>old days, such as Brad Templeton.
>Mikki, John Berryhill and myself were all there at that time. I can't
>speak for them but I didn't find it particularly accurate.
I was speaking specifically of her interviews with Henry Spencer, and
some old posts I found by doing a web search on "Brad Templeton" and
netizen. I happen to agree with their assessment of some of the
problems we are having. I was there at the time as well.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:00:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Office of Inspector General Report 2/7/97
Hi,
On Feb 7 1997 the Office of Inspector General responsible for oversight
of the US National Science Foundation issued a report "The Administration
of Internet Addresses". Its executive summary begins:
"Internet addresses are a unique public resource. We consider it essential
that the federal oversight continue to ensure impartial and equitable
allocation of Internet addresses."
NSF Acting Deputy Director W. Bordogna responded in a Memorandum on April 17,
1997 that the NSF was going ahead despite this recommendation with its
efforts to participate in the privatization of the crucial functions and
administration of the Internet.
The Memorandum and Report are online at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jrh29/geneva
They are valuable in the current debate over the future of the Internet.
Take care.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:01:18 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Spam here
Greg,
{
{ >Spam is a symptom -- of too many folks who arent thinking about the
{ >*development of this space, only its utility to them at the moment.
{
{ OK
{
{ >That's why the present argument about what should or shouldnt be done
{ >with the DNS is so dismal: it is as if people - on all sides - are
{ >ready and eager to take up polarized positions first -- and (maybe!)
{ >figure out what the implications are afterwards; in any case, not
{ >recognizing that the polarities have been set up for them by their
{ >own negligence of very simple concepts.
{
{ I agree, but there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about it.
{ Some of the people in this debate insist that they be able to do as
{ they please, and are going to take steps to do what they want even if
{ it winds up fragmenting the Internet.
{
Why should the 'unification' of the net be a concern? A cycle or two of
secession and union might well be necessary before a workable consensus
is found on how to keep it together.
As to what can be done: my own preference is towards 'step takers' over
shoulder shruggers; whether they prove to be going the right direction is not
as important as looking even a little ways ahead of their own two feet. After
all, that's how development works, isnt it? What's so great about framing
issues as all or nothing, now or never - as if nothing thereafter will change?
In short, imho the question is not *what is going to happen, but *how: we can
either work to integrate change within the process, or we can stumble from
one dogmatic position to the next, with more or less violent disruptions.
In these terms, the commercialization proposals seem definitely
shortsighted.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:12:31 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Office of Inspector General Report 2/7/97
Jay Hauben quoted the OIG:
> "Internet addresses are a unique public resource. We consider it essential
> that the federal oversight continue to ensure impartial and equitable
> allocation of Internet addresses."
The argument turns on the one word, 'federal.' The crux of the argument is
whether we can see past the *present alternative - corporate structure - to a
globally self-governing netizenry. The straw men in the debate as it seems
to be proceeding is that we have to do something right away because USG
said so, that its a done deal, that the NSF is losing money, that developing
an informed citizenry-at- large is impractical, etc etc.
kerry, hoping to be informed
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:52:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Spam here
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Why should the 'unification' of the net be a concern? A cycle or
>two of secession and union might well be necessary before a workable
>consensus is found on how to keep it together.
It is of concern to me as a user. I derive value from the net by
being able to use it easily. It was not so easy to use back before
DNS, because there were various types of addressing mechanisms, with
crude methods employed to convert between them (some needing to be
done by hand). I see us heading back in that direction, which might
be a good thing in terms of letting people do whatever they feel is
necessary, but it won't be a good thing in terms of making the net
easier to use for everyone.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 01:28:35 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
> ...There are people online who
> actively contribute towards the development of the Net. These people
> understand the value of collective work and the communal aspects of
> public communications. These are the people who discuss and debate
> topics in a constructive manner, who e-mail answers to people and
> provide help to new-comers, who maintain FAQ files and other public
> information repositories, who maintain mailing lists, and so on.
> These are people who discuss the nature and role of this new
> communications medium. These are the people who as citizens of the
> Net, I realized were Netizens.
>
> So, it does not matter what types of tools one uses to contribute to
> the Net; all that matters is that the contribution help others in some
> way. So, by extension, Microsoft is helping contribute to the net,
> because it is creating tools that can be used to help others contribute to
> the net.
Ronda's point is the people, not the tools. If you look at objects, there is no
way to separate them, but no tool has yet produced a new tool by itself. It's
people who create new tools by using the old ones - and finding their
limitations.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 01:28:35 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Spam here
Greg,
> I derive value from the net by
> being able to use it easily. It was not so easy to use back before
> DNS, because there were various types of addressing mechanisms, with
> crude methods employed to convert between them (some needing to be
> done by hand). I see us heading back in that direction, which might
> be a good thing in terms of letting people do whatever they feel is
> necessary, but it won't be a good thing in terms of making the net
> easier to use for everyone.
>
Do you remember learning to work square root problems by hand? Of
course it's not the 'easy' way to get the solution - a calculator does it ever so
much more conveniently - but it's a darn good way to learn what going on,
mathematically.
As youre doubtless coming to expect ;-), here's some more thoughts on the
topic:
Learning what's going on in this way can be, and often is, described as
'being able to get along when the calculator isnt available.' Certainly that's an
instance of *when one might apply the learning specifically, but I think there's
more to learning than merely being a back-up system (which is coming to
mean, 'until the system is back up'!)
Learning in general is the process by which one *succeeds oneself. It is not
just 'being prepared' for a 'productive' job; nor is it just 'accessing information.'
It is the process of 'bootstrapping' -- one of the more valid metaphors to
have been adopted in the computer world -- of reaching beyond the present,
whether that is construed in terms of organismic maturation, or synaptic
organization, or 'operational' preparedness.
The specific axe I'm grinding these days is that the Internet is, first and
foremost, a learning device. It makes available to *anyone*, regardless of
their prior state of knowledge, 'access' to another state. Old hands like to
chaff the newbies -- because that's what old hands have always done -- but
the fact remains, we were all newbies once, and the present newbies will be
old hands in their turn *as long as the system actively functions as a learning
device* (call it a medium if you like, imo, the distinction is moot).
Commercialism, in contrast, deals in the status quo. 'Give people what they
want,' is the marketer's byword -- not, 'what they *will* want,' because that is
not 'optimizing the (present) market potential' -- indeed, it undermines the
strategy of 'positioning' oneself as the 'leader' who will *tell* people what they
will want (when the 'product' is ready for release, which is to say, when the
present market is 'saturated'). In effect, commercialism is divisive and dis-
integrative); while it admittedly conditions the 'players' to move ahead, it
conditions everybody else to wait for instructions.' (Thus we now have 'plug
and play' software installation -- some of which, btw, is no different than
command-line procedures with a GUI -- where there could have been a short
course in *learning what needs to happen within the system. Is it *better*
software? No. Is it a better sytem? No. Does it sell? You bet.)
- ----
But that's just an off-the-cuff rant. I want to bring to your attention a fine, and
still current, instance of commercialism at work:
(found at http://www.rafi.org/translator/termtrans.html)
"The Terminator will be used to kill seeds and force farmers to return to buy
seed again every year. It will deny farmers their role and rights to save seed
and improve plants, particularly jeopardizing farmers positions in times of
environmental and economic duress. In addition, ... the Terminator is a
platform technology... upon which proprietary genetic traits will be loaded.
Initially, this means herbicide tolerance and Bt resistance. However, the
Terminator technique that can activate or de-activate the ability of a seed to
germinate may also be used in increasingly complex ways..."
Yes, if we define a farmer as being merely the custodian of Monsanto's
seeds while they are unavoidably out in the open, then, I absolutely agree,
the corporation has every right to protect its investment in " biotech crops
that deliver superior value." But the farmers were there first, and lots of em
think they not only have a *right to sustain themselves and their
communities, but they are *competent to do so. They think farming is a full
way of life, not a job.
Well sure, says M, Inc, we're not averse to that, they're free to grow whatever
crop they choose, and cultivate it and market it however they like, and save
the seeds if they want. Just not *our seeds, in *our market, says the 2nd
largest seed company in the world...
If you get my drift, should we be any more sanguine about the prospects for
'free' speech than about 'free' agriculture?
kerry
"If the way we think of change is limited by imagining things very much like
the ones we know (even if 'better'), or by confining ourselves to doing what we
know how to implement, then we deprive ourselves of participation in the
evolution of the future. It will creep up on us and take us unawares."
- -- Seymour Papert,
www.milkenexchange.org/feature/papert.html
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #202
******************************
