Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 179
Netizens-Digest Thursday, October 8 1998 Volume 01 : Number 179
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Suggestion that I should add a timetable to my DNS proposal?
RE: [netz] Testimony submitted into the record-Oct 7 - house hear ing on DNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 03:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Suggestion that I should add a timetable to my DNS proposal?
One of the comments I have received about how to improve my
proposal to the U.S. Govt about the DNS and essential functions
of the Internet is that I should add a timetable to it.
I wondered what others thought about this suggestion and if
there are any other suggestions.
Following is the email making this suggestion from Achmed
>I have read your proposal on the webpages of the Department of
>Commerce and I think, in general, this is good. What I missed
>was an exemplary timetable or a sort of time-determining
>realization model (work plan) for the research project you
>intended to inflict on them. Is it possible to add such
>a work plan as an appendix to your existing proposal at the
>Department of Commerce? If so you should work out such one;
>but if this is too difficult for you, you should integrate
>some other persons from "netizens" or elewere into this
>elaboration to help you.
What do others think?
Also any other comments on the proposal or how to improve
it?
Ronda
The proposal is at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html
and french version is
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben-fr.htm
Comments can be sent to the NTIA or/and netizens list.
Comments sent to the NTIA are sent to
dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:07:25 +0200
From: Arie Verburgh <ariev@social.mpu.gov.za>
Subject: RE: [netz] Testimony submitted into the record-Oct 7 - house hear ing on DNS
Dear Ronda
I hope your plea will be successful.
Arie Verburgh
Mpumalanga, South Africa.
> ----------
> From: Ronda Hauben[SMTP:ronda@panix.com]
> Sent: 08 October 1998 09:10
> To: list@ifwp.org
> Cc: netizens@columbia.edu
> Subject: [netz] Testimony submitted into the record-Oct 7 - house
> hearing on DNS
>
>
> When I heard that the House subcommittee on Basic Research
> was going to have a hearing on Oct. 7 I asked to submit
> testimony into the record and was told that wasn't
> possible.
>
> Then on Monday the staffer in charge of the hearing told me
> I could submit something into the record.
>
> That left only a day to work on something.
>
> Here's what I sent to the House Science Committee
> Subcommittee on Basic Research via email today and I
> also handed in a copy when I was there for the hearing.
>
> I have made one correction here with regard to what
> I submitted.
>
> The mission of the hearing was to talk about the proposals
> received by the NTIA on the DNS. Only one proposal was
> discussed and almost all the witnesses said they hadn't
> read any of the others. On the notice of the heaing
> all it mentioned were two proposals.
>
> And at the hearing the Committee people and witnesses
> talked about how to implement the Postel/Sims(?) proposal,
> with no concern that there were two other proposals
> submitted and that the Postel/Sims(?) proposal was
> created thru a closed door and silence everyone process.
>
> When the NTIA official was asked about what process there
> would be for the proposals she said that the NTIA would
> look at the comments and review the proposals. However
> the actions of the Committee and the witnesses was to
> act as if there was only one proposal that was already
> being implemented.
>
> The testimony I submitted follows.
>
> I welcome comments.
>
> Ronda
> ronda@panix.com
>
>
> -------------------
>
>
> Testimony before the
>
> Subcommittee on Basic Research
>
> and
>
> Subcommittee on Technology
>
> of the
>
> Committee on Science
>
> on the subject of
>
> Internet Domain Names
>
>
> Rayburn House Office Building
>
> U.S. House of Representatives
>
> Washington, D.C. 20515
>
> by
>
> Ronda Hauben
>
> researcher, writer,
>
> co-author Netizens: On the History and Impact of
>
> Usenet and the Internet
>
> Published 1997 by IEEE Computer Society Press
>
>
> October 7, 1998
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> I am pleased to be invited to submit testimony to the House
> Science Subcommittee on Basic Research and Subcommittee on
> Technology on the subject of whether the Domain Names System and
> related essential functions of the Internet should be transferred
> from U.S. Government oversight into a private sector corporate
> entity.
>
> My name is Ronda Hauben. I am co-author of the book Netizens: On
> the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet published in
> May 1997 by the I.E.E.E. Computer Society Press. I am also an
> editor and writer for the Amateur Computerist newsletter which
> has covered the history and importance of the Internet since
> 1988.
>
> I have studied and taught computer programming and have
> participated online since 1988 and on Usenet since 1992.
>
> Also I submitted the proposal "The Internet an International
> Public Treasure" to Ira Magaziner and the U.S. Department of
> Commerce at the request of Mr. Magaziner based on the concerns I
> presented to him about the narrow phrasing of the question of the
> transfer of the Domain Name System to the private sector. I also
> responded to the Green Paper and submitted comments expressing
> concern that the general nature of the Internet and its history
> and traditions, and its nature as a communication medium were
> being lost sight of in the Framework for Electronic Commerce
> issued by Mr. Magaziner and his staff and in the Green Paper and
> subsequent White paper. And I attended the Geneva IFWP meeting in
> July 1998 and wrote up an account of what happened in an article
> "Report from the Front: Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the
> Internet DNS and Root Server System".(1)
>
> The proposal that I wrote and submitted to Mr. Magaziner on
> September 4, 1998, is now one of the three proposals that has
> been posted at the U.S. Department of Commerce web site by the
> NTIA with a request for comments.
>
> As you can see from my proposal I have found your hearing process
> valuable and have referred to testimony given by one of the
> witnesses in this matter in the Preface to my proposal. I want to
> commend the committee for both holding these hearings and for
> putting the testimony received on the committee's web site. I
> want to make a further recommendation, however. I want to
> recommend that you explore having an online discussion group.
> There the public could comment on the issues before the committee
> and on the testimony received or offer additional information or
> viewpoints into the public record so that you will have a broader
> set of information and viewpoints to influence your
> deliberations, especially when those deliberations concern the
> operation and future of the Internet. I hope that after you hear
> the rest of my comments you will understand better why this is so
> important.
>
> HISTORY OF INTERNET
>
> First, I would like to offer a bit of history of how the Internet
> came to be and I will endeavor to show how knowing this history
> will be helpful in determining how to evaluate the proposals
> before the NTIA.
>
> Then I will provide some recommendations toward the policy
> decision that this Committee and the NTIA are proposing to make.
>
> The Internet is a product of several significant and successful
> research projects that were conducted under funding from the
> Advance Projects Research Agency (DoD) in the 1960s and 1970s.
>
> One of the earliest of these projects is perhaps one of the most
> important in its relevance to the problem before this committee
> today. That project was the creation and support for interactive
> computing and time-sharing. In 1962-3, a computer scientist and
> engineering researcher, J. C. R. Licklider was invited to join
> ARPA and to begin the Information Processing Techniques Office
> (IPTO). At that time the common form of computing available was
> known as batch processing using large mainframe computers.
> Someone who wanted to run a program would bring a stack of punch
> cards to a computer center and return several hours later or the
> next day to retrieve the printout that the program generated to
> see if the program achieved the desired aim.
>
> Needless to say this was a cumbersome and frustrating means of
> using a computer. J.C.R. Licklider and the time-sharing projects
> that ARPA subsequently funded set out to change the form of
> computing and to make it possible for an individual to be able to
> type his or her own program into a computer and to achieve the
> results of the program immediately. This new type of computing
> that they created was called time-sharing. Relying on the speed
> of the computer, these computer pioneers were able to set up a
> series of different terminals for use by users who were all able
> to utilize the computer at the same time. As a result of time-
> sharing systems, multiple users were able to interact directly
> with a computer simultaneously.
>
> One of the projects funded by J.C.R. Licklider was called the
> Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS). It was part of the project
> funded at MIT by ARPA which was known as Project MAC.
>
> There were several important surprises that the pioneers of
> Project MAC reported from their research into time-sharing.
>
> 1) They didn't have to rely on professional programmers to do
> much of the needed programming for their time-sharing system.
> What they found was that the participants in the project would
> create programs and tools for their own use and then make them
> available to others using CTSS.
>
> 2) A community of users developed as a result of the ways that
> people contributed their work to be helpful to each other.
>
> 3) CTSS made it possible for users to customize the computing
> system to their own needs. Thus the general capabilities
> available provided a way for the individual user to create the
> diversity of computing applications or programs that this diverse
> community of users needed.
>
> As a result of this project, the researchers realized that once
> you could connect a remote terminal to a time-sharing system, you
> could develop a network with people spread out over large
> geographical distances.
>
> The networks that developed as a result of the research in time-
> sharing provided working prototypes and also a vision that
> would help to guide the next stage in the development of
> networking technology. The effort to improve the throughput of
> data across telephone lines led to ARPA supported research in
> packet switching and the funding of the ARPANET research to use
> packet switching to link up the computers that were part of
> ARPA's research program.(2)
>
> The next piece of history that is important to consider is the
> period during which the early Internet was formed. In 1981/1982 a
> mailing list was begun on the ARPANET. This mailing list was
> called the TCP/IP Disgest and the moderator was Mike Muuss, a
> research computer scientist at the U.S. Army Ballistics Research
> Laboratory (BRL). The BRL during this period was one of the DARPA
> sites making the transition from an early ARPANET protocol, NCP
> to TCP/IP, which was to be the protocol suite that would make an
> Internet possible.
>
> By 1983 the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP had occurred and this
> made possible a particularly relevant event for the matters under
> consideration by this committee. That event was the separation of
> MILNET and the ARPANET into two independent networks to create an
> Internet. This split would allow MILNET to be devoted to the
> operational activities of the Department of Defense. And those on
> the ARPANET would be able to continue to pursue network research
> activities. Gateways between the two networks would provide
> inter-networking communication.(3)
>
> This gets us to a definition utilized in 1974 by Louis Pouzin,
> who had worked on CTSS at MIT and then returned to France to work
> on creating a packet switching network that was called Cyclades.
> Computer science researcher, Louis Pouzin, defined an internet as
> a network of independent networks. (He called "an aggregate of
> networks [which would] behave like a single logical network" a
> CATENET. DARPA adopted his concept as the goal of the research
> project it was supporting).(4)
>
> Each network could determine for itself what it would do
> internally, but each recognized the need to accept a minimum
> agreement so that it would be possible to connect with others who
> were part of the diverse networks that made up the Internet.
>
> RECOMMENDATIONS
>
> I have taken the time to review these two important developments
> in internetworking history because these two developments are at
> the foundation of the design of the current Internet as we know
> it today.
>
> These two developments highlight what is so special and
> particular about the Internet.
>
> The Internet that has grown up and developed is a continuation of
> the time-sharing interactive communities of users and computers
> where users contribute to and are in effect the architects of the
> network that they are part of. Also this understanding leads to
> another significant aspect. That is that this system of human-
> computer networking partnerships has a regenerative quality. New
> connections and programs, and databases or mailing lists are
> contributed by the users themselves. And thus the Internet grows
> and spreads and connects an increasingly larger number of
> computers and users around the world.
>
> The second important aspect is that the Internet architecture and
> design accommodates different needs and capabilities of a diverse
> set of users and user communities. For example, someone in Ghana
> with a 386 or 486 computer and a modem can be connected to and
> send email to someone in a research laboratory in Switzerland
> which has the most modern computer workstations. That is because
> the architecture of the Internet requires the least possible
> equipment and capability to be able to make Internet
> communication possible.
>
> Thus people and computers around the world who are using an
> extremely diverse set of equipment and computing capability are
> able to interact and communicate.
>
> I have taken the time to describe these general features of the
> Internet for a few reasons. The first reason is that this is what
> is so precious about the Internet and this is what I believe
> needs to be understood and protected when considering any change
> that may be contemplated in how the Internet is controlled,
> managed or operated.
>
> Any change in the minimal requirement that makes communication
> possible across the independent networks that make up the
> Internet can obsolete thousands of computers and many more users
> around the world and thereby jeopardize the connectivity and
> global communication that the Internet has achieved.
>
> Any change in the ability of users to represent themselves and to
> utilize the Internet for their diverse purposes and to contribute
> to what is available to others on the Internet, (as long as this
> does not put demands on others on the Internet), any such change
> can deprive millions of users of the Internet of the general form
> that makes it possible for the Internet to serve the
> communication needs of so many diverse communities of users.
>
> This diversity includes the computer scientists at MIT or the
> high school student in Sydney, Australia. If there are particular
> needs of any one group, such as the security needs of DARPA, or
> the ability to write with Japanese characters of users in Tokyo,
> the architectural design provides that within an individual
> network or several networks such needs can be accommodated,
> without imposing such requirements on the users of other
> networks.
>
> These two principles are important to study and understand
> because they represent what is being violated by the Framework
> for Electronic Commerce prepared by Ira Magaziner and his staff.
> This framework does not treat the Internet as a network of
> independent networks, but instead as a single network that must
> be changed to meet the needs of a particular set of users.
>
> Thus instead of recommending that an independent commercial
> network or a few commercial networks be created as part of the
> Internet to meet the special needs of commercial Internet users,
> Ira Magaziner's framework document requires that the entire
> Internet be changed to meet the particular needs of a particular
> set of users. This is a violation of the concept of an Internet.
>
> My recommendation is that the Framework that Mr. Magaziner has
> created needs to be recast to be a Framework for the Internet as
> a New Means of International Communication. Within that framework
> Mr. Magaziner can describe the particular needs of particular
> communities of users, but these particular needs cannot be
> allowed to replace the generality of the Internet design so that
> other users of other independent networks are being imposed on to
> satisfy the needs of any particular group of users.
>
> The second important precaution is that users must be protected
> to continue to represent themselves and their needs. This is what
> provides for the diversity of what is available on the Internet
> and is the continuation of the culture and regenerative quality
> of the early time-sharing communities. This is what makes it
> possible for a user in Benin for example, to spread the Internet
> to other users there, and for a student in Finland to start the
> linux project that has been developed by thousands of others into
> an operating system that gives Microsoft competition. Those who
> might want a different type of network, as I have heard some
> large corporate entities in the United States explain, as they
> want to be able to more carefully choose who will do what
> functions for them, can do so in their corporate network as part
> of the larger Internet, but they must not be allowed to impose
> their special demands on the larger Internet community. The
> reason for this is that then users in MILNET, for example, will
> be required to do things in their network that do not serve their
> needs, and the concept of an Internet will be violated, leading
> not to the further growth and extension of the Internet, but back
> to a single network, to one that serves only a few commercial
> entities at the great loss to the many other users on the
> Internet.
>
> The other precaution that follows from understanding these
> essential characteristics of the Internet is that commercial
> entities want to carry on certain experiments in how to subject
> various aspects of the Internet to so called "competition". They
> must not be allowed to do this in a way that affects the whole
> Internet, but must be restricted to the particular network that
> they develop for their commercial purposes. Thus the commercial
> corporation that is being planned by the U.S. Government to sell
> off parts of the Internet's essential functions must not be
> allowed to control anything but its own commercenet. Those who
> are interested in such experimentation should be advised that
> they will have to form their own network which can be connected
> to the Internet, but that such experiments can only go on inside
> their own network, and cannot be imposed on the rest of the users
> of the Internet.
>
> To do otherwise is to jeopardize the fact that only a minimal
> requirement is necessary for all to connect to the Internet and
> this is only that which makes the communication across the many
> independent networks that make up the Internet possible. To do
> otherwise will mean the obsoleting of many machines and cutting
> their users off from communication with the rest of those on the
> Internet.
>
> Thus the corporation that IANA and NSI have designed, or that the
> Boston Group has proposed must not be allowed to take over the
> essential functions of the entire Internet. Instead such
> corporate activity needs to be restricted to an independent
> commercial network that can be part of the Internet but cannot be
> allowed to impose its special requirements on the others who use
> the Internet. This might mean that the .com machines will become
> part of a .com network, and would be able to communicate with
> others on the Internet, but not impose their "for sale" and
> speculative practices on the users in the educational or
> scientific communities who make up much of the Internet.
>
> Before there are any plans to change the form or structure or
> management of the Internet, it is crucial that there be an
> assessment of the special characteristics and functionality that
> must be preserved and a plan created for how to be certain that
> this is done.
>
> Since both the IANA/NSI proposal and the Boston Group proposal
> are for structures that are to be limited to a commercial
> network, and not imposed on the Internet itself, how then can the
> essential functions of the Internet be administered in a way that
> represents the cooperative and international nature of the
> Internet itself?
>
> My proposal provides for a prototype cooperative research program
> involving researchers in any country or region that agree to
> participate. These researchers who will be part of this program
> are to be responsible for carrying out the investigation and
> inquiry among online users to determine the general
> characteristics and functions so that they can propose a plan to
> safeguard these crucial characteristics and functions.
>
> There is one final lesson from the history and development of the
> Internet that it is important to consider when trying to
> determine how to form a more international system for protecting
> and administering the essential functions of the Internet
> represented by the Domain Name System, IP numbers etc.
>
> Usenet was begun in the 1979-80 period by graduate students who
> were part of the Unix community. The invitation to join Usenet
> which was handed out at the January 1980 Usenix conference
> explained why it was crucial to develop an online network,
> not to form committees. They describe why it was crucial for
> those who were interested in developing Usenet to actually use
> the network, so that they "will know what the real problems are."
> It is with this goal in mind that I created the design in my
> proposal for a prototype where researchers from a diverse set of
> nations or regions will utilize the Internet to figure out how to
> create the necessary cooperative, protective forms and processes
> to administer and support the essential functions of the
> Internet. Just as adhering to the principle of relying on "using
> Usenet" made it possible to grow Usenet, so the principle of
> using the Internet will make it possible to scale the Internet
> and create a means for a shared oversight of the essential
> functions and to solve the problems that arise along the way.
>
> The Internet is the symbol and manifestation of hope for people
> around the world. As more and more people communicate on a
> worldwide basis. the foundation is increasingly set to find
> peaceful and productive ways to solve the many serious problems
> that exist in the world today. Also, however, this vision has its
> enemies. But the U.S. Government has the proud distinction of
> being the midwife of the achievement of achievement of the 20th
> Century represented by the development of the Internet. If there
> are those in the U.S. Government who recognize the importance and
> respect that comes from giving birth to the communications system
> that has spread around the world with such amazing tenacity and
> determination, they must find the means to treat the decisions
> and changes needed to further develop the Internet with the proper
> care and concern.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Footnotes:
>
> (1) http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt
>
> (2) See chapter 6 "Cybernetics, Time-Sharing, Human-Computer
> Symbiosis and Online Communities" in Netizens: On the History and
> Impact of Usenet and the Internet, IEEE Computer Science Press,
> 1997. A draft is available at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
>
> (3) Describing this transition, Vint Cerf wrote:
>
> "The basic objective of this project is to establish a model and
> a set of rules which will allow data networks of varying internal
> operation to be interconnected, permitting uses to access remote
> resources and to permit inter-computer communication across the
> connected networks.
>
> (4) Louis Pouzin, "A Proposal for interconnecting packet
> switching networks," Eurocomp Conference Proceedings, 1974, p.
> 1023.
>
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #179
******************************
