Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 200
Netizens-Digest Monday, November 2 1998 Volume 01 : Number 200
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] On the conversion to corporate rule
[netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 19:19:48 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] On the conversion to corporate rule
"The Bank Mergers in Canada are part of the transition to Corporate Rule.
The run on our dollar, the diversion of unemployment insurance funds to be
pay down Canada's debt to the Banks, the abandonment of our sovereign
capacity to create and control our own monetary system, the death throes
of our Canadian Broadcasting System, of our hospitalization, of our medicare
and pharmacare, of our entire social safety net, ... -- all this is a part of the
transition to Corporate Rule."
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 17:49:00 -0800
To: cfogal@netcom.ca
From: CONNIE FOGAL <cfogal@netcom.ca>
Subject: Oct 26/98 application adjourned T-790-98
OCTOBER 30/98 REPORT FROM:
The Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee/le Comite' de la liberte'Canadien
Action Number T-790-98 Federal Court of Canada
Our October 26,1998 application in Federal Court to compel the Federal
Government to answer questions it refused to answer HAS BEEN
ADJOURNED at the request of the Federal Government to allow the federal
government more time to prepare its defence to the application. The New
Date is yet to be confirmed.
The request for and the granting of the adjournment is a clear indication that
the federal government takes our case very seriously.
The heart of our application is an attack on the lack of transparency in the
way the executive branch of our Canadian government commits Canada's
citizens to agreements that bring about profound changes on our societal
rules and our Constitution.
The issues addressed in our application:
1. Whether the Respondents are entitled to refuse to answer questions put
to them and refused on the cross-examination of the affidavit of the
respondents filed with the Court and refuse production of documents
requested?
2. Whether the Cabinet and solicitor -client privilege asserted by the
Respondents' counsel exists and applies in this case?
3. a) Whether, notwithstanding 2 above, the Constitution Acts, 1867 and
1982, compel the answering of those and subsequent questions and
production of documents to comply with the constitutional review of Cabinet
acts and decisions and the constitutional authority of Cabinet to negotiate
the treaty?
b) if the answer to a) is yes, what procedure is to be employed?
4. Whether this application ought to be converted to a trial?
5. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file a supplementary
record?
6. Whether the January 19th and 20th,1998 date for the hearing of this
judicial review:
a) be converted into a trial?or
b) be adjourned?
For all those who are comforted by the newest delay in the MAI negotiations
or the probable move to the WTO, remember that the MAI is simply a
codification and legitimation of a process unfolding at an accelerating rate
around the world. The abrogation of National Sovereign power and
replacement by Corporate Rule, the destruction of economies and the
impoverishment of peoples is happening, as economist Michel Chossodovky
says, in a way and rate unprecedented in history- in countries like Korea, the
old Yugoslavia, Russia, Indonesia, and in process in Brazil, and Japan.
Canada's chief negotiator has made it very clear that Canada intends the
MAI to be an extension to and modelled from the NAFTA. Sergio Marchi,
Canada's Trade Minister, has made it very clear that the investment
provisions of the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) which mirror
the MAI are to be fast tracked. Some information exists that the FTAA is
ready for an Order in Council in Canada.
The Bank Mergers in Canada are part of the transition to Corporate Rule. The
run on our dollar, the diversion of unemployment insurance funds to be pay
down Canada's debt to the Banks, the abandonment of our sovereign
capacity to create and control our own monetary system, the death throes
of our Canadian Broadcasting System, of our hospitalization, of our medicare
and pharmacare,of our entire social safety net, Canada's Internal Trade
Agreement that incrementally erodes the division of powers enshrined in our
Constitution,the escalating deprivation of Transfer payments from Federal
government to Provincial government, and then to Municipal government- all
this is a part of the transition to Corporate Rule.
Our legal challenge calls into question the very process at work that is
destroying our national being. It is a statement from Canadians that we have
the right enshrined in our Constitution to make our own rules, to decide who
can invest in Canada and under what conditions and terms, to effect and
enforce rules about the movement of capital in and out of this Nation
according to what is good for us. It is a reminder that WE ARE A
SOVEREIGN NATION. It is a call to our elected government to enforce our
laws, our rule of law.
We do not need a new set of international investment rules or an alternative
MAI. We need to maintain and enforce our existing laws,rights and
entitlements. In Canada a corporation gets its life from domestic Law. It only
exists if we allow it to exist. Our Constitution does not permit the elevation of
Corporations to the kind of superior status being effected. The trouble is NO
ONE HAS CALLED THEM ON IT UNTIL NOW.
We need a world that recognizes and enforces the individual nation state
rights first of all to BE A NATION, and then to make their own rules in the
interest of their own people. Once that mind set is back in place, we then
can turn to ways that each nation can help and support the other in the
interest of all peoples' entitlement to be viable, strong and wholesome.
Canada needs to continue to be able to set and enforce high standards of
employment and education for all, environmental and health protections and
care, cultural development,social enrichment, etc, and to be in a position to
encourage other nations to rise to our standards. We must not submit to a
harmonization at the lowest common denominator, i.e. the impoverishment of
the majority.
We need to preserve the democratic right of a representative electoral
process accountable to the citizens, and we need a governing structure that
facilitates that goal. ELEVATING CORPORATIONS TO THE STATUS OF
NATIONS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO.
THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA DOES NOT BELONG EITHER TO
PARLIAMENT, OR TO THE LEGISLATURES; IT BELONGS TO THE
COUNTRY AND IT IS THERE THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY
WILL FIND THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS TO WHICH THEY ARE
ENTITLED....
Supreme Court of Canada, A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R.
pp 32-33
Connie Fogal,applicant, along with the Defence of Canadian Liberty
Committee
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:30:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org> wrote
>Jeff Williams a =E9crit:
>Do you mean in the U.S.? Well, even a change of government here won't
>alter their (U.S.govt-ed) position on the Internet, which is that
>it must continue to be run for American interests.
Which means the interests of large corporations, *not* the interests
of the American people who want an Internet for communications
with others around the world, *not* and Internet that is a
propagandist for large corporate interests of any nation.
The U.S. government position at the moment is hostile to the
position of the U.S. people on the issue of the operation
and growth and development of the Internet.
<...>
>a sort of splitting of the root, and this will be favored by the
>Europeans because it=20 aids them to break the DOC's grip.
>This is the vicious circle that's been set in motion,=20
>and it will get much worse before it gets better, IMHO.
None of these players show *any* concern for the best interests
of the Internet.
That is what this whole situation demonstrates.
But the people of the world *do* care about the Internet and about
the communication that it makes possible to connect them to each other.
It would seem that this helps to explain the collaboration of
the enemies of the Internet to try to fragment it and make that
global communication among the peoples of the world no longer
possible.
(See my testimony to Congress:
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt)
But the battle isn't over yet, and the death of the Net has been
predicted many times before :-)
The Office of Inspector General of the NSF tried to raise a cry
of the trouble that the privatization of the essential functions of
the Internet would all cause, and now Congressman's Bliley's
letter to the Department of Commerce and to Ira Magaziner raises
some of the problems of what has gone on in the name of
privatization. (See my letter to congress
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/letter_to_congress.txt )
The scientific development of the Internet made it possible to
have a cooperative process to solve the problems. Anyone who
cares for the continued growth and development of the Internet
will eventually recognize the need to return to that scientific
process and collaboration to create a way to protect the DNS
and IP numbers and other essential functions of the Internet
from the wrangling and battle of interests.
That's why my proposal needs to be taken seriously, see:
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:49:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
>At 10:30 PM 11/1/98 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
>>Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org> wrote
>>>Do you mean in the U.S.? Well, even a change of government here won't
>>>alter their (U.S.govt-ed) position on the Internet, which is that
>>>it must continue to be run for American interests.
>
>>Which means the interests of large corporations, *not* the interests
>>of the American people who want an Internet for communications
>>with others around the world, *not* and Internet that is a
>>propagandist for large corporate interests of any nation.
>How do you read *that*? Please document your proof. BTW, I am reminded of
>that IBM commercial where e-commerce is meant for business. Whom do you
>think is paying for all this... "Mikey"? I don't think so...
The American people and people around the world through their tax
money and online contributions etc have paid for the Internet.
And it is a public treasure. The Office of Inspector General
of the NSF noted this, the U.S. Federal District Court in
Philadelphia noted the obligaton of the U.S. government to
protect the right of the ordinary people to the Internet.
(In the case overturning the CDA law, and affirmed by the U.S.
Supreme Court)
But the current U.S. govt administration is still trying to
deny there is that right, and you seem to be doing the same.
>>The U.S. government position at the moment is hostile to the
>>position of the U.S. people on the issue of the operation
>>and growth and development of the Internet.
>
>><...>
>
>>>a sort of splitting of the root, and this will be favored by the
>>>Europeans because it=20 aids them to break the DOC's grip.
>>>This is the vicious circle that's been set in motion,=20
>>>and it will get much worse before it gets better, IMHO.
>
>>None of these players show *any* concern for the best interests
>>of the Internet.
> ...and *you* do?
That's for folks to judge.
>>That is what this whole situation demonstrates.
>
>>But the people of the world *do* care about the Internet and about
>>the communication that it makes possible to connect them to each other.
>Yes, and business cares that it has easy access to all those potential
>customers. It is NOT a commercial interest to split the root, unless
>necessary. However, something has GOT to change. The current process is NOT
>cooperative and academe has GOT to realize that those who haven't actually
>RUN a business can NOT be allowed to dictate how e-commerce should be run.
What you say here is important. Users on the Internet are *not* customers.
Therefore, *commercial* interests have *no* use for us.
We want to *communicate* with other users around the world.
That is what the Internet has been developed to make possible.
That is its general function.
If *commercial interests* understood or needed communication, they
wouldn't be trying to insist that uses are customers or that the
Internet must be sacrificed so that so-called *e-commerce* can
take over.
It seems the commercial interests are trying to get rid of the
communication that the Internet makes possible, and the users
who are on the Internet to communicate with others around the
world, and replace this with a commercenet and with those who
are willing to be part of the old paradigm of buying and selling.
There have been many efforts all the time the Internet was
being developed of commercial interests to create buying
and selling nets.
None of these developed. The Internet as a communication network
of networks developed.
Now the commercial interests are saying we want the Internet.
But there is a reason that none of the buying and selling networks
developed, but that the Internet developed.
People want to communicate online, not to buy and sell.
.
>>It would seem that this helps to explain the collaboration of
>>the enemies of the Internet to try to fragment it and make that
>>global communication among the peoples of the world no longer
>>possible.
>There are no enemies of the Internet, on the Internet. You've been in
>academe too long. Wake up and smell the flowers. Start a company, get a
>*real* education. Business people are NOT as pirahna-minded as you seem to
>think. Most of us are decent, honest, and even ethical folks. Get rid of
>that us-vs-them mentality. It's excess bagage. I might enjoin Mr. Sondow
>with similar words.
One of the reports posted on MsgGroup mailing list in the 1970's pointed
out that there would be those commercial entities who felt that
the Internet (the ARPANET at that time) would obsolete some of their
business or infrastructure and that they would try to fight
against the network developing.
That is what it seems is happening today.
The Internet is creating new means of communication for people
of the world so that they can critique bad business practices
and problems with government. Obviously there are those in
powerful positions, or with vested interests, like publishers
who aren't happy at the sight of people posting content, rather
than buying their content.
Thus the users of the Internet are being confronted with an
assault by those who want the status quo to continue, or at
least something that will maintain the current power of the
few over the many.
Any legitimate business could set up its own network and connect
or *not* connect it to the Internet, as it wished.
If it connects to the Internet, it needs to abide by the
common agreements necessary to be part of the Internet,
*not* impose on the Internet business requirements.
I explain that in the testimony I submitted to Congress which
is available at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt
However that is not what you or the White paper are proposing.
>>The scientific development of the Internet made it possible to
>>have a cooperative process to solve the problems. Anyone who
>>cares for the continued growth and development of the Internet
>>will eventually recognize the need to return to that scientific
>>process and collaboration to create a way to protect the DNS
>>and IP numbers and other essential functions of the Internet
>>from the wrangling and battle of interests.
>That is a fine statement, were it to meet the needs of e-commerce and
>therefore the Internet, as used outside of academe. However,
The needs of the Internet are *not* the same as the needs of
e-commerce. As I outlined above, if a company has a particular
need, it can set up its own network, and decide to connect or
not to the Internet.
But you are claiming that the only what fulfills the needs
of *e-commerce* can fulfill the needs of the Internet.
That is subordinating the general nature of the Internet
to the specific needs of e-commerce and is the opposite
of what is needed.
>>That's why my proposal needs to be taken seriously, see:
>>http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
>... as I quote your own words ...
>>What is needed is a way to protect the technology of the Internet
>>from commercial and political pressures, so as to create a means
>>of sharing administration of the key DNS functions and the root
>>server system.
>This is exactly what created the current failure. IANA was so insulated
>that it *still* doesn't see the next-step in e-commerce, secured
>networks....the Internet isn't. How about the erosion of TLD charters
>caused by failure to respond to market demands for increased name-space?
This wasn't the problem of IANA and isn't now. IANA was a contractor
for the government. There is a requirement by the U.S. government
that that contractor privatize. That is the problem that IANA has
faced.
The U.S. government has *no* valid reason to be requiring the
privatization of IANA.
It is obligated to protect the public resources and assets that
have been developed that IANA has been contracted to administer.
These public resources of the domain name system, the IP numbers
and the root server system and protocols of the Internet
are essential Internet functions. They have *nothing* to
do with the particular use of the Internet for *e-commerce*.
The problem is that the NSF didn't administer its contracts
appropriately, as the Office of Inspector General of the NSF
pointed out. And that the NSF allowed the charging of profit
making fees for domain names and the speculation of domain
names and the registration by those without legitimate names
or addresses and telephone numbers of domain names.
Domain name registration is an administration function like
getting a driver's license and should be handled by government
entities as such.
>Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
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: 02 Nov 1998 12:21:08 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Wrangling over the Internet vrs Cooperative Processes
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> writes:
> >How do you read *that*? Please document your proof. BTW, I am reminded of
> >that IBM commercial where e-commerce is meant for business. Whom do you
> >think is paying for all this... "Mikey"? I don't think so...
>
> The American people and people around the world through their tax
> money and online contributions etc have paid for the Internet.
And that's an important point, which is forgotten too often (not only
for the Internet, btw).
> >Yes, and business cares that it has easy access to all those potential
> >customers. It is NOT a commercial interest to split the root, unless
> >necessary. However, something has GOT to change. The current process is NOT
> >cooperative and academe has GOT to realize that those who haven't actually
> >RUN a business can NOT be allowed to dictate how e-commerce should be run.
Well, the fact that businesses have been allowed onto the net was more
of a favour than anything else. If you are a guest somewhere, you have
to admit your hosts' rules. The fact of being in their house doesn't
give you the right to rule the way it is run...
Moreover, I haven't got the impression that many restrictions
have been imposed onto businesses this far.
Another point: not allowing outside people to rule how businesses are
to be run would mean that politicians haven't got that right
either.I'm sure you see the implications of such statements.
> What you say here is important. Users on the Internet are *not* customers.
Not of the 'net, at least.
> Therefore, *commercial* interests have *no* use for us.
Hmmm....if if could help lowering public expenditure, it could be
interesting. But this could also be achieved by making businesses pay
to be on the net. Sell them bandwidth, instead of giving them
control over the whole thing !
> We want to *communicate* with other users around the world.
>
> That is what the Internet has been developed to make possible.
>
> That is its general function.
What the corporations want is communication too :)
And let's admit that the general function of the 'Net is constantly
evolving. If it were frozen, we still wouldn't have ISPs. And I'm
quite happy to be able to order products in the US for half the price
they would cost me here (and, moreover, tax free ;) )
>
> It seems the commercial interests are trying to get rid of the
> communication that the Internet makes possible, and the users
> who are on the Internet to communicate with others around the
> world,
Erm, why would they want to get rid of this ? Do you really think
people would pay for Internet access *only* to be "e-customers" ? I
don't think that corporations would be stupid enough to break that
wonderful tool by chasing users (i.e. potential customers) off it.
> and replace this with a commercenet and with those who
> are willing to be part of the old paradigm of buying and selling.
Let's face it: internet users are *not* amongst the poorest people of
each country. I don't think it is right to spend public money to
finance the leisures of the priviledged. There are certainly better
ways to spend that money.
> The Internet is creating new means of communication for people
> of the world so that they can critique bad business practices
> and problems with government. Obviously there are those in
> powerful positions, or with vested interests, like publishers
> who aren't happy at the sight of people posting content, rather
> than buying their content.
Certainly. And, in that respect, the Internet *is* a victory over
those people. And this should be protected. OTOH, the 'Net also serves
to publish copyrighted stuff and to exchange license numbers for
software, etc. This is not right and the Internet authorities haven't
done much against it this far. I can quite understand those who
complain about that fact.
> If it connects to the Internet, it needs to abide by the
> common agreements necessary to be part of the Internet,
> *not* impose on the Internet business requirements.
Exactly !
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #200
******************************
