Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 272
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, February 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 272
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
[netz] Re: CCL-LLC
Re: [netz] Internet Pioneers
[netz] Just in case...
Re: [netz] Internet Pioneers
[netz] Asia-pacific forum for ICANN, DNSO, etc (fwd
[netz] Asia-pacific forum for ICANN, DNSO, etc (fwd
[netz] Jesse's Treatise -- Netizens to Elect Next President?
[netz] NTIA public meeting in March on administration us domain
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Corporate Sponsorship of NewCorp? No
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:05:16 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
Bob,
> > it does seem like the 'infrastructure' is in place for
> > a tree of auditable information.
>
> Unfortunately our friendly neighbourhood ISP
> is no more/less trustworthy than the local
> supermarket or used car dealer.
...
> In my opinion we will have to come up with
> our own way to verify identity. We can't even
> trust governments world wide to do our work
> for us.
"Everybody's gotta be on somebody's bond." Are you saying you
don't trust anybody? (If so, I'm sorry for you.) ISPs would register
the same as anybody else, and their operation would be registered
as a repository of neighborhood addresses as well. Yes, there are
security issues, but between encryption and plain data analysis
(e.g. of systematic
'voting' patterns) I think they can be settled.
> The result of that in nations that do
> not believe in universal sufferage will be a
> whole bunch of really cool people sitting in
> jails, being beaten in the streets and maybe
> even worse. There must be a way but it ain't
> through governments that are more often than
> not oppressive, bogus and downright murderous.
>
> Suggestions?
The best person to protect your rights as an individual is you;
'government' is not a problem but a convenience where that
tautology is admitted. The bogies you raise are the consequence of
a social system in which individuals have delegated their rights for
so long that they have let them be delegated right away. (Do I
sound libertarian ;-?)
But the 'solution' is not less government per se, but more
*responsible govt; that is, we cannot regard it as something 'out
there,' psychologically displaced and independent of ourselves as
citizens, but as a mechanism which responds to us and our
expressions of rights and needs. Integrating that mechanism into
ones life means 'governing' all the way through the system, from
the 'responsible' language one uses to the 'responsible' company
one keeps to the 'responsible' selection of a person (or
organization) to represent one's beliefs in forums where *collective
changes are to be made.
As you might suspect, my suggestion is at odds with 'top-down'
structuring for any purpose. Is there a present problem of
'administration' of a system? Then the first agendum of those who
perceive it is to *make it recognizable* by everyone involved, so
that *they can determine its role, its mechanisms, channels,
obligations, etc. Is there great difficulty in imagining that 'they' can
work through to a solution? Then the first step in implementing the
agendum is to provide the tools for the work. Are those tools a bit
complicated? Then the first task of implementation is (you guessed
it) to make them recognizable as tools -- and so on, all the way
down, until 'those who perceive' are talking with those who dont in
language which is understood by all. At that point 'verification of
identity' (or 'enforcement') is a moot point, because everybody is
looking after themselves, taking care, all the phrases which have
been suborned and distorted by a concept of 'government' (or
'education' or 'parenting') which has really been doing the looking
after and the 'caring' *for* them.
Can we get there from here? That I think is the question of the day;
the problem which most urgently needs to be addressed. But what
earthly sense does it make for *us* to wait for 'the administration'
to tell us that they have finally 'identifed' it? Havent we got the
tools? Dont we understand how to use them? Or have we been
bamboozled, befuddled, sidetracked into 'exploring solutions' which
only defer the issue, in the same way that ICANN has deferred
public representation to the SO, and DNSO will defer it to
'commercial entities'?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:05:16 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: CCL-LLC
> Date sent: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:26:30 -0700
> To: tranet@igc.apc.org
> From: Michael Reber <reber@neptune.kanazawa-it.ac.jp>
> Subject: Re: CCL-LLC
...
> As many groups as possible should be involved in such discussions;
> however, I am concern about the framework within which such
> discussions would take place. I have proposed framing the
> discussions around the knowledge that has accumulated over the years
> about human development. This scholarship should point us toward the
> direction of establishing a framework that values individuals for
> who they are and discusses how we can create educational
> environments that nurture the innate potentials of individuals. If
> such a conference (forum) were to take place, it could occur on
> three levels: theory, methodology, and application.
>
> In addition, the forum would address the issue that you raise
> below concerning management. Should a CLC be a private based center
> or public, and if public, how?
I am struck by the close parallels to the current discussions
regarding the new Internet administration (ICANN). At the
application level, people agree it should 'nurture the innate
potentials' of the net; but most of the traffic is concerned with the
methodology -- the structure of the 'supporting organizations' and
whether the system should be self-supporting and so on. Almost
entirely absent is any regard for theory.
I have also been reading James Bailey's _After Thought: The
computer challenge to human intelligence_ ( NY: Basic Books,
1996), which argues for 'intermaths' --
"Much of what we need to forget in life we learned in kindergarten.
It is there, for example, that we learned to think of 'sharing' in terms
of using a scarce piece of hardware, like a toy truck or
supercomputer center, one at a time sequentially, as opposed to
sharing a piece of software like a song all together in parallel....
Charles Babbage scoffed at the idea of 10000 people cooperating
in a task, yet thousands of students in projects such as 'Live from
the Stratosphere' (
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/livefrom/stratosphere.html ) are already
beginning to work together electronically, perhaps because they
are too young to know it is impossible.
"Beginning to find patterns in the vast amounts of data becoming
available about life on earth may require tens of thousands of
computers singing the songs of the new maths in parallel each
night...
"Home computers will have another advantage that the Connection
Machine [64000-unit parallel processor] did not have: individual
human owners to coach them along and contribute clever ideas
and diversity of their own. Participants need not all sing in tune, nor
even sing the same tune. It is the old sequential mode of thought
that puts the premium on uniformity..." (pp 204-5)
Now he's painting his picture in terms of 'science,' but I think that
he's just trying to keep things simple -- obviously it is equally
pertinent to think about intermaths as a way to sustain 'individual
cleverness and diversity' itself (i.e. the process we call education),
but such 'reflexivity' muddles the distinctions between theory and
methodology and application, and thus rather tends to put off us
sequential-minded folk.
But once we start to think about 'community learning' and (in Ron
Miller's words)
> whether the community at large could provide such learning
> centers, rather than their being the property of small clusters of
> like-minded people,
dont we also have to talk about 'distributed education' and the
(very!) large community at the same time? It seems to me Bailey's
vision provides a workable context for both of these 'ends of the
spectrum' (not to mention 'good citizenship' and environmental
responsibility and yes, drug addiction) -- that is, his sort of 'theory-
in-practice' might be one that CCL-LLC (and ICANN) can use.
Cheers,
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 05:33:26 +0008
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Pioneers
Ronda,
> What becomes clear to me from this study is that it isn't appropriate
> to call the Internet a network of networks as it is actually the
> interconnection and intercommunication among the networks, not a
> network in its own right.
> It is something more important than a network - an
> Internetwork :-)
Isnt a network the interconnection and intercommunication among
the machines (and a machine the i&i among the components)?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:40:30 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Just in case...
Netizens,
Cleaning out my mailbox. Sorry.
Hope this wasn't already posted....
Re: our fav. organization.
===========================================
- --------------------
ICANN Releases Guidelines For Domain Registrars February 9, 1999
By Michele Masterson
InternetNews.com Associate Editor Business News Archives
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_65921,00.html
The Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers has released
preliminary guidelines to open up the domain registration process
currently administered by government-sanctioned Network Solutions to
other competitors.
ICANN is the non-profit group begun by the late Jon Postel and is
the successor to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Membership
is comprised of leading international Internet authorities, including
Esther Dyson, ICANN's interim chairman and Michael Roberts, interim
president and chief executive officer.
Registrar qualifications include:
Registrar must demonstrate basic capabilities to perform its
obligations
Registrar has not been disqualified for past violations of ICANN
standards
Registrars must abide by Code of Conduct for DNS Registrars
Provide procedures that allow applicant's customers to change
registrars without interruption of domain name
Maintain necessary working capital
Hold an existing second or third-level domain
Additional requirements under consideration include a commercial
general liability insurance coverage of $500,000 in U.S. currency.
That amount may vary depending on the registrar's location.
The 30-page draft seeks public commentary on the proposed guidelines
before the March 4 ICANN board meeting slated to take place in
Singapore. The group said it will consider and respond to public
input at its public forum on March 3, also in Singapore.
On March 8, if the accreditation program is approved, the group will
post the results on its Web site, and following that, will begin
accepting applications for accreditation during a testing period.
Links:
http://www.icann.org/
http://www.netsol.com/
- -----------
Source:
Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____
For subscription details email / | ' \
jwalker@hwcn.org with ( ) 0
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----'
subject line. ==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
"On the Internet no one / __/~| / |
knows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________|
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:06:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Pioneers
Kerry wrote:
Ronda wrote:
>> What becomes clear to me from this study is that it isn't appropriate
>> to call the Internet a network of networks as it is actually the
>> interconnection and intercommunication among the networks, not a
>> network in its own right.
>> It is something more important than a network - an
>> Internetwork :-)
>Isnt a network the interconnection and intercommunication among
>the machines (and a machine the i&i among the components)?
No a computer-communications network is different from an
internet.
A computer-communications network like the original ARPANET
provided for resource sharing among the computers and people
who were connected to it.
So if you were a user on the network you had access to the
computer resources of other computers connected to the network.
In the development of the early Internet, there was the ARPANET
network and the Kahn and others developed a Packet Radio network
that was very different from the ARPANET in terms of structure.
But those on the packet radio network could utilize the resources
on the ARPANET via the internetting that tcp/ip made possible.
And those on the ARPANET could communciate with those on the
Packet Radio Network etc. But these were totally different
networks, however, they were internetworked.
Also there was a Satellite Network, a SATNET. Those using the
Satellite packet network could also utilize resources on the
ARPANET, etc.
So the internet was different from the original comptuer network.
It ws the way of connecting the different comptuer networks.
What the Internet is now - is something I am also trying to sort
out, but it seems important to understand its evolution to
understand it now.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:11:19 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Asia-pacific forum for ICANN, DNSO, etc (fwd
Subject: [IFWP] (no subject)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:34:17 -0500
From: "Sue Chooi/Woo Wei Xian(Zen) [Exch]"
<SuSancho@Tm.net.my>
To: list@ifwp.org, pwilson@apnic.net,
hostmaster@apnic.net, admin@apnic.net,
discuss@dnso.org
Newsgroups: IFWP.General
An Asia-Pacific Forum has JUST been created.
List name: ap-forum@eGroups.com
List address: ap-forum@eGroups.com
List Desc: ap-forum
To join: send an e-mail to ap-forum-subscribe@eGroups.com
==========
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:11:19 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Asia-pacific forum for ICANN, DNSO, etc (fwd
Subject: [IFWP] (no subject)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:34:17 -0500
From: "Sue Chooi/Woo Wei Xian(Zen) [Exch]"
<SuSancho@Tm.net.my>
To: list@ifwp.org, pwilson@apnic.net,
hostmaster@apnic.net, admin@apnic.net,
discuss@dnso.org
Newsgroups: IFWP.General
An Asia-Pacific Forum has JUST been created.
List name: ap-forum@eGroups.com
List address: ap-forum@eGroups.com
List Desc: ap-forum
To join: send an e-mail to ap-forum-subscribe@eGroups.com
==========
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:40:55 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Jesse's Treatise -- Netizens to Elect Next President?
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/cgi-bin/print_story.cgi?story=story_3090
On Jesse Berst's AnchorDesk.
"Power to the People!"
[Please excuse the cross-posting in advance.]
URL:
http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/adem2fpf/www.anchordesk.com/story/story_3090.html
Berst Alert
Jesse Berst, Editorial Director
ZDNet AnchorDesk
Monday, February 15, 1999
"...as Gov. [Jesse] Ventura can attest,
we Web-heads matter. Here's why and how:
o By Revitalizing Voters...
o Turn citizens into active, not passive political participants...
o By Making it Easier to Keep Current...
o By Making It Easier to Find the Truth...
o By Delivering Insight and Commentary..."
Please read his story. Interesting hypothesis for sure.
I do believe that Congress is beginning to pay closer attention
to their constituents [via Internet.] Not to mention we
can educate them to issues they seem to be clueless [or have
skewed information about.]
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:55:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] NTIA public meeting in March on administration us domain
This was at the ntia web site:
[INLINE]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 10, 1999
Contact: Sallianne Fortunato
(202) 482-7002
***MEDIA ADVISORY***
Washington, D.C. -- The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) will hold a public meeting to explore the future
administration and management of the .us domain name space. Topics to
be discussed including the current structure of the .us domain, issues
and opportunities facing the current and future management of the .us
space, current practices and issues in the management of other country
code TLDs (ccTLDs), proposals for administering the .us domain, and a
discussion on the next steps for the management and administration of
the .us domain. An electronic copy of the Federal Notice that
describes the meeting and agenda in further detail is available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
WHAT: Public Meeting on the Future Administration and Management of
the .us Domain
WHERE: U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 4830
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
(Attendees should use the Main Entrance on 14th Street)
WHEN: March 9, 1999
10:00am to 4:30pm
The meeting is open to the public and seating at the meeting will be
available on a first-come, first-served basis. Attendees should
complete and submit the meeting pre-registration form located at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Rose, NTIA/OIA, (202) 482-1866.
More detailed information regarding the agenda and other aspects of
the meeting will be made available and updated periodically at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
Media inquiries, please call Sallianne Fortunato, NTIA Public Affairs,
at 202-482-7002, or visit NTIA's home page at http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
NTIA serves as the principal adviser to the Executive Branch on
domestic and international telecommunications and information issues.
###
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:34:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Corporate Sponsorship of NewCorp? No
Bill Lovell <wsl@cerebalaw.com> wrote:
>At 15:48 15/02/99 +0000, Dr Nii Quaynor wrote:
>>>Can we realistically have an ICANN without corporate sponsorship? Why is
>>>corporate sponsorship considered harmful in this case? How can the perceived
>>>dangers of corporate sponsorship be contained?
>>
Isn't this question posed backwards?
Isn't it can we realistically take IANA which has existed under
a U.S. Government/DARPA contract and which is the controlling point
of the Internet and give it to any private entity?
Or to thing that is under corporate sponsorship?
Look at what is involved:
The ownership/control and allocation of the IP numbers of the Internet
The ownership/control and allocation of the DNS of the Internet
including the root server system
The ownership/control and allocation of the port numbers etc.
The ownership/control and allocation of the RFC's including keeping
them open and available to all.
The protocol process also.
Also the scaling of these systems
Isn't this all too important and too controlling of too many people
and computers and networks around the world and in the U.S. etc
that it can't be given to something that is under any kind of
private control and ownership?
My proposal to Magaziner and the NTIA created a means of
beginning to have scientific and cooperative government protection
for these systems.
There is plenty of history of the Internet and Usenet that show
that it is through such processes that these systems were
created and developed in various countries. (Usenet for example,
though developed in its early days in the U.S. in universities
at at Bell Labs and through support of people at Bell Labs got some its
needed support.) In other countries like Holland it was cwi
(then mc) which was government, in France folks at INRIA played
an important role.)
Similarly in the development of the Internet there were joint
activities among computer scientists in different countries.
The Internet still needs the support and work of computer scientists
for the IANA systems to continue to grow and evolve and to
have the proper non commercial environment to continue to grow and
flourish.
My proposal provided for a means of creating a prototype for
the kind of cooperative international support and protection
for these systems that is needed.
My proposal is at the NTIA web site and also at
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #272
******************************
