Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 252
Netizens-Digest Thursday, January 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 252
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Cooks Report leaves out the Public Interest aand the Internet
Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
Re: [netz] Re: ICANN membership--a Usenet perspective
[netz] Re: your paper
[netz] ICANN trying to show a good face?
Re: [netz] Re: ICANN membership--a Usenet perspective
[netz] IFWP: Trust + New paradigm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:51:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Cooks Report leaves out the Public Interest aand the Internet
Thanks to Gordon Cook for his recent report on what is happening with
the NIST annoucement for giving the IANA contract to ICANN.
However, I want to add some aspects that Gordon left out in this situation.
The problem to me is *not* that the NTIA or NIST is sole sourcing this
contract. The problem is
1) That it is holding IANA hostage to an illegitimate and secretly
contrived plan to give away very lucrative assets to a private sector
entity. These assets will give great power over the Internet and all
who use it to those who grab control over this enitty.
2) That IANA is too important a part of the Internet to be held hostage
in this way. It isn't that some other private sector business entity
should get control of IANA through competitive contract solicitations,
but rather that a U.S. government entity that is appropriate, like
DARPA, should continue to administer the contract with IANA and
pay the salaries of those who work for IANA while there be a
genuine discussion and examination of how to create a protected
environment for IANA to function that includes the public interest
being dominant, not commercial objectives.
3) That the U.S. public and folks all over the world have contributed
to the funding of the Internet and of its development and achievements.
These folks should not be disenfranchised by this power play of
the U.S. government holding the paychecks of IANA folks hostage
to their trying to pass enormously valuable and power giving assets
to some private entities.
4) I didn't notice the U.S. government having any problem paying for
the big bills that it has taken to build the Internet (for the U.S.
share of the bills), and the public interest needs to be protected
now and the Internet needs a way to scale and to continue to
serve as a unique new medium of worldwide communication. Therefore
the U.S. government should stop hassling the IANA folks and should
make sure that their pay checks are paid by the U.S. government.
5) For a long range solution, the administrative fees for
IP numbers shouldn't be going for profits for various entities,
but if needed could pay the what are minimal costs for IANA
folks salaries.
6) The fruit of a poison tree is poison. The longer this power
play by the U.S. govenrment goes on, the worse the situation
will get. There is the need for an investigation into how
this all happened and a plan for making the needed changes
so that the public interest is dominant in what is happening, not
someone's idea of how to convert the Internet into a plaything
for marketeers.
7) When Ira Magaziner called me this summer he said there were
2 problems the U.S. government was trying to solve.
a) the problem with trademarks and domain names
b) the problem of international pressure for participation
in what happens with the Internet. (I don't have my notes
now from talking with him, but I will try to find them to
see more specifically what he said.)
However, subsequent to talking with him, I have seen the
minutes from the Federal Network Advisory Committee meeting
in 1996 where the U.S. government talked about the need
to protect American commercial interests with regard to
the Internet and began a process of encouraging the Internet
Society and it seems others like the European Union, WIPO
etc to figure out how to take over IANA.
Though there are minutes of this meeting, there is no real
indication of the discussion that went on to make this
decision. Nor is there any indication that there was any
concern for or interest by any of those present in what
the public interest is in regard to the present and future
of the Internet and how this would be represented in plans
for giving away public assets and control over IANA to
some private sector corporation.
This meeting in 1996 is exactly the kind of situation that
computer pioneers like Norbert Wiener and others like C.P. Snow
warned against happening at the 1961 conference they held
on Scientists and Decision Making at MIT. They described
how there would be government decisions that had to be
made regarding the future of the computer and it was very
important that these decisions *not* be made by a few people
in secret, but that they be the subject of broad discussion
and debate.
They pointed out that when such important decisions were made
by a few people they would more likely be bad decisions, while
the broader discussion by large numbers of people made it more
likely that such decisions would be good decisions.
The decision to transfer IANA and other key and controlling
functions of the Internet and the assets involved with these
functions is a bad decision.
These are functions that need to be carried out in service of
the public and they require public protection of the assets
and the power so that it can be used for the cooperative purposes,
not for some private purpose.
The Internet is too important to be playing such power games with.
It is good that Jim Flemming uncovered what is happening with
the NIST giving ICANN a control to run IANA. (BTW any effort to
write back to him bounces, and I don't know why.)
But how to get the problem of what is happening out to as many
people as possible is what seems to be needed and it would be
good to have whatever help the press in the U.S. or around the
world, or online or off line can give, as possible.
In his talk at the MIT conference, C.P. Snow proposed the importance
of as many people as possible knowing what was going on and being
involved in the discussion of what should happen.
This is what is needed now, and any help making that happen would
seem to be of value.
Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com> wrote:
>For the past 48 hours I have done nothing but research and write the following.
>Keeping IANA Paychecks Coming
>The process last summer of setting up newco (IANA) essentially ran out of
>time. Details like the coming October 1 unemployment of the IANA staff,
>including Jon Postel, went into the month of September unsettled. They did
>so presumably because the parties putting things together assumed that
>Magaziner would have no choice but to bless ICANN on October 1 and hand
>over keys to the kingdom to them as well as money for them to start doing
>their work. When it became clear that this likely would not happen,
>something had to be done about the paychecks of IANA employees.
>Mike Roberts on behalf of ICANN made a deal with USC and ISI whereby they
>(ISI) would enter a transition agreement with ICANN so that ICANN would pay
>the salaries of the IANA employees (six people) effective October 1.
>(Where ICANN gets the money is anyone's guess - likely from GIP - ie IBM.)
>Thus Mike Roberts found himself in a situation where he had to scurry at
>agreement with ISI whereby the IANA employees remained legally ISI/USC
(....)
Thus what Cook describes is a power play using IANA and the Internet
and its users as pawns.
Chapter 6 of Netizens "Cybernetics, Time-sharing, Human-computer
Symbiosis and Online Communities" descibes the 1961 conference at
MIT. The chapter is online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:37:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
In article <199901141651.LAA25893@panix3.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>The problem to me is *not* that the NTIA or NIST is sole sourcing this
>contract. The problem is
>1) That it is holding IANA hostage to an illegitimate and secretly
>contrived plan to give away very lucrative assets to a private sector
>entity. These assets will give great power over the Internet and all
>who use it to those who grab control over this enitty.
>2) That IANA is too important a part of the Internet to be held hostage
>in this way. It isn't that some other private sector business entity
>should get control of IANA through competitive contract solicitations,
>but rather that a U.S. government entity that is appropriate, like
>DARPA, should continue to administer the contract with IANA and
>pay the salaries of those who work for IANA while there be a
>genuine discussion and examination of how to create a protected
>environment for IANA to function that includes the public interest
>being dominant, not commercial objectives.
Have you contacted the DARPA ITO yet to see what their position is
with regards to ICANN?
Hilarie Orman is listed on the DARPA ITO page,
http://www.darpa.mil/ito/Personnel/.
>4) I didn't notice the U.S. government having any problem paying for
>the big bills that it has taken to build the Internet (for the U.S.
>share of the bills), and the public interest needs to be protected
>now and the Internet needs a way to scale and to continue to
>serve as a unique new medium of worldwide communication. Therefore
>the U.S. government should stop hassling the IANA folks and should
>make sure that their pay checks are paid by the U.S. government.
The economic and political landscape has changed from when the
Internet was being designed. For things to head back in the other
direction, the USG (meaning the people who elect them) need to be
convinced to continue to foot the bill.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jan 1999 22:02:50 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <Alexandru.Petrescu@crpht.lu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: ICANN membership--a Usenet perspective
Ronda,
I'm reading very carefuly the article you sent me. While I'm
commuting. I find it very interesting. Whatever I'm reading from
you, I'm saying, "well, she's perfectly right".
I'll come back with more impressions. In fact I have noted them all
on the paper, where's that.
The discussion with dmr, I was following it at the time. It uses
great terms, however, one should spot the conclusion. It's true that
it's a new way of communication, easier, etc. But people need ends in
any communication, conclusions.
The story on earliest ncp internet it's very precise, I liked it a
lot.
I have one more, but i dont find it.
You're very thoguth provoking.
Yours, late and tired
Alex
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jan 1999 22:14:44 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <Alexandru.Petrescu@crpht.lu>
Subject: [netz] Re: your paper
The other note was this.
You're insisting about Kahn's accent on the importance of TCP as a
glue for all networks. Maybe you could exemplfy with some recent
examples. Before Internet of 90's, there were some COmpuserve,
bitnet, VAX edu-nets, and several proprietary networks (I think even
AOL) that were totally disconnected, you needed to find gateways (if
they existed). You were allowed to communicate only to those people
that were on your network, the ones chosen by your network.
I would go even further, today's http is another problem (browser
standards wars) that is waiting for a glue. Or I might be wrong.
Sorry for the incoherence, I'm tired
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:15:19 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] ICANN trying to show a good face?
http://www.sjmercury.com/business/tech/docs/049484.htm
Dollars to doughnuts they scr*w things up.
Probably p*ssed everyone bought up
Gore for President domains... buddies
and pals to hang together around the
table... or should I say under the table?
- --
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
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:51:50 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: ICANN membership--a Usenet perspective
Ronda,
{ It hasn't fallen apart at all. It has made it possible to
{ add many new newsgroups.
Have proposals ever failed?
Is it scalable? That is, could TLDs be proposed in the same way?
Hmm, has anyone tried to copyright a newsgroup name?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:51:50 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] IFWP: Trust + New paradigm
Getting there...
{
{ Subject: Trust
{ From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
{ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 01:52:43 -0500
{ X-Message-Number: 14
{
{ "trust is that which is essential to a communication channel but
{ cannot be transferred from a source to a destination using that
{ channel" *see end of msg for source*
{
{
{ how about giving thought to this in the context of our current
discussion?
{
{ Trust has to be built up by people actions over a period of
time...other
{ wise we have the disconnects and recriminations that are tying all of
us
{ in knots. seems to me that the actions of esther dyson and mike
roberts
{ disqualify them from ever be accepted or trusted here until such time
as
{ they change them strongly enough to build up a foundational pattern.
{
{ and here is a little more from this interesting source:
{
{ "trust is that which is essential to a communication channel but
{ cannot be transferred from a source to a destination using that
{ channel" and can be directly instantiated into more usual terms, as
"trust
{ i= s that which you rely upon to make decisions", as derived in the
paper,
{ Section 3. The paper also provides the relevant context, in Section 2.
{
{ A summary of the trust definition context is cited in Peter William's
book
{ Digital Certificates. This book cites the section of the e-mail message
{ which was its first public reference, in January 1998: as: (begion
quote)
{
{ " At http://www.mcg.org.br/trustdef.txt, commencing with a quotation
{ from Shannon's Information Theory, Edgardo Gerck leads Internet
{ discussion with an assertion that:
{
{ "In Information Theory, information has nothing to do with knowledge
or
{ meaning. In the context of Information Theory, information is simply
that
{ which is transferred from a source to a destination, using a
{ communication channel. If, before transmission, the information is
{ available at the destination then the transfer is zero. Information
{ received by a party is that what the party does not expect -- as
measured
{ by the uncertainty of the party as to what the message will be."
{
{ Shannon's contribution here goes far beyond the definition (and
{ derived mathematical consequences) that "information is what you do
{ not expect". His zeroth-contribution (so to say, in my counting) was
to
{ actually recognize that unless he would arrive at a real-word model of
{ information as used in the electronic world, no logically useful
{ information model could be set forth!
{
{ Now, in the Internet world, we have come to a stand off: either we
{ develop a real-world model of trust or we cannot continue to deal
{ with limited and fault-ridden trust models, as the Internet expands
{ from a parochial to a planetary network for e-commerce, EDI,
{ communication, etc.
{
{ And, what would be this "real-world model of trust" for the Internet
{ world? Here, akin to Information Theory, trust has nothing to do with
{ friendship, acquaintances, employee-employer relationships, loyalty,
{ clearance, betrayal and other hard to define concepts. In the concept
of
{ Generalized Certification Theory (see http://www.mcg.org.br/cie.htm),
{ trust is simply "that which is essential to a communication channel
but
{ which cannot be transferred from a source to a destination using that
{ channel". "
{
{ Quote from - Chap. 7, Definition of Trust in security and discussion,
{ copied under authorization, in Peter Williams, et.al., "Digital
{ Certificates: Applied Internet Security" Addison-Wesley, ISBN
{ 0-20-130980-7, 400 pgs, CD-ROM, Oct 1998.
{
{ Please see also From Towards Real-World Models of Trust: Reliance on
{ Received Information Ed Gerck Copyright =A9 1998 by E. Gerck and MCG,
{ first published on Jan 23rd, 1998 in the mcg-talk list server All
rights
{ reserved, free copying and citation allowed with source and author
{ reference.
{
{ The formal definition of trust is given in Section 2 of the paper at
{ http://www.mcg.org.br/trustdef.htm
**********
Subject: A New Paradigm
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:11:01 -0500 X-Message-Number: 67
[...]
Hi Jim,
While light is good, I think we have a bigger issue
here -- what exactly is an open process? How do we
structure one so that everyone can participate fairly,
while actually allowing work to get done?
Somewhere along the line, we've come to expect
that an open process precludes private meetings
and communications. I disagree with that sentiment.
Personally, I believe that there is no preventing
private discussions. In fact, every time I pick up
the phone, I have one. And it seems like at least
once a day, I have a conference call with three or
more people. Am I violating some kind of open
process?
The same argument applies to email. Is exchanging
email with a single person allowed in an open process?
What about three people? Five? What about a small
mailing list of five? Ten? Twenty?
Where do you draw the line?
IMHO, it is ok for private meetings and communications
to occur, as long as the *decision* making process is
fair and open to all. The real question is "how do
we structure such a process?"
I suggest that we need a new paradigm for working
together using mailing lists in cyberspace. Here
is one idea I forwarded to the ICANN MAC, one that
reflects the reality of list use today:
At 12/28/98, 01:04 AM, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>
>>In debating the membership structure, what do you think about having a
>>public comment listserv which is moderated to avoid excessive
individual
>>posts?
>>
>>Should there be list rules and if so, what would they be? So far,
we've
>>only discussed a per-day limit on the number of posts from any single
>>individual and a prohibition on cross-posting.
>
>This question is one that has plagued us many times over
>the last many months. I am slowly coming to the opinion
>that we need a new construct for public comments that allow
>*both* open and closed lists to coexist.
>
>So, rather than a moderated list approach, I suggest a
>construct that features lists within lists. For example:
> - Decisions Maker's List (10 members)
> - Advisor's List (30 members)
> - Open List (100s of members)
>
>Each list would only accept postings from its members, but
>postings to each list would be propagated to the list immediately
>below it (or all lists below it). This ensures an open process, it
>gives everyone a chance to comment, and it allows work to get done.
This is basically a list within a list approach:
+----------------------------+
| +------------------------+ |
| | +--------------------+ | |
| | | Decision Maker's | | |
| | | List | | |
| | +--------------------+ | |
| | Advisor's List | |
| +------------------------+ |
| Open List |
+----------------------------+
It allows everyone to participate, it allows the
discussions on the smaller lists to be viewed and
commented on by the larger lists, and it allows
the best ideas to "filter" up to the decision
maker's.
In actuality, it is an attempt to formalize the
informal process that occurs today, while adding
a dimension of openness that is currently not
available.
Bottom line, solving this problem is part of
the process of creating a new tradition of self
governance.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
=========
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #252
******************************
