Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 248
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, January 13 1999 Volume 01 : Number 248
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
[netz] ICANN membership advisory mailing list
Re: [netz] km013: intial thoughts..
[netz] email address to NIST official to complain about ICANN IANA contract
Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Re: [netz] km013: intial thoughts..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1999 00:26:28 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> writes:
> Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com> writes:
>
> Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >> and creators imagined. Its users (and uses) are much more divergent (even
> >> now) than when the Internet was being created. Commercial interests
> >> cannot be removed from the equation (Internet + funding = better
> >> Internet),
>
> Not at all - the design of the Intenet was to provide for diversituy.
As Jamal said, things have changed since the beginnings. It is
impossible, today, to remove commercial interests from the 'Net. This
would mean political suicide for anyone who'd take that decision. (and
don't forget that ISPs are businesses too).
>
> The problem now is thqat the commercial interests are claiming they
> have to made all the same to fit their mold.
>
> I am not a commerical interest - I am paying - it isn't in fact the
> commercial interests who fund - it is the users and government etc.
Yes. But the question is: why would we, the people (not only the users
of the Internet !), pay through our taxes for businesses being able to
make money through the 'Net ?
As I said above, it would be impossible to go back to a basically
academic network today. Therefore, it is only logical to include
businesses in the financing sooner or later.
The major problem is to avoid the usual reasoning: "I pay, therefore I
decide". One solution would be to see the commercial content
providers as customers of the Internet community. Only, such a step is
something you cannot expect from the governments... politicians will
still need to finance their electoral campaigns in the future :(
The very best we can expect is a compromise in which commercial
interests don't get too much influence.
>
> The commercial interests want to make money off of it rather than
> contribute to the Internet and they can even do that if they don't try
> to interfer with the autonomy of the component networks and the autonomy
> of the users. However they (certain commerdcial users) insist that
> they have to control the Internet and its users and make the Internet
> into what is good for them, rather than what its design is or
> its users want.
>
Well, it is only natural that they try :)
> No financing is *not* essential to the Internet. Users are essentail,
> component networks are essentail, etc.
>
Until someone invents ESPnet, the Internet will need hardware for
linking those users together and, whether you like it or not, this IS
very expensive. The Internet could exist without users, although it
would be pointless, but NOT without money.
> And the IP numbers are worth billions and that is why there is this
> effort by certain folks who feel they can make power plays to grab
> control of them.
> m
>
> >> since individual governments are unwilling to foot the bill for
> > the maintenance and development of the vital functions of the Global
> > Internet. I think that the USG was right to decide to farm out these
> > responsibilities.
>
> >Yes !
>
> But NSI is making millions. The USG is protecting U.S. commercial
> interests (some very mimal interests) by what it is doing.
>
I don't think anyone will challenge what you are saying there. The USG
was right to do what it did but did not do it the right way, from today's
users' point of view at least. (I suspect that the next generation of
users won't really care; and in France we have some idea of what those
users will probably look like, thanks to the minitel).
> That was what my proposal made possible. The ICANN is the opposite.
Unfortunately, it seems you are right on this.
> And we are the major users the Internet - those who use the Net as a medium
> of communication are the major users,
Well, that's YOUR (and my) point of view, that of a Netizen. If, OTOH,
you take the classical communication industry's view, a major user (or
customer) is one who uses much more bandwidth than the average
user. And you can be sure that today's politicians and technocrats see
it this way. Always keep that in mind when talking to them.
> >> To finish this rather large, wandering posting [apologies to those still
> >> there], I'd like to conclude with a final point. Maybe, we're approaching
> >> the same issues with different epistemes.
>
> >This seems rather obvious :-)
>
> So are you both agreeing that the minimal few commercial interests from
> wherever in the world they spring should get control of the essential
> functions of the Internet?
????
Either you or I seem to have misunderstood Jamal... I'm confused.
And the answer to your question is "no", as far as I'm concerned.
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:33:07 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] ICANN membership advisory mailing list
http://www.icann.org/list.html
Membership Advisory Committee Public Discussion List
The ICANN Membership Advisory Committee has established a public mailing
list, membership@icann.org, devoted to discussion of the issues involved
in establishing a membership structure to elect At Large directors of
ICANN.
(For more information about the purpose of the committee, see
http://www.icann.org/icann-pr25nov98.html.) A related study effort
conducted by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society can be followed at
http://cyber.harvard.edu/rcs/.
If you want to join this list, please send a message to
majordomo@icann.org with the line "subscribe
membership" as the body of the message.
To remove yourself from this list, please send a message to
majordomo@icann.org with the line
"unsubscribe membership" as the body of the message.
George Conrades, Committee Chair
Page Updated 5-January-1999.
====
Membership Advisory Committee Progress Report, January 3, 1999
ICANN MAC PROGRESS REPORT
3 January, 1999
Prepared by Greg Crew, Diane Cabell, and Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
This is a January 3 status report on the work of the Membership Advisory
Committee (MAC). The primary task of the MAC is to provide the ICANN
Board with a number of possible membership structures suitable for the
election of At Large directors in accordance with the ICANN By-laws,
which the Committee hopes to present to the ICANN Board during the ICANN
Board meeting in Singapore the first week of March, 1999.
The committee was appointed on December 16, 1998, and began to discuss
its goals, agenda, and working methods via email and teleconference. The
committee decided that committee members would prepare periodic reports,
such as this one, about the progress of its work.
The committee hopes to engage in a constructive public discussion about
membership issues. To this end, the committee will establish a public
email discussion list, which will be launched during the week of January
4, 1999. The committee is in the process of discussing what guidelines
for list participation should be established. Contributions will be
archived in the MAC section of the ICANN web site
(http://www.icann.org/membership-com.html), and the MAC progress reports
will include summaries of the email discussion.
In preparation for its substantive discussion the MAC has started
brainstorming about membership
issues that may need to be resolved. To date, this list includes the
following issues:
PURPOSE
Why are there at large members?
Are there (if so, why are there) members (of Supporting
Organizations) that are not at-large
members? How do rights and obligations of At Large members and AL
directors differ from
those of SOs, if at all? Are AL directors drawn from the pool of
all members, and how does
that interact with SO members?
MEMBERS
Who are the expected members?
Who can be a member. (Any qualification such as holding a domain
name, having an on-line
presence?)
Is membership automatic or voluntary?
If domain names or email addresses are a vehicle, then how do we
manage one individual or
entity with a multiplicity of names?
How is geography, population, financial standing and language to be
balanced. How should
this change over time as these attributes vary? How does this tie
in to the geographic diversity
requirements of the ICANN Bylaws?
One class or different classes of membership? (large corporations,
small corporations,
associations, individuals, demographics, TLD)
Rights and obligations of membership - same for all or
differentiated (depending on whether a
SO, corporation, association, individual?)
What are the liabilities of a member?
Is there/should there be an off-line constituency? How are people
without domain names or
email addresses represented? These may include universal access
users of community
centers, telecenters, business centers etc. How will emerging
communities not be excluded
including those from developing countries as well as inner city
communities in developed
countries?
Is it desirable to put in place structures or mechanisms designed to
minimize the risk that a
determined group could capture all or a majority of the at large
ICANN board seats? If so,
how can that be done?
MECHANICS
What identification will ICANN need to register a member? (none,
telephone number, e-mail
address, proof of domain name ownership, sworn affidavit?)
RELATIONSHIPS
Will the "membership" have any legal status distinct from ICANN?
Will the membership need
to elect its own officers to supervise functions or shall
registration, voting, etc., be handled by
ICANN?
Are SOs to be "members", although presumably not having rights to
vote for At Large
directors (and how would that be controlled?) Should the SOs be
excluded from At Large
membership?
Is there a way or a need to prevent duplicate voting by SO members?
In other words, should
a member of a SO be prevented from also being a member of ICANN?
Should multiple
employees of a business be prevented from being members? How
different should the At
Large membership be from the SOs? Is the At Large membership
sufficiently distinct from
the Domain Name Supporting Organization or how do we make it
distinct?
Will at large members have a right to petition ICANN, either: for
or against an SO proposal
or a Board decision; or in order to ask the Board or an SO to
address some new issue?
FEES
Should members pay (annual subscription, buy shares?) Are there
securities laws or other
issues that arise as a result of charging fees? If not, what
consideration will create binding
obligations?
How will fees be collected?
Should fees be uniform or graduated?
AT LARGE DIRECTORS
How are candidates to be nominated? How are nominees to be placed
on or removed from
a ballot? Are write-in candidates to be allowed?
What qualifications if any for candidates?
What proof of identification is required from candidates?
ELECTING AT LARGE DIRECTORS
One vote per member, or different voting rights depending on
membership class?
How to apply regional representation rules when counting votes?
How are voting rules to be policed?
Should some rules be applied to spread directors across different
gTLD constituencies?
Across ccTLD constituencies?
Should ICANN provide a forum for candidates to campaign/for
referenda to be discussed?
CHANGES TO ARTICLES
Can AL members propose changes? If so, how and under what
constraints?
COSTS
What is the cost to ICANN of the proposed membership and voting
structures?
Page Updated 4-January-98.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1999 02:24:15 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] km013: intial thoughts..
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) writes:
> { Perhaps I'm treading over old ground here, but with *so* many variables,
> { how can I be expected to work out how to govern myself? Organisation, or
> { compartmentalisation. (The reason for the democratic state, as you once
> { mentioned Kerry.) And thus, I remain wedded to _modern_ institutions and
> { practices, even in information-space. Am I really able to achieve
> { (political/governance) equilibrium by myself?
>
> As a citizen (or a netizen), you are not by yourself -- that's the
> secret. We call it 'self-government' in contrast to (objective) govt --
> but it is nevertheless a collective process.
Kerry,
Could you describe that "collective self-government" a bit more
precisely, please ? AFAIK both parliamentary democracy and the soviet
system were designed to be collective government. It didn't take long
for either of them to drift away from that purpose (probably even from
the beginning, in the case of the soviet system). OTOH,
non-representative, i.e. direct democracy doesn't work for current
affairs in large communities.
So, what is exactly your idea of collective self-government ?
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 01:08:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] email address to NIST official to complain about ICANN IANA contract
The final line of this email to the IFWP list by Gordon Cook gives
the email address to complain to to the U.S. govt about giving
the contract for IANA to ICANN in place of DARPA.
Ronda
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Me to teresa reefe contracts specialist at NIST in a phone call regarding
the Commerce business daily jan 6 announcement of intent to give ICANN sole
source contract award for the IANA functions.
Thanks to jim fleming whose search bots scour the net and is I understand
the person who dug this dirty little secret out of ICANN's closet. No this
does not mean I am becoming a fan of Jim ...just giving credit where credit
is do.
Cook: Sole source?
Reefe: Yes.
Cook: on what grounds? How could they justify it in view of the 11/25 mou.
Reefe: had a lot of people calling today complaining about that very
thing. if you wish to join them in protesting a sole source award to ICANN
send email to teresa.reefe@nist.gov.
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet What Happened to the White Paper?
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ICANN a Sham. (updated 10/25/98) See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/whorules.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:08:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
I sent this to Carsten personally by mistake! [Then, assuming I had sent
it to the list, I deleted it from my sent-mail folder! Carsten graciously
returned it.. Thanks Carsten!]
===================
Carsten, [and the rest of the list]
On 12 Jan 1999, Carsten Laekamp wrote:
I <j.shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> wrote (sometime before):
> > Politics is a modern pursuit, but it is inevitable? imho, yes. Also, the
> > best arbiter of disagreement is the state, at present, and the Internet is
> > evolving in this milieu.
>
> Hmmm.... are you talking about the actual state(s) ? In that case,
> allow me to disagree. Don't forget that the Internet is a
> supra-national structure. The various states have to be seen as
> leading parties, not arbiters.
Okay, I think I might have been a bit misleading here, thanks for
highlighting this.. I see the state as the institution most able to reach
decisions in the international arena, at present. The state allows for
diversity outside its borders through the concept of sovereignty. This
concept means that although various states can be criticised for abuses
of human rights (for example), nothing can be done *in the majority of
cases*. World politics is changing, but the state is still dominant. And
whilst the Internet is seen to be a global phenomenon, laws are still
territorially applied, with all the problems that this brings.
> If OTOH you are talking of an "Internet
> state", well, yes, I agree. However, the question is then: Is it
> achievable ? Will today's states allow it to exist ?
What is an "Internet state"? Will it provide education and welfare,
commonality of interest and situation? Who would pay taxes to this state?
I'm truly interested in this concept, if you have any literature on it,
please share!
> > Perhaps what is needed is a truly global organisation to
> > deal with this.
>
> Very much so.
Glad to hear that you agree. Next step: what and how?
- --Jamal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:53:06 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] km013: intial thoughts..
Carsten,
{ > { Am I really able to achieve
{ > { (political/governance) equilibrium by myself?
{ >
{ > As a citizen (or a netizen), you are not by yourself -- that's the
{ > secret. We call it 'self-government' in contrast to (objective) govt --
{ > but it is nevertheless a collective process.
{
{
AFAIK both parliamentary democracy and the soviet
{ system were designed to be collective government. It didn't take long
{ for either of them to drift away from that purpose (probably even from
{ the beginning, in the case of the soviet system).
By 'objective govt' I hoped to include all forms of delegated
administration, in which a 'functionary' has to subordinate hyr personal
inclinations to that of the office.
{ OTOH,
{ non-representative, i.e. direct democracy doesn't work for current
{ affairs in large communities.
{
{ So, what is exactly your idea of collective self-government ?
{
In contrast, then, any procedure in which one need be only oneself is
self-government. The point I hoped to clarify for Jamal was that *by
yourself* is not a functional concept, since government necessarily
involves other individuals. In the context, the parallel to
'communication' is not just a coincidence, but a foundation principle: we
like to talk about 'free speech,' but *collective free speech implies
seriously listening as well.
If we want to find an alternative to authoritarianism, how can we afford
to overlook (self-)governance of our conversation? (To my mind, that so
many 'independent' folks on the Net seem determined to do just that, is
more embarassing than anything that could go on in the ooval office, as
it reveals what an utterly sloppy job of education our institutions have
done to/ for us.)
kerry
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is
unobstructed action according to our will. But *rightful* liberty is
unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the
law,' because law is often but the tryrant's will, and always so when it
violates the right of an individual."
--Thomas Jefferson (letter to Isaac H. Tiffany) 1819
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #248
******************************
