Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 256
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, January 19 1999 Volume 01 : Number 256
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] [01/17/1999]: Culture, Class and Cyberspace
[netz] The importance of communications
[netz] Re: [Membership] How Will ICANN Assure an International Membership? (Re: Re:Upcoming events)
[netz] A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] A Call to Arms?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:43:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Art McGee <amcgee@igc.org>
Subject: [netz] [01/17/1999]: Culture, Class and Cyberspace
I now have my own page up for the links:
http://www.igc.org/amcgee/e-race.html
You should point to that instead of creating separate
pages or waiting for a list update. Thanks.
Art McGee
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Organization Consultant Institute for Global Communications |
| SEIU Local 790 IRS 501(c)(3) |
| http://www.igc.org/ amcgee@igc.org |
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:17:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] The importance of communications
I am forwarding to the netizens list this posting from the Universal
Access Canada <UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA> list. I disagree that any public
infrastructure or utilities should be made into private, profit producing
entities. But I agree with Russel that communication is one of the most
central and important activities of society.
- ----------
> From: Russell McOrmond <russell@FLORA.OTTAWA.ON.CA>
> Subject: Re: [UA-C] I oppose Bell move also and am struck by what is at
> stake
> To: UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA
> In-Reply-To: <m102JGJ-001b6YC@umcc.ais.org>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Jay Hauben wrote:
>> Built at public expense for a public purpose, the need is for a proper
>> roll for governments to be found to continue the spread and growth of this
>> great communications advance.
> I find it interesting that there is still support for government
> providing public highway infrastructure, while the economic (And
> ecological, and social, and health, and ...) advantages of public
> communications structures are much greater. If governments/ corporations
> want something to privatize, lets privatize the roads and make (keep)
> public the much more community oriented communications systems.
> Thoughts?
- ---
> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.org/russell/work/>
> Back from India trip - Email replies may be slow!
> http://russell.flora.org/india/
- -------
Jay
,_ /\o \o/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above graphic is from the director of a French gov't research center.
He says it is the internet: someone is in trouble and someone else is coming
to help.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:42:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [Membership] How Will ICANN Assure an International Membership? (Re: Re:Upcoming events)
I thought those on the Netizens list would be interested in seeing this
response to my post which appeared on the ICANN membership list from
Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com> who wrote:
:The more I begin to understand about ICANN and its purpose(s) the more I have
:to agree with you Rhonda. Too bad the Yankee Doodlers have such a powerful
:voice in world and Internet affairs. America is *not* a Democracy for its own
:citizens, how can anyone expect that the USG would wish to promote a truly
:democratic international membership schema and voting process for ICANN?
:Frankly, I think this entire mailing list may just be a waste of time.
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> From: Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>
>
> >In respect of Ms Hauben's points below, isn't there a
> >Governmental Advisory Committee amongst the committees proposed to
> >ICANN? Has this been cancelled?
>
> But to only have it as an advisory committee, even if it did ever
> get constituted and met, is to play games with the issue of
> governments obligations with respect of forming or being
> part of an International organization.
>
> The U.S. government has internally created all sorts of ways of
> trying to give power to powerful commercial entities, and yet
> despite the legal maneuvers they do the government is still
> responsible for the functions that government is responsible for.
>
> However, if one tries to figure out who has liablity, one gets into
> this tangle that just makes it hard to hold the proper party, i.e.
> the U.S. government, responsible.
>
> >Many international organizations are constituted by treaty, or under
> >international treaties and are maintained at the expense by those (theore=
> >tically representative) governments who sign the treaties. So it
> >would seem logical that if ICANN has the burdensome international
> >task of sorting out international problems on behalf of governments
> >or quasi-governmental bodies, the governments should contribute or
> >think about contributing towards ICANN's upkeep.
>
> Yes international organizations are created by agreements of nations
> (i.e. international ) and includes government official participation.
>
> What the U.S. government is doing is *not* creating any "international"
> organization, but rather an organization that hides its own role
> and its own liabilities.
>
> In the U.S. this happens at times when government entities try to
> bring private entities into the process of carrying out what are
> government functions, and in the process the private entities are
> only involved in what the government is doing, rather than the
> government ceasing to have its obligations.
>
> But it becomes a legal tangle for anyone trying to deal with the
> ways that others rights are infringed in this kind of situation.
>
> If there are those who want an international organization, then
> appropriate measures have to be taken to form such, rather
> than allow the U.S. government to maneuver in a way that trieds
> to avoid responsibility for its actions, but allows it to hold
> the power behind the scenes.
>
> ICANN is *not* in any way an International but something created
> by the U.S. government tr enpower those obligations that the U.S.
> government currently holds.
>
> But the U.S. government, despite its disclaimers will maintain both
> control and ultimately liability for whatever mess it is planning.
>
> However this is a harmful way to be dealing with the essential functions
> of the Internet which so many people around the world are dependent
> upon.
>
> >they should do it themselves. Only the USG government, for
> >obvious historical reasons, seems to have to have thought about or
> >done this.
>
> The U.S. government has failed to have given the proper study or
> thought to what it is doing.
>
> It is so busy trying to gain a commercial advantage for a few
> big corporations that it doesn't support the kind of research and
> study needed to figure out what is a proper way to carry out
> the changes needed to scale the Internet.
>
> This is a serious question that needed to be studied and clarified,
> and with an effort made to proceed a bit at a time to see if the
> sense of how to solve the problem was appropriate. This is a process
> for research and development *not* for a grand experiment based on
> political power plays.
>
> >Blaming the US government for acting in the short-term commercial
> >interest of its citizens is a little contrarian.
>
> To the contrary, the short-term commercial interest is *not* anything
> that benefits the citizens of the U.S. To the contrary it is harmful to
> us. It only benefits a few big corporate entities, and not only harms
> the citizens in the U.S. but also people around the world.
>
> Many people in the U.S .and around the world depend on the Internet
> for vital communication that makes their lives possible. The U.S.
> government and a few commercial folks have no concern for protecting
> or respecting the Internet (at least the section of the U.S. government
> carrying out this plan.)
>
> >If, however, the US government was aiming at creating an
> >institution which aided free commerce of ideas, products and
> >services, allowing citizens of many countries to communicate,
> >converse and exchange without petty and dictatorial regulation
> >by local bureaucracies, then that is of course highly political.
> >Many worldwide would wish for this dangerously libertarian myth
> >to be suppressed immediately.
>
> The U.S. government is *not* aiming at such. If they were they wouldn't
> be playing the games they are with the Internet. They would find a
> way to protect the essential functions of the Internet *not* expose
> them to political power plays.
>
> The U.S. government has been holding IANA and the people who
> work of it hostage, rather than protecting them. They have kept
> them from having the appropriate contract to do their work, and instead
> subjected them to being taken over by ICANN. They are meddlng
> in a similar with other essential Internet functions.
>
> The myth you put forward above is only a way of covering the U.S.
> government manipulations to benefit a small set of U.S. corporate
> interests.
>
> But the Internet and the communication it makes possible is at
> stake and thus those who care for it need to recognize that mythology
> or fairy tales do not substitute for responsiblity and the care
> that the Internet requires.
>
> >MM
>
> > > >Esther Dyson a =E9crit:
> > > >>
> > > >> We have an international board, we will have an
> > > >> international membership,
> > > >> and we are an international organization.
> >
> Ronda
>
> 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: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:40:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Bino Gopal <bino@rabi.columbia.edu>
Subject: [netz] A Call to Arms?
Hello,
My name is Bino Gopal, and I've been subscribed to the netizens mailing
list since last May, and while that may not be the longest time, I've been
around for a while, and watched as it went from hardly any traffic, to the
regular flow we see now (which was quite impressive, may I add!)
I recently graduated from Columbia University, (undergrad) and am now
working in the Networks group here at the University, in the main Computer
division (AcIS), so this is right up my alley. I'm also a lifeling
computer user and net addict :). While I am very interested in what's
happening, I've only been able to follow the discussions topically, and
haven't been able to keep up on all the latest news. I have read enough
though to say that I find myself in Ronda's camp more often than not, and
find myself agreeing with many of her views...
But having said that, something is still troubling me--something recently
highlighted by the latest email to the list. In it, someone said that
they too were wary of what was going on, but that they were afraid that
this whole mailing list may be a waste of time. Now that's something
that's crossed my mind, seeing how frustrated Ronda has been in her
attempts to get 'the powers that be' to listen. I believe this
consideration of efficacy is very important, and relates to my next point.
Here is the one thing I would like to hear:
A clear, concise, brief description of what the _real_ danger is in all
the goings on and doings of the US Gov and all these supporting
organizations. To explain why I ask this, listen to the following
example:
I thought I had some grasp of the gravity of the situation, and attempted
to tell one of my friends who is easily classified as a computer
nerd--unix sysadmin, regularly reads newsgroups, keeps up on news of this
sort (hates microsoft :), etc--the exact kind of person I would have
thought would be all against the ICANN and their recent underhanded
actions, and would get riled up and ready to fight upon hearing what was
going on.
Now maybe, I just wasn't well enough prepared in terms of information, but
he just didn't see what the problem was, and did not feel any sense of
urgency. Basically he just said that whatever was going on with DNS and
private corporations, etc, it would 'work itself out in the end' and
that there's nothing to worry about--nothing real important was happening.
Now:
1) That could be just him being lazy/unconcerned, or not well enough
informed, which is possible...
2) But if people like him who should be the ones on the front line crying
foul don't really care at the hint underhandedness, what's going on?
***
Can someone give me a clear, concise and brief description of what the
dangers are? Are the dangers real or ideological? Will it really have an
affect on the average end-user? Really? Will things really significantly
change from how they have been, and for the worse?
***
I believe this is what we need to establish, and state, so that we can
inform more and more other people who aren't aware and involved, and
should be. In other words, people like those I work with--University
computer people (more computer geeks) who I never hear talking about these
issues, or even considering their importance, and this is in the Networks
group for God's sakes! We're talking pretty liberal, technological,
intelligent, usually well-informed people...
Having established that, we can use the list as a focal point for a
serious organized movement to get people to _listen_, and inform others.
Discussion is all well and good, but I have to admit sometimes that I sit
back and look at it and go, "What's the point?" Ideological discussions
can go on forever, while things are happening, and we need to be doing
something; getting more and more people on our side, till our numbers or
influence are overwhelming enough for 'them' to take notice.
- -----
*sigh* There are many things I have wanted to say for a long time now, but
never had the time too, so this email may be a bit 'all over the place',
but I wanted to finally get these ideas out there and see what gets thrown
back. I hope I've made some sense, and someone can get me that nice,
clear, concise description of the problem that I can use to convince
others of the danger! This is what the subject, 'A Call to Arms' is all
about.
Finally, let me just say, Ronda, thank you, for all the time and effort
you've put into this list. I can see your true dedication in your beliefs
and I don't think they're misplaced, and you should not lose heart or hope
despite the obstacles and hinderances. There are many out there who agree
with you, and _will_ agree with you--we just have to realize that
unfulfilled potential and wake them up to the dangerous reality! You have
my utmost respect and gratitude for continuing this fight. Now, I hope we
can do more to help.
BINO
- -----
BINO GOPAL
Network Analyst
Academic Information Systems
Columbia University
612 W115th St #604
New York, NY 10025 USA
bino@columbia.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:14:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] A Call to Arms?
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.95.990119165328.27773A-100000@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>,
Bino Gopal wrote:
>But having said that, something is still troubling me--something
>recently highlighted by the latest email to the list. In it, someone
>said that they too were wary of what was going on, but that they were
>afraid that this whole mailing list may be a waste of time.
My personal opinion is that this list is fine for discussion and
expression of opinion. There is no one on this list (that I know of)
who has enough influence over the "powers that be" (whoever they might
be) to make substantial changes in how things will be done (at least
in the short term).
>Now that's something that's crossed my mind, seeing how frustrated
>Ronda has been in her attempts to get 'the powers that be' to listen.
>I believe this consideration of efficacy is very important, and
>relates to my next point.
Keep in mind that Ronda is but one of many individuals who have
expressed opinions on what should be done, and the other individuals
have felt at least as frustrated as she has. Some of them have gone
to the trouble of suing those individuals and organizations who they
felt were depriving them of their rights. So Ronda is not the only
person who feels like no one's listening to them.
>Here is the one thing I would like to hear:
>A clear, concise, brief description of what the _real_ danger is in
>all the goings on and doings of the US Gov and all these supporting
>organizations.
Hmmm ... if you asked this question on all the mailing lists,
newsgroups, etc. where this issue is debated, you'd get a variety of
opinions. How would you decide which (if any) were "the _real_
danger?" (Hint: this is part of why this is such a complex issue.)
[discussion with colleague deleted]
>Now:
>1) That could be just him being lazy/unconcerned, or not well enough
>informed, which is possible...
>2) But if people like him who should be the ones on the front line
>crying foul don't really care at the hint underhandedness, what's
>going on?
I have had some discussions with other people in the Internet industry
about the ICANN, etc. Some of them have been around since the days of
the Internet as a research project. Opinions are mixed. Some people
believe it is a bunch of hoopla over nothing. Others have varying
degrees of concern. Some have expressed similar concerns as yours,
that it's not possible to get simple explanations of what is
happening.
>Having established that, we can use the list as a focal point for a
>serious organized movement to get people to _listen_, and inform
>others.
What would you tell them? How would you convince them that they
needed to be concerned, particularly if it would require them to study
a large set of technical specifications, mail archives, and
litigation?
I have had some discussions about this with people who aren't in the
Internet industry. They don't understand what is happening and don't
have any reasonable way to understand. It's not as if they can drop
whatever they're doing and study almost 40 years of history, including
some very complex technical and policy issues.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I think there is value in being able to
have such discussions, even if they don't amount to anything. That's
something I will fight for, if it becomes necessary.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:01:03 -0500
From: Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] A Call to Arms?
Here are some potential worst-case scenarios... from my perspective on this
mess.
1) The root "splits" and there is no longer any universally resolvable Internet.
This was more of a concern in the AlterNIC/eDNS days, but I read the occasional
calls to institute "Plan B" as meaning that some people still have a sentimental
attraction to the idea of "freeing the nameservers." This would make the
Internet and the Web more like the UseNet, where (as I understand it) one might
not "see" every newsgroup because of subscription made by the local ISP.
Big business would certainly see this as a nightmarish perspective, because it
implies the investment big corps make in building brand identity might be
undercut. But I think it would be inconvenient for nearly anyone (except perhaps
for technically proficient people who thrive on quickening obsolescence, and for
various governmental regimes that wouldn't mind having a way of turning parts of
the Internet dark).
2) I personally share the concern of the CORE group that sustaining NSI's
effectively proprietary TLDs and creating new ones (like .WEB and .PER)
increases the risk of consumer "lock-in" and capture while perpetuating a
US-centric marketing and regulatory regime for the Internet. Of course, there is
a counter concern that a shared root registry is untested technology, and not
ready for prime-time.
3) The worst case from the perspective of CORE's (and perhaps ICANN's) most
vociferous pro-privatization opponents is the embedding of non-competitive
"socialist" norms in the Internet's adminstrative regime, creating
innovation-stifling bureaucracies and sinecures for Internet old-timers and
their well-connected friends. Some people really despise the ITU/PTT model, and
have great fear that this could infect the management of the Internet. They see
Reagan/Thatcherism as the best antidote.
...
Thread titles like "A Call to Arms" are precisely the sorts of things that make
me wonder how much people are willing to put the stability of the Internet at
risk. As much as the concept of proprietary TLDs strikes me as absurdly
exploitative, I'd much rather see that be accepted rather than undermine the
smooth interoperation of the Internet. In any case, I don't think that
privatization in itself is a terrible thing (as Ronda seems to insist at every
opportunity), though I also doubt that unbridled possessive individualism is the
quickest route toward civic virtue.
Craig Simon
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #256
******************************
