Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 234
Netizens-Digest Friday, December 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 234
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Season's Greetings
[netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
[netz] U: Management of Net Names
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
[netz] ISPs who don't serve the public -- what to do?
[netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 13:12:30
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] Season's Greetings
Yet another thought of Christmas
This
Christmas
end a quarrel.
Seek out a forgotten
friend. Dismiss suspicion,
and replace it with trust....
Write a love letter. Share some
treasure. Give a soft answer. En-
courage youth. Manifest your loyalty in
word and deed. Keep a promise. Find the
time. Forgo a grudge. Forgive an enemy. Listen.
Apologize if you were wrong. Try to understand.
Flout envy. Examine your demands on others. Think
first of someone else. Appreciate. Be kind; be gentle
Laugh a little. Laugh a little more. Deserve confidence.
Take up arms against malice. Decry complacency. Express your
gratitude. Go to church. Welcome a stranger. Gladden the heart
of a child. Take pleasure in the beauty and wonder of the earth.
Speak your love.
Speak it again.
Speak it yet
once again.
Season's Greetings,
John Walker
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/
_/ John S. Walker _/
_/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
_/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
_/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
_/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
_/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
_/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
_/ _/
_/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
_/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
_/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 00:04:11 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
(Forwarded from list@ifwp.org )
{ http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/announce.html
{
{ The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
{
{ Announcement and Call for Participation
{
{ - How can a legitimate and fairly represented community be brought together
{ to decide matters affecting the entire Internet?
{ - Can the Net itself be harnessed to create fair and effective methods of
{ representation?
{ - How can the interests of future Internet users be accounted for today?
On 17 Dec 1998, I received the following from George Conrades
re: Membership Advisory Committee
"Thank you very much for expressing interest in serving on the ICANN
Membership Advisory Committee. We were fortunate enough to receive over
eighty expressions of interest from all over the world, and unfortunately
could not include everyone on the committee. However, one of the
committee's first orders of business will be determining how to involve
the public in its work -- especially you and the others who were interested
enough to volunteer for the committee. I hope you will contribute."
At first, I took this to mean I might expect to be on some kind of mailing
list, since I had distinguished myself by being not only a member of the public
but an *interested* one at that. 80 people sounded like a very reasonably
sized group which could 'represent' the interests of net users, and such a list
would indeed be using 'the net itself' to reach its decisions, especially such
an interesting one as why accounting for *future users is already on the agenda
of a group which has yet to decide how to account for the present unruly bunch.
But this apparently is not to be, even for the group called to form the group
that is called to define "the qualifications for membership, the rights and
obligations it entails, [and] the procedures for member nomination and election
of At Large Directors" for a group which was established by fiat; namely,
ICANN. I therefore raise a question: If the public the Board is trying to
reach consists of those who are already willing to be represented in a process
which has already been selected to represent them, *why bother*? Or do ICANN
bylaws call for convening a committee to define 'charade'?
From the IFWP post, it appears that the process intends to stay within the
'public' input channels that were created last year. So be it. I would
nevertheless appreciate being informed, in a suitably public manner, how one
becomes a 'member' of IFWG, how to subscribe to this list, and where its mail
archives may be found.
Skeptic at large,
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 00:11:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
Good to see this Kerry.
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>{ http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/announce.html
>{
>{ The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
>{
>{ Announcement and Call for Participation
>{
>{ - How can a legitimate and fairly represented community be brought together
>{ to decide matters affecting the entire Internet?
Obviously it can't be. How can anyone represent folks on the Internet
and why shouldn't folks on the Internet represent themselves (i.e.
why shouldn't we represent ourselves as the Internet technology
makes this possible.)
So the question is already framed in a way that excludes it being
answered.
Also ICANN is a commercially oriented entity and the Internet is
a social entity, and so they are fundamentally opposed.
>{ - Can the Net itself be harnessed to create fair and effective methods of
>{ representation?
No - the Net is a way for people to represent themselves, *not* to
have others represent them.
>{ - How can the interests of future Internet users be accounted for today?
This question seems ok, but not when you think that the folks asking
it are actually robbing the interests of those who are on today.
The following is helpful to see, as I *never* got this letter from
George Conrades. So it seemed they never even bothered to consider
my expression of interest, though it didn't seem that they considered
yours as well.
After I complained about *not* getting any letter from them, I
got a letter apologizing for missing me :-( But it didn't indicate
any consideration of my expression of interest even then.
So it was a waste to have put in an expression of interest. (I'll
find the letter I received and send it to the list as soon as
I get the chance.)
>>On 17 Dec 1998, I received the following from George Conrades
>>re: Membership Advisory Committee
>"Thank you very much for expressing interest in serving on the ICANN
>Membership Advisory Committee. We were fortunate enough to receive over
>eighty expressions of interest from all over the world, and unfortunately
>could not include everyone on the committee. However, one of the
>committee's first orders of business will be determining how to involve
>the public in its work -- especially you and the others who were interested
>enough to volunteer for the committee. I hope you will contribute."
There was *no* reason they couldn't include everyone on the committee.
(Except that it is an exclusive committee to try to grab the Internet
for the commercial sector and some of those who applied for the
committeee would oppose that grab.)
>At first, I took this to mean I might expect to be on some kind of mailing
>list, since I had distinguished myself by being not only a member of the
>public
(And members of the public aren't of interest to the grabbers of
the Internet for a small sector of the commercial world.)
>but an *interested* one at that. 80 people sounded like a very reasonably
>sized group which could 'represent' the interests of net users, and such a
>list
I don't feel that it would represent the interests, but could have helped
to work for people on the Net to be able to represent themselves.
>would indeed be using 'the net itself' to reach its decisions, especially such
>an interesting one as why accounting for *future users is already on the agenda
Yes "using the 'net itself' is important, but I feel to bring the
problems to people on the Net, not to make decisions for them.
>of a group which has yet to decide how to account for the present unruly bunch.
>But this apparently is not to be, even for the group called to form the group
>that is called to define "the qualifications for membership, the rights and
>obligations it entails, [and] the procedures for member nomination and election
>of At Large Directors" for a group which was established by fiat; namely,
>ICANN. I therefore raise a question: If the public the Board is trying to
>reach consists of those who are already willing to be represented in a process
>which has already been selected to represent them, *why bother*? Or do ICANN
>bylaws call for convening a committee to define 'charade'?
And the U.S. govt oversight of all this is not functioning. The NTIA is
supposed to be involved in what is happening, and they seem to have
abandoned ship.
> From the IFWP post, it appears that the process intends to stay within the
>'public' input channels that were created last year. So be it. I would
>nevertheless appreciate being informed, in a suitably public manner, how one
>becomes a 'member' of IFWG, how to subscribe to this list, and where its mail
>archives may be found.
Let us know if you get any answer to this.
The IFWP mailing list is very difficult to deal with as it
bombards one's mailbox with many messages and I for one have
a very tough time with such an mailing list. (I have had to
pay for extra storage space in my account to keep up with
it, and even then have trouble.)
And the whole way it is framed it excludes the public, or
users from its ranks, and really only concerns itself wtih
questions of how to make the Internet commercial.
>Skeptic at large,
>kerry
Following is the instructions on how to subscribe to the
IFWP mailing list.
__________________________________________________
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 01:27:36 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] U: Management of Net Names
Comments by Karl Auerbach on:
http://www.cavebear.com/nsf-dns/ntia-comments.html
Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses;
Proposed Rule
as published in the Federal Register: February 20, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 34)
by Karl Auerbach (one of the 10 'individual' registrants at the 7/ 98 IFWP
conference.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 08:35:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
I don't know if there is an official membership application for IFWP. I
think if you join the list, you are a member. The web site for IFWP is
www.ifwp.org. Also, go to www.giaw.org and follow the links to find the
IFWP archives. The archives are accessed via a menu.
Also, there is a mailing list for ICANN and an archive associated with it.
I don't remember them offhand, but start at www.icann.org and follow the
links from there.
Re: IFWP mailing list volume, yes, it is high volume and hard to keep up.
Feel free to discuss non-commercial Internet issues if you want.
Happy Holidays
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 09:41:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] ISPs who don't serve the public -- what to do?
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>The ISP's I'm aware of have enough trouble making access available,
>without too many interrruptions, are interested in the money
>they make and *not* in providing an essential service.
>And when there is an effort to organize a freenet so those
>folks who can't afford access can get online, the ISP's arrive
>and tell folks there is *no* need for a freenet as one can
>pay them.
>There is a distinct lack of public service or committment to
>providing a reliable and cheap service among the service providers
>I have encountered. One even told us that he carried a gun to
>protect him from the other service providers in the area and
>he claimed the service providers in the area were all trying
>to knock each others systems out. And he threatened us that
>if a freenet got started the service providers would make
>every effort to get make it nonfunctional.
>This is a very different kind of activity than someone who
>is reliable and doing all they can to provide an essential
>public service.
If what you and Michael Sondow have written recently is representative
of how ISPs are treating their customers in the NYC area, I think it
is unfortunate that they are allowed to operate in what I consider to
be an unprofessional manner. I find the idea that someone would try
to kill off a freenet highly unethical and reprehensible.
However, I wish there was a way to convince you that not all ISPs are
like this. The people I know who work at ISPs here in the SF bay area
would never think of doing such things. There is competition among
ISPs here in the SF bay area, and people have their strong opinions
and biases. However, nothing I have ever heard of comes close to what
is described above.
One of the dangers of a lack of regulation is that in areas where
there are few if any alternatives for Internet connectivity, the
people who provide that connectivity can screw their customers and
there's nothing they can do. (However, in this particular case, I
don't know if there are a limited number of alternatives. Also,
some places like NYC may not be good for ISP startups of any type.)
However, the question remains: if the Internet is to be regulated, who
will bear the cost of regulation, and who will carry out the task?
Happy Holidays
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 17:10:53 -0500
From: Mark Lindeman <mtl4@columbia.edu>
Subject: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
Ronda writes at one point,
>>{ - How can a legitimate and fairly represented community be brought
together
>>{ to decide matters affecting the entire Internet?
>
>Obviously it can't be. How can anyone represent folks on the Internet
>and why shouldn't folks on the Internet represent themselves (i.e.
>why shouldn't we represent ourselves as the Internet technology
>makes this possible.)
And at another point,
>The IFWP mailing list is very difficult to deal with as it
>bombards one's mailbox with many messages and I for one have
>a very tough time with such an mailing list. (I have had to
>pay for extra storage space in my account to keep up with
>it, and even then have trouble.)
To my way of thinking, there is a connection here! and it has nothing to do
with any peculiar flaws of the IFWP mailing list. Sure, the Internet
allows everyone to talk, but it doesn't allow us to hear everyone out. Of
course, in a newsgroup format as opposed to a mailing list format, at least
one's mailbox doesn't get flooded. But regardless of format, trying to
build a decision-making institution that really lets everyone on the
Internet represent themselves (not just in the sense of being allowed to
speak, but in the sense that everyone has at least potentially equal
influence on the decision) is not so simple, is it?
The idea of bringing a representative community together may well be
wrongheaded. What should we do instead?
Mark Lindeman
MTL4@columbia.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 01:04:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
Seasons greetings to all.
I have lurked on this list for sometime now, since my first posting (c/o
Ronda), and now feel that I have to jump in again with a comment/couple
of points for comment..
My comments are below the excerpts from the previous posting:
On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Ronda writes at one point,
>
> >>{ - How can a legitimate and fairly represented community be brought
> together
> >>{ to decide matters affecting the entire Internet?
> >
> >Obviously it can't be. How can anyone represent folks on the Internet
> >and why shouldn't folks on the Internet represent themselves (i.e.
> >why shouldn't we represent ourselves as the Internet technology
> >makes this possible.)
<snip>
> .. But regardless of format, trying to
> build a decision-making institution that really lets everyone on the
> Internet represent themselves (not just in the sense of being allowed to
> speak, but in the sense that everyone has at least potentially equal
> influence on the decision) is not so simple, is it?
>
> The idea of bringing a representative community together may well be
> wrongheaded. What should we do instead?
>
> Mark Lindeman
> MTL4@columbia.edu
>
If we look at the most favoured institution of governance around the
world at present (ie. liberal democratic states), is it not possible to
see how this process of participation/representation can be reconciled?
I think that this is what we are discussing (at a fundamental level) here.
That is, the conflict between participation and representation. It seems
to me that we are trying to conceive of an organisation that has
legitimate representation, but is manageable enough to act in the
interests of the majority (note: not *all*).. We call them parliaments in
RL, don't we? (Or dictatorships? - w3c.org being an example "in
cyberspace" from Kerry's recent posting from TechReview.)
Perhaps we, as netizens, should be trying to get to grips with new forms
of governance, (that is one of the joys of the Internet), but perhaps I
agree with Mark when he calls the direct approach (ie. participation)
"wrongheaded". There must be a way that we can utilise the benefits of the
technology, but also make it manageable for everyone to use and
comprehend.
Ronda mentioned, in an earlier posting (I forget which), a case where she
met a woman in a cafe, who was very interested in the issues Ronda
mentioned to her. I think that a majority of people are interested in what
goes on within ICANN, but do not want to get involved with direct debate.
Perhaps I can draw the parallel with traditional politics. Would anybody
disagree that this is the case with government of our states? Although the
Internet provides us with a fundamentally new way of looking at social
structures (therefore politics, society, economy, you name it, it does
it!), I don't think that we can simply disregard the example of history,
and the present.
There is a difference between participation and representation. Rousseau
learnt that (his ideas of government/state/constitution were based on
very small states: Corsica and Switzerland I think). The Internet, and
issues of governance that concern the Internet will shortly affect
everybody on this earth (already it is too many to discuss the politics
of the Internet in an "agora" (I think this is the word - I mean as the
ancient Greeks used to discuss politics). This will surely create a
divide, and not provide complete equality, due to the fact that there wil
be netizens who do not feel competent to contribute to a discussion, and
(less of) those who feel compelled to spend their whole lives discussing it.
Perhaps we should recognise that, and move towards a new form of
democratic governance (who said that democracy was the best of a bad
lot?), which is based upon contemporary models of consensus-building in
RL. The institutionalisation of such an entity should be made easier by
the technology at hand, and will also be able to adapt as the Internet
grows, and grows, and grows. This should act in parallel with any
organisation that chooses to represent organisational interests (ie.
commercial interests, governments, non-governmental orgs. etc.).
I.e.: representation NOT participation, in the truest senses of the words.
Jamal
- --
Jamal Shahin (j.shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk)
Unit for Research on ICTs
Department of European Studies,
University of Hull,
Hull. HU6 7RX
Tel:(0)148 234 1422. Fax:(0)148 246 5020
========================================
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #234
******************************
