Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 254
Netizens-Digest Saturday January 16 1999 Vol 1 #254
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [Membership] How Will ICANN Assure an International Membership? (Re: Re:Upcoming events)
[netz] introduction
[netz] Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO (fwd)
[netz] Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO (fwd)
[netz] Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO (fwd)
[netz] Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:22:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [Membership] How Will ICANN Assure an International Membership? (Re: Re:Upcoming events)
Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Esther and all,
> It is indeed true the the INTERIM BOARD is of international origin,
>and with the exception of Mike Roberts, most live outside of
>California. This however does NOT in any fashion make the ICANN
>and international organization in law or in fact. It only makes SOME
>of the INTERIM BOARD members, citizens of other countries, nothing
>more. Nor at this point in time is the ICANN even remotely considered
>and INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION as Esther Dyson contends.
If some members of a Board of Directors live in other countries and
are citiziens of other countries, but that has *NOTHING* to
do with the person being international or the corporation
they are board members of being international.
This is indeed a falsification to claim that if someone is
a citizen a country other than the U.S. and is on the board
of directors of a U.S. corporation, that this corporation becomes
an International Organization, as Esther Dyson claims.
>To do so the iCANN must by international treaty and US law, become
>registered and an international organization, which to my knowledge,
>and after checking with the U.N., has yet to do as they are not completely
But an international organization is very different from a private
corporation which is being formed in the U.S.
An International organization has to do with some agreement among
different nations, and especially the governments of different
nations.
The whole point of the U.S. Green Paper and White paper were to
exclude any open government participation in ICANN and thus
to exclude that it could be an international organization.
Instead it is the worst aspects of a private corporate organization
as it denies the behind the scenes maneveurs by th U.S. government
and others.
>constituted to do without a membership organization defined,
>which is what this forum is all about....
No membership organization can change the fact that ICANN is
*not* an international organization, unless that membership
organization is one of governments representing nations.
And since the Green and White paper and ICANN exclude representatives
of nations or governments, there is *no* possibility of ICANN
being an international organization.
Thus what is ICANN?
It seems it is a U.S. government created commercial entity to
give control over the Internet and some of its most valuable
and controlling assets to some private sector entities.
And any membership in this subterfuge is only to cover up what
the subterfuge is all about.
The real question that has to be raised with regard to ICANN
is what is the proper government role for the U.S. and for
other governments in its creation and oversight and control.
And that is a difficult question to answer since the U.S.
government hasn't a clue of the proper government role in
the U.S. portion of the Internet and has excluded the question
of either the proper government role in the U.S. portion or
in the worldwide internet from being discussed.
This was the question that the Internet solved in its birth
and development, but that solution is being excluded from
the discussion of how to scale the Internet.
That is what my proposal to Magaziner and then the NTIA was
about as it built on how various nations solved the problem
of the proper government role to create an international
Internet.
> We (INEGroup) fine this contention that Esther is making that the
>ICANN is an international organization to be misleading and disingenuous
>to those on this forum, and would kindly request that she discontinue
>such comments in the future...
I agree that Esther's statement is misleading, but she has been
chosen for the board because she is willing to make such statements.
She has *not* been chosen to try to unravel the mess that has
created ICANN and has made no effort to do so.
This is why the Interim Board is only harmful to the solving of
the genuine problems that face the Internet at this time.
,
To be helpful Esther and the others on the Interim Board would have
to be willing to be honest and try to figure out where this mess
called ICANN has come from, and especially why *no* assets belonging
to the public of any nation/s should be transferred to a private
corporation created in such a dishonest manner where all the real
issues are hidden.
> It may be that the ICANN will become an international organization in the
>future. This of course remains to be seen at this juncture. It may also
It can't become an International Organization as it excludes all
that is needed to be an International Organization.
>be that the NTIA, will approve the ICANN for the transfer of the central
>resources to the ICANN a well should this ICANN INTERIM Board
The NTIA has no authority to approve such a transfer of billions
of dollars of public assets to ICANN, but that is what it has
created ICANN to do. However, that was not stated in the Green
paper or White paper but hidden behind other confusing language.
As it has no authority to do such transfers, it is only creating
a cherade by pretending that it can do such and thus harming
the Internet in very serious ways.
The central functions of the Internet need protection from commercial
and private entities. They need to be able to function in
a non commercial environment where they can be carried out in
a manner respecting the autonomy of the nations and networks
that are part of the Internet.
The commercenet that the U.S. is planning or that other nations
are planning, requires the continuation of the Internet as the
underlying infrastructure. The Internet is an internetting of
networks around the world. It depends on the respect for the
autonomy of those networks.
A commercenet is intended to try to dominate over other commercenets.
It is a particular. It is where it seems nations try to promote
their own big corporate entities at the expense of other corporate
entities.
A commercenet is fundamentally different from an Internet.
If the Internet is harmed, there can be *no* commercenets.
There can be something like a compuserve, or a prodigy, or
any other individual private commercial network. But there
can't be any linking of them as there is now via the Internet.
Also the commercenet is a particular, and it has been
substituted for the general which is the Internet.
No problem can be solved by looking at the particular and excluding
the general.
>be able to garner reasonable consensus and formulate a Individual
>Membership Organization which is required in the NTIA's White Paper
There can be no reasonable consensus as the whole of the non commercially
interested networks and people of the Internet are excluded and
ignored in these discussions.
The only consensus being asked for is that of those with a
commercial interest.
Thus this is a very narrow segment of people and is a sect
that leaves out the great number of Internet users who depend
on the Internet and contribute to it as a communications medium.
>and as part of the memorandum of Understanding with the NTIA,
>as stated in the proposed ICANN bylaws. This has not yet occurred
>however. This decision will be determined by YOU the stakeholder/user...
Only when the real questions begin to be raised can the real
solutions to any real problems be found.
Right now the ICANN-NTIA secret dealings can only be creating
problems, and the Berkman Institute should be helping to
uncover what is happening as that is its ethical obligation,
rather than helping to cover up the subterfuge of grabbing
the public resources for hidden private purposes and interest,
which is what is being done by ICANN and the NTIA at the moment.
I have a draft paper at http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/internet.txt
I am in the process of revising it so welcome comments on it as
soon as possible. But it raises some of the real issues that are
being covered up by what is happening with the NTIA and ICANN and
the U.S. timetable for privatizing the Internet. And the paper
proposes what is needed in place of the subterfuge being carried
out.
>
> 09:32 PM 15/01/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Esther Dyson a écrit:
> >>
> >> We have an international board, we will have an
> >> international membership,
> >> and we are an international organization.
(...)
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:46:54 +0100 (MET)
From: John Horvath <h8801joh@ella.hu>
Subject: [netz] introduction
Hi,
I have recently subscribed myself to the list. My name is John Horvath
and I'm a writer based in Hungary. I am a correspondent for Teleopolis
<http://www.heise.de/tp> and a contributing writer to Toward Freedom
<http://www.towardfreedom.com>. My main area of interest is social
change, especially the changes going on in Central and Eastern Europe.
This also includes the advent of the new media, not just from a regional
perspective, but from a global one as well. While I see that computers
and computer-mediated communications hold many potentials, these
potentials are not guarantee and can even be used in adverse ways. Thus,
there's a need for in-depth net critique alongside the exploration of
how new media technologies may enhance social values -- both online and
offline.
I see this list as one means by which I can obtain further knowledge
into these issues, as well as a forum by which I can offer insight and
advance new theories into the ever-expanding social aspect of the
Internet. Please don't hesitate to visit my website
<http://www.metpress.hu/~jhorv> if you would like more information into
my interests and some of the work I have already done in the field of
socio-technological change.
I am looking forward to participating in the discussions taking place.
Regards,
John Horvath
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:08:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO (fwd)
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Path: HLSBERKMAN.BerkmanCenterforInternetandSociety.com
Newsgroups: IFWP.Poised-Archive
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:53:33 -0500
Message-ID: <7A2DD0970520D2118FF800A0C9B3C14B01B8BE@cyber.law.harvard.edu>
Sender: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
To: poised@tis.com
Subject: Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Jan 1999 09:19:02 +0800."
<3692BA06.7CA7FC47@geocities.com>
Reply-to: Stef@nma.com
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <20387.915749613.1@nma.com>
Precedence: bulk
I have generally (mostly) refrained from participating in this POISSON
discussion of IETF/ICANN relationships ever since the Chicago IETF,
where I was the only person to stand up in the IAB Plenary session and
object to the blanket IANA BYLAWS endorsement that the IAB attempted
to claim from a standing ovation in honor of Jon Postel's long history
of good works. I am pleased to see that some of you have figured out
that those bylaws have some serious problems.
I still find the discussion here to be one that I have very little to
contribute too, beyond my original objection to the adoption of those
proposed bylaws, and since then I find that my prediction of impending
problems, if not a disaster, have proven that the IETF would one day
wish they had not turned their servant (IANA) into their master
(ICANN).
I am very pleased to see that others now see the logic of my concerns
at that time, and I wish you great good luck in using your remaining 2
wishes, out of the original 3 granted by the the IAB, to get the ICANN
genie (monster) back into the bottle.
I trust you are all taking note of the fact that the IAB has fallen
into the famous "Sorcerer's Apprentice Problem" and has taken the IETF
along for the ride. With very good luck, they might be able use their
remaining 2 wishes to recover from their first wish results.
I suggest that great care be exercised in the future use of wishes.
As I was not effective in preventing this situation, and have been
cast by the IAB as nothing more than a trouble maker, I feel little or
no responsibility for now working with hostile partners to help put
their genie/monster back in the bottle.
I believe it is best if I just leave all this as an exercise for the
sorcerer's apprentices to complete.
In any case, I truly hope that the final result will be a proper
memorial to Jon, in place of what has so far created. And yes, I
agree with Rahmat that the IAB lies at the core of how we all got to
this point.
In short, "It all happened on their (IAB's) watch".
It is their mess, and they should clean it up.
In the meantime, I am spending my time trying to help maintain some
sense of sanity in the DNS MESS arena, which is where the original
malfunction of USGovt management occurred, and the greatest potential
for future ICANN management malfunctions appears to exist.
Surely the IETF will be able to maintain its independence as long as
it does not claim to have a monopoly on setting standards for the
Internet community. As Christian Huitema has noted, the IETF has no
authority to do anything other than independently produce good
standards that work, and which therefore the market accepts. AS long
as it can continue to do its work on this basis, and continue to win
markets for its standards, it should have little to fear.
And, I predict, that if somehow, ICANN gets control of IETF and tries
to direct its work, a new Alternate IETF will arise and continue the
work without ICANN's "Adult Supervision". The current IETF is in fact
much more mature than is ICANN, and quite capable of managing its own
affairs.
I cannot say the same for the IAB which led the charge to form ICANN.
Cheers...\Stef
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:16:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO (fwd)
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Path: HLSBERKMAN.BerkmanCenterforInternetandSociety.com
Newsgroups: IFWP.Poised-Archive
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 05:05:39 -0500
Message-ID: <7A2DD0970520D2118FF800A0C9B3C14B01B8BF@cyber.law.harvard.edu>
Sender: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Internet Division
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stef@nma.com
CC: poised@tis.com
Subject: Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO
References: <20389.915749613@nma.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Stef,
I don't feel any need to defend the IAB, since the record defends us.
However I must respond on a point of fact. There is no sense
in which it is remotely true that the IAB "led the charge"
to create ICANN. At the most, we accepted what was politically
inevitable, and attempted to ensure that it came out as well as
possible given the political realities.
Brian
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:16:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO (fwd)
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Path: HLSBERKMAN.BerkmanCenterforInternetandSociety.com
Newsgroups: IFWP.Poised-Archive
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:14:21 -0500
Message-ID: <7A2DD0970520D2118FF800A0C9B3C14B01B8C2@cyber.law.harvard.edu>
Sender: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
cc: poised@tis.com
Subject: Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Jan 1999 10:05:39 GMT."
<3695D873.3FB4C9F9@hursley.ibm.com>
Reply-to: Stef@nma.com
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <23132.915826460.1@nma.com>
Precedence: bulk
Hi Brian --
I see it as being a bit simpler than you do...
You got what you wished for. And I did not.
I wish you well in your dealing now with what you got.
You don't have to defend what you did.
You just have to live with the consequences.
I am very pleased that it did not happen on my watch.
Fortunately, I was not nominated to the IAB last year!
I am sure you also think it was fortunate!
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Fri, 08 Jan 1999 10:05:39 +0000:
}
}Stef,
}
}I don't feel any need to defend the IAB, since the record defends us.
}
}However I must respond on a point of fact. There is no sense
}in which it is remotely true that the IAB "led the charge"
}to create ICANN. At the most, we accepted what was politically
}inevitable, and attempted to ensure that it came out as well as
}possible given the political realities.
}
} Brian
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:19:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO (fwd)
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Path: HLSBERKMAN.BerkmanCenterforInternetandSociety.com
Newsgroups: IFWP.Poised-Archive
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:51:41 -0500
Message-ID: <7A2DD0970520D2118FF800A0C9B3C14B01B8C4@cyber.law.harvard.edu>
Sender: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
To: "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@chaos.com>
cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, poised@tis.com
Subject: Re: IETF and the ICANN PSO
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Jan 1999 16:27:04 EST."
<4.1.19990108160708.00a9e680@mail.netmagic.com>
Reply-to: Stef@nma.com
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <24804.915839500.1@nma.com>
Precedence: bulk
Hi Tony -- I agree;-)...
It is time for the IETF to seriously rethink, again, what is the role
of the IAB. When last this was reviewed, it was decided after
considerable effort and discussion, that the IAB was not superior to
the IETF, but was its servant. And servitude was again imposed upon
it.
But, over time, we now see that servants in this kind of environment
tend to gravitate upward into becoming masters, ans so ISOC has become
the superior to the IAB, and the IAB to IETF, all because of the way
some so called liability insurance contracts are set up to offer some
kind of protectrion to WG Chair and other "officers" of the IETF, and
even to the WG members, perhaps.
Such protection is nice, but not at the price of becoming subjugated
to the source of the insurance, or to the "Architerctrure Issues WG".
So, since it is now 6 years since the Great Boston IPV7 rebellion, and
the internet has grown by a factor of 2**6=64, I think it time to
think about a new IETF working level rebellion, if the IAB will not
rethink the rejuvernation issues on its own.
In short, I beliee that the IAB is in serious need of rejuvination.
But, it is going to require a large fraction of the IETF to come
around to the point of agreeing that this is the case, so I am just
standing aside and waiting for that point to be reached.
I think that this ICANN thing comes very close to being the trigger.
But, I also see the IAB hanging tough on the whole issue, so we will
have to wait a little longer.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Fri, 08 Jan 1999 16:27:04 -0500:
}
}Stef,
}
}>Fortunately, I was not nominated to the IAB last year!
}
}You're nudging into a fundamental problem here.
}
}About nine years ago when Vint and I were going around
}evangelizing the IETF to the old guard standards world,
}Vint would make the point that no group persisted in the
}IETF more than 18 months. Everyone produced a defined
}product in the required period, and the group was torn
}down. No one had any incentives to find continuing
}reasons to exist and maintain a club.
}
}This was jokingly contrasted with the (then) CCITT
}phototelegraph working group that continued to meet
}and resanction their standards every four years -
}years after the ITU's own records indicated the last
}phototelegram in the world was sent.
}
}As institutions age, they tend to become more club-like.
}Since 1992, the IAB has been shopping around for a reason
}to exist. The matter you raise is directly related. The
}intent here is not to denigrate either the excellent
}people or the work done over the time. It's worth
}considering, however, morphing it into a working group
}and applying the same rejuvenation methodology.
}
}
}--tony
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #254
******************************
