Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 276
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, February 24 1999 Volume 01 : Number 276
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [IFWP] ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
[netz] Re: http://www.east.isi.edu/ was Re: [IFWP] ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
[netz] Phone numbers for ICANN and InterNIC?
[netz] Internet Scaling vrs ICANN
[netz] Is NSI a monopoly?
[netz] Benton: The Future of Open Internet Access
Re: [netz] Is NSI a monopoly?
[netz] IW3C2 Conf 11-14 May 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:05:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
Bob Allisat <bob@fcn.net> wrote:
>http://www.icann.org/contributors.html ...
+
>+ The ICANN Board of Directors thanks the following contributors
>+ to the ICANN Startup Fund for their generosity:
>+
>+ Compaq Computer Corporation, $25,000
>+ IBM, $25,000
>+ MCI Worldcom, $25,000
>+ Netscape Communications Corporation, $15,000
>+ Paul D. Stauffer, $1,000
>+ Symantec, $15,000
>+ UUNET, $25,000
> Hmm... as suggested by an esteemed collegue perhaps this list is
> a nice start to some form of boycott. Add to that the good folks
> behind the IAHC/CORE <http://www.corenic.org/number.htm> and we
> have quite the nice beginings of an anti-ICANN boycott/protest!
> Bob Allisat
And isn't UUNET owned by and part of MCI Worldcom?
So
>+ MCI Worldcom, $25,000
+
>+ UUNET, $25,000
- ------------------------
MCI Worldcom - $50,000
And at least in the 1980's IBM folks were on MCI Worldcom's Board
of directors. And in the privatization of the NSF Backbone,
IBM and MCI worked joined together on that and MCI ended up with
great benefit as a result (and one guesses that IBM did as well
or they wouldn't be back with their hands out for this takeover
of public property.)
Does anyone know the relationship between MCI and IBM?
So the MCI worldcom/IBM investment in grabbing control of the
Internet as listed above is $75,000
And what about Microsoft's connection to all this? UUNET
is involved with Microsoft.
Are the other companies connected to each other or to MCI-Worldcom
as well?
It would be good to hear why they think it is in the public's
interest to give some private, irresponsible and hidden
entities control over the controlling functions of the Internet.
>+ Netscape Communications Corporation, $15,000
Didn't they encourage the U.S. government to bring an
anti trust suit against Microsoft?
And yet they are happy to take a much greater forcus
of power over the Internet and put it in hidden hands
that are likely to include Microsoft's?
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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:31:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: http://www.east.isi.edu/ was Re: [IFWP] ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
"Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@prodigy.net> sent this Cc: <netizens@columbia.edu>
Ronda,
If you want to see what a tangled web these people weave....check out...
http://www.east.isi.edu/
http://www.east.isi.edu/projects.html
http://www.east.isi.edu/ms/ms.html
IPv6 Publicly Available Stack Development for Microsoft Research
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Here we are in 1999, with the U.S. Government supposedly focused
on investigating one of the largest companies and success stories in
the history of the world. The claim is, that Microsoft dominates software
and that other companies can not compete. While this is going on,
Microsoft has a U.S. Government funded group developing software for
them. Meanwhile, Netscape is funding essentially the same group by
virtue of the fact that the ICANN is the product of the late Jon Postel
and the 12 Apostels, some of whom live at USC ISI, compliments of
MORE U.S. Government funding.
...follow the money...and IP allocations....they tell the whole story...
P.S. And while this is going on, we see that NSI was requesting IP
allocations. Because ICANN was clueless, they referred NSI to ARIN.
ARIN is the product of more U.S. Government meddling and was created
by NSI people. I think it is fair to say that IPv4 and IPv6 are U.S.
Government
territory. It makes no sense for the private sector to waste any time or
energy on trying to help manage those resources fairly. Thus, I continue
to work on IPv8, for the rest of the human race...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:00:29 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Phone numbers for ICANN and InterNIC?
Anyone know the phone numbers for ICANN and InterNIC
for the web designers still waiting for their domain
addresses long, long after their credit cards have been
charged?
TIA
- --
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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:32:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Internet Scaling vrs ICANN
On Vannevar's Bush's "Science: The Endless Frontier" and the ICANN/IANA
problem:
Following are some thoughts on trying to put what is happening
into a context about the U.S. government transferring ownership
and control over essential points of control of the Internet
into a private sector entity controlled by who knows whom, and
currently called ICANN (i.e.giving away the Internet's controlling
functions of the IP numbers, DNS system, port numbers, protocols, etc.)
Recently I read Vannevar Bush's proposal about "Science
The Endless Frontier".
I have found "Science: the Endless Frontier" quite fascinating in
the argument it makes for the importance of U.S. government
support for basic science and technology research. It is
helpful to see the description of why such research is so
important to the well being of the economic and social life
of society. And it puts the research on defense questions
within a broader context of social questions and proposes
that there be one scientific entity within U.S. government
to support this broader range of science (which would include
defense related research). It makes it seem as if ARPA is the
prototype of a broader form of entity that is needed so that
the social context is the framework for the support of basic
science and technology research, including defense basic research.
The real problem that the DNS wars show is that is that the U.S.
government doesn't seem to be supporting the needed scientific
research about how to provide for the scaling of the Internet.
And the U.S. government's effort to transfer ownership
and policy over IANA functions which include both
control over the Internet as well as the scaling mechanism
of the Internet, to some hidden entity (hidden behind ICANN)
seems a great problem for those who care about the continued
well being and development of the Internet and are dependent
on the Internet for real life needs and especially
for communication.
In this context it would seem there is a need for
the U.S. government to support the scaling and further
development of the Internet, and particularly the
IANA functions. As the important development of
research by IPTO/ARPA under the Dept. of Defense provided
the basis for a public communications structure, this leads to
looking back at Bush's recommendations as they have
proven to be the inspiration for important developments
like the Internet. (Also this leads to realizing that
in fact good communication among the people of a nation
are indeed what sets the basis for defense of the people
of that nation. And that good communication among people
around the world is a real weapon in the battle against
the forces that want to enslave any people. So that
the Internet is indeed the kind of development that
is the proper and valuable kind of activity for
the defense agencies of the governments of
the peoples of nation/s around the world.)
Bush proposed that the defense related research be
carried out by a U.S. government entity in the context
of a broader social framework for scientific research.
He also proposed that other forms of scientific research
along with the defense related scientific research be
part of the new science research agency he was proposing.
Bush develops a broad set of arguments about
why science and technology work have to be done
for the economy to develop.
I had been following some leads to figure out what is
behind the ICANN and got back to the Office of Inspector
General's Report of 1997 where she proposed the need
to maintain scientific and government expertise in
administering and setting policy for IANA functions.
However, it seem that she lost her job as a result of
such recommendations, and instead the Framework
for Electronic Commerce was written and ICANN set up
to give IANA away to those who promote "market" activity.
So it seems that the contest is between
1) seeing the Internet as the confirmation of the
power of Bush's recommendation on the importance of
government supporting basic research in science and
technology
versus
2) the contrary view that says that the market will
create all that the society needs and government
has to help the market to function.
#1 seems to be the line of forward direction,
and #2 and the ICANN developments and the effort,
to reverse this forward direction.
The important developments at IPTO/ARPA over the past
30 years are a demonstration of the fact that what
Bush proposes is not just a theory, but has in fact
been demonstrated.
Hence the great importance of increasing government
support for basic science and technology research.
But instead the U.S. current government policy is in the
opposite direction. And the U.S. government support
for ICANN the weathervane of that harmful policy.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:24:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Is NSI a monopoly?
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32865,00.html?st.ne.lh..ni
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:40:09 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Benton: The Future of Open Internet Access
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:59:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Kevin Taglang <kevint@benton.org>
Subject: The Future of Open Internet Access
Replies to: Aleck Johnson <ASJ@lharris.com>
Special March 1999 TPR Meeting On
The Future of Open Internet Access
On Tuesday, March 2, 1999, the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable is
having a very special discussion on the future of open access. The FCC's
recent decisions on Section 706 and the AT&T/TCI merger have brought this
issue to the fore as the broadband future begins to take shape. The future
of open broadband is literally the future of the Internet, and several
broadband service providers are jockeying to position themselves as
gatekeepers to the future Internet. How companies deploy broadband services
- - and whether that deployment spurs or inhibits competition and nonprofit
access - will have a strong impact on a number of critical issues, including
the First Amendment, the digital divide between information haves and
have-nots, and the ability of local and community organizations to make use
of the interactive medium of the future. This is an open meeting, and we'd
like to invite all of you to join us for this critical discussion with
representatives from AOL, AT&T, and the public interest and consumer
community.
What: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable (TPR) Special March
1999 Meeting on the Future of Open Access
When: Tuesday, March 2, 1999, from Noon to 2:00pm
Where: Carnegie Conference Center, 1779 Massachusetts Ave.
Metro: Dupont Circle South
Agenda: Will the Internet Have Only One Gatekeeper? A Debate about
the Future of Open Broadband Access to the Net
Featuring: AOL, AT&T, and the public interest and consumer community
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:36:57 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Is NSI a monopoly?
http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/amendment11.html
SPECIAL AWARD CONDITIONS NCR-9218742 Amendment No.
11
October 7, 1998
This agreement facilitates the stable evolution of the Internet
domain name system (DNS) in accordance with the provisions of
the Statement of Policy on DNS administration, "Management of
Internet Names and Addresses," 63 Fed. Reg. 31741
(1998)(hereinafter "Statement of Policy" or "White Paper") by: (1)
providing for recognition by NSI of NewCo when recognized by the
USG in accordance with the provisions of the Statement of Policy;
(2) amending the Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742; (3)
authorizing NSI's continued operation of the primary root server
during the transition; and (4) providing for the development,
deployment and [**]licensing[**] by NSI of a mechanism that allows
multiple registrars to accept registrations for the generic top level
domains (gTLDs) for which NSI acts as a registry.
This agreement extends the Cooperative Agreement through
September 30, 2000; provided, however, that as the USG
transitions DNS responsibilities to NewCo, corresponding
obligations under the Cooperative Agreement as amended will be
terminated and, as appropriate, covered in a contract between NSI
and NewCo.
For purposes of this agreement, NewCo is the not-for-profit
corporation described in the Statement of Policy and recognized by
the USG in accordance with the provisions of the Statement of
Policy for so long as the USG continues its recognition of NewCo.
[...]
Commencing upon the Phase 1 deployment of the Shared
Registration System, and for the term of this agreement, NSI's
prices for registry services through the Shared Registration System
in the gTLDs for which NSI now acts as the registry, will be no
more than a dollar amount per registration/year to be specified in a
further amendment [not yet written] reflecting NSI's costs and a
reasonable return on its investment. This price cap will be adjusted
via an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement to reflect
demonstrated changed costs of NSI arising from newly enacted
legislation, NewCo fees [??], inflation, regulations, standards,
[**]costs of new litigation (including settlements and judgments)[**]
in excess of NSI's operating plan or changes in the operation of the
registry, or to fund specific additional activities in the event such
activities are reflected in an amendment to the Cooperative
Agreement.
[...]
Assistance to NewCo:
If NewCo has a technical question or a need to access appropriate
intellectual property of NSI, and the answer to such question or
such access is reasonably necessary for NewCo to carry out its
responsibilities as described in the "Coordinated Functions", the
"Purpose" and the "Transition" sections of the Statement of Policy
(NewCo's Responsibilities), and provided that NewCo shall have
agreed to protect the confidentiality and security of any such
information under a confidentiality agreement mutually acceptable
to NSI and NewCo, NSI shall provide such answer or access and
shall not assert any of its intellectual property rights or its desire to
protect confidentiality or security as a basis to deny such
requests; provided, however, that NSI shall not be required to
expend excessive time or resources in answering such questions
or fulfilling such requests unless it receives reasonable
compensation for such expenditures; and provided further, that,
except as otherwise expressly provided herein, nothing in this
paragraph is intended to alter any intellectual property rights of the
USG or NSI established in the Cooperative Agreement.
Recognition of NewCo
As provided in the Statement of Policy, the USG will effect the
transition of its DNS responsibilities through an agreement with
NewCo. That agreement will (i) require NewCo to exercise the
responsibilities delineated in the Statement of Policy in a
transparent, non-arbitrary, and reasonable manner, (ii) prohibit
NewCo from acting unjustifiably and arbitrarily to injure particular
persons or entities or particular categories of persons or entities,
and (iii) require NewCo to subject registrars to consistent
requirements designed to promote a stable and robustly
competitive DNS, as set forth in the Statement of Policy. Following
the finalization of the agreement between the USG and NewCo,
NSI will recognize NewCo pursuant to a contract between NSI and
NewCo.
NSI acknowledges that NewCo will have the authority, consistent
with the provisions of the Statement of Policy and the agreement
between the USG and NewCo, to carry out NewCo's
Responsibilities.
Nothing in this agreement, apart from NSI's recognition of NewCo
pursuant to this section of this agreement, shall limit NSI's rights to
operate as a registry or registrar in TLDs other than .com, .net,
.org, .edu, or to participate in any other lawful business pursuit.
Miscellaneous
NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the
primary root server for the root server system and as a root zone
administrator until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to
transfer either or both of these functions to NewCo or a specified
alternate entity.
While NSI continues to operate the primary root server, it shall
request written direction from an authorized USG official before
making or rejecting any modifications, additions or deletions to the
root zone file. Such direction will be provided within ten (10)
working days and it may instruct NSI to process any such changes
directed by NewCo when submitted to NSI in conformity with
written procedures established by NewCo and recognized by the
USG.
==============
Now then, a) Who wrote this agreement? b) Who is writing the
procedures 'to be established' by NewCo?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:59:57 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] IW3C2 Conf 11-14 May 1999
http://www8.org
EIGHTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL WORLD WIDE WEB
CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN TORONTO MAY 11-14, 1999
Reston Va. -- July 14, 1998 -- Foretec Seminars --
The International World Wide Web Conference Committee
(IW3C2) of Geneva Switzerland and Foretec Seminars of Reston
VA have announced the dates for the Eighth International World
Wide Web Conference and Exposition. This premiere event for
leaders from academia, research organizations, government and
industry offers delegates a chance to gain a global perspective of
the issues facing the Web community.
The conference will be held May 11-14, 1999, at the Metro Toronto
Convention Centre in Toronto, with the exposition open May 12-13.
Keynote Speakers will be Dr. Greg Papadopoulos (Chief
Technology Officer, Sun Microsystems) and Dr. Robert Metcalfe
(Vice President Technology, International Data Group).
IW3C2 was formed in August 1994 to continue a series of
academic level conferences the first of which was held in Geneva.
Other conferences in the series were held in Chicago, Darmstadt,
Boston, Paris, Santa Clara, and Brisbane. IW3C2 formally
incorporated in May 1996 as a non-profit Association under Swiss
law. For more information about IW3C2, visit its Web site at
http://www.iw3c2.org
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #276
******************************
