Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 261
Netizens-Digest Friday, January 22 1999 Volume 01 : Number 261
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] AP: Lin Hai sentenced
Re: [netz] AP: Lin Hai sentenced
[netz] Re: Why has NSI started hiding registration dates?
Re: [netz] Re: Why has NSI started hiding registration dates?
[netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] AP: Lin Hai sentenced
[netz] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
[netz] Others on IFWP list also see problem with ICANN
[netz] Re: [Membership] Berkman Membership Workshop, Jan. 23 ---> Are We Lab Rats or Co-Deliberators?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:10:06 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] AP: Lin Hai sentenced
http://www.canoe.ca/TopStories/internet_jan20.html
Wednesday, January 20, 1999
Chinese court hands down two-year sentence in Internet trial
By JOE McDONALD -- Associated Press
SHANGHAI, China (AP) -- A Chinese software entrepreneur accused of
subversion for supplying e-mail addresses to dissidents abroad was
convicted today and sentenced to two years in prison.
Lin Hai, 30, is the first person convicted in China's effort to crush
dissent in cyberspace even as it promotes the Internet for economic and
educational use.
Lin was convicted of "inciting the subversion of state power," said a
spokesman for the Shanghai Higher Level People's Court, who gave his name
as Mr. Zhou. The crime is among China's most serious and is normally used
against political dissidents.
[...]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:09:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Luis G de Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] AP: Lin Hai sentenced
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Kerry Miller wrote:
> http://www.canoe.ca/TopStories/internet_jan20.html
>
> Wednesday, January 20, 1999
>
> Chinese court hands down two-year sentence in Internet trial
> By JOE McDONALD -- Associated Press
>
> SHANGHAI, China (AP) -- A Chinese software entrepreneur accused of
> subversion for supplying e-mail addresses to dissidents abroad was
> convicted today and sentenced to two years in prison.
>
> Lin Hai, 30, is the first person convicted in China's effort to crush
> dissent in cyberspace even as it promotes the Internet for economic and
> educational use.
>
> Lin was convicted of "inciting the subversion of state power," said a
> spokesman for the Shanghai Higher Level People's Court, who gave his name
> as Mr. Zhou. The crime is among China's most serious and is normally used
> against political dissidents.
>
> [...]
>
Hello: Its a shame about Lin Hai and my heart and prayers go out to him.
That regime in Beijing insists on being fascistic and medieval and kills &
incarcerates anyone who dissents from their policies, politics, opinions,
etc. Still our government gives the PRC and its 50 yr. ruling party
the privilege status of "most favored nation". Too many Volkswagens,
Nikes & other sneakers and assorted Japanese and western goodies being
manufactured and or assembled there at cheap or slave labor prices, to
start bothering the regime with "trivial things"such as human rights!
But someday and that day may not be too far in the future, the Chinese
people will be able to give their oppressors the boot and then, perhaps
those in the corporate world who have been profiting from their bondage,
will have to answer to them, along with their long time tormentors.
That day will come as it did in Berlin and its ill fated wall.
Lou D.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:50:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Why has NSI started hiding registration dates?
Re: Why has NSI started hiding registration dates?
From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@internic.net>
Reply to: cgomes@netsol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:37:13 -0500
Newsgroups:
IFWP.Domain-Policy-Archive
Followup to: newsgroup(s)
Several assumptions were made in the process of making this
decision. First, it seemed reasonable that most registrants
and even their agents should know the registration date for
their domain name(s). Second, even if they do not keep
adequate records of their anniversary date, we send out an
email 60 days in advance of the renewal date to remind them
followed by an invoice (email and paper) 30 days in advance.
Third, our payment terms are very clearly stated for domain
names so registrants and their agents should be able to do
the simple arithmetic necessary to determine when a payment
is due; if a payment is late, it should not be necessary to
check the status in Whois to see if it is late. Fourth,
there does not seem to be any reason why third parties need
to know the anniversary date or status of domain names for
which they have no association and, if they do feel they
need this information, they could contact the registrant to
request this information.
Chuck Gomes
- -----Original Message-----
From: Carl Oppedahl [mailto:carl@OPPEDAHL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 1:05 AM
To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Subject: Why has NSI started hiding registration dates?
The Whois service provided by NSI suddenly no longer
provides information
on the registration date for a domain name. Why did NSI
make this change
that hides the registration dates?
- --
DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
<listserv@lists.internic.net>
To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF
DOMAIN-POLICY"
For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line
"HELP"
- --
DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:53:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Ingo Luetkebohle <ingo@devconsult.de>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Why has NSI started hiding registration dates?
Note: He got it immediately by several InterNIC customers, telling him that
his assumptions were wrong.
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
>
> Re: Why has NSI started hiding registration dates?
>
> From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@internic.net>
> Reply to: cgomes@netsol.com
> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:37:13 -0500
> Newsgroups:
> IFWP.Domain-Policy-Archive
> Followup to: newsgroup(s)
> Several assumptions were made in the process of making this
> decision. First, it seemed reasonable that most registrants
> and even their agents should know the registration date for
> their domain name(s). Second, even if they do not keep
> adequate records of their anniversary date, we send out an
> email 60 days in advance of the renewal date to remind them
> followed by an invoice (email and paper) 30 days in advance.
> Third, our payment terms are very clearly stated for domain
> names so registrants and their agents should be able to do
> the simple arithmetic necessary to determine when a payment
> is due; if a payment is late, it should not be necessary to
> check the status in Whois to see if it is late. Fourth,
> there does not seem to be any reason why third parties need
> to know the anniversary date or status of domain names for
> which they have no association and, if they do feel they
> need this information, they could contact the registrant to
> request this information.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Oppedahl [mailto:carl@OPPEDAHL.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 1:05 AM
> To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
> Subject: Why has NSI started hiding registration dates?
>
>
> The Whois service provided by NSI suddenly no longer
> provides information
> on the registration date for a domain name. Why did NSI
> make this change
> that hides the registration dates?
>
>
> --
> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
> <listserv@lists.internic.net>
> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF
> DOMAIN-POLICY"
> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line
> "HELP"
>
>
> --
> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>
Ingo Luetkebohle / 21st Century Digital Boy
dev/consulting Gesellschaft fuer Netzwerkentwicklung und -beratung mbH
url: http://www.devconsult.de/ - fon: 0521-1365800 - fax: 0521-1365803
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:20:14 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Ronda wrote,
{ Briefly, my suggestion is that we each try to say what we
{ feel is the problem and out of that can perhaps find a way to express
it
{ in a way that will be helpful to otheres who don't understand.
{
Imo, what will be most helpful to the net as a whole is actually
practicing open discussion in a way that does i fact lead to a decision.
Any given list may only be a 'moot court' but (compared to some other
lists dealing with these isssues :-/) netizens seems to be well
positioned to model this kind of 'self-governance.'
In these terms, the 'problem' then becomes one of recognizing that
even discussions of 'how to discuss' become part of the process. We
shouldnt have to simply *hope that we find a way to communicate with
people who dont understand, as that evidently includes those who
constitute the interim ICANN board.
To modify the French position on the MAI negotiations only slightly:
"It is one thing to delegate sovereignty within the framework of
our own community, ... in a process
controlled by governments...it is another thing to concede
sovereignty to private interests under the pretext of a
discussion of a code on [internet government]."
kerry
PS Sorry about the last 'duplicate' post - Sympatico has been having
congestion problems, and it looked like the earlier version hadnt gotten
through.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:39:25 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] AP: Lin Hai sentenced
Luis,
{ > Lin was convicted of "inciting the subversion of state power," said a
{ > spokesman for the Sha{ > as Mr. Zhou. The crime is among China's most
serious and is normally used
{ > against political dissidents.
{ >
{ > [...]
{ >
{ Hello: Its a shame about Lin Hai and my heart and prayers go out to
him.
{ That regime in Beijing insists on being fascistic and medieval and
kills &
{ incarcerates anyone who dissents from their policies, politics,
opinions,
{ etc.
It wasnt to argue national politics, but to illustrate an alternative
view of the wonderful world of global communication that I posted the
report -- and to raise the question in some minds as to just what keeps,
or will keep, such oppressive policies from being adopted in their own
'free' cyberspaces.
The times, they are a-changing.
Cheers,
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:25:35 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
{ From: Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>
{ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:28:54 -0500
...
{ > Be that as it may, there is no need to carry that policy over to DN
{ >registration. It's pretty clear that domain-name rights cannot be made
{ >directly equivalent to TM rights; my suggestion was simply to point out
{ >an obvious point at which they might be differentiated.
{
{ I think it's better to leave them out of the discussion. Trademark vs.
{ domain name issues should be resolved by legislative or judicial means,
{ not by the DNSO.
{
What 'legislative' forum do you have in mind for this issue?
(Judiciaries exist to resolve legislative conflicts, not to create new
law.) If I were a member of DNSO, the first item I would put on the
agenda would be some proposal to ICANN regarding just this particular
issue, precisely because (despite Wendy Selzer's 'membership model'**)
the structures being put in place *will serve as a government of
cyberspace, and policies of ICANN *will come to have the force of law by
default.
Conversely, if I were an 'at large' member of ICANN
(my application even to the selection committee was not accepted),
I would move to address Internet issues from this perspective, as well,
but in order to preserve 'netizen rights' in the face of the kind of
organizational resources corporate 'representatives' would offer -- and,
imo, if this list and others want to be heard by policy makers, it would
do well to take this philosophical higher ground before it dissolves
entirely.
Is there an alternative function for this sort of discussion group? If
so, can you advise me how closely this list in particular is fulfilling
that purpose?
** 1/19/99:
"ICANN is not a governance institution,
but a narrowly focused technical body charged with certain policymaking
and coordination tasks. This model is premised on the view that if ICANN
is invested with a worldwide democratic electorate, it will be treated by
realspace governments and others as a legitimately elected government of
cyberspace."
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:29:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Others on IFWP list also see problem with ICANN
I thought this would be of interest to folks on the Netizens list:
Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com> wrote:
>>** 1/19/99:
>>"ICANN is not a governance institution,
>>but a narrowly focused technical body charged with certain policymaking
>>and coordination tasks. This model is premised on the view that if ICANN
>>is invested with a worldwide democratic electorate, it will be treated by
>>realspace governments and others as a legitimately elected government of
>>cyberspace."
>
an incredibly disingenuous statement by wendy seltzer
Mikki Barry: >If this were the case, two DNSO applications would not have
as objectives,
>to settle disputes between trademark holders and domain name holders. This
>is far more governance than what a technical body would do.
>
yep.... the lady has it correct.... this is raw naked Fortune 500 backroom
economic power. ICANN's duty to the GIP will be to make the internet
"safe" for 500 channels of interactive shopping. IBM....sings a song of
ecommerce and Mike Nelson goes to sleep happy at last
***************************************************************************
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: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:54:22 -0500
From: Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [Membership] Berkman Membership Workshop, Jan. 23 ---> Are We Lab Rats or Co-Deliberators?
Greetings,
Forgive the cross-posting, but this message concerns the planned ICANN
membership study/workshop at Harvard's Berkman Center, and I believe wide
distribution is appropriate.
...
Are We Lab Rats or Co-Deliberators?
Professor James Fishkin of The Berkman Center on the Internet and Society (BCIS)
at Harvard University has developed a methodology of social self-reflection
which he calls "Deliberative Polling." This method is now being applied by BCIS
personnel in a project called Deliberative Polling in Cyberspace. That project
has also been publicized under the name, "The Study of Representation in
Cyberspace." The study's organizers have now targeted various DNS-related e-mail
lists in order to intervene within the discourse of the debates surrounding the
formation of ICANN and its supporting organizations.
The researchers initiated their study with an intriguing question. In short: By
what criteria can anyone know whether the study was a success? By asking "us" to
suggest measurement criteria (and perhaps hypotheses) BCIS personnel suggest
"we" have some control over the direction of the study.
I welcome this as a carefully thought out experiment in public participation. It
offers an approach to resolving the current "DNS Mess" and may generate insights
and techniques beneficial to contestants in future Internet governance
controversies. In that sense, "we" are not lab rats running through the Berkman
Center's maze, but co-participants in a process designed to find ways to
reconcile people who carry diverse interests and values.
The Process of the Study
One way to measure the potential for success of a process of this sort involves
articulating the extent to which the subjects knowingly consent to participation
in it. Several people have already submitted responses to the initial BCIS
solicitation, and a few will be able to participate in a meeting at Harvard, but
I don't believe this is sufficient to demonstrate knowledgeable consent.
I would like to see straightforward and readily accessible comments from BCIS
personnel regarding their own presuppositions, sponsorship, and working agenda.
Various BCIS associates have evidently been hired as staff for ICANN. Moreover,
the Center's organizers have been actively pursuing some sort of a stewardship
or facilitation role in the NEWCO process. This includes planning the ill-fated
DNS "editorial" session in September, hosting the first public session with the
ICANN interim board in December, and now this latest initiative.
In other words, I would like to know more about the relevant channels of
communication that have been exclusively or semi-exclusively open to the BCIS
personnel. The substance of what has been communicated through those channels
would be of interest to me and to other less-well-connected parties interested
in this topic. This is not said in an adversarial tone, but simply as a request
for more detail that I believe would contribute to a fuller self-awareness for
all participants in this study.
The Study Itself
I'd like to suggest what "we" might do to participate in a successful study. In
my mind, the consequence and proof of success would be a demonstration that the
study's participants have affected the behavior of the ICANN board, with a view
toward influencing policy outcomes.
I am concerned that the BCIS study is not proceeding firmly in this direction.
There has been far too much talk about who should talk, and how.
The BCIS announcement declares that its goal is to fill in the currently empty
Article II (Membership) of the ICANN bylaws, bringing people together "to decide
matters affecting the entire Internet." Having monitored these discussions for
over 18 months, I have come to feel that the membership issue, while certainly
important for strengthening the legitimacy of decisions, is a sidetrack to
resolving the various resource allocation problems which are at the crux of this
debate.
The BCIS announcement seems to suggest that the primary goal is to make it
possible for a large number of people to participate and represent their own
interests in a fair and intelligent manner. If so, then far more should be done
to raise general public concern regarding the issues at stake.
Fortunately, the announcement also suggests the goal is to create a stable
Internet management structure that can expedite a "legitimate and fair"
resolution of the conflicts at hand. I believe that focusing on this as a
distinct goal would be more pragmatic. This latter goal deserves priority since
it focuses on the most important problems.
For the past several months discourse on these lists has been dominated by
questions of constituencies, classes of membership, and related discussions of
stakeholders versus users, members versus membership classes, and verification
of identity, as well as how authority and liability should be apportioned. There
are many reasons this has occurred, including of course the targets established
by the U.S. Government in the White Paper and reaffirmed within the structure of
the ICANN proposal.
But this obsession with structure also reflects the stalemate that has occurred
on the issue of shared versus proprietary TLDs. Debates regarding the most
crucial outstanding disputes are stuck. The energy of the participants has been
diverted into excesses of complexity. The current process being promoted by BCIS
is raising interesting questions about community, polity, and legitimate
authority on the Internet, while treading lightly on questions of longstanding
concern.
Consequently, I make these two suggestions.
1) I hope that participants in the Boston meeting will take the time to develop
a consensus and make a clear statement about the need for the current interim
board to develop a more open and forthright way of dealing with the public. In
my view, assuring the expertise and public accountability of the people
directing ICANN deserves higher priority than the constitution of a
sophisticated membership network. Opening doors and keeping them would do a
world of good.
2) Take action to insist that ICANN's board members spell out what they intend
to specify, if anything, regarding: a) the planned new registrars for com, net
and org; b) the disposition of the root, and; c) the issue of new gTLDs. Now is
the time to begin to reduce uncertainty about the future of DNS management.
Thank you for reading this statement. I regret that I will be unable to
participate in the Harvard discussion in real time. My interest in this topic
stems from my dissertation work in progress at the University of Miami's School
of International Studies. I am primarily concerned with how people involved in
the self-governing processes of the Internet are challenging the regulatory
power and authority of nation-states. But I would also like to see a pragmatic
resolution achieved soon, so that the immense talents of the people involved in
this controversy can be turned to more productive endeavors. Information about
my research is available at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html.
Yours,
Craig Simon
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #261
******************************
