Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 273
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, February 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 273
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [Membership] Why not ISOC?
[netz] CNews: WIPO makes money
[netz] interesting questions about my DNS proposal
[netz] Re: [Membership] Why not ISOC?
[netz] Re: [Membership] Why not ISOC?
[netz] Re: Why not ISOC?
Re: [netz] Re: Why not ISOC?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:54:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [Membership] Why not ISOC?
Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net> wrote:
Elliot Nesterman wrote:
>
>> The same can be said of ISOC.
>Yes. And, I have.
>However, my mere suggestion of the ISOC model suffered a
>cool reception at Reston and the suggestion of making ISOC
>the general membership has not received any support in
>subsequent posts. Perhaps these are some of the reasons:
>* ISOC has an "entrenched" management/establishment and
>would not be an easy horse for the ICANN management and
>expanded membership to ride. Indeed, ISOC might end up the
>rider and ICANN the horse.
>* ISOC is not perceived as a level playing field for all
>interests and individuals. There are significant
>constituencies which would not care to be in ISOC's stable.
(...)
What's more - ISOC shows what happens with a membership
organization even when it doesn't have assets that control
the Internet and are worth billions (as the IANA assets are
in private hands)
ISOC shows how a small set of people or interests control
such an organization even if it is a membership organization.
Thus it makes clear why making ICANN a membership organization
cannot protect the controlling assets of the Internet from
falling into the hands of a very small set of interests who
thereby take them to enrich themselves at the expense of
the Internet and the Internet community.
This issue was spoken to at the January Berkman Center meeting in
Cambridge, by one of the panelists explaining how a membership
organization is totally inappropriate in a situation where
there are such economic powers over people at stake.
What's interesting here as well- is it that this membership
list is coming out of isi.edu a site at the University
of Southern California?
>From membership-owner@ISI.EDU Tue Feb 16 11:59:55 1999
Yet ICANN is *not* an edu entity.
But ICANN is moving to take over and make private all that
has been publicly held as part of IANA - which includes
the isi.edu domain as well as other aspects.
This is what we can expect. Hidden behind ICANN is
controll by other forces -- and behind which the hidden
hand of the U.S. government and the NTIA stand and operate.
(And they operate in a way to illegitimately and
unconstitutionally enrich certain private interests
at the expense of the public. That is some of the reason isn't
appropriate that they be allowed to hide. The U.S. government
has tremendous power and if it is hiding what it is doing
this power is very harmful. Otherwise it wouldn't be hiding.)
My proposal is still the only proposal that has taken into
account the real situation and problems and proposed a structure
and a prototype to begin to deal with them.
It is at the NTIA web site and at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
The NTIA had the obligation to support my proposal as it was
submitted in time to it and it provided for a stucture and
process to figure out the real problems and figure out how
to begin to solve them with regard to IANA.
It still has that obligation.
My proposal was based on knowledge of how the Internet and Usenet
have developed and how to learn from that development toward
figuring out the needed form and prototype to grow IANA.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
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, 16 Feb 1999 04:53:17 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] CNews: WIPO makes money
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32397,00.html
Reuters/ CNET News.com
February 15, 1999
GENEVA--International applications for
patents rose by 23.1 percent last year,
led by U.S. inventors and industry,
according to the World Intellectual
Property Organization.
The agency, an arm of the United Nations,
said developing countries were taking
greater advantage of its system, which
allows an applicant to seek patent protection
by filing a single application. The application
has the effect of regular national filings in
any or all of the treaty member states
without first needing to furnish a translation
or pay national fees.
[...]
Once an obscure bureaucratic
organization, WIPO has been vaulted to the
fore of high-stakes copyright issues that
pervade Congress, the Internet, and
international law, as well as the high-tech,
entertainment, and other industries.
WIPO said the 67,007 applications received
last year had the effect of 2.5 million
national applications. One of the few
profitable U.N. agencies, it earns more than
two-thirds of its revenues from PCT
application fees.
- -------------------
~/0,4,32085,00.html
...As promised, Rep. Howard Coble (R-North
Carolina) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
are once again spearheading legislation to
protect the "brow sweat" and deep pockets
of database creators and publishers, such
as WestLaw or Reed Elsevier, which owns
major periodicals, and Lexis-Nexis.
"Developing, compiling, distributing, and
maintaining commercially significant
collections requires substantial investments
of time, personnel, and money," Coble said
on the House floor last month when he
reintroduced the Collections of Information
Antipiracy Act. "The bottom line is clear: it
is time to consider new federal legislation to
protect developers who place their materials
in interstate commerce against piracy and
unfair competition."
The bill would prevent extracting all or a
substantial part of a collection of information
if the action would "cause harm to the actual
or potential market" for the owner of the
database. Violators could face a fine of up
to $250,000 for each offense and five years
in prison.
This is Coble's third attempt to get his bill
passed. It was scrapped last session during
last-minute negotiations that ushered the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act into law.
After fierce opposition by academic and
industry groups, a similar proposal, known
as the _sui generis_ database treaty, also
was rejected by delegates at the World
Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO)
Diplomatic Conference in December 1996.
[ Text of the two Treaties are at
http://www.wipo.org/eng/diplconf/distrib/94dc.htm
http://www.wipo.org/eng/diplconf/distrib/95dc.htm
For anyone involved in the presentation of clear records of
controversial enactments, the ~/diplconf index page offers an
excellent model.]
- --------------------------
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:45:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] interesting questions about my DNS proposal
Dr. Quaynor wanted this sent to the Netizens mailing list so I
am sending it for him.
Ronda
From: "Dr Nii Quaynor" <quaynor@ghana.com>
To: "Ronda Hauben" <ronda@panix.com>, <membership@icann.org>
Cc: <netizens@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [Membership] Why not ISOC?
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:35:33 -0000
Message-ID: <01be59e3$855a79e0$174003c4@sasabonsam.gh.com>
>My proposal is still the only proposal that has taken into
>account the real situation and problems and proposed a structure
>and a prototype to begin to deal with them.
>
What features of your proposal diffrentiates it. What specific problems are
addressed and which features solve which of the problems? How advanced is
the prototype implementation? what measurements (results) have so far been
obtained from the prototype?
Nii
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:59:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [Membership] Why not ISOC?
Ronda Hauben responding to:
Dr Nii Quaynor" <quaynor@ghana.com> wrote:
>>My proposal is still the only proposal that has taken into
>>account the real situation and problems and proposed a structure
>>and a prototype to begin to deal with them.
>What features of your proposal diffrentiates it. What specific problems are
>addressed and which features solve which of the problems? How advanced is
>the prototype implementation? what measurements (results) have so far been
>obtained from the prototype?
>Nii
These are helpful questions. I will try to answer the early questons
abuot the features that differentiate it and the specific problems
it addresses and the features which solve the problems as soon
as I have the chance as I have to go out now, but wanted to
begin a response as soon as possible.
However, the last two questions about prototype implementation raise
a very important point about the NTIA solicitation for proposals.
The NTIA (i.e. the U.S. government) has taken the most important
functions of the Internet in terms of those functions which give
control over the Internet -- and put out the white paper with
no funding for prototypes or proposals as part of the request
for proposals. (Infact there doesn't seem to have even been
a legitimate request for proposals that led to the ICANN proposal).
Thus those who submitted any proposal had to be able to fund it
themselves unless they were ICANN, in which case the funds
are supported it seems by the NTIA by making some of the resources
of IANA available to ICANN.
So I can't comment on how advanced the prototype implementation is
as I don't have the funds to fund it and *no one* should have
to supply the funds for the U.S. government to explore prototypes
for a problem it is unable to solve.
So the fact that my proposal was not funded by the U.S. government
shows that they are in fact only involved in a power play
with regard to the IANA functions, rather than in any legitimate
search for a way to identify the problems that have to be solved
and providing a way to solve the problems.
I would be glad to be implementing my prototype and I invite
any one who would like to help to be in contact with me. But
the U.S. government has to provide the funding -- and it is
indeed minimal funding considering what is at stake. And the
proposal provides a way for other governments or regions to
support the needed research to begin to contribute
to solving the real problem that exists with regard to providing an
international but protected means of support for the IANA
functions and assets. But the main obligation is on the U.S.
government.
I'll send a brief summary of the proposal to the list.
And I'll get back to respond to the questions I can answer later
today or as soon as I can.
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, 16 Feb 1999 17:01:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [Membership] Why not ISOC?
Here is a brief summary of the proposal:
The Internet an International Public Treasure:
Summary of Proposal Submitted to IRA MAGAZINER on 9/4/98 at his request
by Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
The U.S. Government has a great responsibility that must be taken
into account before changing the ownership, control and administration
of the essential functions of the Internet that are being included
in the proposed transfer and privatization of IANA and NSI
contractual functions.
I - Proposal: The Internet an International Public Treasure
1. Stop the rush. Withdraw the deadline date and instead institute
a more responsible and considered process for identifying and solving
the problem. Tentatively the problem is that the Internet has become
international but essential functions of the Internet are controlled
and administered by one nation. What is to be done to solve this
problem? (Don't assume the answer before raising the problem.)
2. The U.S. Government is to fund a group of researchers and welcome
other nations or regions of the world to collaborate by also funding
their teams of researchers who will work collaboratively to do
the following:
A. Within a finite period of time, these researchers will undertake
a series of obligations to identify the problem to be solved. The
researchers will utilize the Internet as much as possible to carry
out their work. The tasks of the researchers will include the
following:
1) Identify and describe the essential functions to be maintained.
2) Examine how the Internet and those essential functions involved
in this transfer are serving the communication needs of the diverse
communities of users on the Internet.
3) Develop and maintain a well publicized and reachable online means
to support reporting and input into their work. Explore the use of
Usenet newsgroup, mailing list and web site utilization, and where
appropriate, RFC's, etc.
4) Produce a proposal which will include:
a) An accurate history and analysis of the unique nature of the
development of the Internet and the functions that are to be
transferred. Include the benefits and special characteristics of
the Internet.
b) A discussion of the vision for the future of the Internet to
help guide any changes. Include functions and features that must
be preserved.
c) A description of the role the essential functions contracted to
IANA and NSI play in the administration and control of the Internet,
including any problems that have developed in their operation or
administration.
d) A proposal for transferring the administration of these essential
functions. Include a set of requirements to preserve the Internet's
unique character.
e) A description of the problems and pressures that can be a danger
for the administration of these essential functions and a description
of how these problems and pressures have been handled in the past.
A proposal for how to protect against these problems and pressures
in the future or a statement of research that must be undertaken
to solve the problems identified.
f) A plan and procedure for wide distribution of the proposal,
both to online users and to the public that is not yet on the Internet.
g) An evaluation of the process of collaborative work undertaken
by the international group of researchers.
h) A means of protecting the researchers from commercial and political
pressures. (In the past an Acceptable Use Policy has been helpful.)
The full proposal is at:
in English: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
in French: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns-proposition.fr.txt
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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:44:35 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Why not ISOC?
Ronda,
> 2. ... teams of researchers who will work collaboratively to do
> the following:
>
> A. Within a finite period of time, these researchers will undertake
> a series of obligations to identify the problem to be solved. The
> researchers will utilize the Internet as much as possible to carry
> out their work. The tasks of the researchers will include the
> following:
>
> 1) Identify and describe the essential functions to be maintained.
>
> 2) Examine how the Internet and those essential functions involved
> in this transfer are serving the communication needs of the diverse
> communities of users on the Internet.
>
> 3) Develop and maintain a well publicized and reachable online means
> to support reporting and input into their work. Explore the use of
> Usenet newsgroup, mailing list and web site utilization, and where
> appropriate, RFC's, etc.
Have you considered that (apart from the funding!) IFWP has been
meeting most of these points pretty well? A nice presentation of
the topics that have been raised, the diversity of viewpoints brought
out, the publicity might very well find a place in the history of the
Icannic administration. Im sure some Berkmanesque scholar
could provide an introduction to the effect that *of necessity* any
formal recognition of the collective effort has to be suspended for
the debate to be unbiassed; i.e. of any use to the policymakers at
all.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:54:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Why not ISOC?
Kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Ronda wrote:
>> 2. ... teams of researchers who will work collaboratively to do
>> the following:
>
>> A. Within a finite period of time, these researchers will undertake
>>a series of obligations to identify the problem to be solved. The
>> researchers will utilize the Internet as much as possible to carry
>> out their work. The tasks of the researchers will include the
>> following:
>
>> 1) Identify and describe the essential functions to be maintained.
>
>> 2) Examine how the Internet and those essential functions involved
>> in this transfer are serving the communication needs of the diverse
>> communities of users on the Internet.
>
>> 3) Develop and maintain a well publicized and reachable online means
>> to support reporting and input into their work. Explore the use of
>> Usenet newsgroup, mailing list and web site utilization, and where
>> appropriate, RFC's, etc.
>Have you considered that (apart from the funding!) IFWP has been
>meeting most of these points pretty well? A nice presentation of
Kerry I fundamentally disagreee.
The IFWP only involves (in general except for a very few folks) those
who have commercial interests in what will happen with the DNS
and other controlling functions of the Internet.
And it is a real hardship to deal with the mailing list for even me
and I have been around quite a while. I have had to upgrade my account
and pay more each month to even be able to keep up with the
mailing list, let alone post to it.
Also the real issues are not being raised - and when they are raised
they are often ignored or their is harrassment.
I haven't gotten to post much in the past 2 weeks as I was removed
from the IFWP list by the list own (who had previously taken all
the subscribers from the place they were subscribed and put them
on at his site). He removed me he said because my email bounced,
but then said he would put me back on if an email he sent didn't
bounce. It didn't bounce, but he didn't resubscribe me.
And the messages don't carry how to subscribe.
So the whole list is run by one of the factions involved and
not something that is encouraging or possible or of interst
for most people who care about a communications Intenret to be
part of.
o
>the topics that have been raised, the diversity of viewpoints brought
>out, the publicity might very well find a place in the history of the
>Icannic administration. Im sure some Berkmanesque scholar
>could provide an introduction to the effect that *of necessity* any
>formal recognition of the collective effort has to be suspended for
>the debate to be unbiassed; i.e. of any use to the policymakers at
>all.
I don't know what you mean.
I've been on the list for quite a while, and have attended several
of the meetings, and it is rare that any social perspective is
ever introduced, and most often one is harrassed or worse
for introducing it.
I have found that the kind of discussion on the IFWP list is
very different from the kind of discussion on the same issues
I have found happen on Usenet when the subjects have been raised
there.
Also the real range of IANA as a seat of open protocols for
the Internet (the RFC's the past RFC's etc) is ignored and
the private takeover of IANA is being done in a private
way by not documenting what is involved and why it is so
improtant to the runnibng and scaling of the Internet.
Also the ICANN folks have gotten access to isi.edu domain
and are using it for their purposes but it is an
eduational docmain and they are a private (controlled by whom)
entity.
And the U.S. government is hiding behind all of what is happening
and it can't be for any good reason.
One of the purposes for U.S. government funding is so that
there is an identified objective, that there are means
for it to be carried out, etc.
None of that is happening.
It is quite interesting when one thinks of th emillions of
dollars of U.S. taxpayer money (public funds) spent to
do the work to create the Internet via ARPA, the NSF, etc
with the checks on what was being done, the support for
scientists and technology development etc.
And then look at the way that this sleezy operation of
ICANN is happening.
IANA has the prospect of its funds being cut off.
There is no research or prototype to figure out what shold be done
to craete a better situation for IANA.
ICANN is created through a hidden process by the U.S. government
and by hidden funding.
And ICANN moves into ISI and takes over the IANA contract.
And this is all happening with no knowledge in genral among
people of the extent and importance of the IP numbers,
domain name system, root server system, protocols, and
protocol process of documentiation and open availability
of what IANA is respnsible for.
Also the Office of Inspector General at the NSF does a
report on tehir investigation and points out thbe great
amount of funds that is invovled in the transfer of
only a small portion of these assets, and NSF ignores
their report and transfers oversight over the NSI
contract and the whole decision of what should happen in
this (when the NSF wasn't even involved in controlling
that decision) to the Dept of Commerce to be given
away under very undercover circumstances.
(ui.e the Memorandum of Understanding that the Dept
of Commerce has with ICANN is to create a prototype
and design and test it, but meanwhile the NIST is giving
ICANN the contract for IANA behind the scenes)
This is all the opposite of what my propsoal called for.
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #273
******************************
