Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 264
Netizens-Digest Friday, January 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 264
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] about upcoming congressional briefing ACM
Re: [netz] Netizens list members in NYC area?
[netz] Re: [UA-C] Notes from ICANN membership discussion
[netz] Email sent to ACM policy group planning Congressional Briefing
Re: [netz] Re: [UA-C] Notes from ICANN membership discussion
[netz] kmm022: Notes from ICANN membership discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:01:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] about upcoming congressional briefing ACM
There was a list of the issues to be brought up by the ACM (Association
of Computing Machinery) with the U.S. Congress that was sent on
a list I am on of the Austrialian Computer Society. It was
important to see that there was no mention of the problems
with ICANN being raised by the ACM in its briefing to the U.S.
Congress.
Following is my post to the ACSELSIC-L list about the problem
of leaving out this issue.
Andrew Freeman wrote:
>You will recall that I recently wrote inviting suggestions for the ACM
>Congressional briefings. The format for those briefings has now been
>decided, and is included below. I would be interested in the views of ELSIC
>list members, as to whether ELSIC should attempt to do something similar
>for new Australian Federal Parliaments?
I am new to the ACSELSIC-L list so did not remember seeing the request for
suggestions and am sorry I missed responding to it then.
I find the ACM format disappointing because there is *no* mention
in the briefing by the ACM to the U.S. Congress about the U.S.
government activities to give the central points of control
over the Internet (the Internet Crown Jewels, as someone
from Harvard's Berkman Center acknowledged) to a corporation
set up by the U.S. government as a private corporation and
totally incapable of dealing with the great amount of wealth
and power that the central points of control of the Internet
represent.
The central points of control, for those who may not know about this
issue, are the domain name system, the IP address, the protocols,
and port numbers, etc. These central points of control give
whoever controls them control over the Internet.
The U.S. government, despite opposition, and with little public
knowledge of what is happening, has been creating a private
corporation that it claims will be a membership corporation
and is transferring these publicly owned and cooperatively
administered assets and the policy making power over these
functions to this private corporation called ICANN (Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)
The Office of the U.S. Inspector General of the National Science
Foundation (OIG) spoke to an earlier plan to transfer only some
of these important assets in a report in February 7, 1997.
The OIG pointed out the tremendous wealth and power associated
with assets like the IP numbers (There are 4.3 billion of which
2 billion are allocated. A $50 a year charge for the 2 billion
allocated yields $100 billion)
But the main aspect is that these functions of the Internet
give whoever controls them the ability to control the Internet,
and these need to be in reliable hands that are overseen and
under the greatest amount of protection and care, rather than
in an unregulated and inappropriate entity as is being created
in ICANN.
>
> [format of ACM Congressional Briefing for March 5]
>
>
>1:30 PM Science Policy Panel
>
> Introduction of Speakers: John White, Executive Director, ACM
>
> Speakers:
>
> Copyright Policy: Bill Arms, Chair, ACM Publication Board
> Infrastructure Robustness and Security: Gene Spafford, Purdue
> Research Funding (bandwidth issues): Bob Ellis, SIGGRAPH
> Research Funding (interface issues): Austin Henderson,
>SIGCHI
> Women and Minorities in Science: Anita Borg, Xerox
PARC
> Privacy: Lorrie Cranor, AT&T
> Moderator: Chuck Brownstein, Chair, USACM
So it seems this fundamental change in the nature of the Internet
is not to be discussed.
Several years ago H. Sackman was active in forming IFIP 9.2 and
fighting for the importance of the computer science community
taking up the social issues connected with the development of
the future computer network that would be developing.
He pointed out that in the U.S. it is very hard to have the government
consider the social issues and social interests of its people. He also
pointed out that the developing computer network would hold great
promise to people and that that would act as a blinder from
realizing the cutthroat political battle over control of it
that would be waged by those commercially self interested entities
trying to gain power by controlling it.
We are in such a battle today. And it is important that the computer
science community be active in discussing and figuring out
the issues. The ACM Congressional briefing totally ignores
this most important issue which faces the U.S. and world comptuer
science community.
I have some other writings about this situation that are available
at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
See especially the proposal, the testimony to the U.S. Congress
and the letter to the Commerce Committee
The files are
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/letter_to_congress.txt
Also I have a longer paper about the issue in general at
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/internet.txt
I will also be putting some more recent reports on what has
been happening there and will write when I do.
Ronda
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
published by the IEEE Computer Society Press
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:43:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Bino Gopal <bino@rabi.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Netizens list members in NYC area?
Ronda,
Just in case you didn't see my other hurried email, I'll be
available--just let me know the time and place. Anyone else in the NYC
area too?
BINO
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Ronda Hauben wrote:
> I wondered if any Netizens list members in the NYC area
> may be available to meet at lunch time on Friday. One
> person on the list from another country is hoping to
> be in the NYC area and it would be good to have a chance
> to have a chance to get together and say hello.
>
> Write me ronda@panix.com or rh120@columbia.edu if anyone
> on the list is interested in trying to meet for lunch
> on Friday 1/29/99.
>
> Probably it would be best to try to find a place to have lunch
> near Columbia around 110th Street and Broadway.
>
> Ronda
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:45:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [UA-C] Notes from ICANN membership discussion
>From kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 28 16:06:25 1999
Received: from jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca (jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca [142.177.1.6])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id QAA01522
for <ronda@panix.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:06:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from LOCALNAME ([142.177.19.57]) by jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca
(Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c)
ID# 607-45892U60000L60000S0) with SMTP id AAB1737;
Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:09:19 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Organization: hundred flowers publications
To: UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA, "raft" <kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:06:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [UA-C] Notes from ICANN membership discussion
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.02.9901271129230.29584-100000@ccen.uccb.ns.ca>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01b)
Message-ID: <19990128210911.AAB1737@LOCALNAME>
Status: R
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>Andy wrote,
>{ I do not agree with their [Haubens'] alternative suggestions,
>{ and often find their participation as tiresome as the more conservative
>{ attendees, but I am glad they're there to make us re-examine first
>{ principles.
...
>{ I made a suggestion later that might not have been understood; I'd like
>{ advice about whether to pursue it. I pointed out that no matter how
>{ wonderful a membership structure we create, most members will go back
>{ to there day jobs and take on a passive role after the main ICANN
>{ questions
>{ are decided -- whether or not we like the decisions. What happens if a
>{ couple watchdog members decide ICANN is doing something rotten? How do
>{ they rouse the rest of the membership? Do they have to obtain member
>{ mailing lists and spam everybody with a manifesto? Do they have fora
>{ for presenting their views, and will members listen? In short, I said,
>{ we must design support for faction fights into ICANN, as unpleasant as
>{ that sounds.
>Does anyone else see a parallel between these two quotes? The Haubens
>(Hi, Jay!) may have failed to read their McLuhan, and their important
>message is burdened with a style which turns people away, if not off.
But Kerry - it isn't a question of style.
It is different.
On Usenet the principle that "I may disagree with what you say
but I will duel to the death to defend your right to say it" is
practiced.
I have found people write me saying they realize I have said
something important when they see that it is being flamed
by someone.
There are those who are trying to solve a problem and they
welcome divergent views. That is how the Internet was developed.
Then there are those who are interested in making their bucks
from the Internet who don't want to hear anyone speak if
it may upset their buck making.
I just spoke with a Professor at Columbia about this. He
saw the folks who are pushing the buck making at the expense
of all else as an ethics issue.
If the U.S. government had decreed that only those wanting
to make their bucks from the Internet are allowed to be
part of the private sector control of the Internet outlined
in the White Paper and Green Paper, then the problem is
the U.S. government, *not* those trying to challenge
that the Internet *only* exists and should be controlled
by those who have blinders on their eyes the color of
dollar bills.
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: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:01:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Email sent to ACM policy group planning Congressional Briefing
Following is an email sent to the USACM representative about
adding the issue of the proper role of the government in the
development of the Internet to their Congressional Briefing
in March
To: gelman@acm.org
Subject: Adding question of proper government role in Internet to briefing?
Status: R
Dear Laurie
Yesterday I cc'd you with my comments on the ACSELSIC-L list about
the fact that it would be important to have some of the dispute
over the creation of ICANN presented at the Congressional Briefing
by ACM in March.
I was at the ACM Policy 98 meeting in Washington and found it very
helpful to hear the talk by Robert Kahn at that meeting where he
discussed the importance of determining what is the proper U.S.
government role in the development of the Internet.
I feel that this issue has come up in a very stark way with the
events surrounding the creation of the U.S. government Framework
for Electronic Commerce and then the Green Paper and then the White
Paper. These have stressed that the Internet is only for commerce
and that the U.S. government should only consider the interests
of the private sector for the future of the Internet. This led
to the development of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers) being envisioned as a private corporation
to foster "competition" in the sale of domain names and also
to set the policy for and to own and control Internet IP numbers,
domain names, the root server system and other related and key
functions of the Internet. These functions essentially give
control over the Internet to those who control them.
This has created a dilemma for the Internet. Commerce is
only one of the many diverse purposes of the autonomous
networks that make up the Internet. This one particular purpose
was substituted by the U.S. government White paper for the
many diverse purposes of the different networks that internet.
However, the more general or generic purpose of all those
networks which are part of the Internet, which is *communication*
was not recognized by the Green Paper or the White Paper.
Thus the key controlling functions of the Internet are being
put into the hands of an organization that is not based on
the essential aspect of the Internet. And as a spokesperson
from the Kennedy School of Government pointed out at a
meeting about ICANN in Boston last Saturday, a regulatory
entity is being created in ICANN, but with none of the necessary
government checks and responsibilities that accompany such
obligations.
Thus there is a serious question that Congress needs help
with and that ACM would hopefully provide. That is in
sorting out the genuine questions that need to be identified
by the U.S. government to figure out how to give the proper
oversight and attention to the Internet.
I have recently written a paper that takes up a bit of the
importance of looking at the role of a public utility as
the model for what is needed for ICANN. Also I plan to
do further study in the next few months of the role that
government has played in the development of the Internet
toward determining what is the needed role in the future,
especially with regard to the ownership, control and
administration of the Internet Assigned Names and Numbers,
protocols, and other essential Internet functions.
I would be glad to be in contact with anyone in USACM
who would be interested in finding a way to add this
important issue to the Congressional Briefing.
Also is there a mailing list that is part of ACM that
is dealing with such policy issues that I should
consider joining?
I am co-author of the book "Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet" published by the IEEE Computer
Society Press and have spent the past several years doing research
and writing about the history and impact of the Internet, Usenet
and Unix, etc.
Also I am an editor and writer for the online newsletter
"The Amateur Computerist" which takes up these kinds of issues.
Best wishes
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:52:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [UA-C] Notes from ICANN membership discussion
In article <199901291345.IAA15994@panix3.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>>Does anyone else see a parallel between these two quotes? The Haubens
>>(Hi, Jay!) may have failed to read their McLuhan, and their important
>>message is burdened with a style which turns people away, if not off.
>But Kerry - it isn't a question of style.
>It is different.
IMO, you would have more success getting your points across if you
merely presented them, rather than accusing those who disagree
with you (regardless of whether their disagreement is valid) of being
dishonest, greedy, or ignorant.
In particular, I would advise not accusing people like Dave Farber of
such. He is a highly respected person who can grant you audience with
significant figures in this process, if he respects you. You need all
the allies you can get.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:04:35 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] kmm022: Notes from ICANN membership discussion
Ronda <ronda@panix.com> wrote,
{
{ >Andy wrote,
{
{ >{ I do not agree with their [Haubens'] alternative suggestions,
{ >{ and often find their participation as tiresome as the more
conservative
{ >{ attendees, but I am glad they're there to make us re-examine first
{ >{ principles.
{ ...
...
{
{ >Does anyone else see a parallel between these two quotes? The Haubens
{ >(Hi, Jay!) may have failed to read their McLuhan, and their important
{ >message is burdened with a style which turns people away, if not off.
{
{ But Kerry - it isn't a question of style.
Admittedly the line between style and content is a slippery one, but
'tiresome' was Andy's reaction (and others, elsewhere), so I thought it
was worth a try ;-)
{ It is different.
{
{ On Usenet the principle that "I may disagree with what you say
{ but I will duel to the death to defend your right to say it" is
{ practiced.
{
Yes indeed it is: the combative style (posture, language, tone, as you
prefer) is everywhere -- ubiquitous to the point of invisibility, so that
your response is the only one possible, and I thank you for the
illustration :-) Fighting fire with fire, win/lose, demons/ saints, war
on X, combatting Y, resisting Z, etc etc, all *create the polarization
as much as they *describe polarities that already exist.
What McLuhan saw was that *language is not separate from action* - or,
equivalently, how you speak is how you think - and whatever artificial
(i.e.*technical) delay-lines society tries to put in between them (such
as 'teaching'/'administering'...), sooner or later the same technology
will work to 'deconstruct' them -- and most significantly for the
Internet, its always *sooner*. (You know how everyone refers to 'ever
increasing accelleration' in social change? -- this is what they mean.)
That is, the more people get involved who know nothing but what theyve
heard or read (as distinguished, in the end, from *thinking*) about the
issue, the more the *description becomes *prescriptive. The faster the
info-flow, the less *consequential 'discussion' is. ('Fire, aim, ready!')
In short, in 'vigourous debate,' the determinant is *who sets the
categories*? Who defines the dichotomies, whats on and off the table,
whats 'first priority' and what isnt? But, as you will have noticed,
*this* question is never discussed -- but I guarantee, almost any 'free-
for-all' (whatever the putative issue) is really about this kind of
'pecking order.'
Item: 'have the facts': Quick repartee counts for more than slow
response, because it represents 'being prepared.'
Item: 'vote early *and often*': Repetition at every opportunity counts
more than clear statment.
Item: 'never give an inch': Use whatever works -- slander, insinuation,
fallacy, false facts, anger -- to express your 'determination' to
'defend' your 'position.' Compromise is weakness, and weakness loses the
'battle'.
(Do you recognize, say, the 'right to lifers', or the US/Iraq
propagandists, or Usenet, or the IFWP rants, yet?)
Once your terms of reference are accepted, it no longer matters what
'decisions' are made -- which trimester, or how much oil is to be sold,
or how membership (or TM rights) is to be allocated or verified -- those
'details' can be easily 'spun' - and modified later if need be.
{ I have found people write me saying they realize I have said
{ something important when they see that it is being flamed
{ by someone.
Of course -- but *they don't join in*; your voice is still only your
voice, and 'everybody knows' what the Haubens will be saying.
Even if you say you 'represent' (a la JW) a bunch of people,
your 'organization' will be suspect. Why? Because the people who write
(*to you*, backchannel) are not 'argumentative' but careful and
thoughtful and, I suspect, collaborative-minded, that is, they have a
different style, but they don't see a *public forum which supports it.
{ There are those who are trying to solve a problem and they
{ welcome divergent views. That is how the Internet was developed.
The problem-solving concept works fine in a linear, 'first this, then
that' situation, and the western scientific technological materialistic
culture is that, through and through. The net *as a medium of
communication* opens the possibility of 'parallel processing'
where the 'problem' is no longer *what to do (next), but *how to get
people to agree to do it.
But how are you or anybody else going to be able to promote a
collaborative style if you have to use a combative style to make the
case? Hypocrisy and opportunism are the least of the terms that you'll be
bombarded with -- and defenseless against if it is already, *implicitly*,
determined that collaboration has no 'standing.' (Yes, I know that the
outcome of 'debate' is often called 'consensus,' even if its driven by
exhaustion. Its another instance of 'capturing' the terms of discourse.)
{ Then there are those who are interested in making their bucks
{ from the Internet who don't want to hear anyone speak if
{ it may upset their buck making.
{
{ I just spoke with a Professor at Columbia about this. He
{ saw the folks who are pushing the buck making at the expense
{ of all else as an ethics issue.
What is ethics, except the 'ground rules' by which one operates?
I've been using style/content terminology, but at any point in a linear
sequence of events, asking *how an earlier step was made instead of
*where to go from here raises an 'ethical' issue.
{ If the U.S. government had decreed that only those wanting
{ to make their bucks from the Internet are allowed to be
{ part of the private sector control of the Internet outlined
{ in the White Paper and Green Paper, then the problem is
{ the U.S. government, *not* those trying to challenge
{ that the Internet *only* exists and should be controlled
{ by those who have blinders on their eyes the color of
{ dollar bills.
Isnt the best thing *now to slide in a bylaw to the effect that the
whole scheme, from top to bottom, is *always open to (re)negotiation;
that 'de facto' law-making and 'deadlines' have no place; and that no
(interim) decision forecloses anything? (What *nix-head could resist?)
Then, if it appears that the collaborative use of the net to achieve such
changes is at risk from corporate/ business/ linear interests, the
collaborative 'faction' will have standing.
kerry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #264
******************************
