Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 253
Netizens-Digest Friday, January 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 253
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: ICANN membership--a Usenet perspective
Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
Re: [netz] Internet Society
Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
[netz] (Fwd) French virtual senate to decide Internet law
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:40:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: ICANN membership--a Usenet perspective
In article <19990114215225.AAA3681@LOCALNAME> Kerry Miller wrote:
> Have [newsgroup] proposals ever failed?
Yes
> Is it scalable? That is, could TLDs be proposed in the same way?
You mean by discussion? In the four years of DNS discussion to date,
there's been plenty of discussion, but no consensus. For example,
some entities want exclusive privileges to register names within the
TLD, whereas others are willing to share privileges. Then there are
issues such how to distinguish commercial/non-commercial TLDs.
Generally, newsgroup top level hierarchy names (alt, ba, etc.) are
agreed upon by the sites that decide to carry those hierarchies. In
the ORSC model, you could have sites that agree to coordinate TLD
names. However, you run into the problem that if there are conflicts
(say, the same TLD in separate alternate roots), that could lead to
confusion. The same confusion would exist if there were separate top
level newsgroup names.
> Hmm, has anyone tried to copyright a newsgroup name?
As far as I know, no. However, some hierarchies (e.g. the Clarinet
hierarchy clari) exist for specific purposes. As far as I know, the
situation has not come up where there were separate and conflicting
top level usenet names. You might check DejaNews
(http://www.dejanews.com) to see if it's ever come up. Look in
news.groups.
If someone created their own clari hierarchy, but did not overlap it
with the existing one, that could be interesting.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:57:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Thu Jan 14 16:13:28 1999
Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (cu9478@mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id QAA14942
for <ronda@panix.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:13:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA27904
for netizens-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:38:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136])
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA27835
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:38:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from gds@localhost)
by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.2/8.9.2/best.sh) id MAA22620;
Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:37:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Message-Id: <199901142037.MAA22620@shell5.ba.best.com>
To: netizens@columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
In-Reply-To: <199901141651.LAA25893@panix3.panix.com>
Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Status: RO
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> writes:
>>In article <199901141651.LAA25893@panix3.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>>The problem to me is *not* that the NTIA or NIST is sole sourcing this
>>contract. The problem is
>>1) That it is holding IANA hostage to an illegitimate and secretly
>>contrived plan to give away very lucrative assets to a private sector
>>entity. These assets will give great power over the Internet and all
>>who use it to those who grab control over this enitty.
>>2) That IANA is too important a part of the Internet to be held hostage
>>in this way. It isn't that some other private sector business entity
>>should get control of IANA through competitive contract solicitations,
>>but rather that a U.S. government entity that is appropriate, like
>>DARPA, should continue to administer the contract with IANA and
>>pay the salaries of those who work for IANA while there be a
>>genuine discussion and examination of how to create a protected
>>environment for IANA to function that includes the public interest
>>being dominant, not commercial objectives.
>Have you contacted the DARPA ITO yet to see what their position is
>with regards to ICANN?
>Hilarie Orman is listed on the DARPA ITO page,
>http://www.darpa.mil/ito/Personnel/.
Is there some reason, Greg, why you don't contact Hilarie Orman
if you think that would be helpful?
>>4) I didn't notice the U.S. government having any problem paying for
>>the big bills that it has taken to build the Internet (for the U.S.
>>share of the bills), and the public interest needs to be protected
>>now and the Internet needs a way to scale and to continue to
>>serve as a unique new medium of worldwide communication. Therefore
>>the U.S. government should stop hassling the IANA folks and should
>>make sure that their pay checks are paid by the U.S. government.
>The economic and political landscape has changed from when the
>Internet was being designed. For things to head back in the other
>direction, the USG (meaning the people who elect them) need to be
>convinced to continue to foot the bill.
I don't see any change at all in the landscape. I have been
reading the description from the 1970's and later and it was
then as now, that the public interest is *not* considered
by those in the U.S. government making the decisions about
what is to be the development of the Internet or computers, etc.
But the public interest is what needs to be the first and
overriding consideration.
Do you agree Greg? You seem to say this isn't the proper time,
but it never is. The point is that if folks take on to
hold the U.S. government to its obligations, then there is
some reason for it to fulfill those obligations.
> --gregbo
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, 15 Jan 1999 08:29:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
In article <199901150657.BAA19058@panix3.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>Is there some reason, Greg, why you don't contact Hilarie Orman
>if you think that would be helpful?
If I contact her, and she tells me that DARPA supports the transfer of
the *commercial* domains, protocols, and IP address management to
ICANN, will you accept it?
>But the public interest is what needs to be the first and
>overriding consideration.
>Do you agree Greg? You seem to say this isn't the proper time, but it
>never is. The point is that if folks take on to hold the
>U.S. government to its obligations, then there is some reason for it
>to fulfill those obligations.
All I am saying is that if the public wants the USG to oversee the
Internet, then it must be willing to pay for that oversight, as was
done when it was a research project.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:08:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Message-Id: <199901151629.IAA15226@shell5.ba.best.com>
To: netizens@columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
In-Reply-To: <199901150657.BAA19058@panix3.panix.com>
Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Status: R
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
In article <199901150657.BAA19058@panix3.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>>Is there some reason, Greg, why you don't contact Hilarie Orman
>>if you think that would be helpful?
>If I contact her, and she tells me that DARPA supports the transfer of
>the *commercial* domains, protocols, and IP address management to
>ICANN, will you accept it?
I will be glad to hear what you report she says. I have been
in email contact with someone who told me that DARPA lost the
battle against the transfer of these, *not* that they wanted
the transfer.
So it would be good to hear your report and then I can figure out
if there is any further research it suggests on the issue.
But its hard for me to write her to ask your question. And if
she answers in a different way from what you think, it will also be
food for thought.
>>But the public interest is what needs to be the first and
>>overriding consideration.
>>Do you agree Greg? You seem to say this isn't the proper time, but it
>>never is. The point is that if folks take on to hold the
>>U.S. government to its obligations, then there is some reason for it
>>to fulfill those obligations.
>All I am saying is that if the public wants the USG to oversee the
>Internet, then it must be willing to pay for that oversight, as was
>done when it was a research project.
I haven't seen anyone complain about paying for the oversight.
The poroblem presented at the Federal networking Council meeting
wasn't that the people of the U.S. didn't want to pay for
oversight over Internet Names and Numbers but that the U.S.
government wanted to protect U.S. commercial interests in the
Internet.
Some of the current problem in the U.S. and around the world
is that the people don't get to direct their governments to
do what they want. That the governments are only acting
in the interests of a very small part of the population nad there
is no way for the public to have its voices heard.
That is the situation here as well.
There is a very deep political crisis in the U.S. The great majority
of the American people are treated in a very shabby way by
the government folk and have no real way to deal with that.
Most people at election time have no one to vote for (a great
percentage of the U.S. population doesn't vote) and instead
of U.S. government officials being concerned about that,
they are kind of glad and go ahead and serve the wealthy
business interests that are the only folks they feel any
responsibility to.
There are similar problems around the world, but the
government folk there at elast acknowledge there is a
problem and that something needs to be done to increase
the way people have a way to participate in their political
system. And they look to Netizens as the example for the future.
However the U.S. government does the opposite. They are out
to convert the Internet into the same outmoded system of
no representation that has created such a political crisis
in the U.S.
So I disagree the problem is that the public doesn't want to
pay for the Internet. The public has never been asked nor
their desires considered. That is some of why there is this
problem today. Policy issues need public discussion and consideration
and to make important policy decisions without such, is dooming
those decisions to being bad decisions.
e
> --gregbo
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:35:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Society
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
>I was wondering if any of you are members of the Internet Society, or
>are thinking of joining.
>They recently opened up their members-only mailing list for public access.
>It uses a lyris-style interface (similar to the old ifwp web interface).
>Some of the discussions there have touched on Internet governance, including
>the DNS.
>More info at http://www.isoc.org.
>--gregbo
I wanted to get back to the subject of the Internet Society as it
seems an issue to examine with respect to what is happening with
Internet governace.
The way the Internet society was formed and what has happened with
it is helpful to look at with respect to the impossibility of
what ICANN is being modeled on.
The Internet society was formed I think in 1991 or 1992 as
part of or by CNRI (Center for Networking Research Initiatives)
Somehow the Internet Society has become something mainly promoting
commercializing the Internet. CNRI and the other founding organzations
are no longer activiely involved in what happens as far as I know.
The organization seems to promote certain interests that are bcomemrcial
minority commercial interests.
Michael was a meember early on and that meant that he paid dues
and got the journal. There were no rights for members and I
just went to a talk by one of the current board members sponsored by
the NYC ISOC chapter and the speaker said that members are those who
agree with the objectives on the mission statement and pay their
dues.
However, as press (the Amateur Computerist) I went to the 1996 and
1998 meetings. I raised questions and wrote up what happened
so there would be some press reports on the problems of the
Internet Society only be in support of certain commercial
interests.
Also at the most recent Internet Society meeting in Geneva in July,
I met other folks from chapters in other parts of the world who were
similarly frustrated with the narrow and exclusive focus of
Internet Society activies. One person from Korea told me he goese
to meetings and is asked what his commercial interest is. When
he says he doesn't have one, people don't believe him. But he
was working for spreading Internet access to people who weren't
commercially interested.
In a similar way someone we met from the Geneva chapter this
summer said he felt it was important to go to the lcoal chapter meetings
and stand up for users interests being considered.
Because ofthat conversation, when we got home to NYC and we heard
there was a meeting of the NYC-ISOC chapter we went.
But it has been hard to go to the meetings when they have been
only taking up commercial issues and when for example a lawyer
at one of the chapter meetings recommeded that people buy up
domain names and hold them to see if they can make a killing
off someone with deep pockets.
The lawyer was giving a talk and one wasn't allowe to challenge her,
so it was hard to be in such a room.
But it does seem a problem that the ISOC is dominated so
by certain commercial interests.
The most recent talk I heard reprted that in France there was the
effort to have the ISOC be run in a more democratic way with the
members having some say over what happens.
And tjhere was the reprot that people in Brazil were complaining
about the high cost of dues and saying that was a barrier for
people to be members.
But ISOC doesn't have the Internet assets (at least not yet))
of the Internet names and numbers, etc. And yet there was a power
struggle early on for who would get the power in the organization.
So the ISOC failure to be an open and democratic organization
shows that ICANN is even in a more compromised position from
the earliest conception.
But that doesn't mean that we stay away. It seems right to try
to challenge the dominance of ISOC by a small segment of the
commercial world.
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, 15 Jan 1999 12:18:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Cook's Report leaves out the Public Interest and the Internet
In article <199901151908.OAA21468@panix3.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>I will be glad to hear what you report she says. I have been
>in email contact with someone who told me that DARPA lost the
>battle against the transfer of these, *not* that they wanted
>the transfer.
I will try to get her to agree to have me forward her reply on to the
rest of you.
I'm aware that DARPA has lost battles to get the funding for certain
types of research, including Internet name/address management. The
reasons are because the economic and political realities are different
today than they were during the 1970s and early 1980s. There was much
more money allocated towards basic networking research, and a portion
of that was available for Internet name/address management (including
commercial organizations, such as they were, back then).
>There is a very deep political crisis in the U.S. The great majority
>of the American people are treated in a very shabby way by
>the government folk and have no real way to deal with that.
I don't deny that this is true, but those people who do vote, elect
the people who make the laws. If there were more people who decided
to vote for other candidates besides those in the major political
parties, we would see different results.
>So I disagree the problem is that the public doesn't want to
>pay for the Internet. The public has never been asked nor
>their desires considered. That is some of why there is this
>problem today. Policy issues need public discussion and consideration
>and to make important policy decisions without such, is dooming
>those decisions to being bad decisions.
Wrong. The issue has certainly been presented to the public (granted,
it has not been highlighted as much as, say, CDA-2). But, as I have
said before, things are not going to change, with regards to who is
given the responsibility to do Internet name/address management, until
the people who are elected feel that this is what the American public
at large wants. But if the American public at large is voting for
people who advocate free markets and privatization, that is what will
happen.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:54:35 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] (Fwd) French virtual senate to decide Internet law
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:48:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark Graffis <ab758@virgin.usvi.net>
January 13, 1999
Web posted at: 1:52 p.m. EDT (1352 GMT)
by Kristi Essick
AUTRANS, France (IDG) -- The Internet Society France plans to sponsor
a "virtual" session of parliament this March to vote on a law
governing the Internet during the second-annual Fete de l'Internet,
French Internet Day.
The idea is to allow all interested Internet users to participate in
the entire process of drafting, revising and passing a law, ISOC
France said in a statement. The French Senate, which is working
alongside ISOC to put on the event, will then pass a mock law, based
on user input. The real-world event, called "Internet Law: Conquering
a Global Village," will take place Mar. 19 to Mar. 29.
Through ISOC France's Web site, Internet users can participate in
drafting the mock law, which will be aimed at creating a new structure
for governing the Internet. During the drafting process, participants
will target issues such as data privacy, intellectual property rights,
consumer protection, the regulation of encryption and the use of the
Internet to spread illegal and indecent content.
After an initial draft of the law is presented later this month, users
can also participate in the amendment process. The idea is to get
people thinking about how existing laws concerning the Internet France
should be adapted, ISOC said.
Recently, the State Assembly published a report that claimed existing
legislation covering many aspects of society can and should be applied
to the Internet, ISOC pointed out. However, the French government also
pointed out that these laws need to be modified and adapted slightly
to fit the virtual world, according to the ISOC statement.
At least one government official speaking here agreed with the idea
that existing laws are enough, but aren't perfectly adapted to the
Internet.
Existing laws will suffice for governing the Internet, said Francis
Lorentz, head of a French government committee called Mission Commerce
Electronique, part of the Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry.
However, administrators need to study how to apply the laws to the
Internet, adapting them slightly where necessary, he said. One example
is digital signatures. They should be treated in the same way as real
signatures, but laws governing signatures in real life make no mention
of the existence of digital versions, he said.
Participants in the ISOC event will be able to vote on the final draft
of the law during the mock parliament session taking place at the
Senate.
[63]Kristi Essick is Paris correspondent for the IDG News Service.
References
Visible links:
1. http://cnn.com/event.ng/TypeÀick&RunID
803&ProfileIDR7&AdIDt17&GroupID'9&FamilyID
47&TagValue
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #253
******************************
