Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 239
Netizens-Digest Friday, January 8 1999 Volume 01 : Number 239
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] ICANN
[netz] Re: [ifwp] RE: Individual Membership [Was: RE: How not to define membership classes]
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: RE: Individual Membership [Was: RE: How not to define membership classes]
Re: [netz] ICANN
Re: [netz] ICANN
Re: [netz] ICANN
[netz] Re: Why NSF decided to let NSI charge
[netz] Re: Why NSF decided to let NSI charge
[netz] Re: Why NSF decided to let NSI charge
[netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:53:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] ICANN
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 11:01:12 -0800
From: Molly Shaffer Van Houweling <shaffer@law.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>
Subject: [ifwp] ICANN Membership Advisory Committee, new list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cix.org id KAA26972
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-ifwp-23774W@lists.interactivehq.org>
List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0
List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:owner-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org>
X-URL: <http://www.ifwp.org>
X-List-Host: Assn. for Interactive Media List Server <http://www.interactivehq.org>
X-Message-Id: <3693B2F8.29DD2728@law.harvard.edu>
Sender: bounce-ifwp-23774@lists.interactivehq.org
Precedence: bulk
Status: R
This was posted on the IFWP list, and I am reposting it on the Netizens
list. Ronda
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling <shaffer@law.harvard.edu>
Dear IFWP,
Please visit http://www.icann.org/membership-com.html to see recently
updated information on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committee=97the
committee created to advise the ICANN board on the creation of an
at-large membership structure. The committee website includes a
committee progress report and instructions for subscribing to a new
public email list devoted to discussion of ICANN memebership issues.
Thank you,
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
Staff to the Membership Advisory Committee
ICANN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:18:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] RE: Individual Membership [Was: RE: How not to define membership classes]
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
>>There is still no need to set aside special seats for corporations or
>>organizations.
>>Nobody is stopping corporations/organizations from sending people to
>>participate *as* individuals.
>>The IETF works on the basis of individuals and not companies.
>>Company C and company M send lots of folks to participate and hence
>>tend to have a bigger voice than company I.
>>But since the participation is by individual, the merit of issues
>>tends to rise to the top and be the basis for standards or
>>decisionmaking.
>I actually think the IETF is a model organization for this type of
>project. However, I don't know that the man or woman on the street
>feels likewise.
My guess is that there are problems with the IETF, expecially since the
U.S. govt support for it has been withdrawn which I thought happened
just a year or two ago.
I have heard from a friend who tried to participate in it as she is from
an academic situation in another country. She proposed an RFC
from her work and couldn't afford to go to the meeting because
since she works in academic and the IETF doesn't function via supporting
papers, she was unable to get funding to go. Her suggested RFC
was ignored and the mailing list then went onto other topics.
The prevalence of corporate support for those who represent corporate
interests, seems less matched by the ability of those in the academic
world to participate.
So there do seems to be problems that need to be taken up, but
instead of the ability to take them up, there is the pressure to
further corporatize the IETF processes.
And the meeting I went to in Munich (I was in Germany anyway) had
a number of folks at it who came from different environments,
but it seemed the majority of issues being taken up were those
having to do with security and other commercially relevant issues.
The working group I found to go to which was about noncommercial
issues had to do with connecting school. There was an interesting
presentation by someone from Germany about how they had
developed a generic interface for schools to the Internet using
linux since they didn't want individual schools tried to the
proprietary interfaces of different service providers. But
then the meeting didn't really open itself to questions of what
would be of interest to discuss, but then went over reading
through some draft about the need to hire a system person for
each school. Thus it was a bit of a wasted to have been there.
Thus though the IETF has a very proud history, it is also being racked
by the commercialization wind. It seems especially important that
that be recognized as this ICANN pressure will only make that worse.
And why the IETF should be subordinate to ICANN is also a serious
question. I thought the IETF wasn't to take up policy issues,
and yet to not do so, leaves them to the mercy of
ICANN who has no understanding of the technology or basis
to take up and determine policy regarding IETF issues.
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: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:02:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: RE: Individual Membership [Was: RE: How not to define membership classes]
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
>>I actually think the IETF is a model organization for this type of
>>project. However, I don't know that the man or woman on the street
>>feels likewise.
>My guess is that there are problems with the IETF, expecially since
>the U.S. govt support for it has been withdrawn which I thought
>happened just a year or two ago.
Perhaps I should clarify my previous statement. I think the IETF
*model* of membership and participation is ideal for ICANN
representation. The IETF *model* offers the type of bottom-up, open,
individual-oriented process that is called for by the White Paper. It
is also open to anyone, with very minimal requirements (e.g. most
dialogue is conducted via email, drafts and standards are required to
be published as ascii text files, etc.).
I wasn't trying to suggest or imply that the IETF *body* should be
incorporated into ICANN in any particular way.
But since you brought it up ...
>I have heard from a friend who tried to participate in it as she is
>from an academic situation in another country. She proposed an RFC
>from her work and couldn't afford to go to the meeting because
>since she works in academic and the IETF doesn't function via supporting
>papers, she was unable to get funding to go. Her suggested RFC
>was ignored and the mailing list then went onto other topics.
Could you tell us who your friend was, what working groups she
participated in, and what drafts she wrote? I would like to look over
the mailing lists and WG proceedings to see what she did.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:06:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] ICANN
>Greg posted an interesting URL from 1996 on a newsgroup about the
>Federal networking council nad how DARPA opposed the transfer of the
>networking assets to the commercial sector, but that the NTIA the
>ISOC the EU and others were being involved in figuring out how to
>make the transfer via meetings at the Kennedy School. I couldn't get
>the URL for the meeting to function.
It's http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_10_96_minutes.html. I just tried it and
it works, even with lynx.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:59:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] ICANN
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
>It's http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_10_96_minutes.html. I just tried it and
>it works, even with lynx.
The URL for the Federal Networking Council meeting worked, but
not the one in the minutes for the Kennedy School.
It was on page 6 of the version I printed out
3. Network Transitions and Scalability
a. Governance in the Internet
Brian Kahin ofHarvardUniversity discussed the issues raised at
the September 1996 workshop on administration of the Internet.
While no consensus was reached at this workshop, the level
of participation was broadened to include other elements of
thge U.S. government, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office, and several international organizations, including
the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the
world Intellectual Property Organizatoin (WIPO), and the
European Commission (EC).
earlier it talked about NSF sponsoring three workshops designed to
facilitate community-driven consensuson long-term solutions
to the domain names/addressing policy and administration.
As of this FNCAC meeting, there have bene multiple recommendations
from the Internet Society (ISOC), the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) and others albeit no consensus.
Proceedings from theSeptember 1996 conference available at
Harvard are available at:
http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/cai.html - that's the URL that I
couldn't get to work.
It was interesting that the minutes said that Hilarie Orman explained
that DARPA supports the FNC'srole as source of authority for assingment
of Internet DNS names and address numbers. This position, she expalined
derives from DARPA/s long-standing interest; in the smooth functioning
of the Internet.
Doesn't seem that anyone else in of the folks involved were interested
in the smooth functioning of the Internet as they are only making
more and more of a mess out of what is going. It's like getting
negative feedback and then compounding the situaiton that gave
the negative feedback.
Ronda
- -tgregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:37:07 -0500
From: Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] ICANN
Hi folks,
> Proceedings from theSeptember 1996 conference available at
> Harvard are available at:
> http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/cai.html - that's the URL that I
> couldn't get to work.
Try http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/cai/cisupp.html
The edited conference papers wound up in a book, Coordinating the Internet,
edited by Brian Kahin and James Keller.
Craig Simon
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:48:23 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Why NSF decided to let NSI charge
For a post originating from InterNIC, it's interesting that question 8,
"How much profit is this going to generate beyond what's reinvested
in the Internet? What's your margin?" is answered from *NSI*s pov:
| We don't know what our costs will be, since the growth in registrations
| is so great, and this activity has never been privatized before. As a
| tax-paying, for-profit corporation, we certainly hope that we have
| accurately estimated our cost of performance, and that the fees will be
| sufficient to cover those costs and provide us with a reasonable
| profit.
In #19, it says:
{ we believe that the $50 amount should be adequate to cover reasonably
{ foreseeable contingencies. Any new fees or increase must be approved by
{ NSF. The priorities and funding for improvements will be determined by an
{ advisory committee, reviewed by the NSF, audited and publicly accounted
{ for.
What equivalent subsection of ICANNs bylaws deals with this advisory role?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:09:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Why NSF decided to let NSI charge
Kerry Miller wrote:
>What equivalent subsection of ICANNs bylaws deals with this advisory role?
>[NSI oversight]
I don't think this is covered in the ICANN bylaws at all. NSI has a
separate relationship with the DoC. They were granted a two-year extension
on the contract.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:40:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Why NSF decided to let NSI charge
Actually, I found this clause in the ICANN bylaws:
(d) The Corporation shall recognize and abide by the terms of any
agreements entered into between the United States of America and
Network Solutions Inc. and between the United States of America and
the University of Southern California and between the United States
of America and the Corporation in connection with the creation of this
Corporation and the transition to the Corporation of various
coordination and other responsibilities related to the Internet.
It seems that ICANN is honoring this clause thus far, as they have not
(to my knowledge) attempted to exercise any control over NSI.
However, the article I originally posted was written several years ago,
at the time that NSF authorized NSI to charge for domain names. It
predates the existence of ICANN by several years. I submitted it because
there seemed to be some confusion over who was responsible for granting
NSI permission to charge for domain names, and what right they had to
grant this authority.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:36:05 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Jay Robert Hauben reminded me:
{ There is an archive of recent
{ digests at http://www.ais.org/~jrh/netizens/digest/ in case you want
{ to see the recent posts. They are also available on the Usenet newsgroup
{ alt.society.netizens.
{
Poking about in the past few K, I found:
[Greg:]
{ However, the question remains: if the Internet is to be regulated, who
{ will bear the cost of regulation, and who will carry out the task?
{
[Mark:]
{ Sure, the Internet
{ allows everyone to talk, but it doesn't allow us to hear everyone out. Of
{ course, in a newsgroup format as opposed to a mailing list format, at
{ least one's mailbox doesn't get flooded. But regardless of format, trying
{ to build a decision-making institution that really lets everyone on the
{ Internet represent themselves (not just in the sense of being allowed to
{ speak, but in the sense that everyone has at least potentially equal
{ influence on the decision) is not so simple, is it?
[Jamal]
{ Although the
{ Internet provides us with a fundamentally new way of looking at social
{ structures (therefore politics, society, economy, you name it, it does
{ it!), I don't think that we can simply disregard the example of history,
{ and the present.
{
{ There is a difference between participation and representation.
{ ... This will surely create a divide, and not
{ provide complete equality, due to the fact that there wil be netizens who
{ do not feel competent to contribute to a discussion, and (less of) those
{ who feel compelled to spend their whole lives discussing it.
{
{ Perhaps we should recognise that, and move towards a new form of
{ democratic governance (who said that democracy was the best of a bad
{ lot?), which is based upon contemporary models of consensus-building in
{ RL. The institutionalisation of such an entity should be made easier by
{ the technology at hand, and will also be able to adapt as the Internet
{ grows, and grows, and grows.
to which Mark's clarification was apparently the last word:
{ The greatest participation
{ of the greatest number may be a design criterion (to weigh against
{ others), but it isn't a design!
{
Using a bit of CPR to breathe life into this corpse, I suggest a)
providing 'equal influence' *is* simple, b) the Net is a great place to
design, if we can just bring ourselves to get beyond listing criteria,
and c) this two-step distinction is no more and no less than what is
required.
More specifically, if there are too many input signals, then the antidote
is to increase the channels: Shall we impeach the Prez? is not an up or
down question for 200 million voices, but a) is there probable cause? b)
is there need for testimony? c) do representatives represent their
elctorate? are all sub-issues on which not only fewer people might be
inclined to express an opinion but which can be further subdivided, as
far as necessary to process *all the opinions available, right down to
the last agree/ disagree quantum. The totalizing of these quanta is, of
course a *simple (computerizable) process.
Of equal course are details yet to be dealt with, mainly how to define
'too many inputs' and to use the overflow flag to trigger a routine to
parse the issue into separate subissues -- but as I say, once we have a
framework (that accepts, for instance, that "who will bear the cost of
regulation, and who will carry out the task" are *separable* parts of the
process of determining if the net is to be regulated) then I'm quite
confident we have the expertise online that could rough out a listserver
kind of demon to implement it in about a week.
In short, 'representation' was a solution to a problem -- the problem of
keeping too many variables in mind at one time. Now that the *problem of
representation as an institution* (credibility, verification,
divisiveness, etc etc) has been recognized, isnt it time to 'delegate'
the process to nice net-friendly hardware?
Consensus wasnt built in a day.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:38:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Have a look at my new paper when you get a chance - as it takes
on the issue of communication and framing a question and having
the adequate discussion to clarify the question and how the Internet
helps with this all. The piece I don't take on which is also
important is that CP Snow and other computer pioneers in 1961
talked about the need to spread far and wide discussion on important
policy matters and that that would help to influence what governmetn
did.
So spreading the discussion around the Internet should be helpful
in affecting what the powers that be do.
But it is important that the issue be discussed.
The paper is at
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/internet.txt
Also I have just put something together as a brief summary
with URL's of what has been happening
I'll send that in a separate email.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:39:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
A while ago on the Netizens list folks asked for some summary
with URL's of what has been happening with the privatization
of the essential functions of the Internet contest.
Here is the summary. I welcome comments.
Ronda
Introduction
Something important is happening. The cooperative and open processes
and culture that make the Internet a public treasure have their
enemies. A contest is going on now where the stakes are high.
Will the Internet be able to continue as an open, global, network
of networks where diversity is encouraged and communication among
people of all ages and from a multitude of backgrounds is made
possible? Or will the Internet be transformed into the corporate
vision of a large arena for buying and selling and other
commercial transactions? The Internet vision allows all to
coexist, but the commercial vision will exclude anything but the
commercial aims and will require fundamental changes in the
nature of the Internet itself.
The contest now being waged is over the issue of the privatizing
of the Domain Name System and other central and controlling
functions of the Internet. Several documents follow. They
document the recent struggle to maintain an Internet, and to
resist the commercial pressure that certain corporate interests
are exerting on the U.S. government to turn these essential
functions over to the private sector for its benefit.
The Internet is a place where there is a diversity of networks, a
diversity of computers and a diversity of users. It is a network
of networks which fosters the communication among many and they
benefit from this diversity. Also the Internet is based on open
code and open and cooperative processes.
The processes, however, that have been used by the U.S.
government to create a new privatized corporation to own, control
and administer Internet domain names, numbers, the root server
and the protocols for the Internet have been conducted in secret
and via exclusive and closed activities. There has been
widespread criticism of the way that the bylaws and articles of
incorporation have been created by a nonpublic, and secret
process, for this new private corporation, and also there has
been criticism about how the selection of those who were chosen
for the Interim Board of Directors was carried out. In response
to such complaints, the U.S. Department of Commerce required that
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
hold an open meeting in Boston, on November 14, 1998. About 200
people from the international Internet community attended.
At the meeting there was a wide ranging set of complaints about
how and why ICANN had been created and what they were doing.
Several people pointed out that what was needed was an
international public utility, rather than a private sector
corporation.
The newspaper coverage of the meeting was more extensive than
had hitherto happened around this issue, and many of the press
accounts indicated the large amount of dissatisfaction with ICANN's
secret origins and nondemocratic practices.
Headlines that appeared in the press following the meeting
included the following. (I have indicated the URL where
possible.)
"New Internet Board Hears Plenty of Skepticism", New York Times,
Nov. 14, 1998, http://www.nyt.com/
"Internet Governance Board Confronts a Hostile Public" in the New
York Times, on November 16, 1998. http://www.nyt.com/
"A Kind of Constitutional Convention for the Internet", Cyberlaw Journal
October 23, 1998, New York Times on the Web.
"Top Candidate for Internet Governance Entity Expects Federal Gov't
Approval Within Week," BNA, http://www.bna.com/e-law/
"Debate Flares Over Group That Hopes to Oversee the Internet",
"The Chronicle of Higher Education" November 27, 1998, p. A21.
http://www.chronicle.com/weekly/v45/i14/14a02101.htm
Another interesting press account was that in Forbesdigital on
November 30 "Who is Running this Joint?"
http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/98/nov/1130/feat.htm
A transcript of the November 14, 1998 ICANN meeting in Boston
is online at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive
Also comments presented before and after the meeting are online at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/archive/#comments
On November 25, 1998, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed
between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN to design
and test mechanisms, methods, and procedures to carry out
the DNS functions. This MoU is online at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
There have been some interests pressuring the U.S. government to
carry out a transition immediately to the private sector. Others
have proposed reasoned consideration to determine a new
management structure. Also there are voices urging the need for a
continued U.S. government role in the ownership, management, and
control of these important and controlling functions of the
Internet. The NTIA-ICANN MoU presents a plan for designing a new
structure, while maintaining government participation in the
process. Thus the battle over what is happening continues, but
those campaigning for a quick give-a-way have been thwarted for
the time being.
For now the U.S. government is supposed to be maintaining a role
in the design and test of a private sector corporate entity to
take over these essential functions of the Internet. However, it
is unclear what the current U.S. government role is or who to
contact in the U.S. government to present complaints to.
The U.S. Congress has been holding hearings about the transfer of
these essential Internet functions to the private sector. There
is a set of testimony presented to the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Technology
and Subcommittee on Basic Research which concerns these issues
and this testimony is helpful in identifying some of the
different positions and issues taken in considering what the U.S.
government should do. The house testimony is online at
URL: http://www.house.gov/science/hearing.htm#Basic_Research
The hearings were September 25, 1997, March 31, 1998, and October
7, 1998. The testimony of Robert E. Kahn on March 31, 1998, for
example, contains important history about the role played by the
U.S. government in the creation and development of the Internet.
Kahn played a pioneering role in both the designing and building
of the ARPANET, and then in the creation of tcp/ip and in
designing and building the Internet. The URL is
http://www.house.gov/science/kahn_03-31.htm
The DNS battle has turned into a battle over the soul of the Internet.
The Internet makes it possible to have networks communicating and
therefore people communicating. It provides for a diversity of
computers, a diversity of users, and a diversity of networks.
And they are all able to cooperate and collaborate. The current
actions of the U.S. government to transfer controlling functions
of the Internet to the private sector has raised the issue of
who should be making the decisions about what happens in the
present and future of the Internet? The earliest networking
pioneers welcomed all views and all to participate and discuss
the issues. Decisions were made by relevant communities
at a grassroots level. It was understood that pro and con ideas
were needed to have broad ranging discussion to make
reasoned and well founded decisions.
The current situation is that the Internet is made up of many
different networks. There are, however, certain centralized
functions. And there is a need to administer them. To do this,
great responsibility and skill are needed. Since the Internet is
not anarchic, and there are central points of control, great care
and responsibility must be exerted or there is the great
possibility of abuse of users. Therefore the question of how to
make decisions about the Internet has become an urgent issue to
be solved. It requires the consideration of all who value the
Internet.
There are various models one can use to figure out how to make
decisions. However, as the Internet is a unique new medium of
worldwide communication, it is important to consider what means
have grown up with or as part of the Internet that can be helpful
in solving this problem.(1) Commercial pressure to allow some
small sector of the corporate world to take control of these
essential Internet functions makes it difficult for those who
care about the future of the Internet to take the needed care to
solve the problem.
Recognizing that this kind of problem would develop, farsighted
computer pioneers in the 1970's like J.C.R. Licklider and Harold
Sackman proposed that the development of a network of
networks would catch the public by surprise and that providing
for the public interest would provide an important challenge. (2)
They proposed there would be the need for determining the
kind of regulation needed so that the public interest would be
protected. Just as they predicted, the social institutions have
lagged behind the current developments. Therefore, it is of the
utmost importance that those users who are interested in the
Internet as a network of networks to be available to all, and to
include all the possible diversity of people and computers and
networks, take on to learn about this issue and to help spread an
understanding of why it is so important. Also the greatest
possible participation of the most diverse set of users is needed
to determine how to solve the current problems.(3) There is a
great need for a broad ranging public discussion on the issues
involved in these changes. This is the challenge. The many
wonderful experiences and uses of various users around the world
who are able to participate online is the gift to be won or lost
as a result of the success of this contest. The current battle has
made some progress, but battalions of reinforcements are needed
to win the war.
Notes:
(1) See for example the online means of decision making that
are describe in "Netizens: On the History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet" by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben,
IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997. A draft is online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
(2) See "The Information Utility and Social Change," edited by H.
Sackman and Norman Nie, AFIPS Press, Montvale, N.J., 1970, pg.
71. See also "The Internet: A New Communications Paradigm", by
Ronda Hauben, http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/internet.txt
(3) See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/talk_governance.txt
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #239
******************************
