Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 267
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, February 3 1999 Volume 01 : Number 267
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Constituencies / Membership
[netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
[netz] Talk on MsgGroup mailing list and Internet governance 2/8 NYC
Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:59:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org> wrote:
>The technical principle upon which the Internet has been built is
>that the interconnection will be among autonomous networks. Robert
>Kahn called this the principle of "open architecture". Louis Pouzin
>anticipated this principle in his work in France. The Internet IS a
>bunch of autonomous networks, must of which are public like milnet
>and the networks at all the public universities in the US and
>throughout the world. [...]
>What I don't understand is how people who know the technical
>principles upon which the Internet is built so easily disregard those
>principles when backing the US Gov't-ICANN MoU. [...] Yet in order to
>create the ideological ground work for the imposition of commercial
>dominance, knowledgable people join in trying to create the myth that
>the Internet is private and that if commerce is not allowed to
>dominate the Internet will "split up into a bunch of autonomous
>networks".
I think you need to ask this question of the Vint Cerfs, Dave Farbers,
Einar Stefferuds, etc. of the world who are heavily engaged in these
matters. I am not a major player in these matters. I understand how
the protocols work, and the history of their creation, but I am not
sitting at the table of the policy makers.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:35:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Constituencies / Membership
Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com> wrote:
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>And there are many commercial and consumer interests who have made a huge
>investment in the Internet who would also like a "guaranteed venue" who are
>not represented. That is why I still advocate a flat membership structure.
>Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism. If the non
>commercial interests hadn't made the Internet such a desired venue for
>communiciation, and if governments, academic institutions, private, and
>commercial entities hadn't made committments to the medium, there would BE
>no e-commerce. Yet that fact is consistantly left out of proposals for
>constituencies. There is no provision for public interest, universal
>access interests, schools and universities, freedom of expression, and
>several other important constituencies that are left out of every proposal
>(although it has been talked about in the DNSO.org draft, although it is
>being shot down as "brought up too late" when in fact it has been brought
>up time and time again over the years).
But these interests were part of the proposal I submitted to
Magaziner and the NTIA.
See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
It was for a different kind of form, than the corporate form.
It turns out that a corporate membership form is *not* appropriate
for any constituencies with regard to giving control over vital
controlling functions of the Internet to those on the Board
of Directors of the Corporation who can therefore treat all of
these important responsibilities at whim as bases for them
to sell their souls to the highest bidders.
It's a set up for illegitimate activity, to put the problem mildly.
>This is why I continue to be for the flat membership.
But no sort of membership can deal with the fact that the
board of directors will have power of an unimaginable kind
over all of the Internet. Membership is an inappropriate way
to deal with the fact that the "crown jewels" of the Internet
are being put in the hands of an unregulated entity.
A membership structure is ok for voluntary organization, but
not for a body being created to regulate the Internet, with
no accountability to anyone.
>
The Olympics Committee shows the kind of pressure on folks
and the kind of criminal activity that results, and that
doesn't have the essential functions of the Internet at stake
as it is in this situation.
>>This latest "draft" Draft is obviously a compromise, but those of us who
>>advocated a flat membership without constituencies can take great comfort
>>(and some pride) in the fact that we've moved all of the participants in
>>our direction. There is now consensus, I believe, that the Names Council
>>is not a private, "council of elders:" it is a manager of the process.
>The Names Council is still elected through constituencies, which I find to
>be highly problematic.
See the account I wrote up about the Names Council meeting in
Geneva at the IFWP at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt
The meeting showed that self interest was totally dominant and
not any ability to figured out what was needed to provide
what the Internet would need to have the domain name situation handled
in a helpful way.
>
>>That's good enough for me, and I hope, a place for compromise.
>It's not good enough for me, or for any of the other public interest
>advocates who do not want to see the Internet carved up among business
>groups.
The whole concept of ICANN is contrary to any public interest
concerns and even to most commercial interest concerns.
Who is pushing it and why?
Obviously it is being pushed by those with no concern for
the Internet, for the public interest or even for the commercial
interests of most commercial entities.
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, 2 Feb 1999 00:55:48 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Greg,
{ > I foresee the day when a nice, compact, almost elegant name
{ >like http://206d.136e.140f.17g will be a highly valuable property...)
{
{ I don't understand everything you've written here, but it is true that
IP
{ addresses are becoming highly valuable properties. At this point, IP
{ blocks of /19 or larger (someone correct me if I'm in error) are
{ considered valuable because they are not subject to route filtering.
Youve got me! What do 16/8 and /19 refer to?
...
{ There seems to be a growing movement of people who declare their net
{ existence via the IP address. So it is not only possible, but
{ acceptable, for people to specify addresses such as http://18.62.0.6
{ when there is no name associated with that address. But this method
{ of address specification has not proved over time to be desirable, by
and
{ large, by the Internet community.
{
Yes, at present I can type in 18.62.0.6 and Netscape recognizes it as an
address -- but is it possible for it to be a *name; i.e. mapped to some
other IP number? (I dont see how, at present, unless the same person owns
both #s in which case theyre merely aliasing one to the other.)
{ >For sure, if the ICANN edifice rests on building a *convenient*
{ >system, the squabbling is never gonna end! So where is the
{ >discussion going on that focusses on this distinction in particular?
{
{ I don't believe it is the "ICANN edifice." It is as I wrote above --
{ something that has evolved over time and has been found to be more
{ desirable than the alternatives.
The IANA etc may have evolved over time, but ICANN as I understand it is
trying to 'concretize' that ad-hoc structure along certain lines which
seem to be meeting a certain amount of opposition -- so I'd lilke to hear
more about what alternatives have ever been tries and found wanting.
{ If you wish to propose alternatives, or even raise consciousness, I
{ suggest you bring your ideas to a forum like the IETF mailing list...
Im on IFWP now, and am oh-so-gently insinuating my ideas in its midst ;-)
However, netizens can have a preview of the latest one: that one way to
approach the next-to-unmanageable raucous uproar of everyone posting on
whatever, whenever is to implement a 'buddy system' a la the classic
principle of 'unus testis, nulla testis' (one witness is no witness at
all). That is, subscribers have to pair up, and *only one of em gets to
post on a given topic at a given time*. Obviously the parameters will
need a little thinking-out, but posts that two people are ready to stand
behind are likely to be quite different from the hammer and tongs bedlam
that currently prevails (on any list dealing with controversial topics,
but especially there).
Now, Im thinking, isnt netizens a nice quiet sociable backwater where
we could work this up into a fine specimen, a working example if you
like, of what I mean?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:54:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>Youve got me! What do 16/8 and /19 refer to?
The x/y notation refers to the network number and the number of
significant bits for the network, respectively. /19 is a shorthand
notation for IP networks that use 19-bit network numbers.
>Yes, at present I can type in 18.62.0.6 and Netscape recognizes it as an
>address -- but is it possible for it to be a *name; i.e. mapped to some
>other IP number? (I dont see how, at present, unless the same person owns
>both #s in which case theyre merely aliasing one to the other.)
It's possible, but I can't imagine why anyone would use the dotted
notation as names, particularly since this would require an elaborate
setup of DNS servers to administer the zones for those names.
>The IANA etc may have evolved over time, but ICANN as I understand it
>is trying to 'concretize' that ad-hoc structure along certain lines
>which seem to be meeting a certain amount of opposition -- so I'd
>lilke to hear more about what alternatives have ever been tries and
>found wanting.
You have to look in the namedroppers archives, and old RFCs, to see
what types of solutions were proposed, and why they weren't accepted.
For more recent alternatives, you need to look at things like the
grass roots system, the alternative TLD registries, Stephen Page's A-Z
registry, etc. (All of these are links off of Craig's overview page, I
believe.)
>Now, Im thinking, isnt netizens a nice quiet sociable backwater where
>we could work this up into a fine specimen, a working example if you
>like, of what I mean?
Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that you need to convince
the people who are responsible for developing and administering DNS
that your ideas are worth considering, if you want them to be deployed
throughout the Internet.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:33:28 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Greg Skinner wrote:
{ It's possible, but I can't imagine why anyone would use the dotted
{ notation as names, particularly since this would require an elaborate
{ setup of DNS servers to administer the zones for those names.
Elaborate? I dont see why; its only another 100 or 1000 TLDs - and scalability is what we say we want, isnt it?
Sure, right now, we cant imagine it, but what do you see as the next step
when we 'run out' of alphabetic names? If porsche can foreclose p0rsche
and prosche, I'd say that day is not far off.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:05:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
In article <19990202203147.AAA19864@LOCALNAME> Kerry Miller wrote:
>Greg Skinner wrote:
>{ It's possible, but I can't imagine why anyone would use the dotted
>{ notation as names, particularly since this would require an elaborate
>{ setup of DNS servers to administer the zones for those names.
>Elaborate? I dont see why; its only another 100 or 1000 TLDs - and
>scalability is what we say we want, isnt it? Sure, right now, we cant
>imagine it, but what do you see as the next step when we 'run out' of
>alphabetic names? If porsche can foreclose p0rsche and prosche, I'd
>say that day is not far off.
I'm just speculating based on my own experience. I haven't heard of
anyone wanting to set up TLDs (or subdomains of same) of numeric
names for any reason.
We're a long, long way off from running out of alphanumeric names in
the existing TLDs. Even after companies "foreclose" misspellings and
near-spellings of their trademarked names, there are still a lot of
potential names left.
I don't remember the details, but I believe that a DNS component can
be 64 characters long. Considering alphabetic characters alone, that
gives 26**64 possible combinations. Add in numeric characters, and
you get 36**64. That is far more possibilities in a *single* TLD than
are currently registered in *all* TLDs.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 07:17:07 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
Greg,
{ I believe that a DNS component can be 64 characters long.
Of course - and 12 or 16 character names will start to look mighty
attractive, even if they are 123.456.789 and the like.
What Im driving at is that scalability is something more than durability;
it has to be *conceivabilty -- that is, not only after the fact, but a
priori as well -- and I find numbers-as-names a lot more conceivable than
www.OnceIweptforIhadnoshoesThenIcameuponamanwhohadnofeet.SoItookhisshoesIt
snotlikehereallyneededthem.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:39:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>What Im driving at is that scalability is something more than durability;
>it has to be *conceivabilty -- that is, not only after the fact, but a
>priori as well -- and I find numbers-as-names a lot more conceivable than
>www.OnceIweptforIhadnoshoesThenIcameuponamanwhohadnofeet.SoItookhisshoesIt
>snotlikehereallyneededthem.com
OK, propose your idea to the IETF, or inet-access, or some forum for
DNS maintainers, and see what they say.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:57:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Talk on MsgGroup mailing list and Internet governance 2/8 NYC
Hi,
I wanted to alert readers of this list in the NYC area or those who might
be in NYC this coming Monday night that Ronda Hauben is the featured
speaker at the Feb meeting of the New York Chapter of ISOC. The details
follow.
Jay
- --------------------------
Announcing the February meeting of ISOC-NY
Date: Monday, Feburary 8, 1999
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: New York University
Loeb Student Center -- Room 310
La Guadia Place & Washingtion Square South
New York City
Cost: FREE
**********
* Agenda *
**********
Presentation:
Lessons from the Early MsgGroup Mailing List
as Principles for Future Internet Governance
Ronda Hauben
Description:
Ronda Hauben is the co-author "Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the Internet" IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997
This talk will look at one of the earliest mailing lists, MsgGroup,
and describe the evolution of this mailing list. The talk will then
discuss how a similar development is needed today to provide for
the open discussion and debate of the problems of Internet growth
and development. This is a crucial component of what is needed for
an internationally shared means of Internet governance. When trying
to understand how to scale the Internet, it is important that the
history and evolution of the Internet be studied so that future
developments will build on the lessons of the past.
************
For more information email Info@isoc-ny.org
The book "Netizens:On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet"
by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben can be accessed at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:16:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
In article <slrn7bh3dg.qia.ggw@wolves.adsl.duke.edu> Gregory G. "Wolfe" Woodbury wrote:
>There is a further problem here of conflating DNS namespace with the
>Intellectual Property namespace of TradeMarks. Its an area where law
>and technology are vastly out of sync.
Agreed. IMHO, what is needed is a generalized Internet directory
service, that will allow for the type of mapping of trademark to (and
from) "online presence" that the trademark people want. DNS is not that
service. It was not designed to be that service and it does not work
well when it's forced to act as that service.
>Also, there are a few numeric domains around (e.g. 2600.org) so it's
>not totally inconceiveable that some numeric domain names are going to
>be used.
True. I didn't mean to imply that no one would register numeric
names. I was speculating that the DNS wouldn't become an all-numeric
name registry.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:45:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: A Call to Arms?
In article <slrn7bh2n4.qia.ggw@wolves.adsl.duke.edu> Gregory G. "Wolfe" Woodbury wrote:
>Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org> shaped electrons to say:
>>What I don't understand is how people who know the technical principles
>>upon which the Internet is built so easily disregard those principles
>>when backing the US Gov't-ICANN MoU. I do see there are at least two
>>different views of the Internet. One that the Internet is a logical
>>connection of some 50,000,000 computers and 150,000,000 people who
>>basically use the Internet to communicate among each other. And two
>>those who see the Internet as 120,000 routers and various physical
>>media links. But on either view, the computers are acknowledged to be
>>grouped on various different autonomous networks as are the routers.
>>Many of the computers and many of the routers are in libraries,
>>universities, government offices, etc as are many of the routers so
>>much of the Internet is publicly owned. Yet in order to create the
>>ideological ground work for the imposition of commercial dominance,
>>knowledgeable people join in trying to create the myth that the
>>Internet is private and that if commerce is not allowed to dominate
>>the Internet will "split up into a bunch of autonomous networks".
> Its not that difficult a concept. You're just working from a
>slightly incorrect set of premises.
> The current Internet is *not* publicly owned. All of the current
>long-haul links are owned by commercial companies, practically all
>of the backbone routers are also owned by those same commercial
>ISPs, and not since the demise of the NFSnet, have they been actively
>supported by direct government monies.
> Even in the days of ARPAnet and NFSnet, the 'net wasn't truly public
>either. Participation was limited to those who went through rather
>heavy-handed qualifying paperwork and paid for the hardware. Milnet is
>deliberately isolated from the rest of the Internet, and non-milnet
>government sites still buy their connectivity from commercial ISPs.
>Educational sites also form consortia that buy their connectivity from
>commercial providers.
In general, what you are saying is true. However, there were still
ways for people to get access to Internet resources even without an
explicit Internet attachment.
Michael Dertouzos' WHAT WILL BE touches on the early days of the
Arpanet and Internet, mentioning the many guest users of the day who
went on to become influential Internet contributors. It was the case
that at some universities, the access rules were relaxed to enable
individuals not associated with the university to get accounts on
systems connected to the net, which enabled them to access mailing
lists and newsgroups. This also enabled some of them to learn how the
systems worked, and to contribute to the building of the net by
helping maintain those systems or designing new systems. (Ditto for
software.)
It was also the case that the access policies at some sites were
relaxed to allow certain types of traffic to flow between the
Arpanet/Internet and other networks. This enabled things like Usenet
news to be sent over the Arpanet/Internet, and Arpanet/Internet
digests to be sent over Usenet.
I think this is what the Haubens mean when they refer to having
Internet access. This subject is actually treated at length in John
Quarterman's essays on the Matrix.
> There is also no logical distinction between the two views you postulate
>above. The only logical distinction that can be made is to examine the
>physical connectivity as distinct from the services carried over that
>physical set of links. It's like the distinction between the network
>(the Internet) and the logical distribution system of NetNews/Usenet.
> As a specific example: There are 16 identifiable routers between
>my machine (wolves.adsl.duke.edu) and yours (amanda.dorsai.org)
>Four are Duke internal sites, one is at dorsai's ISP, and the rest
>(11 of them -- 68%) are *all* commercial interconnect carriers. And
>that doesn't count a number of unidentified (but known) bridges and
>transparent transfer routers. (E.g. Between wolves and adsl-test.
>netcom.duke.edu there are at least four bridges/hubs/routers that
>I know of. The TP hub in my room, the DSL modem, and transfers from
>DSL to Frame-Relay -- at GTE -- and back to Duke. I actually
>figure that between my DSL modem and adsl-test.netcom.duke.edu there
>are three or four invisible bridge/protocol converters.) Just adding
>these to the mix make the commercial interfaces 15/20 or 75%!
> There is, unfortunately, no need to "create" a commercial ideology
>to "justify" a commercial dominance -- it is already just plain fact.
> All of which, is not to imply an approval of allowing the commercial
>interests to run roughshod over appropriate government regulation of
>the 'net. (Which is *not* necessarily a good thing either. Do *you*
>trust government that much? I don't.)
- --gregbo
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #267
******************************
