Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 233
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, December 23 1998 Volume 01 : Number 233
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
[netz] Re: [ifwp] At-large Membership Committee sans at-large members
[netz] Re: Letter to George Conrades
[netz] Preparedness for Year 2000: Government-Wide Mission-Critical Systems
[netz] Re: Preparedness for Year 2000
[netz] ICANN Seeks Supporting Organization Applications
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
[netz] The Web's Unelected Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 13:49:50 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
Kerry Miller wrote:
{ > The *institution* of the law is entirely, 100% on the side of the
rational. { > There are a few unreconstructed souls who try to apply it
still in a humanist { > way -- and who get ridiculed for their trouble. {
{ No. Law is a very complex thing. The proposition of bills and passing {
of individual laws depends on various factors, which can be of all
sorts...
If we cant separate institutions from society, can we at least distinguish
between institutions and their functionaries?
- ----
I should have included your comment
{ > Yes, science 'looks both ways';
{
{ Well, that's what you wouldn't admit before :)
{
in the response: _science_ as the art of knowing looks both ways; what any
particular practitioner of science does is something else again. In this
sense, the difference I drew between 'scientists' ad 'the public' is a matter
of degree, not some hard and fast certifiable line.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:39:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] At-large Membership Committee sans at-large members
"William X. Walsh" <william@tjns.tj> wrote:
On 19-Dec-98 Michael Sondow wrote:
>> Not one single public sector Internet user, nor anyone who speaks for
>> them, has been included on this committee, which is purported to be
>> deciding the selection criteria for the ICANN at-large membership. This
>> would be a joke if it were not so serious and so ugly.
>Well, Michael, I have not seen any one single organization that can claim to
>represent the "public sector Internet user" as you state.
My statement of expression of interest to the Membership Advisory Committee
indicated the principles that would provide for users to participate
in the process of ICANN, not as representatives of anyone, but as
citizens of the internet, or a netizens.
Also I know of at least two other people who applied whose views
would help the committee to understand an take into account
the concerns and needs of the users.
Furthermore, my statement to the committee gave the basis for
them to have an inclusive process, by accepting all the applications
from anyone who applied. They need the broadest set of views
to solve the problem before them, *not* a narrow set, as they
have chose.
Not only was my application to the committee *not* considered,
nor did I receive the letter they sent to others stating that
my application wasn't accepted.
>Which organization would you have had with a representative to claim to
>represent these "users" and what criteria has been used to legitimize their
>claim to so represent them?
When I was in Geneva for the ISOC meeting this summer, I spent
some time talking with Jon Postel about the problem that existed
with the design for ICANN in the original Green Paper. I said that
it excluded the users. He said it provided for representatives
from user organizations. I said but I was a user, not a member
of a user organization. He said I should form a user organization.
I replied that I was a user, and that users had to represent
themselves, that that is what the Internet makes possible.
That whenever I had been in user organizations, that they didn't
represent users, just used the users for their own agendas.
Jon said to bring up my concerns at the IFWP meeting. My Report
from the Front (http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/)
shows what happened when I tried bring up concerns at the IFWP
meeting, and how consensus was rammed through rather than
any effort to understand the concerns of those who were there.
>The fact is that there is no such organization, so there is really
>no way to accomodate your desire here.
To the contrary, the problem of users being represented, is a
problem of how they can represent themselves, and that is a
problem that the Internet helps to solve. But if those who
understand this are excluded from the Membership Advisory
Committee, as we have been, then the Membership Advisory Committee
is excluding the Internet user and the netizen from ICANN.
Also I have written to George Conrades, Chair of the Membership
Advisory Committee for ICANN, about *not* even notifying me
about the status of my expression of interest in the ICANN
membership advisory committee, while others received letters
informing them whether they were accepted or rejected.
(My letter to Conrades is at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/membership.txt )
Unfortunately it seems that the selection process for the
committee has *not* been overseen by any entity that understands
the open architecture principle that made it possible to create
tcp/ip and thus the Internet. Instead the ICANN corporation is
being created on the model of a centralized and secret corporate
entity that will dismantel the Internet and create in its place
a centralized and exclusive network for a small sector of the
corporate community.
It seem that the concept of the Internet as a network of diverse
networks is *not* understood, and certainly *not* of concern to
those who have come onto the Board of ICANN nor of thatever U.S.
government entity is currently overseeing this design and test
process.
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: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:59:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: Letter to George Conrades
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling <shaffer@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
>I have just sent Rhonda and apology for this unintentional oversight,
for which I was responsible. (I'm sure George will follow up himself
>as well.) One of my jobs as staff to the membership committee
>will be coordinating our mechanisms for soliciting public participation
>in the process and I hope that Rhonda (and other IFWP participants)
>will stay involved.
Molly, thanks for your note, but I still haven't gotten the letter
that George Conrades sent to other people and in it it seemed he
asked people to indicate if they were willing to be part of some
other process.
So I should get the official letter as well as others. If there
is some reason he has decided *not* to send it to me, please let
me know what that is.
The issue of a representative for Internet users is impossible
given the numbers and diversity of Internet users. That is
why it is my legitimate position that Internet users must
be able to represent themselves as part of ICANN, whether that
be as members or in any other capacity. This is an important
issue and one that needs to be considered on the Membership
Advisory Committee, and exclusing those who maintain this
is making it difficult to have the broad perspective that
the Internet makes possible through the diversity of its
networks and the diversity of its users be part of ICANN.
I am working on a paper about this issue now, but this is
important as the achievement of the Internet is that
it makes possible a communication not formerly available,
or rare in our world, and this communication among people
makes it possible to solve problems and make decisions
in a way that is very effective. Excluding the users
who in embody the diversity of networks and therefore
of the Internet is in fact excluding the Internet from
the membership advisory committee and hence from ICANN.
I will be glad to discuss this further once I am done
with the paper I am working on.
Best wishes
Ronda
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 13:28:23
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] Preparedness for Year 2000: Government-Wide Mission-Critical Systems
The CSS Internet News (tm) is a daily e-mail publication that
has been providing up to date information to Netizens since 1996.
Subscription information is available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/inews.htm
or send an e-mail to jwalker@bestnet.org with
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the SUBJECT line.
The following is an excerpt from the CSS Internet News. Please feel
free to pass this along to other Netizens provided that the complete
message is forwarded with all attributes intact.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunger HURTS, let's make sure everyone has enough this holiday season!
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
These and many more Y2K resource links are available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/y2k.htm
1998 Report of the Auditor General of Canada
Preparedness for Year 2000: Government-Wide Mission-Critical Systems
Introduction
The Year 2000 problem, also known as the millennium bug, Y2K and
century date change, refers to the potential for computer systems
error, malfunction or failure caused by the past practice of
representing the year with a two-digit code. Due to the extensive
use of the date code, the information technology industry has
estimated that some 90 percent of systems and codes will be affected
by Year 2000.
Given the ever-increasing reliance on information technology, Year
2000 represents a business risk, not just a technical problem. It is
a threat to all organizations, including businesses, non-profit
organizations, schools, hospitals and all levels of government.
- -----------
The Ontario Year 2000 Community and Communications System
Millennium Salons co-founder, Bill Dale and I have been working on a
Project to provide an easy to install, quickly up and running, Y2K
community preparation and communications system.
The system has been designed in such a way that even an internet
novice, following our simple step by step instructions, should be
able to have the Y2K community site fully functional quickly - in a
matter of hours or a very few days - pooling resources within their
area to help everyone prepare for Y2K service disruptions.
The stunning simplicity and the potential for community
participation, coupled with the inter-connectivity of ALL communities
involved, makes for a powerful useful tool needing very little
maintenance. Information can be easily uploaded to the site by anyone
using it, and is instantly available and communicated to all
concerned.
- ------------------
Household Cyclopedia, On-line...
The Household Cyclopedia is a pioneer book of the old west that one
would have packed carefully into his covered wagon before heading
off for a boondock town. It was a book for people who need to be
able, if the circumstances demand, to amputate a limb, grow their own
fibre for material, take care of their horses, give birth to
children, and build houses, concoct medicines, all with the minimum
of help from others.
Courtesy Curt's Corner in Cyberspace
- --------------
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
- -------------------------------
Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____
For subscription details email / | ' \
jwalker@hwcn.org with ( ) 0
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----'
subject line. ==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
"On the Internet no one / __/~| / |
knows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________|
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
- -------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:07:54 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Preparedness for Year 2000
John Walker wrote:
{ The Ontario Year 2000 Community and Communications System
{
What do you make of the Centuria offer at www.centuria.net ?
"Solution to the Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Date Problem or
Millennium Bug, that requires no data to be changed, converted, or expanded."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 19:11:53 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] ICANN Seeks Supporting Organization Applications
www.internetnews.com
ICANN Seeks Supporting Organization Applications
By the InternetNews.com staff
[December 22, 1998] The Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers Tuesday
posted guidelines for groups seeking supporting organization recognition.
Supporting organizations include regional Internet address registries and
others with legitimate interest in domain name issues. ICANN's bylaws allow the
body to delegate substantial policy development to the supporting
organizations. ICANN has taken the view that puting the decisions closer to
Internet professionals will produce better results and better working
relationships.
Supporting organizations formally recognized by ICANN will be able to nominate
additional members to ICANN's board of directors.
The guidelines are available on the ICANN Web site. Applications must be
submited by Feb. 5, 1999. The applications will be reviewed at the open session
of the ICANN board meeting in Singapore on March 3, 1999. Applications can be
previewed and commented on via the Web site.
The bylaws initially seek an address supporting organization, a domain name
supporting organization and a protocol supporting organization. Each group will
nominate directors to the board.
"We want to clarify and expedite the process of forming the supporting
organizations called for in the bylaws," said Michael Roberts, ICANN's interim
president and chief executive officer.
===
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 03:39:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
I thought folks on the netizens list might be interested in seeing this
and perhaps discussing it.
I've been busy working on a paper on an issue related to this. I hope
it is in some draft form soon so I can post it.
Ronda
- ------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:30:49 -0500
To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>
From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@law.harvard.edu>
Subject: [ifwp] Representation in Cyberspace: Membership Study
Representation in Cyberspace:
Membership Options for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/announce.html
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
Announcement and Call for Participation
- - How can a legitimate and fairly represented community be brought together
to decide matters affecting the entire Internet?
- - Can the Net itself be harnessed to create fair and effective methods of
representation?
- - How can the interests of future Internet users be accounted for today?
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School is studying
possible individual and organizational membership structures for the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), the new
non-profit corporation formed to take responsibility for allocation of IP
address space, assignment of protocol parameters, and management of the
domain name and root server systems.
Article II of the ICANN bylaws -- Membership -- is blank. The bylaws call
for the election of At Large Directors by one or more categories of members
of the Corporation, but they leave open the qualifications for membership,
the rights and obligations it entails, or the procedures for member
nomination and election of At Large Directors.
The Berkman Center study will attempt to address these outstanding
questions -- analyzing membership options based on the principles of
stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation
established by the White Paper, the U.S. Department of Commerce's June
1998, statement of policy on "Management of Internet Names and Addresses."
Jonathan Zittrain, Executive Director of the Berkman Center, is liaison
between the study and the ICANN Membership Advisory Committee (see
http://www.icann.org/icann-pr17dec98.html).
The study will proceed on an aggressive timeframe to provide useful input
to the ICANN Initial Board for its establishment of a membership structure.
The Berkman Center will assemble working groups around the specific
membership questions, drawing upon individuals and institutions with
expertise in corporate structure, voting mechanisms, membership
organizations, and other relevant topics. The Center also plans to convene
a face-to-face meeting of experts in mid-January. The conference will
focus on at least two distinct areas: (1) demonstrating technologies that
could facilitate participation of a large-scale, widespread membership, (2)
challenging a broad-based group of experts to think about the problems and
potential of Internet membership. It is expected that the report will
emphasize membership alternatives with technical implementations still to
be worked out.
Individuals or institutions interested in contributing expertise, providing
input, or receiving updates on the status of the study should contact the
Berkman Center as soon as possible.
Contact the Representation in Cyberspace Study:
rcs@cyber.law.harvard.edu
Representation in Cyberspace Study
Wendy Seltzer
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
511 Pound Hall
1563 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-495-7547
- --
Wendy Seltzer, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law
School
wseltzer@law.harvard.edu || wendy@seltzer.com
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 20:32:53 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] The Web's Unelected Government
Yes its the Web, not the net in general, but this article on the W3C indicates
neither governance or privacy issues are going to be resolved 'top-down':
http://www.techreview.com/articles/nov98/garfinkel.htm
[...]
The idea of privacy software gained momentum during the summer of 1996, when
the Federal Trade Commission held the first in series of hearings about online
privacy. That winter, the CDT hosted a meeting of an ad hoc group it called the
Internet Privacy Working Group. Invited guests included privacy activists as
well as representatives from IBM, America Online and even the Direct Marketing
Association. "They had a pretty diverse group," says AT&T research scientist
Lorrie Faith Cranor, who participated in several of the W3C working groups.
In the spring of 1997 this ad hoc group realized it "didnt have enough
expertise on the technical side," says Cranor, so it asked W3C to take on the
project. The W3C membership approved the idea in a nonbinding vote and Berners-
Lee authorized the project. Roughly a year later, the group had created a draft
recommendation called P3P, and companies such as Microsoft and Netscape were
making formal commitments to implement the technology.
P3P, which stands for the Platform for Privacy Preferences Project, wont by
itself protect anybodys privacy. Thats because the technology isnt really
designed to prevent Web sites from gathering information about a Web user, but
rather to convey personal information explicitly from the Web user to the Web
siteas long as the Web site promises to abide by certain privacy policies.
Heres how P3P works. Each participating Web site publishes its privacy policy
in machine-readable form. One Web site, for instance, might disclose that it
records every page you look at, but uses the information only for research
purposes. Another site might request your age and zip code so that it can
present you with customized news reports. A third site may want to know your
name, address and phone number, and sell this information to companies whose
advertising subsidizes the site.
When your browser connects to a Web site, it looks at the privacy "proposal"
the site provides, indicating which kind of personal information the site
requests and what it intends to do with it. Your browser then looks at your
preset privacy preferences. If there is a match if you dont mind your e-mail
address being used for research purposes, for example your browser can
automatically provide the requested information. If in your view the sites
proposal constitutes a violation of privacy, however, the page wont load and
youll see a message on the screen explaining the mismatch.
So what happens, you ask, if a Web site lies about its privacy policy? Nothing.
P3P lacks both auditing and enforcement measures. Its authors hope
misrepresentations in privacy policies will be handled the same way fraudulent
consumer advertising is dealt with: lawsuits and government enforcement. The
system also has provisions for something like a "better business bureau" seal
of approval; an organizations privacy policy can be digitally signed by the
secret key of another organization, and that signature can be digitally
verified by consumers.
W3C director Berners-Lee acknowledges that this reliance on trust is a weakness
in P3P: "I am concerned that we can make a beautiful protocol until we are blue
in the face, but if it isnt backed by legislation, there will be sites that
simply dont talk P3P. These sites may ask you for your mailing address and
then may be abusing your privacy."
Privacy advocates are split on the value of P3P. Some believe that while the
technology isnt perfect, its better than nothing. P3P can be used to create
greater privacy than exists on the Web right now, says Ann Cavoukian, the
privacy commissioner for Ontario who also participated in the P3P working
group. "I support P3P and other technologies that will come along and empower
the individual," she adds.
Others, however, have sharply criticized P3P as being less a means to protect
privacy and more a way for businesses to gather personal information from Web
users. Marc Rotenberg, director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy
Information Center, says P3P in effect waives privacy rights that are
unwaivable. Both U.S. and European privacy laws outlaw some kinds of privacy-
violating transactions even if they are entered into voluntarily. For example,
in the United States it is illegal for a video rental store to reveal the names
of the movies that its customers rent. The video store may not say to its
customers, "We will protect your privacy and charge you $5 per day, or you can
give up your privacy and pay just $4 per day." But that sort of deal could be
both proposed and accepted using P3P.
"P3P reflects the Clinton administrations enthusiasm with what are essentially
notice-and consent techniques to resolve privacy issues," says Rotenberg.
Unfortunately, he says, this approach all too often becomes a take-it-or-leave-
it dilemma for the consumer: accept that the business is going to violate your
privacy, or go play somewhere else. "The emphasis in P3P is on negotiating the
terms of privacy between a data subject and the data collector, but that really
runs contrary to what privacy law and policy has always been about," says
Rotenberg. "P3P says that anything goes."
If P3P is adopted, one critical question remains: What will be the default
settings provided to users? Few computer users ever learn to change the
preference settings on their software. Therefore, the way a Web browser
equipped with P3P sets itself up by default is the way the majority of the
Internet population will use it. "Thats where the public debate ought to be,"
says Miller. "The marketing industry would want the defaults on the client to
be set so that everything is preapproved; privacy advocates are going to say
that the appropriate setting is that nothing is preapproved. My take is the W3C
should not be involved in making that decision. That is a public policy
debate."
There might not be much of a debate, however. Thats because companies like
Microsoft and Netscape, which both create Web browsers and run massive Web
sites, are likely to establish their own settings regardless of what the W3C
recommends. This spring, for instance, Microsoft bought a company called
Firefly, which had contributed heavily to the P3P standard. Since then, Firefly
has become Microsofts "Privacy Czar," says Thomas Reardon, Microsofts program
manager for Internet architecture. Firefly is "the core of our entire [privacy]
strategy," Reardon says, guiding the software giants decisions about the
commercial value of personal information collected from customers as well as
"what is the right thing morally." W3Cs influence is strong, but it only goes
so far.
Is Top-Down a Downer?
Critics see the top-down, personalized structure of the consortium as a problem
in policy-making. It may ultimately undermine the consortium itself by
causing members to lose interest.
At the June 1996 meeting of W3Cs General Assembly Advisory Committee, "110 out
of 140 members" were present, says Carl Cargill, an independent standards
consultant who sits on the consortiums eight-person advisory board and was
formerly Netscapes representative to W3C. By December, when a meeting was held
in England, membership in the W3C had risen to 170, but only 90 showed up. In
June of 1997, only 70 out of 180 members showed up for the semiannual meeting
held in Japan. At the end of that year, only 70 of 240 member organizations
were represented at the meeting in Geneva. Cargill says he thinks companies
have stopped sending people to meetings because they realize that the General
Assemblys Advisory Council Committee merely rubber-stamps what Berners-Lee
wants to do.
[...]
- ----------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #233
******************************
