Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 274
Netizens-Digest Thursday, February 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 274
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Why not ISOC?
[netz] MIDS Net survey
[netz] NYC Area Netizens Lunch tomorrow Thursday at 1:00
[netz] kmm025: Why not Invisibility?
Re: [netz] kmm025: Why not Invisibility?-IFWP and ICANN vrs MsgGroup
[netz] Sister Corruption & Brother Big
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:43:47 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Why not ISOC?
Ronda,
>
> The IFWP only involves (in general except for a very few folks) those
> who have commercial interests in what will happen with the DNS
> and other controlling functions of the Internet.
Wasnt the Continental Congress all white male landowners?
>
> And it is a real hardship to deal with the mailing list for even me
> and I have been around quite a while. I have had to upgrade my account
> and pay more each month to even be able to keep up with the
> mailing list, let alone post to it.
>
> Also the real issues are not being raised - and when they are raised
> they are often ignored or their is harrassment.
>
Im not saying its *operation is perfect; of course its noisy and
uncouth -- but to prioritize *order is to fall into the totalitarian
fallacy, whcih is 'formal and robust management' in balder words.
Its *existence, however is the important thing: commercial
interests they may be, but they think, and say, they should be able
to do something -- if only they could agree what it is!
> it is rare that any social perspective is
> ever introduced, and most often one is harrassed or worse
> for introducing it.
Imo, as long as they think they can deal strictly in technical terms,
nothing significant will come of it. That is, the list has a meta-
problem, and when *that is accepted, there may be some
progress.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:44:14 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] MIDS Net survey
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:23:43 -0500
> From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>
> Subject: strategic note of interest
>
> ====================================================================
> Biannual Strategic Note 17 Feb 1999
>
>
> Center for Next Generation Internet NGI.ORG
> Matrix Information and Directory Services, Inc
>
>
> INTERNET SURVEY REACHES 43.2 MILLION INTERNET HOST LEVEL
>
>
> Herndon VA, USA, Austin TX. The latest results from the Internet's most
> basic and longest continuing measurement of its size were just
> released by Mark Lottor of Network Wizards working in conjunction with
> Matrix Information and Directory Services, Inc. (MIDS) of Austin TX.
> The Domain Survey attempts to discover every host on the Internet
> by using the Domain Name System. The results were gathered
> during Jan 1999. The general data plus some Network Wizards charts
> are available at <http://www.nw.com/>. Detailed data is available from
> MIDS.
>
> Lottor's measurements show that the Internet currently consists
> of countless autonomous networks with 43,230,000 "advertised"
> connected computers (hosts) in 214 countries and territories. Because
> of the unknown and potentially unlimited numbers of multiuser computers
> and network or application gateways, it is not possible to correlate
> any of this information with the number of end users. However, see
> the MIDS estimates at <http://www.mids.org>
>
> o The figure of 43.2 million hosts represents a significant new
> benchmark for the number of Internet hosts. The current
> Internet annual host growth rate is 46 percent - about the same
> level it has been at for the past several years. Based on the
> current average growth, the 100 million host level will be
> reached 2nd quarter of 2001.
>
> o The largest domain is .COM, consisting 12.1 million hosts, and
> constituting 28 percent of all hosts. Together, the hosts in
> all the generic domains constitute 67 percent of all Internet hosts.
> These proportions remain unchanged.
>
> o Subsequent processing by MIDS to attribute hosts under the three
> letter generic domains to specific countries is in progress and
> MIDS will publish the results in its periodicals as usual; see
> <http://www.mids.org/>. Meanwhile, it is clear that substantial
> global growth is occurring and the new data is consistent with
> the approximately 60/40 percentage of US based hosts versus non-US
> based hosts.
>
> This and previous strategic summaries, as well as very attractive
> new graphic presentations of all these values and trends can be
> found at:
>
> <http://www.ngi.org/trends.htm> or <http://www.mids.org/mapsale/data/>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> * This analysis and material is made available to the Internet *
> * community. The material may be copied and distributed providing *
> * attribution is given to the sources. *
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> Tony Rutkowski
> NGI Associates
> Herndon VA 22071
> USA
> mailto: amr@ngi.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:04:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] NYC Area Netizens Lunch tomorrow Thursday at 1:00
Hi,
For anyone reading this who will be in the New York City area on Thursday
Feb 18, there will be an informal Netizens lunch at 1:00pm. We are eating
at Columbia Cottage Chinese restaurant on 111th Street and Amsterdam Ave.
Sorry for the late notice.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:46:59 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] kmm025: Why not Invisibility?
Ronda,
> >the topics that have been raised, the diversity of viewpoints brought
> >out, the publicity might very well find a place in the history of the
> >Icannic administration. Im sure some Berkmanesque scholar
> >could provide an introduction to the effect that *of necessity* any
> >formal recognition of the collective effort has to be suspended for
> >the debate to be unbiassed; i.e. of any use to the policymakers at
> >all.
>
> I don't know what you mean.
>
Sorry, my hyperbole may have gotten in the way.
A large part of the real problem (regardless what the object of
discussion may be) is that the concept of 'channels of
communication' no longer pertains. In other words, its not that
people disagree that corporations and NGOs and international
entities and individuals should all have a voice in proceedings; its
that there is no *given structure to define how those voices should
meld, to the point that even the effort to define such a structure is
suspect. The result is just the kind of melee which IFWP reflects --
some people saying their 'piece' over and over; some who see
principle carts and others, technical horses; more yet who dont
say anything because they cant imagine that theres any process
to it at all.
Now suppose there was an 'invigilator' who *abstracted from the
furore the topics, the points of view, the positives and negatives,
the various principles and implementary strategies that show up.
It would be a hairy job but it could be done; its 'history in real time'
if you like.
Suppose further that the invigilator's summaries were the basis of
decisions about the topics that arise, creating a feedback loop. The
discussion 'begins' again, the report/ review/ history/
documentation is abstracted again, the decision is modified, round
and round.
My first point was that such invigilation *to the present time* might
well show a connection between topics raised in (one or more)
forums and the 'drafts' which flowed from the (one or more)
'instrumentalities or agencies involved. After all, the RFCs ran this
way, almost in so many words; certainly the gTLD-MoU/ Postel
draft/ IAHC/ Greenpaper sequence did, and your proposal to NTIA,
by and large, was that this process should be explicitly continued.
My second comment was to the effect that perhaps it should be
left *implicit. (Esther pointed out, I think, that having televised
congressional sessions led to 'grandstanding,' and that some
decisions/ compromises might be more easily reached out of the
limelight.)
The crux, I think, is the element of time: not so much that
discussion is lengthy, but how long any such decision lasts. One
may note that timing per se hardly ever comes into online
discussion; people state 'positions' and make 'cases' as if they
thought any resulting decision was to be cast in epoxy at least.
(I'm getting into stone-working these days; the stuff is not half as
durable as it seems!). It may be that allowing transience sounds
like a weakening of the argument; it may also be that it is only
meaningful as a topic in *relative terms, and there is no 'point of
beginning,' no debate/decision sequence with which to compare
another one. Either way, it's not only easier, but beneficial in fact,
to leave it at that than to try to instill appreciation for it in open
forums. If topical or perspectival freedom is the hallmark of the
discussion-phase, timing and duration are the complementary
'degree of freedom' in the decision-phase. Short-circuiting the loop
causes the whole arrangement to collapse (as a recent IFWP
thread on Name Council 'emergency powers' shows).
In sum, digital space, rather than being compartmentalized by
'rules' or 'laws' or 'judgements,' is governed by principles of fluidity.
What has been, has changed; what is, is going to change. As long
as the record of what has been done is clear, and as long as those
decisions are dynamic and responsive, the 'accountability' or the
'democracy' of the basis of those decisions is moot. There is no
need to separate 'currency' from 'history'; nor, equally, any benefit
in claiming one explicitly structured mode of 'representation' over
another. Whether or not the (vocal) participants recognize it _in
aethera_ (we cant say _in situ_ now can we?), the effect over the
long run is consensus.
kerry
- -----------------------
http://www.intlmgt.com/domain.html
Minneapolis, March 21, 1998
International Public Regulation of the Internet: Who Will Give You
Your Domain Name?
John R. Mathiason and Charles C. Kuhlman (NYU)
[...]The playing field of the Internet is not level, and there are a large
number of teams trying to play. There may not even be a
consensus on where the goal posts are located, how scoring is
done and how winners can be determined.
Under these circumstances, regulation takes on a particular
meaning. Any effort to create a regulatory solution for one part of
the internet has a great probability of creating a new problem for
another. The speed of technological change -- the application of
Moore's law -- makes most technological fixes obsolete before they
are made. The major players in innovation are almost never public
authorities.
And yet, it is manifestly clear that some form of regulation is
necessary to maintain the coherence of the Internet in the context
of technological and economic change.
This poses a particular opportunity for the international public
sector. Unlike national regulatory authorities, international
organization lack the attribute of sovereignty: they can make few, if
any, mandatory rulings. Rather, they can reach, with the
concerned parties, a form of understanding about the rules of the
game. The standard international mode of decision-making is
consensus. This is also the mode that, for its initial years,
governed decision-making in the Internet. The correspondence in
method is striking.
The question to be answered, then, is how to establish a regulatory
framework at the international level that will permit change and
adaptation to occur without the negatives that come from market
imperfections and bad national public policy. Clearly, there must be
an initial, very broad agreement, on the governance rules for the
Internet.
This point has been recognized by the European Union, which, in
their March 6, 1998 Green paper stated:
The global electronic marketplace requires an appropriate
framework covering technical, commercial, and legal aspects. This
should foster interoperable technical solutions, competitive
business practices and consistent rules. It does not need to
consist of detailed and harmonised rules on all relevant aspects.
[...]
- ---------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:57:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] kmm025: Why not Invisibility?-IFWP and ICANN vrs MsgGroup
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Ronda wrote:
Kerry - maybe you and others on the Netizens list should
look at my MsgGroup presentation about how early MsgGroup
mailing list was a constructive communications situation,
while IFWP and ICANN are *not*.
It is at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/
I'll try to give the file name later after I get to take a look,
but it is in the directory above.
>Sorry, my hyperbole may have gotten in the way.
>A large part of the real problem (regardless what the object of
>discussion may be) is that the concept of 'channels of
>communication' no longer pertains. In other words, its not that
>people disagree that corporations and NGOs and international
>entities and individuals should all have a voice in proceedings; its
>that there is no *given structure to define how those voices should
>meld, to the point that even the effort to define such a structure is
>suspect. The result is just the kind of melee which IFWP reflects --
Users should have a voice in the proceedings, not NGO's and corporations
and international entities, etc.
This is the Internet, *not* something out in the sky.
>some people saying their 'piece' over and over; some who see
>principle carts and others, technical horses; more yet who dont
>say anything because they cant imagine that theres any process
>to it at all.
There isn't any process to the IFWP at all.
And there isn't any process to ICANN.
>
The IFWP is only in general an effort to get a piece of the
pie for certain interests, and the pie is the public cooperative
pie of the controlling functions of the Internet.
No private entities or people should be getting *any* piece
of that pie.
The Internet has been built by cooperative effort and those
wanting to take it apart so they can get some private benefit
from their dismantling shouldn't be encouraged. But the U.S.
government is encouraging this.
In fact the Office of Inspector General of the NSF said
that there was a government obligation to protect these
key functions of the Internet for the public.
And I have just heard that all those who were part of writing the report that
said this were forced to resign.
(I don't know more about this yet, but certainly the OIG report
wasn't treated with any seriousness and the result just gets worse
and worse.)
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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:18:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Sister Corruption & Brother Big
Bob Allisat sent this cc: netizens@columbia.edu:
The Dyson and Roberts ACRONYM show is begining to look
more and more like some sort of cartoonish parody each
and every day. "Sister Corruption & Brother Big" would
be the working title for the project if I were writing
it. I wouldn't have to improve much on the unreality of
these very real events to milk maximal humour from this
situation comedy of situation comedies. Nope. Just follow
the bouncing balls as they pong from the ridiculous to
the absurd and back again ad seemingly infinitum. The
story thus far (for those among us who have had their
net.conspiracy_kook-funny.bone dials turned way down)...
Big companies get together behind extremely shiney, very
expensive closed doors to express huge alarm some time in
the year of their lord 1998 at the albeit and admitedly
chaotic but certifiably democratic events also known as
the Domain Wars or Wars of Internet Governance. The Big
Boys unleash their once upon a time free wheeling cyber
anarchist cowboys now erstwhile lap dog shareholders and
Vice Presidents of same corporations (emphasis on vice)
who also become alarmed at the potential loss of revenue
and power they all face should the rambunctious, raucous
and revolutionary New Guard become successful. Said a-hole
net heavy shills of THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS begin pinching
previously unsullied dear oldbie bearded friends cyber-ass
ever more painfully into silence and abeyance, subsequently
forcing teams of hitman attorneys, high priced lobby call
boys and girls upon their ancient buddy and, once the guy
croaks from all the massive pressure thereafter wheel free
forcing enyone they were ever even remotely affiliated with
to adopt their rather unsettling plans for world re-domination
despite their own better anarcho-intellectual instincts.
After all one has one's retirement to think of and a case of
dog-food in some roach den crack hotel breathing in the
hundred degree filth of painted over, boarded up windows
while they scream in the hall between gun shots is no-one's
idea of a great final internet access point. Meanwhile...
back on the political farm... Billy and Al having successfully
defended their pink blue chip asses from a Republican Watergate
revenge reaming worthy of the Ayatollah advertantly drop the
White Paper, high ground virtual hot potato ball right back
into the fire running for their Real Politik lives at merely
the thought of the level and intensity of heat our capitalist
pig cyber cartelists mounted, launched and shoved up their
noses ever so briefly amid the mayhem subsequently pretending
it was all a Magaziner bad dream (poor Ira... first health,
then the Internet! what a schmuck!). So, as the world turns
the forces of evil, embodied by the later day wannabe hippie
but actually corporatist cocksucker in jeans and sneakers
ESTHER and our Navy Seal washout survivallist millenialism
infested lunatic anuslicker MIKE with a bang of anonymous
elf fucker dwarves rush about like right bloody marrionettes
in their own whacko Punch and Judy show, installing their
Junta of Eternally Undemocratic Light, Smoke and Mirrors
whilst whacking up not on one another but upon we the citizens
of the world over... in the name of the Commercial Father, the
Multinational Son and the Conglomerate Holy Ghost as if their
very lives freaking well depended upon it. And the wanker chorus
instead of disengaging, launching their own counter-jihad
and unleashing the rebollution comrade wanker moans and wanker
groans and makes it's occaisional zinger joke and ribald mote
while events on tragicomic-melodramatic-infotainment centre stage
unfold in all of it's grossness, decadence, bile, vile and detail.
Brought to you courtesy the Trilateral Commission or some such
shadowy men from some other, parrallel, shadowy planet as the
life of the people known as we unfolds in diametric opposition
to all such heinous machinations and devious scheming makings
to bring end to these egregious bastards as inevitable as it is
unpredictable in terms of time, space, the Milky Way and all that
rot, raving, riot, radicality so on an so forth that will ascend
from the teeming unwashed I, for one, am so proud to be part of,
anonymous and unknown, disreputable and human, so help me Gaia.
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net
http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat
http://robin.fcn.net
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #274
******************************
