Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 277
Netizens-Digest Saturday, February 27 1999 Volume 01 : Number 277
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
[netz] Re: [Membership] Nelson: ICANN Red Cross Style (?!)
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet Scaling vrs. ICANN
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet Scaling vrs. ICANN
[netz] Re: Nelson: ICANN Red Cross Style (?!)
[netz] [UA-C] Word and various public access programs (fwd)
Re: [netz] kmm026: Differences in CMC
[netz] "FCC rules ISP calls are long-distance in nature "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:21:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
>I don't have any problems with the idea of a self-governing Internet.
>If some people could have been found to campaign for office, I would
>have just voted for the ones whose platforms I felt were reasonable.
>However, the USG decided not to set things up that way. Unforunately
>for us. But I find no fault in companies donating money to get a
>non-profit effort going. In some circles, this is considered a sign
>of community spirit, not just taking from the community but giving
>back.
But ICANN isn't some nice little community non profit charity.
It is the big boys (whoever they be) acting behind the scenes
to grab the crucial points of control of the Internet.
To grab the ownership and policy and administration and wealth
etc that comes from the control over the key points of control
not only of scaling the Internet but also of the ability of
anyone to communicate via it.
So to talk about self-governing when no one is allowed to know
who behind the scenes is grabbing is what Harold Sackman in 1970
warned would happen. He said that the notion of the promise
that the future network (it didn't yet exist when he was writing)
holds for people would blind them to the fact that there will
be powerful players who will who understand the power that it will give
them and will act to grab that power.
>--gregbo
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:25:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [Membership] Nelson: ICANN Red Cross Style (?!)
This was a helpful post from by Bob Allisat from the ICANN membership
mailing list.
Ronda
- ---------------
>From membership-owner@ISI.EDU Wed Feb 24 12:57:59 1999
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 04:18:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Bob Allisat <bob@fcn.net>
Mike Nelson (quoted) refering to various open governance proposals :
= ... if the Red Cross doesn't operate under these procedures,
= why should ICANN?
From: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu ...
+ A Harsh Rebuke
+
+ DeMont, John
+ Maclean's (12/08/97) Vol. 110, No. 49, P. 20
+
+ The infection of thousands of Canadians with HIV and the hepatitis C
+ virus in the late 1970s and 1980s by tainted blood, could have been
+ avoided, according to the final report by Justice Horace Krever on
+ his investigation into the country's largest medical scandal of the
+ century. However, some critics are disappointed with the report--which
+ took 4 years and nearly Canadian $17 million dollars to complete--for
+ failing to place any blame for the disaster.
+
+ The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in September that the report could
+ only state facts and not assign blame to any individuals. However, the
+ report does document the many factors that led to the crisis and makes
+ 50 recommendations on how to improve the country's blood supply system.
+
+ The report claims that key events leading up to the crisis included
+ the failure of the Bureau of Biologics to enact a system of checks
+ that would have effectively monitored the blood supply, much of which
+ came from the United States where AIDS was becoming more prevalent.
+ The report continues to claim that government officials were more
+ concerned with avoiding public questions and a scandal than ensuring
+ public safety, and the decision by the Canadian Red Cross to use up its
+ supply of non-heated blood concentrates was also a factor.
+
+ Krever's primary recommendation has already been embraced by the
+ government, which plans by September 1998 to begin operating a C$81
+ million new blood supply system that is independent of the Red Cross.
+ Krever also suggested making no-fault compensation payments to all
+ tainted blood recipients, whether they are infected with HIV or
+ hepatitis C. The government has yet to make a definite response.
> Canadian Investigation Into Blood Tainted With HIV
> and Hep C Virus Continues
>
> Reuters Health Information Services (01/01/98)
>
> According to a recent issue of AIDS Policy & Law, a commission inquiry
> headed by Justice Horace Krever of Canada's Ontario Court of Appeal
> concluded that hundreds of HIV and hepatitis C cases could have been
> prevented had Canadian government regulators and medical suppliers
> taken stricter safety measures. Liability has not yet been assigned,
> but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have launched an investigation
> into possible wrongdoing and Krever has placed 95 government, Red
> Cross, and pharmaceutical company officials on notice. The report's
> findings include the fact that officials did not begin to test blood
> for HIV until eight months after the United States began testing; blood
> from high-risk donors was not rejected during the early 1980s; and the
> Canadian Red Cross was "ineffective" in protecting the nation's blood
> supply...
The lesson of the Canadian Red Cross is that no matter
how non-profit and allegedly benificial an organization
may preport to be, void of any accountability or oversight
mechanisms it is prone to often disasterous error and
incompetance. The Canadian Red Cross directly allowed
tens of thousands of Canadians to die unecessary deaths
as a result of AIDs/HepC. Through a tragicomic series of
face saving bungles of epic preportions the entire
populace was placed at risk for YEARS. The Canadian
Red Cross no longer has anything to do with the provision
of blood supplies to the citizens of this nation.
Another organization modeled similarly to the Red Cross
is the Olympic so-called Movement's International Organizing
Committee. And we have witnessed what a cesspool of
corruption and self-serving graft this body is. I suppose
Nelson would probaby support the idea the statement "If
the IOC doesn't operate under these procedures, why should
ICANN?"!
If ICANN is modeled in a similar manner to the Red
Cross or the IOC and if ICANN is somehow given or other-
wise acquires control over Internet technical standards,
Domain Names, IP number alocation and dispute resolution
we can expect and deserve all the scandals and cheating,
favouritism and disaster that will surely arise from
such a disaster. In fact the string of errors and narrow
minded tracking to fiasco is already in full swing under
the mad hand of Mr. Roberts and his elorious defender
Ms. Dyson. To avoid this outcome ICANN must either be
entirely restructured or abandoned entirely. Our choice.
To procede further invites cyber catastrophe.
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net
http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat
http://robin.fcn.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:37:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
"Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@prodigy.net> wrote:
>IRS laws are supposed to prevent non-profits
>from being formed that provide the same services
>as the for-profit sector. Why is the U.S. Government
>encouraging the creation of organizations that do
>not appear to conform to IRS regulations ?
Not just encouraging the creation.
The U.S. government has created ICANN as a supposed charity
to receive the public property of the Internet protocols,
DNS, IP numbers, etc. and to allow behind the scenes
powerful players to do what they want with this public
property.
This is *not* quite what I thought charities were created
to do.
>non-profit does not mean low cost, free of corruption, etc.
>in some cases it is now used to harbor closed door activities
>while society is given the impression it is a "do good" group...
>it is a shame that these new-age-non-profits are placing the
>traditional non-profits in a bad light...
And it doesn't quite seem to be non-profit when there are
some of the largest and most powerful corporate interests
paying for their operation as they are given probably the
most valuable public assets ever to be transferred to private
entities.
And it doesn't seem to be a non-profit entity when the U.S.
government has created it and is acting behind the scenes.
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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:09:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet Scaling vrs. ICANN
"Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@prodigy.net> wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
><snip>
>>
>>The real problem that the DNS wars show is that the U.S.
>>government doesn't seem to be supporting the needed scientific
>>research about how to provide for the scaling of the Internet.
>
Jim
>In my opinion, you raise some very good points, but I am not sure
>I agree with your conclusions. Firstly, you appear to be interested
>in "more" government and you start by trying to show that the
>government is not involved, then show things are not good, and
>then conclude more government is needed to make things better.
Good your raise this difference.
It is an important one.
The kind of government that I am battling for is the kind of
government that helped to build the Internet.
I have often and in various ways pointed to the U.S. Federal
District Court in Philadelphia decision in the CDA case which
says that the Internet is a unique new means of global communication
and the laws to deal with it have to take into account its unique
nature.
What you say reminds me of the lessons of the civil rights movement
and other movements. The U.S. government was part of the problem
in the ways that black people in the South were abused. But the
battle was to get the U.S. government to change what it did
so what it did would stop the problem, rather than help to
encourage it.
There is a similar situation with what is happening with
ICANN and the U.S. government now.
ICANN is actually the U.S. government hiding what it is doing
because what it is doing is not what is appropriate or helpful
or allowed.
Instead of hiding to do what is harmful, it is necessary to have
the U.S. government be openly involved in doing what is needed.
To say no government only puts government in the hands of the
powerful entities who want the Internet as their private
plaything for their own fortunes.
The U.S. government has an obligation to all the people.
But it can only serve that obligation if it is out in the
open with what its role is.
That is why there needs to be a clear and healthy role for
the U.S. government.
My proposal called on the U.S. government to fund some researchers
who would begin to create an open means of making it possible
for folks on the Internet to know what they are doing and to
participate in what they are doing.
It also provided for a prototype that would look at the
problems that had developed and identify the aspects of the
IANA functions that were functioning in good ways. Also it
provided for an effort to figure out how to protect these
vital functions of the Internet from the commercial and
other pressures.
These are some of the real tasks that were needed to begin to
deal with the IANA functions which are so crucial to scaling
the Internet.
I proposed a role for government, to provide funding for the
researchers and provide a way to protect them from the behind
the scenes entities trying to grab these central functions
of the Internet.
The U.S. government is needed to take on that role, and to
support researchers to do what is needed to create the prototype
forms that will make it possible for IANA to be in a protected
situation.
No private sector entity can do that.
And as the U.S. government does that, it is possible, and my
proposal provided for a way for other governments to participate
in a real way in a real task.
If there were any honesty in what the U.S. government is
doing it had to fund my proposal, as it needed to explore the
possibility of diverse prototypes to see what would solve
the problems.
But the U.S. government isn't trying to solve the real scaling
problem, it is only doing what it can to cover up an illegal
and illegitimate power grab.
I realize the problem has gone on for a while.
But I have traced it to before the DNS debates started - that
somehow the U.S. government decided to maneuver, rather than
to take up the real issue.
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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:22:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet Scaling vrs. ICANN
"Javier A. Maestre" <dibu@icam.es> wrote:
>Ronda Alternatives seem to be the next:
You should look at my proposal - as it was in fact the only
proposal that did provide for genuine International collaboration
and participation in solving the problem of putting IANA
on a protected and more internationally supported foundation.
My proposal is at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
It is also available in French.
And it is available at the NTIA web site as well.
Someone recently asked me for some of the work I have done
to translate into Spanish and I pointed to the proposal, so
I hope it will be available in Spanish as well soon.
>1. A private, north American, organization under California
>jurisdiction or;
Why do you say a private organization?
You are describing ICANN, which is what the U.S. government has
created and is acting through in a hidden way.
We need a public IANA, not a private ICANN.
>2. A public, north American, organization belonging US Government, also
>under US jurisdiction.
>I wonder where the difference is. US Government, now, let the rest of
>the people, from the rest of the world, choose between two US based
>organization, public or private. Very good.
No the proposal I submitted called on the U.S. government to
form a prototype. That it is to fund computer science researchers
to begin to do some of what is needed for the Internet names
and numbers and protocols to be protected and for the problems
and activities concerning them to be out in public in a forum
that all online are encouraged to participate in. And other
nations are invited to support reseachers to work collaboratively
with the researchers supported by the U.S. government to determine
do the kind of study that is needed to figure out a real proposal
for solving the way to protect IANA from those who want to
grab the controlling functions of the Internet for their own
private purposes.
And the proposal also recognized that scaling the Internet is
a problem that will involve continued research and scientific
development, much as building the Internet has required.
>I agree absolutely with Jim: some new systems will emerge that are way
>beyond what NSI or the U.S. Government can imagine, and I hope this
>system will be really international and, in my opinion, public.
My proposal was "The Internet An International Public Treasure"
and it was to create a public entity.
Public requires government to be involved. The Internet has
grown up from governments being involved in a good way and
we need to build on that good way, not go backwards to the
bad ways of governments promoting private interests and
acting behind the scenes in harmful ways to the public.
Nice that you also want an international and public way
forward.
Have you looked at my proposal?
- ------------------
>Javier A. Maestre
- ----------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:47:50 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Nelson: ICANN Red Cross Style (?!)
Bob wrote:
> The lesson of the Canadian Red Cross is that no matter
> how non-profit and allegedly benificial an organization
> may preport to be, void of any accountability or oversight
> mechanisms it is prone to often disasterous error and
> incompetance.
The lesson is that no matter what the organization is, its
beneficiaries/ constituency should not relinquish oversight. Errors
will always happen; incometence we will have always with us --
theyre only disasters if you expected perfection.
The most compelling evidence that this is the problem is the
number of organizations dedicated to making you think you
deserve perfection.
Perhaps thats too subtle, but dont political, medical, educational
instititutions all play the same song?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:20:59 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] [UA-C] Word and various public access programs (fwd)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:47:54 -0600
From: Joyce Latham <jlatham@interaccess.com>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Subject: Re: Word and various public access programs
- ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
The Chicago Public Library is currently eliminating personal software
workstations in all but our computer centers. We found the expectations of
the public extreme, and answers about writing resumes, novels and letters to
judges in legal cases beyond the pale of our expertise, as well as
excessively time consuming. While we very much favor the ideal of a
complete workstation -- WP, Internet, resource access -- we have found it to
be a mjor distraction from the actual work of librarianship.
I would be very interested in hearing other folks comments on same.
Joyce Latham
Director of Library Automation
CPL
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 10:58:17 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] kmm026: Differences in CMC
Sorry I missed the URL???
> Gender Differences In Computer-mediated Communication:
> Bringing Familiar Baggage To The New Frontier
> (presented at the American Library
> Association annual convention, Miami, June 27, 1994)
Interested obviously:
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/collaborative/research/linkages/articles/scgender.htm
Gender Variables and Computers
Dateline: 05/26/97
Excerpts from Antecedent Conditions and Their
Affective Outcomes on Ratings of Personal
Beliefs and Computer Self-Efficacy of
Undergraduate Humanities Students
A Thesis Proposal Submitted by P. A. Gantt,
November 20, 1995.
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:34:08 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] "FCC rules ISP calls are long-distance in nature "
"FCC rules ISP calls are long-distance in nature "
By Nancy Weil
InfoWorld Electric
Posted at 10:58 AM PT, Feb 25, 1999
In a long-anticipated vote, the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) on Thursday decided that dial-up Internet calls
are interstate in nature and not local.
"...The ruling overturns state decisions holding that dial-up calls to
the
Internet are local. The decision also could mean that local phone
companies will be able to assess usage-sensitive access charges
on ISPs, the FCC suggested in a statement Thursday regarding its
vote. Without the so-called "ESP Exemption," consumers might
have to pay per-minute fees for dialing into the Internet on local
lines, though not all Internet-access calls necessarily will be
charged at long distance rates..."
[more to follow in a separate send]
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #277
******************************
