Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 243
Netizens-Digest Sunday, January 10 1999 Volume 01 : Number 243
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Steffenrud on DNS
[netz] kmm010: Representation in Cyberspace
[netz] Re: [rcs] Opening Question
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
[netz] Net Taxation Is a Global Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 22:34:43 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Steffenrud on DNS
http://www.open-rsc.org/essays/stef/musings/
Actual control of the Internet, because of the way TCP/IP
technology works, is lodged at the edges of the net. So, where is
the edge? [...] IANA and ISOC and PAB, et
al, can say and decide anything they want about what TLD names
may or may not be lodged in the OFFICIAL ROOT ZONE, but
they cannot decide, for all those computer users and router
administrators, what ROOT SERVER they will point to by
default!... Anyone on the net can look to any ROOT SERVER
they wish to resolve addresses of interest.
So, like the IETF, real control of the DNS ROOT already resides
in the hands of host and router administrators who that control the
productive resources, and who alone have the passwords for the
default tables that point to their ROOT SERVERS of choice!
[...]
Now, the fact that vendors and developers, unaware as they
certainly have been of what is going on here, appear to have
buried those default routes where most end users cannot find
them, let alone change them as needed. They our vendors blindly
set those defaults into code as suggested by IANA, which creates
the clear impression that IANA is in control, when in fact they are
not, since there is no enforcement of rules that even suggest that
host and router administrators MUST NOT change those defaults
if the wish. It is their job to choose!
So, all we need to do to bring real grass root democracy to the
DNS is
"FREE THE ROOT SERVER DEFAULT TABLES!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 22:34:43 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] kmm010: Representation in Cyberspace
Jamal,
{ > some rules have been 'figured out' - wouldnt they be a
{ > pretty good guide?
{
{ Yes, but would we (as a virtual community, where we are placed in
{ situations where we know that we will probably not meet each other face
{ to face) stick to these rules?
{ This needs elaboration - and focus, as I *think* Greg says in a later
{ posting.. shall this become a different thread? (One of 14?)
{
The rules I have in mind are those of 'creative listening': speak from
the heart, take time to hear what is on anothers mind, and help them
clarify its expression if need be. Does F2F have anything to do with
that?
(I admit I was tickled to see the page of ORSC's rules for contributors:
404 www.open-rsc.org/lists/structure/rules )
========
> { Doesn't this framework require some kind of a hierarchical structure?
...
{ > That's putting the pourspout ahead of the cream, imo.
{
{ Please explain Kerry, as I'm not too sure what you mean here - was my
{ original statement unclear?
I meant to suggest that hierarchy is only one solution to frameworking...
{ Our 'net-hardware' is not sentient, and would
{ require someone/ organisation to determine the nature of the framework,
{ wouldn't it?
{
... and another is to a process which builds its own links, up down
and sideways -- sort of like email, if you think of it.
{ Self-governance? I know what you mean, but don't you think it's a bit of
{ a joke? (Am I playing devil's advocate here?) Self-governance is what big
{ corporations want (content wise), and look what that's getting us into.
{ However, this is what I am working on at the minute, (concept of state in
{ the era of the Internet), but I don't see self-governance as a feasible
{ alternative model (unfortunately).
{
I'd say its the only alternative in the offing, myself. If we dont know
how to do it, at least we are better positioned to learn than to find the
Gods of the Internet handing us the solution on two stone wafers from a
burning bus.
As for the corporate thinking, if it works, why should we renounce it
here? They've been working at it longer, maybe, but we can breadboard it -
- - you and I are in fact breadboarding right now.
{ > reason not to build a mechanism in which ones participation *can* have
{ > consequences?
{
{ Good point - but what, and how? Presently, netizens is merely a
{ "discussion-list", with active members all involved in the
{ development of the Internet in some way. How many members does netizens
{ have? Could netizens as a community work within the ICANN structure -
{ instead of one or two interested individuals?
{
Netizens is one channel; our one or two or three is a subchannel s1,
your outline suggests a good dozen subsubchannels, s2. As the thread
continues, s3, s4... channnels will emerge, until at sN, every
conceivable point will be simply a yes/ no toggle. The 'mechanism' then
tots up the yesses and the noes and passes that to sN-1 to be collated
with the other inputs at that level.
Thats the simple part; the reason its never been done to my knowledge (in
10 yrs online) is that the mechanism has never been installed, and the
traditional mental alternative bogs down in confusion and forgetfulness
and prejudice and hubris and distraction.
{ There's a conference in
{ Washington in April, the cfp99 (www.cfp99.org). Maybe some of us should
{ get together and organise a panel or something?
{
Let's get such a 'patterned thought' process actually up and running
first ;-) then it'll catch the attention of the erstwhile net-shakers
and movers (I predict the issue of scaling it up will be the first
question they put to it!).
=========
{ our task ... is to try to ensure that lurkers *don't* feel as though
{ they are intruding on pre-defined communities - open structure..
{ fundamental to Internet architecture??
Yes.
{ Perhaps we need to take the opportunity that the Internet gives us to
{ redefine "civilisation" - ask why do people prefer to be given their ideas
{ already? Is it because netizens, and other ideas/insititutions like it are
{ the minority?
Is it causality or conditioning? Linear/ rational systems have been part
of western culture for 500 years, after all. (*Not because they were
imposed, but because first-approximations are darned useful.) But -- to
hone the point a little further -- that usefulness is a *derivative
property, and its 'pourspoutism' to insist that because X is linear
therefore its adequate to any situation. The net, in fact, may be our opportunity to
redefine *life, to the extent that for the first time we are looking into
(not 'at,' from outside) a system which is more complex than we are.
(Following Ralston Saul, the rational/ humanist divide is not an
*exclusive one, but a relative emphasis. Nor is the 1st term of an
approximation excluded from an expansion which accounts for cross-linked
or correlated conditions.)
{ I'd love to get a hold of the figures for the netizens
{ list, please tell me the listserv command for doing so.
{
Jay?
{ > P.S. Are you familiar with Paolo Freire's writing?
{ No, but I will look him up.
{
Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lies in 'changing the
consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them'
(S de Beauvoir); for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that
siutuation the more easily they can be dominated...
_Pedagogy of the Oppressed_ (NY: Continuum, 1970, 1993), p55.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:57:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [rcs] Opening Question
Following is the response I sent to the Berkman Institute midnight last night
in answer to the question they have posed about their current study
about representation in cyberspace.
From: Ronda Hauben
To: study@cyber.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [rcs] Opening Question
>From wseltzer@linux.opencode.org Wed Jan 6 10:56:14 1999
>Welcome to an important discussion phase in the Berkman
>Center's study of representation in cyberspace. We will be using your
>answers here as the seeds of broader discussions. For our opening
>question, we ask you:
First before we start, there is a problem in that you have framed
the question in a way to preclude getting an answer that can help
to solve the problem that is the genuine problem to be solved.
The first way that the Berkman Center has mistakenly framed the
question is to call the study, a "study of representation in
cyberspace". Why do you feel you can determine that we shuld be
discussing "representation in cyberspace?" First the wonderful achievement
of the Internet is that people can represent themselves, that
people can speak for their own views and interests. And that
people can work together to make an inclusive process that is
cooperative rather than someone usurping our rights to be heard.
To call the study "representation" you preclude the discussion of
the nature of the Internet.
And by talking about "cyberspace" instead of the "Internet"
you are not trying to figure out what the Internet makes
possible that is so important for the present and future
of making more participatory and cooperative processes possible,
but rather you are proposing that we talk aobut fictious entities,
rather than the real technological and human-computer-communication
system that the Internet is in actuality.
>By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
>judged?
This question is also framed in a way that precludes the identification
of the real problem facing us on the Internet.
Many of those who are on the Internet have worked hard over a long
period of time to build a human-computer-communications system that
makes it possible for the voices of the users to be heard, for
the users themselves to determine the content and the architecture
of what is the present and future of the Internet.
ICANN is a move by the U.S. government to change that and to
narrow down the definition of what the Internet is to the wires and
the routers, etc.
And then to protect the interests of a narrow set of commercial interests
to the great detriment of the majority of the users of the Internet.
Instead of the narrow definition, we need the broadest understanding
of the Internet. The Internet was actually created in response to
problem of the centralized structure of the original ARPANET
subnetwork which was an important development in its own right,
but didn't provide the necessary kind of open architecture that
was needed for a global network that would welcome all forms of
packet switching networks to be part of it.
The creation of TCP (now called TCP/IP) in 1973 by Bob Kahn and Vint
Cerf was based on the recognition that there was the need to provide
for the autonomy of the participating networks, and to have
a minimum set of agreed upon conventions, i.e. a protocol, that
would make it possible to communicate.
The goal was to remove constraints to communication among the diverse
networks that would internet.
Instead of the Berkman Center trying to clarify what are the diverse
internet networks and people and how to help there to be the communication
that will make it possible to identify problems about the administration
of the central points of control of the Internet so that these problems
won't lead to abuse of the diverse peoples and networks who make up the
Internet, they are narrowing down the question in a way that
it is even difficult to determine what it is.
So if there is to be any success in the process that is proposed, it
must be judged by whether the narrow constraints get removed,
and if there can be open discussion to determine the real issues
that have to be identified, discussed, and means of resolving
these issues found.
The first issue I feel is crucial is to begin to recognize that
there is a noncommercial Internet and Internet community and
that the communication made possible via the Internet is
dependent on the protection and support of this noncommercial
Internet and Internet community.
And that the whole ICANN process thus far has been to deny that
there is an Internet that is *not* commercial and that promotes
communication which is crucial.
The first step I see as necessary is to recognize and begin to
welcome the discussion and communication among the folks
who are part of the noncommercial Internet and to welcome
their participation in the question of how to protect the
development of the communication the Internet makes possible,
and how to scale the Internet so this communication increases.
I am working on a paper that discusses this issue and am
willing to contribute it into the process.
But also there should be one newsgroup with a mailing list,
not separate mailing lists on this issue.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:57:41 -0800
From: "richard bohn" <richard-bohn@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Jamal, Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my outburst. I have been
feeling a little deprived lately. I would like to make your paragraphs
appear in between arrows but I have not learned to do that yet.
I think it is a worthy pursuit you have in using this list as research.
Thats what I think engages us all. Search. That's why we write to each
other. We are looking. Voyageurs,exploring further up river towards the
Confluence, or the Convergence or the Consilience. We return and share our
maps. We are witnesses to a new frontier.
Jamal, you ask whether communication has a purpose or a 'sub-text'.... I
propose that it does.......
Remember when it used to be said that communication is only ( I can't
remember exactly the percentages ) 10% word content, and maybe 20% tone of
voice, and perhaps 30% body language and finally 40% eye contact ... What we
are discovering now about communication on a global level is just sitting
around in the dark and telling spooky stories .... wait till light ...
Yep, wait till the light of the video cams,bandwidth and a new generation of
servers allows each of us to become international television broadcasting
stations. How far away is that? How will it be when you and I can look
into each others eyes ... and our monitors will divide up into maybe, 10
little picture in pictures and we will be able to have roundtable
discussions in real time ( or pretty lickety split anyway ) .
What will be the purpose, you ask ? When two people look at each other
there is an arc of energy that passes between them ... a bridge is created
that allows the generation of energy to be shared. Don't laugh yet ...
besides , you know it's true .... This is another level of communication ...
with a specific purpose ... It allows us to share an electrical wave of
energy .... it unites us as human beings ...Clumsy verbal utterings just get
in the way , words are great at the office or in your head ... but ... when
you come home you come to your heart , words get in the way of true
communication. What does that crazy old Lao Tzu say? " He who speaks, does
not know, and he who knows does not speak".
So what I see is the possibility of using this medium to allow us all to
just feel safe together. Well? It's a start.
As far as what do we do till the future arrives ? Don't worry too much
about what the guys who just arrived with the caravans are up to, even
though they are waving their arms and are all excited over at the bazaar
about Global marketing and International Monetary Funds, we have other
work....
After all who got them here to this Global Oasis? The researchers.........
and besides, the smelly old traders are too obsessed with money and not
nearly prescient enough to figure out where we're going to take them next...
Rhonda needs to go to the Conditorre and get some god ducats to fund a
proper research project, and to see these fat caliphs as patrons of research
... I mean just like in the Renaissance right? Don't you think these
wealthy city states ( Seattle, is after all a seaport like Florence), who
wield more power than most nations, are ripe for the ' New Renaisscance '?
Big Egos need Big Treats, and Philanthropy is big time fudge.
Remember, facilitating trade and the accumulation of wealth isn't the only
thing ' The Silicon Road ' will facilitate; How about the distribution of
ideas and more important than knowledge is ....... wisdom. That's what we
are beginning to distill, to crystallize ,to embody in our very own bodies ;
we are one, humanity is one family, with one heart. That's the real work
for the next century.
Thanks for allowing me another tantrum,
Richard
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:21:58
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] Net Taxation Is a Global Issue
Registrations for the On-line Learning Series of Courses
for January/February '99 are now being accepted. All courses are
delivered by e-mail, are two to three weeks in duration and cost
between $5.00 US and $15.00 US. Information is available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Starting 15 January 1999
How to Search the World Wide Web Level 2
Creating web pages with HTML Level 1
Creating web pages with HTML Level 2
Effective Use of E-Mail
Eudora Pro Level 2
Using Netscape Messenger Level 1
Using Netscape Messenger Level 3
Using Netscape Messenger Level 4 (a)
Starting 1 February 1999
Introduction to the Internet and On-line Learning
How to Search the World Wide Web Level 1
Using Eudora Lite and Pro Level 1
Using Eudora Pro Level 3
Using Netscape Messenger Level 2
Using Netscape Messenger Level 4
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.
- --------------------
Net Taxation Is a Global Issue
On the Soapbox January 07, 1999 by Ron Erickson
http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/opinion/story?id=3690ffee0
In the Internet commerce world, the United States has no peers.
According to research firm Jupiter Communications LLC of New York,
in 1998 the consumer portion of the nation's e-commerce market
totaled $7.07 billion, compared with a total global e-commerce market
that Forrester Research Inc. of Cambridge, Mass., estimates at $21.8
billion.
This market leadership carries with it an implicit and urgent
responsibility: Industry leaders must work aggressively with
appropriate governing bodies to shape the industry's future on a
global scale--especially in the area of Internet taxation. We cannot
afford to slowly debate Internet tax issues at home while other
governments consider implementing policies with far-reaching
implications for U.S. technology companies' revenue streams.
Yet the U.S. Internet industry seems content to take precisely that
leisurely tack.
Tucked into the $520 billion omnibus spending bill signed into law
by President Clinton on Oct. 21, 1998, was the Internet Tax Freedom
Act. The legislation sets a moratorium on Internet sales taxes by
states and localities for a period of two years and three months
while a 16-member commission studies the issue--along with the
ramifications for market growth.
The moratorium poses a critical challenge for the U.S. e-commerce
industry, whose leaders, fearful of the impact on consumer
enthusiasm and market growth, have historically resisted any notion
of taxation for online purchasing.
The reality is that for centuries governments have aggressively
tapped new forms of commerce to generate needed revenue. The Internet
will likely be no different. And while the U.S. Internet industry
ponders the issue, other governments are wasting no time putting
e-commerce taxes in place.
Taxation Inequities
At their Ottawa conference in early October, the ministers of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) endorsed
proposals to guide member governments in implementing Internet taxes.
They agreed that "the taxation principles [that] guide governments
in relation to conventional commerce should also guide them in
relation to electronic commerce." The OECD also recommended that
consumption taxes be levied in the country where consumption occurs.
Recognition of taxation inequities is one of the driving forces
behind the push for Internet taxes. An argument can be made that the
absence of a cybertax has created a regressive structure that
unfairly subsidizes commerce for those who have access to Internet
technology. The Internet have-nots--those without home computers and
Internet links--are limited to traditional retail commerce and its
associated sales taxes. As e-commerce grows exponentially, taxing
authorities--if not in the United States, then elsewhere--will
quickly cease to support tax structures they believe to be
inequitable.
Internet commerce is becoming an increasingly global venture, with
selling and buying taking place freely across international borders.
U.S. Internet merchants may be able to take comfort in a tax-free
market at home--for a time. But long term, they will not be able to
ignore the impact of local tax policies on their customers in
Europe, Asia or anywhere else.
Now is the time for e-commerce industry leaders to help the U.S.
government create a forward-thinking, global cybertax policy.
Industry experts can help ensure that the end result neither
hamstrings e-commerce companies with multiple tax jurisdictions nor
forces regressive tax policies on the Internet have-nots.
The Internet represents the future of global commerce, but that
future has yet to be shaped. The U.S. e-commerce industry has
refused, thus far, to take a strong leadership role in setting
Internet tax policy. This approach invites the emergence of
irrational, incoherent tax practices that will confuse and inhibit
consumers, discourage vendors and ultimately hinder the natural
evolution of a robust market.
Links:
http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/story?id=35e2f0cc0
http://www.house.gov/chriscox/nettax/
http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/daily_tish?id=368928cd0
- -----------
Also in this issue:
- - Net Taxation Is a Global Issue
In the Internet commerce world, the United States has no peers.
- - Tiny country's dream of Internet millions fails to deliver
AUCKLAND, Jan 6 -- (AFP) -- Tiny Tuvalu has been forced to rethink
its extravagant dreams after a Canadian company failed to deliver an
Internet Christmas present of 50 million US dollars, Communications
Minister Otinielu Tausi said Wednesday.
- - Groups use e-mail, ads and songs to get their word to senators
E-mail a congressman. Send a telegram. Write a check.
Supporters and opponents of President Clinton are taking to the
airwaves and the Internet.
- - Underage hacker gets off with warning in China
A 13-year-old computer hacker in China's Inner Mongolia region
illegally gained access to an information service network using his
father's name, state media reported Friday.
- - Iraq sidelined from information superhighway
War and sanctions have crippled Iraq's communication network
- - Trojan horse gathers user data, e-mails it to China
(IDG) -- A malicious computer program called picture.exe has been
wreaking havoc among PC users for at least a week, capturing
personal information from their hard drives and sending it to an
electronic-mail address in China, according to a software security
firm.
- - Geek's Guide to Doing Everything Better: Your Power Health Kit
I'm not a doctor. But I play one on the Web.
The proliferation of managed-care health plans has elevated my
interest in health care. It's not that I don't trust doctors. I
just don't trust the conveyor-belt mentality of managed-care
companies. Take two aspirin and don't you dare call me in the
morning.
- - Anti-Abortion Web Site Goes on Trial
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- Attorneys defending an anti-abortion Web site
that checks off slain abortion doctors like items on a grocery list
say it is merely a form of political protest, not a blueprint for
murder.
- - New Lists and Journals
1) Patent Abstracts (NASA)
2) Planetary Science Research Discoveries
3) Pour La Science
4) Healthy Ideas
5) Primary Care Optometry News
6) Texas Medicine
7) Today Magazine (Georgia Hospital Association)
8) Airport Magazine
9) Airport Professional
10) The Exporter - Israel Export Institute newsletter
11) U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes
12) U.S. Planting Seed Trade Archives (USDA)
- - Sunday Supplement
* The European Schoolnet
* The Future Lies Beyond the Box
* Notes on current events, plus URL's and more books.
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
- -------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #243
******************************
