Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 245
Netizens-Digest Monday, January 11 1999 Volume 01 : Number 245
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Internet Essential functions being transferred from DARPA to ICANN
Re: [netz] Internet Essential functions being transferred from DARPA to ICANN
[netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
[netz] (Fwd) Test for Internet Free Speech
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:20:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Essential functions being transferred from DARPA to ICANN
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>>In response to participants' inquiries about DoD's interests in
>>this topics, Hilarie Orman explained that DARPA supports the FNC's
>>role as the source of authority for assignment of Internet DNS names
>>and address numbers. This position, she explained, derives from
>>DARPA's long-standing interest in the smooth functioning of the
>>Internet.
>I interpret this to mean that she was't for outsourcing it.
>Do you interpret this differently?
Yes
I interpreted it to mean that DARPA supports FNC's role in
transitioning the *commercial* Internet name and address sector out of
the NSF, which I repeat below from the original document:
>>FNCAC members noted the FNC continuing role in this sector and
>>reiterated their view that the FNC and the NSF should transition out
>>of their DNS and addressing responsibilities.
Why don't you write her directly and ask her what she meant? Also ask
her to copy her response to netizens. Her address is
ho@cs.arizona.edu. She is on the ARIN Council.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:55:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Essential functions being transferred from DARPA to ICANN
Here's some further info about that FNCAC meetingwhere these decisions
we are dealing with today seem to have been made or at least acknowledged
to have been made.
Note particularly
"a. Recommendations
Two recommendations were passed during the FNCAC meeting:
(...)
2. Domain Name Service: The FNCAC reiterates and underscores the
urgency of transferring responsibility for supporting U.S.
commercial interests in ITLD administration from the NSF to an
appropriate entity. "
Note that they talk about "supporting US commercial interests"
as the purpose of what they are doing.
U.S. public interest is totally missing from any consideration
as it would seem the makeup of this body considering that
there is only an alliance of government and commercial interests
rather than any public involved or any public oversight over this.
BTW in the last chapter of Netizens we document how James Mill
recognized the need to oversee government so this kind of
back room dealing doesn't occur.
Ronda
- -------------------------------------
Draft Minutes of the
Federal Network Council
Advisory Committee (FNCAC) Meeting
October 21 & 22, 1996
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 1235
Arlington, VA 22230
_________________________________________________________________
I. ATTENDEES
Attending FNCAC Members:
Henriette Avram, Library of Congress, Retired; Alan Blatecky, MCNC;
Matt Blaze, AT&T Research; George Brandenburg, Harvard University;
Susan Estrada, Aldea Communications, Inc.; Kenneth Flamm, Brookings
Institution; John Gage, Sun Microsystems; Carol Henderson, American
Library Association (FNCAC Chairperson); Stu Loken, Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab; Paul Mockapetris, @Home; Robert Moskowitz, Chrysler
Corporation; Ike Nassi, Apple Company; Carl Oliver, Lockheed Marietta,
Energy Systems, Inc.; Stewart Personick, Bell Communications Research,
Inc.; Thomas Rindfleisch, Stanford/Knowledge Systems Laboratory; Mike
Roberts, EDUCOM; and Harold Thompson, Iowa Communications Network
Attending FNC and Working Group Members:
Bruce Bottomley, National Security Agency; John Cavallini, Department
of Energy; Vary Coates, Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Tice DeYoung,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Phil Dykstra, Army
Research Laboratory; David Gaon, Defense Information Services Agency;
Frank Hartel, National Institutes of Health; Jim Hott, US Geologic
Survey; Henry Lai, General Services Administration; Fred Lee, National
Technical Information Agency; Earnest Lucier, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; Hilarie Orman, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency; Alexis Poliakoff, Department of Education; Stephen
Squires, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Elaine Stout, US
Geologic Survey; George Strawn, National Science Foundation
(Co-Chair); and Walter Wiebe, Federal Networking Council
Invited Speakers:
Steve Bellovin, AT&T Research; Marjory Blumenthal, CSTB/NRC; Charles
Brownstein, Cross-Industry Working Team; Kim Claffy, SDSC/NLANR; Sally
Floyd, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab; Brian Kahin, Harvard
University; Herb Lin, NRC; Mike Nelson, OSTP; Bill St. Arnaud,
CANARIE; and Jim Williams, FARNET
General Public:
Robert Aiken, DOE/Argonne; Don Austin, NCO; Javad Boroumand, USC/ISI;
Jay Blaine, Cornell Theory Center; Paul Bosco, CCI/USMG; Heather
Boyles, FARNET; Tim Clifford, Liquateq; Bob Crayle, Rose & Crayle;
Barbara Dooley, CIX; Angela Drolte, Bureau of National Affairs; Chris
Gamble, TENET; Les Gasser, NSF; Bob Gillespie, NWACL; David Graves,
Network Solutions; Sally Howell, NCO; Jeffrey Kaufman, International
Trademark Association; Jennifer Lucas, BNA; Norm Middaugh, University
of Western Ontario; Dave Nelson, DOE; Catherine Peters, Industry
Canada; Peter Rony, AIChE; Mike Stephens, USTI; Howard Susskind, Cable
and Wireless; John Toole, NCO; Rick Weingarten, American Library
Association; and Kevin Werbach, FCC
FNC Support Personnel:
Suzanne Burgess, DynCorp; Tracie Monk, DynCorp; Debra Summers,
DynCorp; and Julie Walker, DynCorp
II. RECOMMENDATIONS / ACTION ITEMS:
a. Recommendations
Two recommendations were passed during the FNCAC meeting:
(...)
2. Domain Name Service: The FNCAC reiterates and underscores the
urgency of transferring responsibility for supporting U.S.
commercial interests in ITLD administration from the NSF to an
appropriate entity.
Note that additional recommendations will be deliberated via e-mail
following the meeting.
b. Action Items
Network Transitions and Scalability:
* The FNCAC requests that the FNC respond to Kahin's letter with all
due speed.
* The Network Transitions and Scalability working group will expand
its focus to include international networking.
* NSF/FNC should contact ISOC concerning US government
representation on the Internet Society's International Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee.
* The FNCAC Working Group on Network Transitions and Scalability
will formulate its recommendations on statistics/metrics via
e-mail over the next month and will send them to the FNCAC for
discussion and approval.
(...)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:56:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Ronda and Kerry,
By some mystical feat, I think I've managed to work out that I want to
respond to you both in the same way.. The "arrow things" were bothering me,
so this is just going to be some of my own prose, with your comments
firmly stuck in my mind..
First, let me start with one of the questions I posted to the list. What
are the aims of the Internet? Let me link it to Greg's comment that
[paraphrased from memory] the Internet will become what the majority of
people want it to become...
Are the majority of people who use the Internet able to maintain their own
root server tables? Why is the Netscape portal so valuable? Because most
people don't know how to change the default "home page" setting! When I
read the musings on the Internet Paradigm (also available from
www.wia.org/...), I was initially confused and didn't know how to
respond/react at all. I think I still am. But that doesn't stop me from
having an interest in the development of the Internet, _because I realise
that it is going to affect *my* life, *your* life and *everyone's lives*
in the near future.
I don't think that we should get bogged down in technological determinism.
We can't just delegate to "nice net-friendly hardware"...Has anyone read
"we" by Zamyatin, or the countless others written after it, including "the
machine stops" by (i think) Forrester?
A while ago, (7/1/99) Kerry wrote:
>Using a bit of CPR to breathe life into this corpse, I suggest a)
>providing 'equal influence' *is* simple, b) the Net is a great place to
>design, if we can just bring ourselves to get beyond listing criteria,
>and c) this two-step distinction is no more and no less than what is
>required.
That's where I think that the link between these two steps is
problematic, Kerry. And that's where I think that your stress upon the
Internet, Ronda needs to be balanced with societal treatment of the
technology. Steps one and two are great, and further discussion has
allowed me to understand you further on these two, but I'm still weary of
the assumptions that formulate c).
I think that this debate comes down to two different issues, one of
which is ontology - what are we studying here? This is the one I will
attempt to develop now:
I'm stuck in the modern - (not a merely *passive observer*, though). I'm
aware of the external factors that are acting upon the situation, and I'm
aware that there's a distinction between the outcomes here, and in ICANN's
public meetings. The Internet will always be driven by real-life concerns,
and will fit in with its contemporary environment, whilst also shaping it
in some way. The Internet is the tool that the global market has been
longing for, and we can't forget that! [offpoint, sorry]
But let me go back to my original proposition, made several months ago..
the Internet is a political entity. It was born in a political
environment, and continues to live in one. That is why the debate that
Ronda is pursuing is *so* vital to the future development of the
Internet, and the Global Information Society.
To clarify, I quote from J.D.B Miller:
"political activity, then, arises out of disagreement, and it is concerned
with the use of government to resolve conflict in the direction of change
or in the prevention of change".
J. D. B. Miller, {iThe Nature of Politics} (Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin, 1962), 16.
There is disagreement on the net (our breadboarding is a perfect example,
no?), and the potential for disagreement on the Internet (as it becomes
more pervasive and enveloping, and grows in membership) is greater.
Politics is a modern pursuit, but it is inevitable? imho, yes. Also, the
best arbiter of disagreement is the state, at present, and the Internet is
evolving in this milieu.
To cite from _The Doubter's Companion_:
(from http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/saul-d.htm - thanks!)
Democracy is the only system capable of reflecting the humanist premise of
equilibrium or balance [q.v.] The key to its secret is the involvement of
the citizen.
John Ralston Saul, The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Aggressive
Common Sense (NY: Free Press, 1994), pp. 94 -106.
Perhaps I'm treading over old ground here, but with *so* many variables,
how can I be expected to work out how to govern myself? Organisation, or
compartmentalisation. (The reason for the democratic state, as you once
mentioned Kerry.) And thus, I remain wedded to _modern_ institutions and
practices, even in information-space. Am I really able to achieve
(political/governance) equilibrium by myself?
<excerpt from Kerry's email: [Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:09:57 -0400]>
IPL, one tries to keep ones life 'organized' (= compartmentalized) so
that we dont have to keep juggling all this continuously (I suggest this
is the reason for the creation of the state, just as its a reason for
creation of the family or community), and 'how we think we think' is
highly conditioned by the *institutionalized* structures which separate
data/ inputs from decision/ outputs.
In information-space, such structures are absent...
</excerpt>
[forgive my lack of knowledge: I assume that IPL means "in a perfect life"?]
Again, Miller:
"..people who seem to be in conflict with one another are really in
agreement about essentials, of only they knew it. The disagreements might
be represented as a series of mistakes, or superficial differences below
which one could discern findamental agreement. This, it seems to me, is
quite untrue: what we have to contend with in politics is a variety of
perpetual disagreements which arise from fundamental differences of
condition, status, power, opinion, and aim." [p.17]
Making the oppressed change their mindset (which, I guess was the gist of
the Friere quote you supplied, Kerry) is done in relative terms, is it
not? Thus, making individuals change their mindset about their lives is
again, a modernist pursuit? It's linear, and progressivist, isn't it? The
same applies to our breadboarding, our communication, our usage of the
Internet to form these communities.
Is global communication about mistakes? Will the right answer (sN?) merely
reveal itself? Who agrees? If not, who cares? That's a utilitarian
approach, which declared that war was about misunderstandings. In reality,
it's not is it? Just because I can talk to you doesn't mean that we won't
disagree - and in some cases, between certain people over certain issues,
violently, unfortunately. This is politics, and this is reality.
Variances in truth [thanks Greg, for bringing that up]. What's right for
you is right for me? What's real for you is real for me? And this is why I
hate the distinction between "real life" and cyberspace, because it's the
same situation through the telephone line, and over the airwaves.
This is the problem with self-governance, imho. It appears that
self-governance assumes there is an sN to agree with, and I don't think
that's necessarily the case. If self-governance didn't have an sN
(=objective reality) then it can't function, can it? There would be as
many sNs as there would be netizens!
Thus, politics is central to the debate over the future of the Internet,
as it is a *political* discussion! And not merely one of "this is right,
and you are wrong", and this is where the case of the governance *of* the
Internet needs discussion. Ronda's letter to the Berkman centre,
therefore, should take into account the following.
The Internet has become something different to what its original sponsors
and creators imagined. Its users (and uses) are much more divergent (even
now) than when the Internet was being created. Commercial interests
cannot be removed from the equation (Internet + funding = better
Internet), since individual governments are unwilling to foot the bill for
the maintenance and development of the vital functions of the Global
Internet. I think that the USG was right to decide to farm out these
responsibilities. Perhaps what is needed is a truly global organisation to
deal with this. The USG cannot deal with this alone (look at how it is
being criticised as the world's policeman), not something so crucial..
And look at the W3C. And the other Internet standards orgs. Don't they
all have commercial membership (in some way or another)?
In my posting, I have tried to make it clear that "representation" (per
se) is the only way forward. The Internet has evolved. It is modernism
realised.
A very interesting book I have started reading [J. Macgregor Wise,
{iExploring Technology and Social Space} (London: Sage Publications,
1997)] helps me in this discussion.. I'll get back to you with more if
you're interested into how Wise deals with developments in human social
space and actor-network theory (I thought of you Kerry, whilst reading
those sections).
To finish this rather large, wandering posting [apologies to those still
there], I'd like to conclude with a final point. Maybe, we're approaching
the same issues with different epistemes. Maybe this reveals that we're
discussing the same subject from different methodological/ontological
backgrounds - mine being the modernist approach.. I see the Internet as
firmly rooted in contemporary society (its development and politics reveal
this) BUT I see that it has potential to aid individuals in engaging in
the sort of acts that Richard mentions, but then, in a sense, so does Al
Gore, and Martin Bangemann AND Esther Dyson et al.
bye for now,
- --Jamal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:08:47 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] (Fwd) Test for Internet Free Speech
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
/** headlines: 114.0 **/
/* Written 3:56 PM Jan 5, 1999 by labornews@igc.org in labr.newsline */
/* ---------- "Intel's War On Ken Hamidi" ---------- */
"The price of justice is eternal publicity." Arnold Bennett
Battle of Intel and Ken Hamidi over freedom of speech on
Internet.
"David and Goliath"
On November 24, 1998 Judge John R. Lewis of the
Superior Court of California for the County of
Sacramento granted the wish of Intel
corporation by placing a preliminary injunction
on Ken Hamidi. Judge Lewis decreed an
injunction which favors Intel's monopolizing
communication on Internet but deprives Ken
Hamidi of his Freedom of Speech on Internet.
While Intel is sending and receiving hundreds
of thousands of e-mails through Internet, Judge
Lewis has ordered Hamidi not to send even one
e-mail via Internet to Intel employees until
final judgment after trial
Intel complains that Ken Hamidi trespassed on
their proprietary computer system by sending
e-mails to its employees
Hamidi argues that Intel's complaint is
baseless and misleading. He explains that his
e-mail messages were not sent to Intel
employees directly, but rather through the
public medium called Internet. The key is that
Internet is the "interface." Internet is
indisputably a public domain.
Hamidi adds that Intel freely has opened their
entire computer network to millions of
internationally-networked computers when they
decided to be on the public domain of
Internet.
"If Intel stayed within their proprietary
computer system which is called Intranet,
would never receive my e-mail messages," says
Hamidi. Therefore, as long as Intel is on
this public domain of Internet, they are a [
NETCITZEN (a citizen on Internet) like any of
the other millions of worldwide NETCITZENS who
equally enjoy and utilize the privileges,
rights, and powers of mass communication
capability enjoyed through this technological
marvel of our time.
Intel is taking full advantage of Internet's
massive instantaneous communication power by
exchanging enormous numbers of e-mail messages
daily. But, according to Hamidi, "Intel does
not like the content of my messages, so they
decided to manipulate the government to deprive
me of my constitutional rights."
This is an obvious move by Intel to monopolize
the communication capabilities of Internet.
If Intel wins this case, every American will
lose their Freedom of Speech on Internet. This
action will alter the purpose of Internet and
what it was meant for will be redefined by
Intel.
This is the first free speech,
precedent-setting case in the history of
Internet. Ken Hamidi states, "I am a simple
citizen with a pioneer's passion for freedom.
As an American citizen, I am determined to make
further sacrifice at any cost to protect and
preserve my Freedom of Speech in this new,
developing frontier, Internet!"
Ken Hamidi will prevail in the battle with
Intel over the exercise of Freedom of Speech on
Internet. Then Intel's most feared nightmare
will come true a mass free-flow of information
on Internet, which will eradicate Intel's
present isolated, fascistic, dictatorial, mind
controlling, and psychological manipulative
system.
It is apparent that Intel is extremely unhappy
about the gigantic raw mass communication power
that Internet puts at the disposal of a common
man like Ken Hamidi. That is why they are
trying to forcefully intercept and monopolize
the natural progress of the evolution of mass
and instantaneous information communication on
Internet.
Intel's absurd move in the wrong direction is
useless. Intel will eventually learn to adapt
to work with a more informed, sophisticated,
and free work force rather than its present
uninformed, nave, and submissive workers.
Intel's current abusive, exploitative, and
predatory human relations policies and
practices, which are based on a win-lose
philosophy, will be substituted with one that
is more humane and employee-oriented.
Employment policies should be based on a
win-win philosophy. Then and only then will
Intel employees be happy and productive. As a
result, Intel will be more prosperous and its
shareholders will benefit.
www.igc.apc.org/faceintel./
** End of text from cdp:headlines **
***************
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #245
******************************
