Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 249
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, January 13 1999 Volume 01 : Number 249
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Protest to NIST
[netz] Do we have an archive?
[netz] Internet Society
Re: [netz] Internet Society
Re: [netz] Internet Society
Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Re: [netz] Internet Society
Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:56:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Protest to NIST
> To: teresa.reefe@nist.gov
> Subject: Protest any contract with ICANN
Dear Ms. Reefe,
The DoC signed a Memorandum of Agreement establishing a 50/50 partnership with
ICANN to design and test a role for ICANN in Internet management. There is
no authority in that MoU for ICANN to enter into operative or managerial or
supervisory or oversight or any other relationship with eg NIST or IANA. No
design plan has been made so their can not be any testing. There is a failure
here of the proper role of the DoC but it is also the obligation of the NIST
not to enter into unautherized relations with private entities. I protest such
happening, not only that ICANN was considered without further bidding but
also that ICANN was considered at all.
Please keep the press and me informed if that is possible.
Please consider this a protest of NIST action.
Thank you.
Jay Hauben
- --MAA01169.916249901/amanda.dorsai.org--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:30:44 -0800
From: "richard bohn" <richard-bohn@email.msn.com>
Subject: [netz] Do we have an archive?
Jamal, I have missed your voice. Did you ever find out how many people are
on this list, and could you or anyone else tell me a little history of this
list, who began it, and perhaps the motivation behind it ? Richard
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:34:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Internet Society
I was wondering if any of you are members of the Internet Society, or
are thinking of joining.
They recently opened up their members-only mailing list for public access.
It uses a lyris-style interface (similar to the old ifwp web interface).
Some of the discussions there have touched on Internet governance, including
the DNS.
More info at http://www.isoc.org.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:32:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Society
Greg,
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
> I was wondering if any of you are members of the Internet Society, or
> are thinking of joining.
Thanks for the reminder. I considered joining a while back, but never
did. One thing puzzles me..
<I quote from the url: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/whyjoin/>
Membership in the Internet Society helps assure support for the efforts
cited above and will enable us to take additional steps to see that the
phenomenon of the Internet, and the resultant opportunities, will neither
be co-opted nor fragmented. Along with organizations and individuals in
more than 150 countries around the globe, you will be a part of the ever
growing and important movement towards true global connectivity and
meaningful understanding.
</quote>
?? Isn't this *precisely* what we've been discussing [Ronda?]. And, if we,
as netizens, share the same aims, then "what happened?" Why did ISOC support
the creation of ICANN? If (big IF, I guess) we do have the same aims in
mind, then surely membership of ISOC is advisable, since the USG [which,
as discussed in sN-1 (thanks Kerry!, and Carsten) is the main arbiter/
actor in the current discussion] seems to take into account ISOC's
opinion?
To suggest an answer to my question "what happened?"
Perhaps it's because the *only* way forward. A minority of commercial
interests controlling the Internet is not in anyone's interest, imo,
unless you're one of those commercial interests. ICANN/ ISOC/ all Internet
organisations are stuck in a difficult situation, states don't want to
know [legal/ regulatory issues are unestablishable worldwide] - a minority
of commercial interests do want to know, and the individual is stuck
somewhere inbetween.
As Kerry has highlighted to me/ us, the potential that the Internet gives
us for global communication does not fit in with contemporary ways of
thinking about governance. But the Internet is entwined in these _modern_
institutions. ICANN can't change this, so it's trying to do the best for
the potential "gateway" to new models of communication and governance
that the Internet promises. [I'm sure Ronda has something to say to this!]
It's up to us, as the users to change it, and so perhaps the first move
is to ensure that access becomes universal, in order to aid this shift in
governance. [another q!] To be fair, I think this is where states are
playing a crucial role (at least in Europe and the US [Canada?]). And I
suppose the reason doesn't matter. They're in it to ensure that their
companies are not starved of computer literates and therefore incapable
of dealing with the commercial use of the Internet - information economy
being their driving motive, not information utility. Although I don't
think that the two are necessarily incompatible.
I'll use this posting to say thanks to Kerry as well, for helping me out
with the queries I had before. I don't think I'm done yet, but I
appreciate you taking time out to explain that stuff to me. I hope others
found it as useful as I did.
- --Jamal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:37:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Society
Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> wrote:
>?? Isn't this *precisely* what we've been discussing [Ronda?]. And,
>if we, as netizens, share the same aims, then "what happened?" Why
>did ISOC support the creation of ICANN?
ISOC supported the gTLD-MoU, which was scrapped in favor of the Green
and White Papers, which eventually led to the formation of ICANN. You
can read more about how it all came to pass at
http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/dnsdraft.html.
Some members of ISOC's board are also on ICANN's board. Dave Farber
is also on ISOC's board. (Draw your own conclusions.)
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:51:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Carsten and Ronda,
On 13 Jan 1999, Carsten Laekamp wrote:
> Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> writes:
> > Not at all - the design of the Intenet was to provide for diversituy.
> As Jamal said, things have changed since the beginnings. It is
> impossible, today, to remove commercial interests from the 'Net. This
> would mean political suicide for anyone who'd take that decision. (and
> don't forget that ISPs are businesses too).
I agree, Carsten. But this brings up the question that Ronda's been
posing, in a way: are we consumers or citizens on the Internet (let's
make it broader: in the Information Society)?
I think this is a valid question that needs much discussion, and can't
simply be argued for or against. To state that we are citizens in the
Information Society (InfoSoc), is to require a new method of governance.
One that might adhere to classical interpretations of liberalism, but
doesn't fit IPL. To say that we are consumers is to nullify the potential
of the InfoSoc.
Paradox?
[Carsten wrote:]
> But the question is: why would we, the people (not only the users
> of the Internet !), pay through our taxes for businesses being able to
> make money through the 'Net ?
> As I said above, it would be impossible to go back to a basically
> academic network today. Therefore, it is only logical to include
> businesses in the financing sooner or later.
Yes! Absolutely? And this provides the central issue of the future of the
Internet. As I said before, the Internet is what the global market has
been longing for!
> The very best we can expect is a compromise in which commercial
> interests don't get too much influence.
ICANN, anyone? Sure, get involved in this! The Berkman study is thus
crucial, and so is related research. How do we create the compromise.
Accept that this is the situation, and respond to it Fabius Maximus-like.
> > No financing is *not* essential to the Internet. Users are essentail,
> > component networks are essentail, etc.
> >
>
> Until someone invents ESPnet, the Internet will need hardware for
> linking those users together and, whether you like it or not, this IS
> very expensive. The Internet could exist without users, although it
> would be pointless, but NOT without money.
Depends how you view the Internet. I think it's both the sum of its parts
AND more than the sum of its parts. It's both a communications network,
and a collection of networks. (As are most things in life, no? Actual and
perceived?) It certainly has an idea behind it (global comm), but it is
also the product of its history - it was funded by the military, even if
they weren't funding a framework for global comm. It's just that now, the
development seems to have a purpose which negates its potential.
> > That was what my proposal made possible. The ICANN is the opposite.
My reading of ICANN is different, esp. with the Berkman study in mind. I
see it as _trying_ to sort out these issues in the best way possible.
Note that I support Ronda, however, in her questioning the purpose of the
Berkman study. And I'm amazed that she's not being heard. I'd have to look
into more, I think, and see what's actually happening.
> > So are you both agreeing that the minimal few commercial interests from
> > wherever in the world they spring should get control of the essential
> > functions of the Internet?
>
> ????
> Either you or I seem to have misunderstood Jamal... I'm confused.
>
> And the answer to your question is "no", as far as I'm concerned.
I concur, Carsten. I sincerely hope that wasn't what appeared as the
conclusion of my posting.. I was merely trying to tell Kerry that I
thought we had been talking on different levels, which led to my lack of
understanding.
- --Jamal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:49:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Society
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Wed Jan 13 17:09:13 1999
Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (cu9478@mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id RAA11000
for <ronda@panix.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:09:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22698
for netizens-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:32:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhub4.hull.ac.uk (lehar.ucc.hull.ac.uk [150.237.196.3])
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22665
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:32:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from humus1.ucc.hull.ac.uk by lehar.ucc.hull.ac.uk with ESMTP;
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:32:52 +0000
Received: from [150.237.208.8] (helo=humus1.ucc.hull.ac.uk) by humus1.ucc.hull.ac.uk
with smtp (Exim 2.04 #1) id 100XuF-0001aI-00 for netizens@columbia.edu;
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:32:51 +0000
Received: from lcsjbs by humus1.ucc.hull.ac.uk
with local (Exim 1.60 #1) id 100XuD-00061q-00;
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:32:49 +0000
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:32:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
X-Sender: lcsjbs@humus.ucc.hull.ac.uk
To: netizens@columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet Society
In-Reply-To: <199901131934.LAA29663@shell5.ba.best.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.990113210528.21661B-100000@humus.ucc.hull.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Status: R
Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> wrote:
>Greg,
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
>> I was wondering if any of you are members of the Internet Society, or
>> are thinking of joining.
Greg - somehow the Internet society has become the commercial Internet
society. It's corporate sponsors seem to dominate rather than the membership
having a chance to influence what happens.
I went to a talk by someone from ISOC on Monday night and he said the
membership agrees to them mission but has no influence on what happens
in the society. And that this is under contention from French ISOC at
least.
>Thanks for the reminder. I considered joining a while back, but never
>did. One thing puzzles me..
Michael was a member early on when it first started and it was just
a formality of paying dues to have someone else make the decisions.
And Rutkowski asked me for an article about Usenet in the early days
of ISOC - I gave him one, and he told me it would be in their journal,
and then he later told me the board of directors wouldn't let the article
be in and instead there was an article about uunet.
Also some of the original permanent members left early on - there was
some dispute - someone said it was over who would have influence in
the society, whether the corporate sponsors would be most influential
or the membership and the membership lost out to the corporate folks.
I have submitted proposals for papers several years in a row to be
taken on a merry go round - ISOC very much needs to have a broader
social focus, and instead the corporate commercial view of the Internet
dominates most of what they do.
I later also found that one person had three papers, all sort of irrelevant,
but somehow there was encouragement for what she was doing as it fit
into the corporate commercial model for the future of the net.
><I quote from the url: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/whyjoin/>
>Membership in the Internet Society helps assure support for the efforts
>cited above and will enable us to take additional steps to see that the
>phenomenon of the Internet, and the resultant opportunities, will neither
>be co-opted nor fragmented. Along with organizations and individuals in
>more than 150 countries around the globe, you will be a part of the ever
>growing and important movement towards true global connectivity and
>meaningful understanding.
membership assurs support for the commercial folk who are dominating to
continue.
there is no way that members get to have a say in what the Internet society does.
</quote>
>?? Isn't this *precisely* what we've been discussing [Ronda?]. And, if we,
>as netizens, share the same aims, then "what happened?" Why did ISOC support
>the creation of ICANN? If (big IF, I guess) we do have the same aims in
>mind, then surely membership of ISOC is advisable, since the USG [which,
>as discussed in sN-1 (thanks Kerry!, and Carsten) is the main arbiter/
>actor in the current discussion] seems to take into account ISOC's
>opinion?
It seems once again there is no one overseeing what the few who run
ISOC do. That some of them are even the same advisors to the U.S. govt
who were the on the advisory board over IANA like Dave Farber and the
CEO of ICANN Mike Roberts. It's a small set of people making very
important decisions with no way that those who will be hurt by the
decisions can have any say in what is going on.
Also Vint Cerf is anohter person on the IANA advisory board and active
in ISOC who basically is there to promote MCI interests.
>To suggest an answer to my question "what happened?"
>Perhaps it's because the *only* way forward. A minority of commercial
>interests controlling the Internet is not in anyone's interest, imo,
>unless you're one of those commercial interests. ICANN/ ISOC/ all Internet
>organisations are stuck in a difficult situation, states don't want to
>know [legal/ regulatory issues are unestablishable worldwide] - a minority
>of commercial interests do want to know, and the individual is stuck
>somewhere inbetween.
Yupe somewhere we have to open up the process.
How and where is the challenge.
>As Kerry has highlighted to me/ us, the potential that the Internet gives
>us for global communication does not fit in with contemporary ways of
>thinking about governance. But the Internet is entwined in these _modern_
>institutions. ICANN can't change this, so it's trying to do the best for
If it started honestly acknowledging the realities it could help -
but instead it only is part of the cover of what is going on behind
the scenes.
>the potential "gateway" to new models of communication and governance
>that the Internet promises. [I'm sure Ronda has something to say to this!]
And that the Internet makes possible and that have built the Internet :-)
>
>It's up to us, as the users to change it, and so perhaps the first move
>is to ensure that access becomes universal, in order to aid this shift in
>governance. [another q!] To be fair, I think this is where states are
>playing a crucial role (at least in Europe and the US [Canada?]). And I
>suppose the reason doesn't matter. They're in it to ensure that their
>companies are not starved of computer literates and therefore incapable
>of dealing with the commercial use of the Internet - information economy
>being their driving motive, not information utility. Although I don't
>think that the two are necessarily incompatible.
But in the U.S. we found that the privatization of the NSF backbone to
the Internet put off making access universal as it increased costs,
and introduced and encouraged the support for the commercial one way pipe
activity not for the communication which is the attraction for people
to get online.
But we should talk about what is the first step to deal with the problems
of what is happening.
I guess I feel it is to understand the nature of the Internet and how
it is based on the autonomy of the networks that connect to the Internet
and the autonomy of the Users. And that commercializing and privatizing
is hostile to and out to change that first principle.
>I'll use this posting to say thanks to Kerry as well, for helping me out
>with the queries I had before. I don't think I'm done yet, but I
>appreciate you taking time out to explain that stuff to me. I hope others
>found it as useful as I did.
My mailbox is swamped from the IFWP stuff and I am not sure how to deal
with it at this point, but there was an earlier post from Jamal aobut
the list of topics to deal with about the Internet that I hope to get
back to when I have the chance.
> --Jamal
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:08:02 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> writes:
Jamal,
> Okay, I think I might have been a bit misleading here, thanks for
> highlighting this.. I see the state as the institution most able to reach
> decisions in the international arena, at present. The state allows for
> diversity outside its borders through the concept of sovereignty. This
> concept means that although various states can be criticised for abuses
> of human rights (for example), nothing can be done *in the majority of
> cases*. World politics is changing, but the state is still dominant. And
> whilst the Internet is seen to be a global phenomenon, laws are still
> territorially applied, with all the problems that this brings.
OK, I see your point now. But I don't see where the (a) state comes in
/naturally/ as arbiter, although the USG certainly has de facto played
that part until now. This would clearly go against the concept of
sovereignty. And some laws are in fact NOT applied on the Internet
because they are technically not enforceable.
> What is an "Internet state"?
Well, this would have been MY next question :-)
I think I got a bit confused by the talk about self-government &c. and
I took it to be an image rather than an actual state. But,
nonetheless, the phrase sounds appealing, doesn't it ? Maybe we could
work out a concept for it ;-)
> > > Perhaps what is needed is a truly global organisation to
> > > deal with this.
> >
> > Very much so.
>
> Glad to hear that you agree. Next step: what and how?
Good question. Too bad I haven't got an answer. But it would certainly
make a nice subject for the group. Anyway, we'll need good lobbyists
in Brussels and Washington...
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #249
******************************
