Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 255
Netizens-Digest Monday, January 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 255
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] introduction
[netz] FYI: web participation workshop
[netz] Internet in Africa: What role for Governments?
[netz] Re: [Membership] How Will ICANN Assure an International Membership? (Re: Re:Upcoming events)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:33:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] introduction
John Horvath <h8801joh@ella.hu> wrote:
Welcome to the Netizens mailing list John.
>I have recently subscribed myself to the list. My name is John Horvath
>and I'm a writer based in Hungary. I am a correspondent for Teleopolis
><http://www.heise.de/tp> and a contributing writer to Toward Freedom
><http://www.towardfreedom.com>. My main area of interest is social
>change, especially the changes going on in Central and Eastern Europe.
I was online when your introduction arrived on the Netizens list
and its a treat to read it.
The battle we are fighting here on the Internet now is similar in
some ways to the battle going on in Eastern Europe. And some
of the same cast of characters. I just looked at the report you
did for Telepolis for the Internet and Politics Conference in 1997.
I only briefly skimmed what you wrote and want to print out the
report and read it more fully, but the report about Esther Dyson
at the conference and the article you mention that she wrote in
the Washington Post are the same kind of problems we in the U.S.
and on the Internet in general are facing with her taking over
as Chairman of the Interim Board of Directors of ICANN, which
is the U.S. governments effort to create a private corporate
entity that they control to control the Internet.
(I realize what I wrote above a private corporation that
a government controls may seem like a contradiction in terms
which I'll explain in subsequent postings to the Netizens list)
I just wanted to note that some of the writing I noticed you
have done is taking on some of the same problems we on the list,
who are from several different countries, are trying to figure
out as well.
>This also includes the advent of the new media, not just from a regional
>perspective, but from a global one as well. While I see that computers
>and computer-mediated communications hold many potentials, these
>potentials are not guarantee and can even be used in adverse ways. Thus,
>there's a need for in-depth net critique alongside the exploration of
>how new media technologies may enhance social values -- both online and
>offline.
Skepticism and critique is important, but also what I have found is
that without the Internet one has very little way to deal with
the large corporate entities and government who think they can
do what they wish without respect to any laws in this 20th U.S.
society.
The communication that the Internet makes possible among people
is under attack by folks like Dyson and ICANN and the U.S. government
who want to convert the Internet into a place for buying and
selling, and for safe "transactions".
So the critique you propose and that I agree is crucial, needs
to be very carefully not to equate what Dyson or others say
with the reality of the Internet. There is actual research
needed about the Internet and its importance, and I hope you
will look at some of the work I have done to begin to contribute
to that research.
Some of the papers I have recently worked on are at
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/
The most recent internet.txt discusses the development
of the Internet and its scientific origins and what is needed
to scale it, versus what the U.S. govt is doing in creating
ICANN.
There are other papers there which I think you will find of
interest when you have time. One is on the early days of
Usenet and of how early ARPANET mailing lists and Usenet
created the "Broadsides of Our Times" in reference to
the important role that Broadsides played in the early
U.S. revolutionary period.
There's another paper there about the importance of
the communication that the Internet makes possible,
which is the paper on MsgGroup mailing list.
I welcome any comments you have on any of these papers, especially
the latest, and feel free to post the comments to the mailing
list as they should provide helpful food for thought and discussion
on this list as well.
>I see this list as one means by which I can obtain further knowledge
>into these issues, as well as a forum by which I can offer insight and
>advance new theories into the ever-expanding social aspect of the
>Internet. Please don't hesitate to visit my website
><http://www.metpress.hu/~jhorv> if you would like more information into
>my interests and some of the work I have already done in the field of
>socio-technological change.
Nice - I will try to look more at your site as soon as I get the
chance. The issue of socio-technological is very important
and the social aspect of the Internet is crucial to study and
understand.
I have found that it is important to try to understand the important
advance for communication among people that is happening online
and the potential of what the Internet makes possible, as well
as the problems of what is impeding the potential.
For example in the recent battle over the U.S. government's actions
with regard to trying to privatize key controlling functions of
the Internet, I was able to communicate with U.S. Congressional
staffers via email for a short period of time and also to send
testimony to Congress via email. Both of these are generally
not possible via email or otherwise for the average citizen
in the U.S. even though those from big corporations probably
have such access with no trouble.
But to remove constraints for a citizen to be able to communicate
with some aspect of government is a big event in the U.S.
So though this doesn't seem to be something even I have access to
any longer, the potential this represents is quite important
for the future of democracy not only in the U.S. but in general.
Also this was a dream of the Usenet pioneers as I note in my
Usenet paper - that not only the wealthy and powerful, but
everyone would be able to lobby Congress via the online connections
made possible via the Net.
So for me it is not a question of "voting" online as some of the
pie in the sky when you die promisers of "online democracy" claim
is the advance. To vote when there is *no one* worth voting
for as the choices in the U.S. represent, is nothing.
It is the ability to contribute to the issues being raised
and how they are determined that is what is crucial to me
with regard to the needed change in the way political power is
exercised.
And I see important potential with regard to the Internet with
respect to that, as well as real obstacles to the changes
that have to be surmounted.
It is interesting that the Harvard Berkman Institute is now
conducting serious discussions about how to "vote" for "membership"
in the fraudulent new "ICANN" organization that the U.S. government
is creating. None of the real issues of how to have people online
have increased say in what is happening with regard to what the
U.S. government is mandating to happen, is being discussed.
Instead there is a cherade of how a the Internet should be
"governed" by this U.S. created and run private corporation
staffed by people "voted for" by some form of "membership" that
has come from the Internet.
That is the very opposite of not only the grassroots process that
has given birth to and helped to build the Internet, but also
to the kind of grassroots democracy that is needed to continue
to make it possible for the Internet to grow and flourish.
But Esther Dyson as chairman of the Interim Board of Directors
of ICANN is at the head of this cherade that is actually being
carried out at the present moment.
>I am looking forward to participating in the discussions taking place.
Thanks for raising these important issues.
I was just this morning thinking of what is the new and important
development about the Internet that the ICANN battles are trying to
cloud over. And it does seem that ability to discuss what government
is doing versus what we need at the grassroots level -- that
this is an important new development that the Internet makes possible.
Can we effectively utilize it to help to beat back the attacks on
the development of the Internet and on the development of the grassroots
changes we need to be able to not have such painful and difficult lives.
>Regards,
>John Horvath
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
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: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 18:24:35 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] FYI: web participation workshop
FYI to Netizens not on "membership" list
==============================================
Here's some more information about the Berkman Center membership
workshop
next Saturday, January 23, Ames Courtroom, Harvard Law School,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts, from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
The workshop is open to the public, and we are working on web
participation
alternatives. Please sign up for physical or virtual participation at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/sign-up.html
- --
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
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:31:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Internet in Africa: What role for Governments?
>From Dec 15 to Dec 17, 1998 there was an African Regional Conference on
Internet Governance held in Cotonou, Benin. Documents from that conference
are online at http://afridev.net/aig/ . (I can send some to you via email
if you can not in any other way see them.) In particular, a proposal to
establish an African Regional Network Information Center (AfriNIC) was
adopted (see http://afridev.net/aig/afrinic_proposal.htm ) on Dec 17.
Following are some comments I sent to a friend concerning the AfriNIC.
>From my point of view it was good that the proposal for the
AfriNIC spoke of the AfriNIC working "in the public trust" in its
stewardship of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as a "limited
public resource". Supporters of the effort to create the ICANN
and representatives of ISOC often distort the public nature of
most aspects of the Internet saying that the Internet is all
private. This week I heard an ISOC officer and Board of Trustees
member speak in New York City about the Cotonou Conference. I
pointed out in the question period the importance to me of AfriNIC
protecting the public nature of the crucial functions of the Internet
like the IP number allocation. He answered that I should not read too
much into the words in the documents of the AfriNIC. I responded that
rural and poor people would be left out of the Internet
revolution unless governments participate in the spread of the
Internet to these people, that people without much or any money
can not be customers on a private Internet. He did not respond
except to say that he has been hearing this more and more around
the world. For example people in Caracas Venezuela said it was
too expensive to join the Internet Society for most people and
therefore there was something wrong.
One problem for the AfriNIC I thought was the question of
funding. It appears that the funding will be by fees from the
ISPs and ultimately the users on the ARIN model in North America.
Such a funding mechanism means IP numbers will go to those that
can afford to pay the fees. In North America that is making IP
numbers very lucative. I know of one person who has an IP number
for his home computer so he can run a public webserver. In
addition to his line costs and charges by his ISP, he has to pay
$10 US a month just to use his IP number ($120 US/year). Multiply
$120 times the perhaps 15 million IP addresses in the US giving
$1.8 billion US indicates the amount of wealth that can be potentially
generated from IP address fees and this is without most people in the US
having access. Since providing access only to those who can afford high
fees can be so profitable, my understanding is that unless governments
are engaged in the problem of making access to the Internet a social
goal, access will be a privilege of the few that will increase rather
than diminish the gap between the rich and the poor. What spread the
Internet in the US was government oversight, funding and protection from
commercialization at least up until 1994. That is the important history
that is told in the book Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben
wrote "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the
Internet". You can see the draft of the book that is online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/. The AfriNIC has the challenge to come
to grips with how to fulfill its acknowledged public obligations. I think
that comes down to coming to understand the proper role for governments and
international public organizations in the present and future growth and
administration of the Internet.
I welcome comments and opinions from people who were at the Cotonou
Conference or others who want to comment on the Internet in Africa
or on the question of the role of governments in the growth and spread
of the Internet.
I will try to put any comments I receive in an article in a future issue
of the Amateur Computerist.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:45:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [Membership] How Will ICANN Assure an International Membership? (Re: Re:Upcoming events)
From: Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>
>In respect of Ms Hauben's points below, isn't there a
>Governmental Advisory Committee amongst the committees proposed to
>ICANN? Has this been cancelled?
But to only have it as an advisory committee, even if it did ever
get constituted and met, is to play games with the issue of
governments obligations with respect of forming or being
part of an International organization.
The U.S. government has internally created all sorts of ways of
trying to give power to powerful commercial entities, and yet
despite the legal maneuvers they do the government is still
responsible for the functions that government is responsible for.
However, if one tries to figure out who has liablity, one gets into
this tangle that just makes it hard to hold the proper party, i.e.
the U.S. government, responsible.
>Many international organizations are constituted by treaty, or under
>international treaties and are maintained at the expense by those (theore=
>tically representative) governments who sign the treaties. So it
>would seem logical that if ICANN has the burdensome international
>task of sorting out international problems on behalf of governments
>or quasi-governmental bodies, the governments should contribute or
>think about contributing towards ICANN's upkeep.
Yes international organizations are created by agreements of nations
(i.e. international ) and includes government official participation.
What the U.S. government is doing is *not* creating any "international"
organization, but rather an organization that hides its own role
and its own liabilities.
In the U.S. this happens at times when government entities try to
bring private entities into the process of carrying out what are
government functions, and in the process the private entities are
only involved in what the government is doing, rather than the
government ceasing to have its obligations.
But it becomes a legal tangle for anyone trying to deal with the
ways that others rights are infringed in this kind of situation.
If there are those who want an international organization, then
appropriate measures have to be taken to form such, rather
than allow the U.S. government to maneuver in a way that trieds
to avoid responsibility for its actions, but allows it to hold
the power behind the scenes.
ICANN is *not* in any way an International but something created
by the U.S. government tr enpower those obligations that the U.S.
government currently holds.
But the U.S. government, despite its disclaimers will maintain both
control and ultimately liability for whatever mess it is planning.
However this is a harmful way to be dealing with the essential functions
of the Internet which so many people around the world are dependent
upon.
>they should do it themselves. Only the USG government, for
>obvious historical reasons, seems to have to have thought about or
>done this.
The U.S. government has failed to have given the proper study or
thought to what it is doing.
It is so busy trying to gain a commercial advantage for a few
big corporations that it doesn't support the kind of research and
study needed to figure out what is a proper way to carry out
the changes needed to scale the Internet.
This is a serious question that needed to be studied and clarified,
and with an effort made to proceed a bit at a time to see if the
sense of how to solve the problem was appropriate. This is a process
for research and development *not* for a grand experiment based on
political power plays.
>Blaming the US government for acting in the short-term commercial
>interest of its citizens is a little contrarian.
To the contrary, the short-term commercial interest is *not* anything
that benefits the citizens of the U.S. To the contrary it is harmful to
us. It only benefits a few big corporate entities, and not only harms
the citizens in the U.S. but also people around the world.
Many people in the U.S .and around the world depend on the Internet
for vital communication that makes their lives possible. The U.S.
government and a few commercial folks have no concern for protecting
or respecting the Internet (at least the section of the U.S. government
carrying out this plan.)
>If, however, the US government was aiming at creating an
>institution which aided free commerce of ideas, products and
>services, allowing citizens of many countries to communicate,
>converse and exchange without petty and dictatorial regulation
>by local bureaucracies, then that is of course highly political.
>Many worldwide would wish for this dangerously libertarian myth
>to be suppressed immediately.
The U.S. government is *not* aiming at such. If they were they wouldn't
be playing the games they are with the Internet. They would find a
way to protect the essential functions of the Internet *not* expose
them to political power plays.
The U.S. government has been holding IANA and the people who
work of it hostage, rather than protecting them. They have kept
them from having the appropriate contract to do their work, and instead
subjected them to being taken over by ICANN. They are meddlng
in a similar with other essential Internet functions.
The myth you put forward above is only a way of covering the U.S.
government manipulations to benefit a small set of U.S. corporate
interests.
But the Internet and the communication it makes possible is at
stake and thus those who care for it need to recognize that mythology
or fairy tales do not substitute for responsiblity and the care
that the Internet requires.
>MM
> > >Esther Dyson a =E9crit:
> > >>
> > >> We have an international board, we will have an
> > >> international membership,
> > >> and we are an international organization.
>
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #255
******************************
