Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 285
Netizens-Digest Friday, March 12 1999 Volume 01 : Number 285
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] ICANN breaking what is not broken
[netz] Letter to Elliot Maxwell on DNS problem
[netz] Re: FYI: Consumers Union...
[netz] Fe fi fo fum: ISPs, DNS registrants suffer...
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: (!) Vint Cerf designing network for solar system (!)
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Effective meetings, past and future
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:05:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] ICANN breaking what is not broken
>Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@linux.lisse.NA> wrote:
>Antony, Karl,
>In message <001201be6b07$fcfdff00$85f526cf@AVCLaptop.interport.net>,
> "Antony Van Couvering" writes:
>> Karl Auerbach wrote,
> >
> >> There is no meaningful opposite to a registry constituency.
>> >
>> >Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
>> >They are in direct opposition.
>The .NA ccTLD registry DOES provide a community service and free of
>charge at that. MANY (emerging, developing) registries are
>similar. Some of us do NOT want to make money of this.
Isn't the effort to have the big boys come in and change this?
To have the efforts that people make to spread the Internet and
to make it available to all to spread the online communication
it makes possible replaced by those who will try to make their
bucks from the Internet and will be as happy to limit the
communication to the high end users who have the bucks to pay.
To transform the Internet into the kind of high end, users stay
away paradigm that the mainframe computers using batch processing
represented -- which was the commercial vision for the future of
the computer. Isn't ICANN the effort to take us back in time
and in computer science achievements to the commercial control
all and keep the people from participating mode?
.
>> I wonder how we got to this class-warfare pass. RFC 1591 puts the
>> function of the registry as being one of "service to the community",
>> which is correct. People have poo-pooed my espousal of RFC 1591 in
>>> this regard as being motherhood and apple pie, of course no-one
>> disagrees with those fine-sounding words, but in fact the whole
>> project of identification of constituencies has turned everything
>> into a big rights game.
>What I can't understand is that after 30 years of computer science and
>the rule "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" why we MUST now fix a DNS
>that is not broken.
Isn't ICANN the effort to break what ain't broken :-(
>Of course, I do understand it: selling domains is a licence to print
>money.
>Obscene amounts in relation to the work performed, or rather work not
>performed.
>And my pet parasites, the Registrars...
Clearly the Internet has its enemies and they are being gathered
by this whole ICANN process to prey upon the folks who have
found the Internet to be something important and who want it
to spread and develop.
But isn't any good development attacked viciously, and wouldn't
the enemies of the new want to call themselves "ICANN"? So there
is no real surprise here, but that doesn't change the crime
that the development of ICANN in opposition to the scaling and
further healthy development of the Internet represents.
When I spoke with Ira Magaziner last summer he assured me that
the desire of the U.S. government was *not* to end the communication
that the Internet makes possible. But the deeds that have developed
show that the U.S. government is making *no* effort to support
the communication made possible by the Internet, and instead is
content to wreck the Internet rather than stop the crime
that ICANN is perpetuating.
>el
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: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:19:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Letter to Elliot Maxwell on DNS problem
I sent the following letter to Elliot Maxwell of the NTIA
about the problem with the controlling points of the
Internet (IP numbers, domain name system, root server system,
protocols, and port numbers, etc.) being transferred into the hands
of a private entity (ICANN) by the U.S. government and an entity
that has no understanding of the technical and scientific
issues of Internet operation and scaling.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Elliot Maxwell
Last summer Ira Magaziner spoke with me regarding the
problems I saw with the IFWP process and the need to
have a way to protect the controlling functions of the
Internet that IANA was in charge of and to make it possible
for them to scale. He asked me to submit a proposal or
operational way of putting into practice what I was saying
in my conversations with him. Subsequently in late August
I submitted a proposal for a prototype to begin the
process of creating a way to carry out the principles
I was proposing to him.
I subsequently also submitted that proposal to Karen
Rose and Becky Burr.
Unfortunately my proposal was never given consideration
by the U.S. Department of Commerce, because had it
been it would have been funded since there is a need
to explore prototypes to deal with the problem of
governance of the central functions of the Internet.
I am requesting that you discuss my proposal with me
as the ICANN situation just becomes more and more
corrupt and infectious, as they are carrying out their
activities in secret, have been created in secret in
violation of the obligations of government to act under
appropriate authority, and they fail to understand the
great responsibility that rests with any entity that
will have responsibility for the central functions of
the Internet.
At a meeting held by the Berkman Center in Boston on
January 23, 1999, Elaine Kamarck, formerly an advisor
for Vice President Gore and currently at the Kennedy
School of Government, had been invited to speak.
When she expressed her understanding that a membership
organization was an inappropriate form for an entity
that would have control over people's economic lives,
the ICANN people present ignored what she said and changed
the subject.
This is a serious situation. In Canada an inappropriate
form of organization was charged with administering
the blood supply of the country. The result was that
an aids infection got into the blood supply and caused
all sorts of harm. The situation with ICANN is similar.
They are an inappropriate form of organization for
the control and ownership of what is essentially the
blood supply of the Internet. And just as in Canada,
so with the Internet, the damage that will be caused
may not be obvious until it is too late to prevent the
infection that will taint the blood supply.
I will explain this further to you if you wish, but
the Internet requires as any overseeing entity, a
scientific and governmental entity that is under
the necessary obligation and can take the necessary
care to carry out the needed functions.
My proposal provides a way to create such a body,
and to do so in a way that involves the International
community and the Internet community.
My phone number is (212)787-9361. I look forward
to talking with you about this before the situation
grows out of hand any further.
Sincerely
Ronda Hauben
244 West 72nd Street
Apt. 15D
New York, N.Y.
co-author "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet
and the Internet" published by IEEE Computer Society Press
See testimony presented to Congress in "Joint Hearings
before the Committee on Science Subcommittee on Basic
Research and Subcommittee on Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives, 105 Congress, 2nd Session, Oct. 7, 1998,
(in No. 78), pg. 401-409.
Also see proposal at NTIA web site "The Internet: An International
Public Treasure and at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt)
My proposal is also at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:21:09 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: FYI: Consumers Union...
> FCC Commissioner
> Ness also came under fire for comments he made that "one could readily
> imagine, for example, that states will not seek to assess
> per-minute fees on Internet-bound calls."
Perhaps it wont be so bad if it leads to journalists proofreading their
stuff before kicking it out online -- surely that's a gratuitous 'not' in
Ness' quoted snickers?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:58:14 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Fe fi fo fum: ISPs, DNS registrants suffer...
Please excuse the cross posting in advance, of interest
to both groups.
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/foster/990308ef.htm
Source:
Info World Electric
by Ed Foster
March 8, 1999
Fe fi fo fum: ISPs, DNS registrants suffer at the hands of the NSI giant
"...The basic complaint about NSI continues to be that the company's
lack of
competition allows it to get away with poor service to DNS
registrants..."
"...Christopher Clough, NSI director of corporate communications...
'there [will]
be a bit of turmoil and confusion, and for small ISPs in particular
there's
going to be a lot of complexity.'
The evolution to which Clough refers is the process by which NSI is
supposedly
giving up its monopoly on domain name registrations. But what is it
really
giving up? We'll talk about that next week..."
- --
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: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:41:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: (!) Vint Cerf designing network for solar system (!)
Bob Allisat <bob@fcn.net> wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
>> Wouldn't you describe this as "ad hominem"? What about this discussion
>> is on-topic - the engineering of the internet, or the politics of the
>> IETF itself? What of this discussion has technical content?
>
>> Bob, what have you achieved in the discussion besides getting yourself
>> told - again - that your regime of invective is not well received by
>> the Internet community - that you represent nobody but yourself?
>
>> Please drop this conversation as of now.
> No. In fact as of now I will assume a
> leadership role in the blessed Internet
> Community and tell you to drop your
> attempts to stifle debate as of now.
> Or risk losing any shred of credibility
> or openess to discussion you may still
> possess. These discussions are more
> than germaine - they are critical to
> the evolution of the Internet. Which,
> if you haven't been following events,
> is in severe risk of being sidelined
> by small group of companies and limited
> number of personalities.
The Internet has been built on a principle
of welcoming all views. And this is for good
reason. The Internet is pioneering and to pioneer
one need to figure out problems that have never
been solved before. One can't solve problems by
restricting discussion, as then you stand likely
to cut out exactly the views that will help to
identify or solve the problem.
(This was recognized by J.C.R. Licklider who had
the pioneering vision of the Net and also did
the work to make networking a reality. See chapter 8
of "Netizens")
Thus those who care for the Internet or for
its forward development are those who support
and advocate the open discussion and debate
of *all* views.
The IETF was built on the shoulders of the Network
Working Group and RFC 3 which states:
"...we hope to promote the exchange and discussion of
considerably less than authoritative ideas."
Furthermore it states: "Notes are encouraged to
be timely rather than polished. Philosophical positions
without examples,or other specifics, specific suggestions
or implementation techniques without introductory or
background explication, and explicit questions
without any attempted answers are all acceptable."
(See RFC 3)
The issue of ICANN is not only *timely* but crucial
to the existence and development of the Internet,
and thus also to the existence and continued development
of the IETF.
Those on the ICANN interim board have been chosen because
they have a conflict of interest with the matters that
ICANN is to be deciding (called in their gentrified language
"stakeholder" interest)
They are people appointed by some unknown process and
unknown people to fundamentally change the nature
and future of the Internet.
Thus this is an urgent, to say the least, issue for
*not* only those in the IETF but all those who are
part of the Internet or hope to ever be part of it.
Thus this is all a crucial question to be discussed
and all those trying to squelch the discussion (like
the Berkman Center folks) or anyone from IETF etc
are only showing that they have no concern for
the present and future of the Internet.
Recently, on the IETF discussion list, someone asked
about scaling the Internet. He received one or two
serious replies and other jokes in response.
Yet the scaling the Internet is the burning question
on the table, and it is exactly the issue that ICANN
is being created to prevent from being publicly
considered and determined.
Will the global people-to-people computer mediated
communication that the Internet makes possible be
available to all as a right or only to a few
as a privilege?
This was an issue that J.C.R. Licklider, among others,
recognized had to be determined to be able to determine
what would happen in the development of computer networking.
He noted that if the to-be-developed network would be
available to all as a "right", then it would be a great benefit
to society, while if it were to only be available to those
selected via a "privilege", its development would be harmful.
To make the Internet available to all as a right requires
a public process and public participation in the control
of the essential functions of the Internet like the
names and protocols and ip numbers and root server
system. These have been under public and cooperative
ownership and control. ICANN is the effort to change that.
There are those who are respresentatives of companies
and other entities that want to grab the Internet
for their own self interested purposes.
They need to be stopped from their grab and only the
free and open discussion of the issues will help to
clarify what is at stake and why there are those
trying to act in ways that are contrary to making
the Internet available to all for interactive
and participatory global communication.
I have wondered why there are many in the technical community
who are not participating in figuring out what ICANN
is all about and what to do about it.
Now it becomes clear that the leadership of the IETF isn't
encouraging folks to get into the fray and figure out what
it is all about but instead is encouraging an attack on
those who recognize that the abuse by ICANN of the
Internet community has to be understood and responded to.
And there are others like folks from ISOC including Vint
Cerf who have taken on to try to deflect the discussion to
putting IP on Mars as a way to draw attention away from
the privatization of Internet public policy here on earth.
The principles on which the Internet has been built, i.e.
support for communication among autonomous networks and the
cooperative effort to make that communciation function --
these principles are being fundamentally altered by
the creation and activity of ICANN. So if there is to be
an Internet, there must be an examination of what is happening
and why and what to do about it.
And unless this has to be done publicly. That is what Bob's
post is part of and that is why it needs to be welcomed
and encouraged, not attacked.
Is there still an IETF? There is a challenge to its existence
clearly and there are those trying to stifle any discussion
over this challenge.
Let the debate begin in the tradition of the Internet, not
behind closed doors or in private email, but openly and
welcoming of all into the fray.
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
Published by the IEEE Computer Society Press
See especially chapter 7
"Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the ARPANET
and Computer Science" and also RFC 3 in appendix
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:49:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Effective meetings, past and future
Jonathan Zittrain <zittrain@cyber.law.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Ronda
>I credit the earnestness of your position, and I certainly don't view your
>position--as I roughly understand it, that the U.S. government nurtured the
>Net, and that the White Paper's framework of turning certain key technical
>functions from the USG over to a private, public trust entity like ICANN is
>a betrayal of important social values and responsibilities to the avatars
>of commerce--as out of line. I respect it.
No you don't understand what I am saying nor do you seem to feel you
have any interest or obligation to understand it.
I am saying that the essential functions of the Internet were developed
under the protection of the computer science community which U.S.
government support and funding made possible. And that ICANN
is *NOT* and "public trust entity" as you profess, but rather
the stealing from the public of these essential functions which
are not only crucial to the scaling of the Internet but also
which give control over to the Intenet to those who can capture
them.
The functions include the IP numbers, root server system, domain
name system, protocols, port numbers, etc. These are the life blood
of the Internet, *not as you say "certain key technical functions".
If you did feel an interest or obligation to understand what I
am saying, you wouldn't be cutting me off from speaking and then
making elaborate attempts at justifying your censorship activities.
>That said, I very much supported cutting you off at the microphone after
>you'd (to be sure, just in my and some others' view, clearly not yours!)
>abused the privilege to speak at it. I'd like to explain why. The
>archives are all online at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/>, so
>others--at least those with the capacity to run the free Realplayer
>plugin--can see how it went for themselves and come to a view on it.
And others who don 't have the technical capacity to run the
Realplayer plugin have no no such ability.
And as the written transcript the Berkman Center made of the
Nov. Cambridge ICANN meeting was seriously flawed and nonrepresentative
of what people said as there were frequent omissions of what critics
of ICANN said in the transcript while the ICANN folk had complete
and accurate coverage, it is interesting that other media that
people have no access to are being created to create what is
to be the Berkman Center record of the activities.
>There were two plenary panels, about an hour and a half each, in the
>membership study workshop. As you point out, a number of panelists had
>been invited to each one. As the meeting opened it was explained that
>there exist people who think ICANN is just a terrible idea from the start,
>and that without rejecting that view our own purpose was to indulge the
>hypothetical that ICANN was going to happen--indeed, was happening--and to
>see what membership structure would work best for it assuming that it was
>to exist at all.
The fact that no one who had opposing views was invited to speak
at the first panel, but rather only people who were from organizations
that had no parallel to what ICANN is all about were invited,
shows the disdain that the Berkman Center people, and whatever
U.S. Dept of Commerce people are participating behind the scenes
in this, have for the Internet and the users of the Internet.
To explore the issue of membership all views have to be invited,
*not* structuring the issues in a way to censor the very views
that are needed to figure out what kind of form is needed to
provide the needed protection to the essential and controlling
functions of the Internet.
>Your view, expressed repeatedly and often, rejects that assumption,
>consistently with what you've said all along, and across so many media--on
>lists, in public meetings, and in your papers (one of which, after you
>submitted it, has been placed prominently in our web site, and which we
>photocopied and made available to all attendees at the workshop). You
>expressed it again at the meeting, an attempt to change the agenda to the
>threshhold question of whether ICANN should exist. You were allowed to
>express it anyway--indeed, across multiple trips to the mic, you spent a
>full sixteen minutes expounding that view! This is more time than any of
>the invited panelists got, and that most of them took including answers to
>questions, to speak.
This is the statement of a demogogue. This says that there is no
value in anything that I have said, but that only "bless ICANN"
is allowed to be uttered by those who are involved in the Berkman
Center discussions.
We don't need a Hitler that tells us that dissenting is forbidden.
This is the Internet, NOT NAZI Germany.
T
You don't list how long Scott Bradner or a number of others spoke,
and I certainly didn't speak any full sixteen minutes as you cut
me off and left me standing without being able to speak.
Obviously what I am staying is of great importance. Otherwise
you wouldn't go to such lengths to cut me off and censor and
distort what I am saying.
And clearly ICANN is incapable of standing up to public scrutiny
as it has to hire a Public Relations Firm to create its image
and the Berkman Center to frame the issues so that any legitimate
questions are to be ruled out of order and people who have
any critical views to be shut up or to have the microphones turned
off to prevent them from expressing their views.
This is *not* how the Internet has been built.
And this is *not* how any structure or entity that will provide
for scaling the Internet can be developed.
>I will understand you if you say that this is a form of civil protest, a
>desire to singlehandedly take the meeting where you want it to go and to
This is nonsense.
This is your attempt to distort what I have to say and to discredit
it. This is your effort to institute a Hitler like regime into
the Internet.
I spoke about the Office of Inspector General's Feb. 7 1997 NSF Report
when I first spoke at the microphone. The Inspector General seems
to have lost her job for having had the courage to have challenged
the givaway of public property and the essential functions of the Internet.
That the essential functions of the Internet are at stake in this
effort you are making to legitimate passage of public property to
an unknown and secretly created entity is some of why you will
go to whatever lengths necessary to prevent the real issues from
being put on the table and to try to discredit and falsify the
record to justify this illegitimate actity.
>have it listen to your urgent message that the whole path is wrong. Taking
>the meeting in one direction necessarily means taking it away from
>another--it's a synchronous space, one which while you speak others must
>listen and cannot themselves speak. I truly believe that if you hadn't
>been cut off you'd have spoken for the entire rest of the meeting--indeed,
This is again nonsense.
The time I was cut off was after Elaine Kamarck spoke on the final
panel. I hadn't spoken "the entire meeting" the times I had
spoken previously and others had spoken as much or more than I had.
So again what you say above is demogogry.
Its the effort to falsify your real motives in preventing any criticism
or critical views from being presented.
Elaine had spoken to me during lunch saying that she had appreciated
what she heard me say earlier at the microphone. She had some questions
about what I had said.
When you cut me off during the final panel I was resonding to what
she had just said.
She had said that the whole membership form for ICANN was inappropriate
because ICANN would have the economic lives of people in its hands
and government has ways to prevent conflict of interest in such
situations, but a voluntary nonprofit membership organization doesn't.
That a voluntary nonprofit membership organization is formed for
a totally different purpose and is not able to function in the
kind of way that a governmental entity needs to function when such
important functions are at stake.
You cut me off from speaking to demonstrate that you wouldn't take
her remarks seriously and discuss them, as was appropriate.
Instead you signaled that there would be diversionary efforts
to change the course of the discussion, which is what Scott Bradner
and Esther Dyson did. They introduced irrelevant digressions, rather
than welcoming the criticism that had been presented and exploring
it.
This is how Hitler functioned as well. He couldn't stand any criticism,
instead he made a victim of those who expressed any criticism,
making it clear to others that criticism was "verbotten"
This is the opposite of the Internet way, but it is the way
of those who are trying to seize the essential controlling functions
of the Internet.
But aren't there ethical obligations that you have Jonathan?
I realize you don't express any thought you do, but it seems
that lawyers are supposed to have some reagard for the law.
>that there was no amount of time sufficient for you to feel properly heard,
>unless people at the meeting were to come around to your view. I'd then
>hope you'd understand why an infinite amount of time for one person at the
>meeting--no matter what she came to say--is a stealing of time from
>everyone else at the meeting who wishes to speak.
Certainly when anyone who has a critical view wishes to speak it
is in your viewpoint "stealing time".
I had been encouraged to speak by folks in the audience, but I
recognize that that is foreign to the view of someone in
your position who is there to make sure that there is no
real discussion or examination of what should be happening, but
rather an unthinking implementation of an illegal activity is
carried out.
Can you say why there were *no* U.S. government folks at the
Berkman Center meeting in January that I was at? The Memorandum
of Understanding that ICANN has with the U.S. Dept of Commerce
requires a 50% participation of both entities in a design and
test situation.
There is *no* design and *test* situation going on. If there
were critical views and open discussion would be supported
and encouraged. Instead while the contract of ICANN with
the U.S. government is for a "design and test" entity, what
is going on is a ramming through of illegal processes and
grabbing of public property and processes.
This is contrary to what ICANN has authority to do. But the
absence of U.S. government officials at functions like
the Jan. 23 Berkman Center meeting shows that the U.S.
Dept of Commerce is also not carrying out its obligations
under a design and test memorandum of understanding.
Thus there is the privatizing of the public property and
public policy and maybe that is why the U.S. government
officials are staying away. That is the recognition on
their part that what ICANN is doing is unauthorized
and illegal.
>ICANN is an experiment. It may fail. If it does, the US government will
>be first in line to pick up the pieces. I don't blame you--given your
>view--for wanting to hasten that day. I don't see why your agenda, and
>your willingness to stake out a position at a mic and not cede it to anyone
>else in line or elsewhere in a room, should trump everything else.
ICANN is not, as you say, "an experiment". Its supposedly
the effort to design and test a prototype. That is the
recognition that this is a situation that needs "prototypes"
because the forms needed have to be figured out.
Such figuring out requires open discussion of all views.
And such figuring out cannot be done when the U.S. government
is giving away property and policy making processes that
are public --
So in fact ICANN is *not* experimental, but the effort to
do what is illegimate and illegal and that is why it
can't allow open discussion and expression of views.
When I was at the microphone I was about to say that
the Internet has been created based on the essential
agreement "to communicate" and contribute to making
"communication" possible.
That is what ICANN is opposed to. There is *not* to
be *communication* but instead foisting of the
illegal seizure of public property and processes.
So your efforts to cut off discussion only help to
clarify the reality of ICANN and of the Berkman
Center.
>In the meantime, we've been developing means of electronic
>participation--both tuning in to events at a physical meeting, and
>contributing comments to it--that don't expect internet users to have the
>latest and greatest PCs and fastest internet links.
And in the meantime you do all you can to censor the contributions
of critics and those who are needed to figure out the real
problems.
>Jonathan
>P.S. For what it's worth, I saw several people with your paper in hand,
>reading it.
Why do you even say this? The paper demonstrates that there
is a significant viewpoint that needs to be considered. Did you
bother to look at the paper?
If so why don't you take on to discuss the issues involved rather
than to justify your censorship of the discussion?
The issue is that there is a need to continue the computer science
oversight and protection of the essential functions of the Internet
and nothing in the ICANN model allows for that recognition.
That there has been a false framing of the issues of how to
create a structure or form to provide the needed support
of the essential functions and the scaling they are the focrume
of.
And the very fact of your trying to discredit any real discussion
of what is needed and why shows that you are not trying to
solve any problem, but rather to carry out the bidding of
those hostile to the Internet and its development.
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 #285
******************************
