Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 299
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 28 1999 Volume 01 : Number 299
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] AT&T the Broadband Hog
[netz] White Paper versus grassroots processes developing the Internet
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance
[netz] New Statesman on democratic processes vrs ICANN and IFWP
[netz] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance
[netz] Hit! International Links & Cyberliberty Metalist Found
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:38:47 -0400
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] AT&T the Broadband Hog
http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/business/story/19315.html?wnpg=all
Source:
Wired News
She's Not Your Mother's ISP
by Joanna Glasner
3:00 a.m. 26.Apr.99.PDT
"...Not too long ago, the online services industry
regarded AT&T as a fuddy-duddy phone company with
no understanding of the Internet.
Big mistake. In recent months, AT&T has made several
startling moves that could help it dominate the
consumer broadband Internet access business.
Suddenly, Ma Bell isn't a sweet little ol' lady anymore.
Earlier this year, AT&T completed the acquisition
of Tele-Communications Inc., the biggest cable-TV
operator in the United States. On Thursday, AT&T
unleashed a surprise US $58 billion bid for
MediaOne Group, the No. 3 cable franchise,
even as another company, Comcast, was preparing to buy it.
Should AT&T succeed in its bid for MediaOne,
its cable-TV wires would have unrivaled reach
into more than a quarter of US households,
providing super-fast Internet connections through
cable modems. And AT&T has already made it clear
it has no intention of sharing its data lines
with other ISPs..."
Shouldn't the FCC and FTC be blocking
this mega monolithic monopoly choker
of small business, cable companies, and ISPs?
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
[the Internet] could remain what it ought to be:
just a public instrument. There ought to be efforts --
not just talk but real efforts -- to ensure Internet
access, not just for rich people but for everyone.
~~ Noam Chomsky ~~
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:45:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] White Paper versus grassroots processes developing the Internet
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com> wrote:
>According to the press release announcing the White Paper, the U.S.
>Government was "looking for a globally and functionally representative
>organization, operated on the basis of sound and transparent processes that
>protect against capture by self-interested factions, and that provides
>robust, professional management. The new entity=92s processes need to be
>fair, open, and pro-competitive. And the new entity needs to have a
>mechanism for evolving to reflect changes in the constituency of Internet
>stakeholders.=94
But press releases hide the truth, not indicate it.
The White Paper was *not* a document that reflecxted the
nature of the Internet nor of its users and thus is only
an attack both on the Internet and its users.
The Internet is a new medium of global communication. That is
*not* what the White paper recognized, nor did the Framework
for Electronic Commerce nor the Green paper.
These documents all denied the basic function of the Internet
and thus cannot represent any way to create any organization
that serves the growth and development of the Internet nor of
its users.
My submission to the NTIA about the Green paper documented the
misconception about the Internet that these government documents
have at their foundation. It is online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
The problems that ICANN represents for the Internet and its
users flows from the misconception of the Internet in
these government documents and from the hypocritical principles
and actions in creating ICANN.
>Unfortunately, ICANN has yet to live up to these high ideals. For
>example, many of our most closely held beliefs about governance have not
>been incorporated into ICANN. Things like no taxation without
>representation, due process, consent of the governed, etc.
To the contrary, ICANN is exactly the reincarnation of the
fact that there is no authority vested in the U.S. government
to privatize IANA or the protocols process of the IETF
and that the U.S. government is trying to take legitimate
processes and public assets and give them away to some hidden
private entities.
To call such high ideals is to try to throw further sand in
front of people so the effort to carry out this theft of
public property and processes can be carried out.
>But if history is any indication, this is not unexpected. In many ways,
the White Paper is a vision for Internet Governance, much like the
Declaration of Independance was a vision for U.S. Governance.
How strange. The point is that the Internet has something improtant to
teach about governance, which is what studying the history of
the development of the Internet makes clear.
See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
This is what is being covered over by the whole ICANN process. The old,
i.e. the U.S. corporate models which are totally irrelvant to
gain control over the Internet, are trying to take over the Internet.
But the Internet is a the product of a much superior process,
of a process created by computer scientists in government who
were responsible and forward looking in what they were doing.
And they recognized the need to let the users at the most
grassroots level create the processes and forms that would
function at that end of the interface for the Internet.
And this has given a much more democratic and forward looking
set of principles and practices than ever before in history.
And all this is what the U.S. government via its creation
of ICANN is trying to destroy and replace with the kind of
hidden and rotten behind the scenes power plays that have
is the hallmark of the vested interests who are tyring to
seize control of the Internet.
If ever an anti trust situation existed it is the
creation of ICANN and yet the U.S. government doesn't
seem to be even investigating what is happening with
ICANN as the (office of Inspector General) OIG of the NSF
requested happen.
Ronda
Write for copy of ACN9-1 about the "Battle over the
Future of the Internet" write: ronda@ais.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
> The Whole IFWP process was flawed as it didn't start from the
> recognition of the Internet as a communications medium, instead it
> was intent on turning the whole Internet over to those smaller set
> of interests who were intent on changing the Internet to make it an
> ecommercenet.
> But with all the efforts to create so called ecommercenets in the
> past, they couldn't accomplish what they tried, and instead the
> Internet grew and developed as a public communications medium.
> Anyone who wants to create some ecommerce network should do
> it separate from trying to steal the Internet from those
> who have contributed to its growth and development over
> more than 30 years.
I've been giving what you have written some thought and I came to the
conclusion that the "ecommercenet" you claim people with commercial
interests should create exists. It just so happens that as a result
of the NSFnet agreements drafted and signed in 1992 that the
"ecommercenet" was allowed to communicate with NSFnet (and other
networks running TCP/IP) according to a set of agreed-upon policies.
A lot of this is documented online; I have found much of it at
www.merit.edu, and Gordon Cook has reported on much of it as well.
(I'm sure GC will correct me if I have erred in anything I've
written.)
The "ecommercenet" has the government granted authority to engage in
commerce. Educational and other noncommercial networks have the
authority to refuse to communicate with the "ecommercenet" if they
feel it is violating the agreed-upon policies. (IMO, you ought to
contact some sysadmins and net admins at educational, military,
etc. sites and ask them what their policies are.) You could make the
argument that these agreements should have required the "ecommercenet"
and the rest of the Internet to use disjoint name and address spaces.
However, this would have been very infeasible. Much of the
"ecommercenet" had already been assigned name and address space
(e.g. IBM, AT&T) and it would have been a pain to rename/renumber it.
There was also quite a lot of communication between the "ecommercenet"
and the rest of the Internet anyway, which would have been disrupted
if name and address changes were required. As these networks were
already running TCP/IP, and a major goal of the NII was to provide a
means for all sectors (government, educational, military, commercial,
etc) to share information, it made sense to use the existing protocols
and retain the old addresses and names where feasible.
Even if the "ecommercenet" had used a disjoint name and address space,
this debate would have eventually ensued. Eventually there would have
been disputes over trademarked names, differing name registration
policies outside of the US, a desire to introduce competition into the
registry and registrar business, IP routing table exhaustion, etc.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:51:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] New Statesman on democratic processes vrs ICANN and IFWP
Following is something received from Dave Farber's IP list
which is an article from the New Statesman describing
how the ukcrypto mailing list has included the civil
servants involved with the policy and that they
answer to the criticisms of what they have been doing.
That is very far from anything that has happened with the
International Forum on the White Paper or the setting up
or development of ICANN. Hence this shows the attack on
grassroots processes that the Internet makes possible,
and which in fact have given birth to and deeloped the Interner,
by the creation of ICANN and the International Forum
on the White Paper process
Ronda
>From: "Caspar Bowden" <cb@fipr.org> (by way of Brian Randell)
>Subject: New Statesman on ukcrypto, 26/4/99
>
>Dave:
>
>Here's a message from the UK Crypto mailing list with the URL for, and a
>quote from, an interesting New Statesman article that mentions the mailing
>list and its impact.
>
>Cheers
>
>Brian
>
>=====.
>
>http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/199904260035.htm
>
>Editors wanted
>
>Internet by Andrew Brown
>
>....(snip)
>
>Yet there is at least one example of a successful political campaign being
>organised on a mailing list; and this is the struggle to keep strong
>cryptography legal and widely available in this country. The web has played
>a part. The Foundation for Information Policy Research maintains a website
>at www.fipr.org which acts as a clearing house for all sorts of documents,
>including the texts of all the comments and objections submitted to the
>latest proposals for legislation. But most of the thought and co-ordination
>has been done on ukcrypto, a mailing list, the lowest form of technological
>life. There, for the past two years, the civil servants responsible for
>policy have actually been available, more or less, to the people who
>disagree with them. They have had to justify their actions not to the
>public, but to a small group of geographically dispersed experts, who may
>consult among each other between rounds. It's a kind of updated version of
>Lions v Christians; as in the original game, the audience is on the side of
>the lions, but I think the modern version is rather better for society.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>> The Whole IFWP process was flawed as it didn't start from the
>> recognition of the Internet as a communications medium, instead it
>> was intent on turning the whole Internet over to those smaller set
>> of interests who were intent on changing the Internet to make it an
>> ecommercenet.
>> But with all the efforts to create so called ecommercenets in the
>> past, they couldn't accomplish what they tried, and instead the
>> Internet grew and developed as a public communications medium.
>> Anyone who wants to create some ecommerce network should do
>> it separate from trying to steal the Internet from those
>> who have contributed to its growth and development over
>> more than 30 years.
>I've been giving what you have written some thought and I came to the
>conclusion that the "ecommercenet" you claim people with commercial
>interests should create exists. It just so happens that as a result
>of the NSFnet agreements drafted and signed in 1992 that the
>"ecommercenet" was allowed to communicate with NSFnet (and other
>networks running TCP/IP) according to a set of agreed-upon policies.
>A lot of this is documented online; I have found much of it at
>www.merit.edu, and Gordon Cook has reported on much of it as well.
>(I'm sure GC will correct me if I have erred in anything I've
>written.)
Greg I don't understand what you are trying to say in your abouve
statement. What I understand happening in the period when
the NSFNET allowed commercial traffic onto the NSF backbone
wasn't that they were allowing an ecommercenet. It was that those
who didn't fit in with the restrictions imposed by the Acceptible
Use Policy, i.e. which forbid any form of commercial entity to
use the NSF backbone, that other networks could utilize the
backbone which had hitherto be restricted (or should have been
but in fact the MCI mail use in 1989 also violated that restriction).
It wasn't that the NSFNET was thereby given over to become a
commercial network dedicated to safe transactions and buying and
selling online.
Is that what you are proposing is what happened in 1992?
If you are, then I have to fundamentally disagree with you.
I got onto Usenet in 1992 and at that time happened onto the
com-priv mailing list. The com-priv mailing list was about
opening the NSF backbone to those networks involved in
commercial activity. It wasn't about taking over the Internet
for buying and selling and so called "safe transactions" and
getting rid of the communications function that is the
essence of the Internet.
We put out issues of the Amateur Computerist during that
period which challenged the change in the nature of the
NSFNET. And there was the NTIA online conference where
many other people also complained about what was happening.
But it is very far from reality that the privatization
which happened May of 1995 of the NSF backbone is the
same as what ICANN is trying to pull off now.
If that were true there wouldn't be the secrecy and phony
back room dealings and activities that ICANN has been
born and brought into the world with as what they were
trying to do would have already been accomplished.
Also the Internet is fundamentally a communications
medium, and that is its great attraction to the world and
the basis for the respect that it generates around the
world. However the commercialization and vision for the
future of the commercial entities are fundamentally in opposition
with that.
I have seen haow the search engines are significantly changing
because they are more and more adopting commercial criteria
to guide what they do.
I don't have time to go into this all more now.
But I did want to respond that the original privatization
you point to was a problem as there was a need to recognize
that the public nature of the Internet was the crucial
aspect and to support that public nature. My most
recent paper describes this need. It is at:
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/internet.txt
The paper is "The Internet: A New Communications Paradigm"
But it isn't that the White paper proposal for the
future of the Internet was carried out in 1992.
>The "ecommercenet" has the government granted authority to engage in
>commerce. Educational and other noncommercial networks have the
>authority to refuse to communicate with the "ecommercenet" if they
>feel it is violating the agreed-upon policies. (IMO, you ought to
>contact some sysadmins and net admins at educational, military,
>etc. sites and ask them what their policies are.) You could make the
>argument that these agreements should have required the "ecommercenet"
>and the rest of the Internet to use disjoint name and address spaces.
>However, this would have been very infeasible. Much of the
>"ecommercenet" had already been assigned name and address space
>(e.g. IBM, AT&T) and it would have been a pain to rename/renumber it.
>There was also quite a lot of communication between the "ecommercenet"
>and the rest of the Internet anyway, which would have been disrupted
>if name and address changes were required. As these networks were
>already running TCP/IP, and a major goal of the NII was to provide a
>means for all sectors (government, educational, military, commercial,
>etc) to share information, it made sense to use the existing protocols
>and retain the old addresses and names where feasible.
Then are you saying that the White paper and the Framework for
Electronic Commerce which present the Interent as solely for
ecommerce is a fundamental change in policy for the U.S.?
>Even if the "ecommercenet" had used a disjoint name and address space,
>this debate would have eventually ensued. Eventually there would have
>been disputes over trademarked names, differing name registration
>policies outside of the US, a desire to introduce competition into the
>registry and registrar business, IP routing table exhaustion, etc.
>--gregbo
I thought that the Internet principle of making changes that one
wants for ones own network on an end to end basis, and not to
impose them on the whole network sets the foundation for how
a commercenet could function. They could have their own
domain name systems situation, but that would only function
within the commercenet, not by taking over the whole
of the Internet.
I would have to think if I have seen examples of how this
might work -- but for example IBM has its own network.
It can do what it wants in that network, and can also
connect that network outside to the Internet. Somehow
if IBM wants to do something special in its own network, it
needs to figure out how to do that internally, not impose
that requirement on all the other networks of the Internet.
That is the same principle I am describing with regard
to a commercenet.
But ICANN is like IBM taking over the Internet and saying
the whole Internet has to do what I want to do in myu
own internal network.
That is fundamentally opposed to the concept of the Internet
as an internetwork of diverse packet switching networks.
That is fundamentally opposed to the architectural principles
that I thought tcp/ip established which made it possible
for there to be an Internet.
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:56:00 -0400
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Hit! International Links & Cyberliberty Metalist Found
Hit! International Links & Cyberliberty Metalist Found
======================================================
http://www.fipr.org/policywatch.html
FIPR: Foundation for Information Policy Research
Policy Watch List
Found by reading a post from Ronda Hauben.
Thanks!
>http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/199904260035.htm
>
>Editors wanted
>
>Internet by Andrew Brown
Comment: I wish we did have statesmen/women
as from days of our world's history today.
Part of the problem... ill-informed, untalented
polikians, spin doctors, and operatives vs.
true statespeople.
Protecting the Internet's democratic participation
paramount to act as a watchguard to the politikans
and spin. A way to get to the truth and read between
the lines of spin. A way to let our elected
officials know we are watching...
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
[the Internet] could remain what it ought to be:
just a public instrument. There ought to be efforts --
not just talk but real efforts -- to ensure Internet
access, not just for rich people but for everyone.
~~ Noam Chomsky ~~
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #299
******************************
