Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 288
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, March 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 288
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Of Spindoctors & Fairytale Tellers & Gore for President
[netz] FCC on Defense; ?Full Mailboxes of Commissioners?
[netz] On Wired's article on Gore and Internet History
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: What ICANN doesn't want you to know - a well hidden web site
[netz] Does the fight against Hitler like tactic only belong in museums?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:20:48 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Of Spindoctors & Fairytale Tellers & Gore for President
Next chapter of FCC Spindoctors, Gore Apologists, & Real Motives Exposed
Please excuse the crosspostings in advance.
=========================================================================
Meanwhile read this Wired article talk about a person asserting
untruths:
The Wired article cited in the URL below quotes Al Gore saying:
"During my service in the United
States Congress, I took the initiative
in creating the Internet."
The article goes on to ridicule this bazaar claim by giving a pretty
good summary of the beginnings of the ARPANet.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18390.html
=====================================================================
Subject: Re: [CM>] Gore Claims Credit for the Internet
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:01:44 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Organization: Electronic Media Design and Support
To: CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list
on the History of Cyberspace <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
References: 1 , 2
I suggest you re read Internet history.
Gore did not rename ARPAnet to Internet or
the World Wide Web. Give us a break!
Not to mention Gore is up to his eyeballs
w/ the telcos/cable to squeeze out small ISPs.
I *do* give him credit for that. I also
give his father credit for Congress recognizing
the need to Regulate telcos and give small
ISPs a fair field against the telco monopolies
like WorldNet (AT&T). Creates alternative,
keeps the field full for access choices.
For Gore to claim he is the reason that the
Internet's explosive growth after the advent
of browsers that make it possible for less
skilled users to surf is like saying he invented
electricity.
Give us a break!
Gore will make the Net an *elitist* vehicle for
control of information that
only the rich can afford if small ISP connection
is edged out by the cable/telco monopolies.
If he kills the Internet, he kills the economy.
It's the Internet, stupid I say to him, our
Internet. Leave it the heck alone please for
we users that wish to retain reasonable, affordable
connection to the Net.
> This makes the fifth different place that I've seen this quote mentioned
> (with accompanying righteous indignation) in the last two days; yet the people
> who might be most offended if the Vice-President had actually attempted
> to usurp credit from them do not seem to be the ones howling in protest.
>
> I suggest that it would be appropriate to go back and read the quote
> *in context* and consider (1) the distinction between the ARPAnet and the
> Internet (2) Gore's role in funding decisions made in the 1980's
> and (3) Gore's role in policy decisions made in the 1980's, particularly
> with respect to the commercial use of the 'net. Surely it's not too much
> to act that those who are unfamiliar with the historical record avail
> themselves of primary source material (e.g. the Congressional Record)
> and read it thoroughly before commenting.
o Quote the above claims alluded to on the Congressional
Record or withdraw.
I have supplied many factual articles from a variety of sources.
Debate these articles, leave out personalities and politics.
It is *very* apparent your partisan support is showing... namely
Gore for President. I am non-partisan, but a full advocate for
reasonable,affordable access. I am against whole heartedly anyone
wishing to kill the global conversation and control information to
citizens of all countries.
- --
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: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:08:09 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] FCC on Defense; ?Full Mailboxes of Commissioners?
[This weekend I tried sending the FCC Commissioners
my protest decrying the Ruling AGAINST small ISPs and
decidedly FOR the large telco/cable monopolistic
interests. Mail was bounced back. Either their boxes
are full [no doubt with other peoples' protests,
or the commissioners have changed their mailbox
addressing.]
Meanwhile read this source and accompanying links
for alternative sources not cited covered
by the communications industry spindoctors.
As per usual, please excuse the cross postings
in advance.
If large telco/cable monopolies are not
stopped they will destroy their reasonable
and affordable ISP competition. This is
a global matter important to all Internet
users worldwide.
=================================================
CNETNews.com
Communications
http://www.news.com/News/Item/Textonly/0,25,33761,00.html
FCC goes on defense in Congress
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
March 15, 1999, 12:25 p.m. PT
"...Congress is kicking off a new set of hearings this week aimed at
shaking up the Federal Communications Commission, beginning
what may turn into a battle with the White House over scaling back the
agency's powers.
Critics in Congress want to pare back the regulatory agency's influence
over mergers and telecommunications policy, saying that the
FCC has not evolved as quickly as the companies it regulates..."
=================================================
- --
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: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:41:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] On Wired's article on Gore and Internet History
The recent Wired article about Gore is an interesting example of how
commercial pressure is exerted on government.
In the guise of challenging Gore's contribution to the development
fo the Internet, the article doesn't examine the Internet and its
nature, but instead quotes a few people as illustrative of the
"truth" of what has contributed.
For example, the Wired article says:
" But the development of the Net has resembled less a government-managed
industrial project -- such as the orderly interstate-highway systems
Gore hoped for -- and more an anarchic sprawl. "
But the reality is that the Internet isn't any anarchic sprawl
but the result of much cooperative work by many people over
a very long period of time. And the research and development
work that has made the Internet possible and developed the
networks that make up the internetwork of networks that is the
Internet has gone on from 1962 to the present. The trick of the
article is to substitute a small number of commercial
corporate entities for the Internet.
Then the article quotes the Vice President for Communicactions
of the Progress and Freedom Party as the spokeperson
for both evaluating Gore's contribution and for describing
the Internet as it is now.
"Gore played no positive role in the decisions that led to the
creation of the Internet as it now exists -- that is, in the opening
of the Internet to commercial traffic," said Steve Allen, vice
president for communications at the conservative Progress and Freedom
Foundation.
So the criteria for what the Internet is now, according to Wired,
is that it is opened up to commercial traffic.
There is no criteria that has to do with the Internet as a
unique medium of world wide communication, as the Federal
District court in Philadelphia in the CDA case proposed was
the crucial criteria.
So WIRED is acting as a means of presenting a platform
for the conservative think thanks that promote commercialization
of the Internet, with no regard for the social ideals and
vision that guided the research in computer science which gave
birth to the Internet.
So WIRED won't help people to understand either the Internet
or Gore's history or objectives.
Instead it is a vehicle of exerting commercial pressure on
the U.S. government to carry out the aims of a small set
of commercial entities at the expense of the great majority
of the people in the U.S. and around the world.
There is a need for an understanding of how ARPA was created
as a research agency to carry out computer science research.
There is a need for a public understanding of the great benefit
such research has made possible for society, and how there
is the need to see how to extend the lessons from the work
of the ARPA/IPTO to help the Internet to scale and solve the
new problems it is faced with.
And we need government people who understand this achievement
and are capable of resisting the commerical pressures to
abandon the Internet to them.
Whether Al Gore will be able to meet this challenge is
a serious question, but WIRED certainly will not
encourage him to even understand the challenge, but rather
will try to pressure him into giving into the small
sector of commercial entities trying to grab control of
the Internet at the expense of the rest of the society.
So Internet history has become a matter of public discussion.
That is important, and so let the discussion proceed :-)
Ronda
ronda@ais.org
- -----------------
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:47:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: What ICANN doesn't want you to know - a well hidden web site
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
Gordon Cook <cook@COOKREPORT.COM> wrote:
>> ISOC is Designing an Internet Society Task Force
>> Since we are informed by ISOC Vienna office staffer Sascha
>> Ignjatovic today that "Dr.Cerf is getting a process [going] which
>> will help develope [the] concept and establish an Internet and
>> Society Task Force, we can imagine that ICANN will find wonderful
>> use for the $1 per domain name tax that it has announced it will
>> establish."
>Just for the record, I think this is a good idea, as it will hopefully
>provide forums to address some concerns that don't, or can't be
>addressed in other forums. However, I hope that they make this forum
>like the IETF, and allow anyone to participate, rather than asking for
>membership donations first.
>--gregbo
Greg I agree that there is a need for social issues to be
discussed in a forum. Especially social issues about
the Internet and its present and future development.
But the Internet Society, under the kind of political pressure
it functions under, focuses on commercial issue, and the
social issues are ignored or converted to mean how can
we spread commercial interests agenda.
So it is hard to understand how anything constructive or
directed toward spreading the discussion of social issues
can come out of the plans of those who have directed the
Internet society into the narrow commercial agenda focus
that it current representes.
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: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:00:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Does the fight against Hitler like tactic only belong in museums?
Folllowing is a post from the Up For Grabs Discussion List
that Pat Gantt forwarded. The moderator of the Up for Grabs
Lists is restricting her right to post, probably because
of wonderful posts like the one from Rick Parkany below
showing that the efforts of folks to falsify and condemn
people who try to take on the needed battles over the Internet
now are examined by folks online.
The Internet makes it possible for people to evaluable for
themselves what is going on in a battle, and that is why
it seems it is under such a heavy attack from those who
don't want this thinking society to spread :-)
Following is Rick's post and the things he was responding to
(I have reformated the first part to make for easier reading):
Ronda
Sender: The Up for Grabs Discussion List <UPFORGRABS-L@CDINET.COM>
From: Rick Parkany <rparkany@BORG.COM>
Organization: Prometheus Educational Services
Subject: Re: Internet History Anyone?
(originally sent to)To: UPFORGRABS-L@CDINET.COM
Folks: though I am up to my ears in research, transcribing interviews,
discourse analysis, et al. designing my dissertation in program
design/evaluation as I am, the intent of this post escapes me.
I am reading PA Gantt's links and yours, now, Gordon. ALL of these
references have proven invaluable to my greater understanding, thanQ, both!
HOWEVER, I am averse to ad hominum slaps. In fact, since I was NOT a
participant @ the Berkman Center, and therefore am little interested
in the political dynamics @ THAT mic, but more in the substance of the
discourse, I am disturbed at the muzzling effect of your forward and
introductory remarks wrt Haubens & others.
What's your point? As I read Ronda's remarks, they seem (out of the Beckman
context) to be cogent.
So far as your knee-jerk moral reaction to refs wrt Nazism (remember, I did
not bring this up, you did Gordon): may I remind you that the horrifying
images of the mid-20th century manifestation of the Fascist atrocities
seem to benefit from a perverse effect that precludes semiotic references
to it in any but the most iconographic contexts. I favour the
perspicacious reference to the incipient presence of fascist (what
IS its current millennial political analogue or moniker,
anyway?) thought, policy, & activity to the enshrinement of its
effect as some cultural artifact in some museum, anyway. How are we to
benefit from History's message, if we can't recall it into our own
political matrices--this side of Pol Pot or Melosovich--in time to
avert disaster and genocide trials?
Thank you for your kind reflections and the important LINKs you
provided in this ad hominum attack against PA Gantt's
referents... ;-} rap.
Gordon Cook wrote:
> >Comments from P.A., please excuse the
> >cross postings in advance.
> >======================================
> >
> >Ronda and John Hauben are citizen
> >activists out on the Net. ;^}
> >
> >You most often see their posts on Netizens-L.
> >
> >They jointly have a really good grasp on what is and what isn't...
> >
>
> COOK: no they don't they live in their own fantasy world and outside that
> realm have mininmal credibility, you may wish to read the following and be
> more discriminating in the factual history you bring to this lists
> attention.
>
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:36:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>
> To: list@ifwp.org
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Effective meetings, past and future
> Cc: ronda@panix.com, netizens@columbia.edu, membership@icann.org
> Sender: owner-list@ifwp.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
>
> Ronda,
>
> Jonathan's points were VALID.
>
> Your position of NOT doing the ICANN process at all is quite simply, NOT AN
> OPTION. So there was nothing you had to say that was at all germaine.
>
> Your allusions to Nazism, etc, are an AFFRONT to anyone who actually lived
> under that Regime. Your comments and comparisons do nothing but BELITTLE the
> real and very substantial harms that were caused by that Regime, that your
> little criticisms can't even come CLOSE to matching in significance.
>
> I am personally disgusted with your attempts to paint this situation in this
> way.
>
> You have repeated since this process got underway tried to use false historical
> prospectives to attempts to derail this process. NUMEROUS times on this list
> your statements that you used to justify your positions were shown to be false
> to the extreme, and when you were called to show otherwise, you were noticably
> silent.
>
> It is time for you to be noticably silent again, Ronda.
>
> You should be ashamed of this message you sent and the statements you made in
> it.
>
> On 12-Mar-99 Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
> Date: 12-Mar-99
> Time: 10:28:18
> ----------------------------------
> "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
> of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
> - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
> ***************************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
> cook@cookreport.com | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
> subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
> ******************************************************************************
>
> *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
>
> To join Benton's Up For Grabs Discussion Forum (which also
> includes the daily Headlines service), send email to:
> listserv@cdinet.com
> In the body of the message, type only:
> subscribe upforgrabs-L YourFirstName YourLastName
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to:
> listserv@cdinet.com
> In the body of the message, type only:
> signoff upforgrabs-L
>
> If you have any problems with the service, please direct them to
> benton@benton.org
- --
"Dein Wachstum sei feste und lache vor Lust!
Deines Herzens Trefflichkeit / hat dir selbst das Feld bereit',
auf dem du bluehen musst." Peasant, Richard A. Parkany: SUNY@Albany
Prometheus Educational Services - http://www.borg.com/~rparkany/
Upper Hudson & Mohawk Valleys; New York State, USA
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #288
******************************
