Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 308
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, June 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 308
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] ICANN Commentary Mike Roberts - ICANN is set up by U.S. govt
[netz] Re: Dave Farber helping to award Internet Peace Prize
[netz] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
[netz] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
Re: [netz] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
[netz] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
[netz] INFO: Improvement of Technical Management of the Net
[netz] ARTICLE: Should states sell high-speed Net access?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:29:33 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] ICANN Commentary Mike Roberts - ICANN is set up by U.S. govt
Obviously policies such as compulsory dispute resolution or levies
on registrations cant be "governance," because they are fully
covered by (e), the proverbial blank-check technical specification:
>>a. Establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of IP
>>number blocks;
>>b. Oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system;
>>c. Oversight of the policy for determining the circumstances under which
>>new top level domains would be added to the root system;=20
>>d. Coordination of the assignment of other Internet technical parameters
>>as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and
>>e. Other activities necessary to coordinate the specified DNS management
>>functions, as agreed by the Parties."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:29:33 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Dave Farber helping to award Internet Peace Prize
Ronda,
> Interesting that Dave Farber gets to give the keynote for the
> Internet Peace Prize award - guess one gets rewarded for helping
> to create and give his blessings to ICANN.
Even his getting second prize - the keynoter isnt going to be a
PEacePrize awardee, is he? - isnt enough occasion for you to just
bite your tongue once, is it?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:29:33 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
> >ICANN is by no means the only forum where (liberal) governments have
> >taken this position ... (I appreciate it is not clear what legal
> >basis Mr Twomey has for conceding sovereignty on behalf of the
> >governments for which he speaks...
>
> What other forums is this being done in?
>
> And ICANN is *not* a forum, but a power play of the grossest nature.
>
>
> >The interesting thing is that these governments must grapple with the
> >theoretical advantages of free trade in ideas and goods, to some degree
> >implying loss of executive control and with further implications for
> >cultural dilution vs economic gain. It is surely indicative that
> >Australia, one of the few autarkic nations with no real land borders or
> >historical cultural relationship with its neighbours should take the
> >lead in this area. Calls for the disappearance of government from the
> >process are misplaced.
>
> What kind of "free trade in ideas or goods" when the central
> point of control of vital functions of the Internet are being
> put in hands that have no oversight and no responsibility to
> anything but their own self enrichment?
>
Indeed, the other 'forum' that comes to mind is the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment, by which 'free' trade interests would
have declared themselves unaccountable under national (and
local) governmental structure. By that simple 'technical'
rationalization, they would, in fact, have the staus of government
themselves. A hundred years ago, it was called piracy; now its
called enhancement of assets.
If ICANN is the puppet of the Free Traders, I can imagine the
puppeteers chortling as they sign off on Twomey: "Ha - so they
want Government, eh? We'll give them Government!" Even if it is
not, it is certainly a stalking-horse for the Brave New Fiefdom.
The MAI, by the way, once it came to public awareness, was
abandoned in the OECD and is being resurrected in other venues:
APEC for one and WIPO's sister organization, WTO, for another.
(Remember the competitive advantage of having parallel entities)?
If you want to know the future of ICANN, watch what happens in
Seattle in November. While we squabble about the actions of 9
individuals, an entire unaccountable empire is shrink-wrapping the
globe and all the socalled intellectual property in it.
And if you thought NSI had a monopoly, wait till Monsanto buys
them out. Claims to free speech (and I dont mean just domain
names) will be right alongside the claims of unenlightened farmers
claiming 'heritage' of the seeds they grow, with a little marker: R.I.P.
=========
Milton Mueller wrote (re: Roberts' reply to Post):
> Just as the FCC's control of radio spectrum allocation was used to
> license and regulate conduct and content, so ICANN's mandate has
> been to utilize the control of domain name registration to license
> and accredit registrars, impose a specific business model on the
> industry, and to police and enforce intellectual property rights.
When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public
hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled. The problem
is, ICANN was deliberately *not set up as a federally mandated
entity, and the question is, Why?
Ronda pointed out the difficulty the FCC met when it created a
corporation to administer the E-Rate mandate (which
'experiment' has since been rolled into NECA). Perhaps ICANN
should likewise be subsumed under the FCC.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
> When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public
> hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled.
I doubt it. The FCC has a rather poor track record of regulating
shared public resources in the public interest as of late. If you
think domain names have caused a lot of controversy, read some of the
debates regarding low power FM, cable (de)regulation, HDTV, etc.
> The problem is, ICANN was deliberately *not set up as a federally
> mandated entity, and the question is, Why?
ICANN is an experiment in Internet self-governance. If it fails, then
there will most likely be some federally mandated entities created to
do what ICANN is doing.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
"A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
> The FCC has actually had an excellent record. First it enabled the
> Internet to emerge through the Computer trilogy basic-enhanced
> dichotomy and by removing government regulatory agencies from the
> scene. [...]
> (And yes, I worked there in various official capacities for 12
> years.)
Well, I was expressing a personal opinion, mostly. My opinion is
shared by some highly respected people in the broadcast industry.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:17:33 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
Greg,
> > When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public
> > hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled.
>
> I doubt it. The FCC has a rather poor track record of regulating
> shared public resources in the public interest as of late.
Are you willing to go further, and say the public has a poor track
record of using its power of oversight to ensure that the agencies
that manage resources in its name do what they are supposed to?
> > The problem is, ICANN was deliberately *not set up as a federally
> > mandated entity, and the question is, Why?
>
> ICANN is an experiment in Internet self-governance. If it fails, then
> there will most likely be some federally mandated entities created to
> do what ICANN is doing.
>
Thats not the 'problem,' its experimental status is the result of the
problem. Whether ICANN 'succeeds' or 'fails,' the question of self-
governance properly should be directed to the Am public: are we
asleep, or what, to have let the functionaries of our Dept of
Commerce wander off into making up concepts of *governance* by
themselves? If there is something wrong with applying the
concepts we have, then let's have a proper constitutional
convention and rework them. The Internet would be an ideal 'forum'
by which to do just that -- but one begins to get the impression that
ICANN has been 'mandated' to prevent that at all costs.
Hmm, I vaguely recall the history books mentioning another Burr --
but who reads that stuff nowadays?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
> Are you willing to go further, and say the public has a poor track
> record of using its power of oversight to ensure that the agencies
> that manage resources in its name do what they are supposed to?
This reminds me of some email I exchanged with Larry Lessig some time
back. In general, I don't think that in this time and place, the vast
majority of people (in the US, at least) are particularly motivated to
ensure that government provide "proper" oversight to public
resources. People seem to be willing to go along with whatever the
government does, as long as they aren't taxed too much, they make
reasonable wages, etc. I offer as evidence the general apathy towards
the Monica Lewinsky scandal: many people were uninterested; others
gave Clinton a high approval rating even though he had obviously lied
under oath.
Under conditions like this, the government may be able to create
something like ICANN, because of the lack of public outcry among a
large number of people.
>> ICANN is an experiment in Internet self-governance. If it fails, then
>> there will most likely be some federally mandated entities created to
>> do what ICANN is doing.
> Thats not the 'problem,' its experimental status is the result of
> the problem. Whether ICANN 'succeeds' or 'fails,' the question of self-
> governance properly should be directed to the Am public: are we
> asleep, or what, to have let the functionaries of our Dept of
> Commerce wander off into making up concepts of *governance* by
> themselves?
See above. I am interested in knowing what the public at large's
opinion of what ICANN, the NTIA, etc. are doing. However, I don't
think a vast majority would ask it to do something else.
If someone did manage to poll the entire Internet user population, and
the result was that a large majority of the people favored a big
business approach, and gave ICANN praise for trying to facilitate
that, what would you think?
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:55:28 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ...
Greg,
> People seem to be willing to go along with whatever the
> government does, as long as they aren't taxed too much, they make
> reasonable wages, etc. I offer as evidence the general apathy towards
> the Monica Lewinsky scandal: many people were uninterested; others
> gave Clinton a high approval rating even though he had obviously lied
> under oath.
When they think they have set up an apparatus to do a certain job,
people tend to leave it to do get on with it, whether its a
government or a washing machine. What appears to have
happened is that the machinery gradually realized the people
werent actually judging by whether their clothes were clean or not,
but by the machine's idiot lights *telling them when they were
clean. As long as we dont have to wash our clothes by hand, not
many people care how much of the machinery is dedicated to
making the interface "user-friendly" -- so now we have sound-byte
circuits that tell us our clothes are whiter than white (and certainly
whiter than our neighbours, even tho we would really like them to
buy the exact same brand of machine!) and take up 3/4 of the
operating current to do it, while the motor goes putt-putt over in the
corner just in case somebody puts their hand on the frame to feel
the comforting vibration of Democracy in Action.
As for 'clinching' your case with Loose-Lips Monica, that's as
strong an argument the other way: despite the flashing lights and
spinning commentator dials that insisted that Democracy was
coming apart at the seams, the goldurned public simply never
expected its washer to be a sewing machine too, and told it to tend
to its knitting. And lies? Of course he lied -- everybody knows Ol'
Blue Lies(tm) is the only (nookular?) detergent in town. What's to
disapprove?
But I see my metaphor is unravelling - has anybody got some duct
tape?
kerry (known for having sewn up a pair of ruptured jeans with a
shoestring)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:24:07 -0400
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] INFO: Improvement of Technical Management of the Net
Old business, but it doesn't hurt to revisit this proposal.
===========================================================
o http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/web/dns-ntia.html
"Green Paper Before the
UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C. 20230
In the Matter of Improvement of Technical Management of
Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule
Docket No. 980212036-8036-01
COMMENTS OF THE COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CPSR)
The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
o http://www.cpsr.org
by their attorneys, respectfully submit these comments on the "Green Paper"
o http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm
released by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
o http://www.ntia.doc.gov
regarding present and future systems for
registration and administration of Internet domain names..."
"...Internet Self-Governance
As noted, the Green Paper's proposal for creation of a private,
not-for-profit corporation (the new corporation) to manage coordinated
Internet functionalities, including the present IANA function of IP number
allocation, is a landmark development. If implemented correctly, this
approach will help assure that the ongoing DNS administration will be
handled in an open, balanced and non-governmental manner, with full
participation by consumers and small commercial entities, in addition
to trademark owners.
It is essential, however, that the new corporation is truly
open and free from conflicts of interest. Accordingly, while CPSR agrees
with reservation of Board seats to regional IP number registries (ARIN, APNIC,
RIPE) and the IAB, we do not believe that the reservation of only one
Board seat for "an individual or entity engaged in non-commercial,
not-for-profit use of the Internet" is appropriate. Internet "users" have,
unfortunately, for too long been synonymous with entities operating
commercial Internet activities, rather than the millions of
individuals ("end users" in other parlance) who actually use the
Internet for communications. CPSR urges that both the Internet
"membership association" contemplated by the Green Paper, as
well as the new corporation Board seats, have at least equal
representation by both Internet end users and commercial Internet providers.
In otherwords, four of the seven Board seats allocated to a
membership association (to be created) representing Internet users
should be reserved for non-commercial, non-profit Internet users.
Moreover, Board members should not be employees of registrars,
registries or of any other entity competing for commercial services in the
domain name registration market.
CPSR concurs that the new corporation must "reflect changes in the
constituency of Internet stakeholders." That means, we believe, that
governance of the new corporation must be formally vested in an
international Board, with full representation from all parts of the
world. Both in order to avoid the appearance of US hegemony, as well
as to secure the political support the Green Paper requires in the
context of the global Internet, CPSR believes that Board representation
should also be reserved for international representatives. While
these should not be government or quasi-government representatives,
the importance of internationally balanced representation cannot be understated.
The new corporation should be prepared to deal with disputes between
registrars and registries, but it should not be designing protocols
or participating in technical work now done by the IETF. It should
also not use its number-assigning role to "pick winners" in opening of
new gTLDs. In this regard, while CPSR agrees that in performing
coordinated Internet functions the new corporation will be acting
"much like" a standards-setting body (and with applicable legal
liability if competitive safeguards and open processes are not observed),
it is vital to state clearly that the new corporation will not be
engaged in developing or adopting Internet technical standards.
For instance, if technical standards are required for the development
of registry sharing or for root server coordination, these should
continue to be driven by the technical members of IETF, rather than the
new corporation..."
[Please read the rest of this greenpaper.]
- --
P.A. Gantt, mailto:pgantt@icx.net?subject=REPLY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P_A_Place is found here
http://www.egroups.com/group/p_a_place/
Visit the bottom of this page:
o http://user.icx.net/~pgantt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:54:15 -0400
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] ARTICLE: Should states sell high-speed Net access?
SHOULD STATES SELL HIGH-SPEED NET ACCESS?
=========================================
Internet service providers in Virginia face a difficult challenge
against the state's plan to offer cut-rate high-speed Internet
access. The Virginia government has been providing universities,
state agencies, and public schools with fast and cheap access
through Net.Work.Virginia, which gets special rates from Bell
Atlantic and Sprint because of its massive customer base. The
state now has floated the idea of including private business and
residential customers in Net.Work, and ISPs are understandably
worried. Ray Everett-Church of the Virginia ISP Alliance says
that in his view the government should not be butting heads with
private companies over a consumer market. Other states, including
Texas and Iowa, as well as several municipalities have considered
similar measures in order to save businesses money and expand Web
use to less wealthy households. (C|Net 06/10/99)
Original Source:
o http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37624,00.html?owv
C|Net
News | Communications
Should states sell high-speed Net access?
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 10, 1999, 5:50 a.m. PT
"A proposal by Virginia's state government to sell
discounted high-speed Internet access to the business
sector has touched off a battle pitting small ISPs
against the government..."
- -- Edupage
~As Quoted in NEWSLTR Digest - 15 Jun 1999 - Special issue (#1999-304)
by Gleason Sackman~
Related Articles:
o http://www.surfnetusa.com/cable/SJMNcablearticle1.htm
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
FIGHT OVER PHONE LINES
HIGH-SPEED NET ACCESS: OUTCOME OF PAC BELL'S
BATTLE WITH START-UP MAY DETERMINE PRICE,
AVAILABILITY FOR CONSUMERS.
PAC BELL BALKS AT SHARING WITH START-UP
Other C|Net Articles this Week:
o http://www.news.com/Week/List/0,100,0,00.html?st.ne.lh..owv
- --
P.A. Gantt, mailto:pgantt@icx.net?subject=REPLY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P_A_Place is found here
http://www.egroups.com/group/p_a_place/
Visit the bottom of this page:
o http://user.icx.net/~pgantt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #308
******************************
