Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 328
Netizens-Digest Friday, August 6 1999 Volume 01 : Number 328
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
[netz] RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
[netz] Re: Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Re: [netz] Re: Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
[netz] Report from Geneva, 25 July 1998 (was: Internet stability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
Ellen Rony wrote:
>Nick Patience wrote:
>>Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said:
>>>
>>>"Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of
>>>functions from NSF to NTIA,
>>from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say
>>IFWP."
>
>Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it.
>
(...)
>
>Bottom line, the story about ICANN is
>very simple: It's about the establishment
>of a governance body over the Internet, one
>that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up
>consensus building process, one that *isn't*!
>
>Show me *one* story written from this
>perspective that has made its way out
>to the broad audience of the general
>daily newspapers, and I'll admit that
>I was mistaken.
I agree with Ellen. I wrote an op ed for a trade paper.
I explained ICANN, all the functions, etc. in 630 words
as they said I had to do.
They said they would use the story.
Then they said rewrite it all over again in 500 words.
They gave me 10 new questions to answer and told me
I had 2 hours to do so.
I even did that. And they told me they decided *not*
to use it.
The point is that the story is being *censored* and
kept out of the U.S. press.
There are powerful forces keeping it all quiet and the
problem isn't that the story is complicated.
The problem is that what is being grabbed is big time
loot and those doing the grabbing want it done in the
dark.
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, 4 Aug 1999 22:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
Jeff Mason <pccf@bigbird.earth-net.net> wrote:
>The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print
>the op ed. That does happen at the last moment.
Nope Jeff, the op ed Editor told me they decided *not* to
use it.
That was after he had told me they would use it.
I wrote asking the editor who sent me to the op ed editor
to ask about it and he said yes they wouldn't use it.
>Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you
>recieved a definate no on this.
I received a definite *no*.
>Has anyone else had this sort of problem with the press?
And they kept me working on it through three days of my time,
claiming they would use it.
They also encouraged me to go to the Washington Congressional
hearing and add my observations from the hearing.
And I had gotten a definite that it would be run, but it
might take a few weeks. That was before the hearing. While
after the Congressional hearing they kept telling me to make
changes.
The online version of the trade journal printed the standard
fair story of how the hearing turned out to be a challenge to
NSI. That wasn't what my op ed said. My intuition is that that
was the accepted line for any report that was to be allowed
describing the Congressional hearing, and my story didn't fit
in that mold and thus was not *allowed* to be printed.
Sadly this is very far from the broad ranging public discussion
that the press should be encouraging on this issue to help
Congress to recognize the problem and to take on to try to figure
out how to solve it.
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: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:25:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>Hello.
>Jeff Mason wrote:
>
>> The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit
>> like a mafiosi
>> less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain
>> from threatening
>> comments.
>
>The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't
>think he was threatening anybody, but simply state a belief, which is that
>the most likely event in case of a failure of ICANN is that the whole matter
>will be ruled by an international organization operating under a sort of
>international agreement.
So the only way to argue for ICANN to exist is to threaten that something
worse will happen if it doesn't.
That makes clear that ICANN is illegitimate.
And those who argue that you can't complain about ICANN or you will
only get something worse, show that they have no basis to
have anything to do with the Internet, certainly *not* take
over control of its essential functions.
The Internet was created by a process of trying to figure out
what was needed, and then creating the prototypes that would
help to see test what was needed in the real world. That was
indeed the process my proposal set in motion.
see http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
That was what was needed as a process to determine how to create
an appropriate institutional form based on study and understanding
of what the forms are that have supported the development of
the Internet.
That wasn't done and instead some secret process created the ICANN
form and it has been pushed thru denying and disregarding the
illegal nature of the process that is throwing out all the U.S.
government procedures and laws that say that it is illegal and
illegitimate to give government functions to a private, government
created corporation.
The secret government activity via the Government Advisor Committee
made up of who knows which governments and on what basis, is a
harmful means of having government abuse their obligations to do
only what they are mandated to do.
The problem with ICANN is that private interests are being put
in control of a scientific entity. They are incapable of providing
the needed oversight and support that that scientific entity needs.
The private interests that have come onto the ICANN interim board
have been put there because they have a conflict of interest
with the public purpose and nature of the Internet.
Only a structure that has a means of preventing and fighting
against those who have a conflict of interest gaining power,
is appropriate for the ownership and control of the essential
functions of the Internet.
There is knowledge in the U.S. about how to create such a
structure. This knowledge is what created the institution
that made it possible to give birth to the Internet.
These lessons had to be drawn on instead of creating ICANN.
There is no authority for the U.S. government to give away this
public property. It has the obligation of being responsible
in how these essential functions will be controlled. The U.S.
government has created ICANN to evade that responsibity,
*not* to carry out that responsibility.
It is important that there be the recognition of the responsibility
and the study and examination of how to undertake that responsiblity.
The end of ICANN will be good, *not* something worse.
The Internet and its users, utilizing U.S. government procedures,
(rather than evading them as those supporting ICANN have done)
will be able to figure out what is needed to replace ICANN with.
And they will be able to create it, determine how to legitimately
test it, and refine it, just as was done in creating the Internet.
That is very different from the phony so called "design and test"
cooperative agreement that ICANN has been given with the Dept
of Commerce. That agreement is *not* for any testing, but for
creating what is illegal and figuring out how to evade all
the means within U.S. law to stop such illegitimate activity.
At the hearing in Washington on July 22, one of the Congressmen
said that maybe it was necessary to suspend the authority of
the NTIA considering what they are doing with ICANN.
Also the authority that the Dept of Commerce provided to the
House Commerce Committee for transferring authority from
the NSF to itself was not an authority to transfer authority,
but only to share authority.
The NSF couldn't transfer the authority it had to oversee
and provide what is needed for the ownership and control of
essential functions of the Internet.
The Office of Inspector General of the NSF issued a Report on
Feb. 7, 1997 saying that the U.S. government had a responsibility
to the public based on the great amount of funding and work
that has gone into building the Internet. That the NSF can't
just give away ownership and control of the essential functions
and it can't give away policy making authority. (The OIG NSF
Report is some of the built in checks and balances that
the U.S. government has to prevent it from making the mistake
it has made in creating ICANN. But instead of utilizing
and respecting its own procedures, U.S. govt officials
created an interdepartmental task force to evade these procedures.)
And it couldn't transfer this to the Dept of Commerce, though
it could cooperate with other Departments when appropriate.
But what is happening is *not* appropriate.
And one wonders why Becky Burr didn't testify at the hearing
in Washington, but instead the Dept of Commerce lawyer testified.
And no real answers were given to the serious questions asked
of why the problems happening now weren't anticipated.
Who created the plan for ICANN and why?
>My personal opinion is that this is exactly what is going to happen. There
>is no way you can convince the governments not to step in if the ICANN
>solution will fail. Whether the outcome will be an international body with
>specific intergovernmental status like ITU, FAO, or other UN organizations,
>or a different type of body like ICAO, InMarSat, etc., is open to debate,
>but the direction seems pretty clear to me.
Governments have already stepped in, and are functioning behind
the scenes in an illegal and unconstitutional way that only
allows they to be more irresponsible than ever.
The hidden government created ICANN is the worst possible situation.
And the recognition that it is a faulted and inappropriate model
for the ownership and control of essential Internet functions will
be a victory for the Internet and its users, not a defeat.
And it will be a victory for the recognition that government procedures
are needed to do something worthwhile, and to help to find the problems
that exist so they can be fixed, not multiplied many times over.
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: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:37:36 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Ronda wrote,
> [Instead of] a process to determine how to create
> an appropriate institutional form based on study and understanding
> of what the forms are that have supported the development of
> the Internet [...] some secret process created the ICANN
> form [as] a private, government created corporation.
>
> The secret government activity via the Government Advisor Committee
> made up of who knows which governments and on what basis, is a
> harmful means of having government abuse their obligations to do
> only what they are mandated to do.
>
> The problem with ICANN is that private interests are being put
> in control of a scientific entity. They are incapable of providing
> the needed oversight and support that that scientific entity needs.
>
Private interests are entirely capable of providing such oversight
and support, as ATT or Rand have demonstrated; the problem is
that they rarely see the *need for oversight in their deep conviction
that whatever anyone does is all for the best in a free market. (Hey,
if it spills plutonium over the face of the earth, its stock wont be
worth much -- therefore it wont happen!)
If one cant tolerate the adjective 'public' I'm happy to substitute
'independent' or even 'disinterested,' but the fundamental role it
describes is this oversight. Whether it needs a God-given mandate
or can be achieved by mutual agreement, the essence is not
merely to *set standards but to uphold them; that is, to (IFWP's
favorite word) enforce them in the face of violations.
The dilemma for the Net-pickers is that in pursuit of one ideal (the
elimination of 'inefficiency' aka 'overhead' ) another (trust and
responsibility) has been lost. Rather, it was put *in the market* but
found no ready buyer -- until the Interglobalized & Scamouflaged
Arrangement To Assign Names and Numbers (ISATANN) popped
up out of the ground. Now that the writing on the contract-wall
glows enough to read by, folks are starting to sound a mite worried,
but can they find a General Operating Directive everyone can agree
on before its too late? That is a 64-bit question.
If that parable is too strong, the alternative therapy may suit you:
ones direst nightmare is that things have been done without one's
knowledge, and now everyone else is simply going through the
motions, appearing to be in a muddle, pretending to ask ones
advice, masquerading as open and approachable real people, and
so on. The two 32-bit q's are: is there any point at all in trying to
act in the *apparent present when such a (para-)belief has taken
over the future; and, if this nightmare has been riding humankind for
at least the last couple hundred years, why do we renounce the
*democratic tools and *governmental techniques that also emerged
during that time (known, btw, as the Enlightenment)? Surely, just
because those who *pretend to wield them have sold out (Im sorry,
_bought in_), is that a reason for us to do so?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:54:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Kerry wrote:
> Ronda wrote,
...
>> The problem with ICANN is that private interests are being put
>> in control of a scientific entity. They are incapable of providing
>> the needed oversight and support that that scientific entity needs.
> Private interests are entirely capable of providing such oversight
> and support, as ATT or Rand have demonstrated;
Kerry is mistaken by his examples of AT&T and Rand.
>From 1913 to 1984, AT&T was a regulated
utility (some say monopoly). As such it was under government oversight.
If ATT stepped out of bounds or didn't perform its tasks up to public
expectations, state and the federal governments could and did step in.
Since 1920 virtually all states have had Public Utility Commissions (PUC)
historically with the power to regulate telephone service. At the federal
level the FCC played a similar role from 1934 to the 1980s. The effect on
AT&T was to narrow its activities to solely those of telecommunications.
Under that pressure AT&T supported scientific activity at Bell Telephone
Laboratories (Bell Labs). Only in that way was it able to meet the
mandates of the 1934 Communications Act to provide universally available
service at uniform low rates using the most advanced technology. A particular
example is the development of Unix at Bell Labs could not have as its purpose
or result a marketted operating system as a product. That was prohibitted
by the 1956 Consent Decree restricting ATT to telecommunications activities.
Similarly, Rand Corporation did most if not all of its work under contract
to agencies and departments of the US government, especially the Air Force.
What support there was at Rand for basic research came about not because
there was a private purpose or motivation but because such research was
needed for public purposes like military defence of the US.
Private profit motivation conflicts with the long range and unpredictable
nature of scientific research so basic research occurs only under protection
from profit, product or other non public motivations.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:33:27 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Report from Geneva, 25 July 1998 (was: Internet stability
Isnt it interesting how little actually changes in real time?
Could it be that, regardless of our ideological differences, we're
<shudder> _ineffective_?
========
http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/199808/msg00026.html
Report from the Front
Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize
the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems
by Ronda Hauben
There is a battle being waged today, one that is of great
importance to the future of society, but most people have no idea
it is taking place.
I just returned from Geneva, Switzerland where a meeting was
held Friday July 25 and Saturday July 26 to create the
organization that Ira Magaziner, advisor to the U.S. President,
has called for. It is an organization to privatize key aspects of
the Internet, the Domain Name System (DNS) and the control of the
root server of the Internet. The meeting was the second in a
series that are part of the International Forum on the White
Paper (IFWP) (1).
The U.S. government, without discussion by the U.S.
Congress, the press or the public, and contrary to the direction
of the U.S. court (in the case ACLU vrs. Reno) is throwing a bone
to the private sector and offering them the possibility of making
their millions off of the Internet. And while in Geneva, I saw
folks from several different countries grabbing at the bone, in
hopes of getting themselves some of the same kind of exorbitant
profits from selling gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) that the
National Science Foundation (NSF) bestowed on Network Services
Inc (NSI) several years ago by giving them the contract enabling
them to charge for domain name registration.
There is money to be made, or so these folks seem to think, and
so any concern for the well being of the Internet or its continued
development as "a new medium of international communication"
(ACLU vrs Reno) has been thrown to the wind by Mr. Magaziner,
IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) under the direction of
Mr. Postel, which has the U.S. government contract to administer
the Internet Addresses and Names and to administer the root
server, and the others who, without any ethical considerations or
social obligations are rushing through this process and squelching
discussion and dissent.
It is called "consensus" we are told. I went to the session
setting up the Names Registry Council provisions for the bylaws
of what we are told is to be the new private organization
controlling these key aspects of the Internet. At the beginning
of the meeting, I made the mistake of objecting when all were
asked to register their consensus with the provision for a Names
Council. I wanted to hear some discussion so I would know what I
was voting on. I was scolded by one participant for asking for a
discussion. He claimed that they were *not* here for people who
had not read the bylaws proposal that appeared online only a few
days before. I had read the bylaws proposal but was naive enough
to think that one would hear discussion and clarification before
being asked to declare one's adherence. In that way I thought one
would know what one was agreeing to. Instead, however, I soon
learned that that was *not* how business (or really religion) was
being developed in the session I attended.
After harassing me for asking for clarification and
discussion, the meeting continued. The Chairman asked people to
brainstorm and list the functions for the council. When I asked
that the activities of the council be reported online and that
there be online discussion with anyone interested being allowed
to comment on all issues concerning the council, the scribe
miswrote what I had proposed. When I asked it be corrected, I was
told by the Chair that there was no "wordsmithing" allowed, i.e.
that it would not be corrected. After a number of people had
listed functions for the council, it was announced that the
meeting would vote on the functions to determine if there was
"consensus". Then a vote was rammed through on the items.
However, instead of counting the numbers for or against each
function, there was a declaration of "consensus" if, we were
told, it seemed as if there were 60% of those voting who had
voted for the listed function. For the first few functions those
opposed were allowed to voice their objection. The meeting was
being tape recorded, we were told, and there would be a record
kept of it. But that soon ended as someone in the room objected
to hearing any objections. The Chair said that this was how this
was done at the telecom meetings he knew of, as there the players
were large corporations with large bank accounts that could
afford big law suits. Here, however, it seemed those in control
of the meeting judged this was not the case. A short break was
called. After the break it was announced that those with
objections could no longer voice them on the record during the
meeting but were told to come up after the meeting was over.
So the vote continued on, consensus continued to be declared
for most of the items voted on, despite the fact there were those
indicating their opposition to all of these items. But the record
would no longer contain any note of the objections. The Chair and
others marvelled at the roll they were on. Even though it was
time for the meeting to end, one of the Chairs of the plenary
meeting allowed this meeting to continue as it was on such a
roll.
Then to the Plenary meeting. Here there was joy and praise
for this democratic process from the Chair and spokespeople from
the different sessions. When I tried to go to the microphone and
say that the consensus in the session I had been in to determine
functions for the Names Council represented "no discussion
allowed and no noting of those who objected," the Chair of the
Plenary Meeting told me I was not allowed to speak there.
This all followed the invitation that had been extended in
the press lunch on Tuesday, July 21 at INET, where all members of
the press were invited to come to the Friday and Saturday
sessions of the IFWP and were invited to participate. However, by
Friday and Saturday the invitation clearly had changed,
especially if one had a question or objection to raise about what
was happening.
And this is how the supposed new private organization that is to
administer and make policy for the Domain Names System that is
the nerve system of the Internet and the Root Server System, is
being created. No one with any but a private commercial interest
(in normal language, a conflict of interest) is to be allowed to
participate in the process, no discussion to clarify what people are
being asked to vote on is allowed to take place, and no objections
could be voiced in the session creating the Names Council, which
is one of the crucial aspects of the organizational form, as it is
groups with a commercial interest in the sale of gTLDs who have
decreed to themselves the right to set policy and recommend
actions regarding the gTLDs.
What is the significance of this process as a way to create
an organization to take over control and administration of the
nerve center of the Global Internet?
The Internet was developed and has grown and flourished
through the opposite procedures, through democratic processes
where all are welcomed to speak, where those who disagree are
invited to participate, and to voice their concerns along with
those who agree, where those who can make a single contribution
are as welcome as those with the time to continually contribute.
(See Poster "Lessons from the early MsgGroup Mailing List as a
Foundation for Identifying the Principles for Future Internet
Governance" by Ronda Hauben, INET '98.)(2) Also historically, the
processes for discussion on key issues regarding the development
of the Net are carried out online, as a medium of online
communication is what is being built.
This is all the opposite of what is happening with the
privatizing of the DNS and throwing it to the corporate interests
who are the so called "market forces". Here only those who can
afford thousands of dollars for plane fare can go to the
meetings, and once at the meetings, one is only allowed to
participate in a way that registers agreement. At the sessions I
attended there was no discussion permitted so no one knows if
what they think they are voting on is indeed what it appears to
be and there is no opportunity to clarify one's views on an issue
as there is no chance to discuss the pros and cons. And for those
for whom English is not the first language, or for someone who
disagrees with what is happening, there is mockery and the
attempt to make them feel unwelcome.
This is *not* the way to create a new and pioneering
organization to administer and control the nerve center of an
international public communications infrastructure that has been
built with the tax money and effort of people around the world.
When those who have questions or think what is happening is a
problem are not allowed to speak, it means that there is no way
to know what the problems are to be solved, or what can be
proposed that can offer any solution.
The U.S. government has initiated and is directing this
process with no regard for the concerns and interests of the
people online or not yet online. Instead only those with profit
making blinders over their eyes are able to stand the glare this
rotten process is reflecting.
During his speech at the opening session of the IFWP in Geneva,
Mr. Ira Magaziner said that the U.S. government no longer has any
obligation to the well being of the people in the U.S. and he left the
room, claiming that the U.S. government would not be involved in
the process to create the new organization. But the bylaws of the
new organization, made available only a few days before the
meeting, and thus not long enough for those traveling to the
meeting to have had a chance to study or discuss them, were
presented by IANA and its lawyer. IANA is the U.S. government
contractor proposing the structure of this new "private"
organization. Thus the U.S. government is deeply involved in this
process but not in any way that fulfills its obligation to provide for
the well being of the American people. Meanwhile there is a lawsuit
against the NSF brought by a company which sees itself as the
MCI of the Internet. The lawsuit claims that anyone who wishes
should be able to go into business creating gTLDs. The fact that
the DNS is a hierarchical architecture to keep the number of root
level lookups for the Internet at a minimum is irrelevant to those
bringing the lawsuit and to the U.S. government who is offering out
to private sector corporations competition in selling root level
gTLDs. And the primary functions rammed through at the Saturday
meeting was that the Names Council is being created to make
policy and recommendations for how to increase the number of
gTLDs, despite the fact that those proposing this structure had a
commercial self interest in the issues and thus a conflict of interest
in being involved in proposing or setting public policy regarding the
future of the Internet.
This is the degeneration that the U.S. government's pro commercial
policy on the future development of the Internet has led to. There is
no concern by Magaziner for the fact that millions of dollars of U.S.
taxpayer money (and taxpayer money of people around the world)
and effort has gone to create and develop the Internet. The policy of
the U.S. government is to try to stop the use of the Internet as a
medium of international communication for ordinary people and to
deny its technical needs and processes. This is contrary to the
directive of the U.S. court that the U.S. government "should also
protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary
people as well as media magnates." (ACLU vrs. Reno)
The next meeting of the IFWP is set for Singapore in August 1998.
Magaziner has given this ad hoc self appointed group a deadline to
have an interim organization in place by September 30. So the
Internet is to be auctioned off as officials in the U.S. government
oversee the grabfest.
But there are people who care about the Net and its continued
growth and development as a medium of international
communication. And it is in the hands of these Netizens that any
future health of this crucial communications infrastructure that
makes possible an unprecedented level and degree of international
communication must rest. The public needs to know what is going
on and it is important that Netizens find a way to both intervene in
this give away of public property and let the rest of the world know
what is happening.
------------
Notes
(1) The White paper was issued by the U.S. government. It begins:
"On July 1, 1997, as part of the Clinton Administration's
"Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" the President
directed
the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the domain name system
(DNS) in a manner that increases competition...."
(2) Write to ronda@panix.com for copy of Poster. Also see
"Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet",
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ or in print edition ISBN
0-8186-7706-6.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
The above report is appearing as an appendix in the Amateur
Computerist, July 1998 Supplement "Controversy Over the Internet"
available at: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/dns-supplement or via
email from jrh@ais.org
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
# distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg
body
# URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/
contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl
=====
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #328
******************************
