Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 311
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, June 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 311
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: quasi-government role of ICANN
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
[netz] Re: Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
[netz] world conference on science
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 19:16:26 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: quasi-government role of ICANN
> "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
>
> >Which reminds me - are there any historical examples where
> >an entity playing a quasi-governmental role like ICANN has
> >ever displayed such amazing behavior as we've witnessed over
> >the past couple of weeks - and whether it doesn't essentially
> >disenfranchise it from playing that role? It's worthy of
> >research.
>
> >--tony
The TVA, and the 60's Australian parallel (Snowy Mountains Hydro-
Electric Authority) are quasi-governmental organizations -- but I
don't believe they ever got as carried away in their roles as ICANN.
I'm not familiar with the life and times of the TVA, but at least the
SMA has performed very creditably, and was extended to become
the SMEC (Engineering Corp) involved in large-scale overseas
development projects. There may be something to be learned from
their enabling legislation.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:40:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
>From owner-list-outgoing@vrx.net Tue Jun 29 00:13:19 1999
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id AAA04979
for <ronda@panix.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
id 7B41AF01E; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: list-outgoing@vrx.net
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
id 50B92F028; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: list@vrx.net
Received: from bilbo.dso.net (bilbo.dso.net [206.16.77.10])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99814F01E
for <list@ifwp.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from we-24-30-109-61.we.mediaone.net (william@we-24-30-109-61.we.mediaone.net [24.30.109.61])
by bilbo.dso.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA20874
for <list@ifwp.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:13:10 -0700
From: william@dso.net (William X. Walsh)
To: list@ifwp.org
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:13:03 GMT
Message-ID: <377a475c.6497450@mail.dso.net>
References: <199906290402.AAA13532@panix3.panix.com>
In-Reply-To: <199906290402.AAA13532@panix3.panix.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-list@ifwp.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
Status: R
william@dso.net (William X. Walsh) writes:
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:02:07 -0400 (EDT), Ronda Hauben
<ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>>Ronda,
>
>>The Internet was not the "market" when it was born and it isn't
>>and won't be a "market now or in the future.
>
>>It is a communication medium.
>Yes it is, and the simple fact is that the people who use the internet
>are a "market."
No we are users!!!
That's what makes the Internet a participatory medium - the users
are part of the Internet, not some passive consumers who are
coach potatoes !
>>You wouldn't have a cooperative communication structure if=20
>>there were any such "market", you would have a monopoly of
>>some one company like Microsoft etc.
>No you wouldn't. That is called a "Monopoly."
It turns out that the need for globally unique IP numbers
are indeed a piece of the infrastructure of the Internet -
not some bait for someone's theories.
Whoever gets control of the IP numbers and the Domain Name
System and the root server system, etc. if they are
not a public and cooperative entity, will mean real problems
for the Internet and its users.
>Perhaps some education in ecomomics might help you understand this.
It would seem you need idea of the history and development of
the Internet to understand the Internet *not* some theories
that don't work outside of the Interent, and are certainly inappropriate
to the nature of a communications medium.
>>If you start with an apple, all the wishes in the world won't
>>make it into a pear.
>Over time, things evolve.
It still doesn't become a pear.
>And nothing you say can reverse it. Learn to live with it.
Reverse what?
The Internet is a communications medium. Users are users.
Who is trying to reverse what?
>Your rantings about trying to bring back the past just make you look
>foolish.
Interesting - to look at the reality is called "ranting" by you.
And meanwhile there is the mess that is ICANN and the behind the
scenes power plays and that is being covered up by this
talk of users as not being users but someone's bait.
But the problem won't go away despite all the wishful dreams
of "markets" and "money" and "get rich quick schemes".
We are in an age of software and an age of an Internet.
It's a new millennium but I realize there are folks think that
none of this is true.
It turns out that the history of the Internet is in fact the future.
It is the new.
That IPTO was a model for how to create new technology and new
computer science.
There may be those in the U.S. or elsewhere with these dreams
of "markets" and trying to push the Internet into the old
boxes and old forms of the past.
But it won't go.
The Internet is the new, and users connected to computers connected
to networks communicating with others around the world are the
new.
There are new ways of creating software, the linux way, and
there are new ways of creating and developing networks, the
open architecture way.
And none of that is the "market".
So those with dreams of "markets" will try to end the Internet
and make it into the old.
But that won't change the fact that we are in a new age and
that the new technology and computer science doesn't fit
in the old categories.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:45:42 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
Well said!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:35:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
>From owner-list-outgoing@vrx.net Tue Jun 29 01:28:50 1999
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id BAA12345
for <ronda@panix.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:28:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
id 451D2F083; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:34:10 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: list-outgoing@vrx.net
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
id 188F3F084; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:34:10 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: list@vrx.net
Received: from richard.vrx.net (mbv1-pl-ri20.kos.net [206.186.41.60])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with SMTP
id 19E00F083; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:34:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: rsexton@vrx.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: list@ifwp.org, list@ifwp.org
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@tangled.web>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or
ICANN
Message-Id: <19990629053408.19E00F083@ns1.vrx.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:34:08 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: owner-list@ifwp.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
Status: R
"Richard J. Sexton" <richard@tangled.web> writes:
Ronda Hauben writes:
>>The Internet was not the "market" when it was born and it isn't
>>and won't be a "market now or in the future.
>
>>It is a communication medium.
>So is a newspaper, and by Jesus look at the ads in that thing.
Is that what you wish as the model for the Internet?
There are those who lament what has happened to newspapers because
of the pollution from the advertising world. I have even seen
the same complaint from folks who had some hope for television.
But newspapers and tv aren't participatory mediums and the Internet and
Usenet are.
And that is to be understood as fundamentally different.
Sure it is possible to pollute and destroy the Internet and it does
seem that there are folks have no concern that that might happen
as long as they get their cut of the carcass. That's what vultures
are about and I didn't say that vultures don't exist with respect
to the Internet.
But there are also folks who understand the Internet as something
very special and are trying to do what they can to stop those
who are out to destroy it.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:50:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
>On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:39:04 -0700, "Cthulhu's Little Helper"
> Mark C. Langston <skritch@home.com> wrote:
On 29 June 1999, william@dso.net (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>>Those decisions are what make you a part of the market.
>Perhaps, William, perhaps. However, *I* will *choose* to be a market.
(...)
>I am not a passive consumer. Nor is the rest of the net, though you
>may wish it so. We do not grant you license to turn the net into the
>next TV wasteland.
>(and when I say "we", I refer to myself, and any other disenfranchised
>person who chooses to agree with me. Unlike many on the other side of
>the fence, I don't dare assume I'm speaking for 200 million people.)
For the "marketeers" there are no citizens and no netizens, only
gullible victims to be preyed on.
But there are citizens and netizens. People are something more
than what the advertising world wishes to cast them as.
However, this disease is now being inflicted on the Internet wholesale
via government support and initiation, and with ICANN as the spearhead.
The Internet was created under protection from government against
the marketeers and the hype of "free marketeering"
and for now at least in the U.S. government has given the
ok to spread the hype as far and as wide as possible.
But the Internet is the product of science, not of "hype".
Interesting. The Internet puts changes on the order of the day
in terms of new forms of participatory activity by the citizen
and netizen. And the science needs that participation as well.
Those who care about the Internet recognize that there is a need
to utilize this participatory quality to figure out how to
deal with the attack on the Internet from those who see
the communication it makes possible among people as a danger.
But the scientific world needs the communication as well.
So only if the U.S. government wants to be setting the world back
into the dark ages they will keep up with this thoughtless
process of trying to convert what is a scientific and communications
medium into an arena for skullduggery. There will be a cost if
they continue on the path, and it has seemed that there are
folks in the U.S. government who recognize that this is not
the best path forward.
That the Internet as a communications medium needs protection
and that its integrity is important.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:10:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] world conference on science
> From: John Horvath <jhorv@kincsem.btf.hu>
Hi everyone,
I'm attending the week-long world conference on science here in Budapest,
Hungary. My first impression of this conference is that it's a
disappointment. Issues related to computer technology and the Internet are
merely mentioned in passing. In fact, computer science and the Internet
are not considered to be an integral part of science at all.
What is especially worrying is the ignorance about ICANN amongst most
delegates. In my article Cone of Silence, the point that people have no
idea of what is going on is an understatement.
I have enclosed an article I wrote on the opening day of the congress
which might be of interest to some of you. I am writing daily reports
about what is going on, so if any of you are interested in what is being
discussed (or, more accurately, what is not) you can find these reports at
http://www.heise.de/tp.
bye for now,
John
>From jgy@caesar.power.elte.hu Tue Jun 29 09:30:02 1999
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:13:55 +0200 (METDST)
From: John Horvath <jgy@caesar.power.elte.hu>
To: Florian Roetzer <fr@tp.heise.de>
Subject: first report
Florian,
Sorry this is in text, but I want to get it out to you right away.
Please check it because there's probably some mistakes. I have email
access from the press lounge so I will be checking my mail frequently. I
will try to send a report for you everyday about what happened (like
with the Internet and Politics conference in Munich). There is one
thematic session where they will discuss "Sharing Knowledge" which will
have a part on the Internet, but I don't think they will discuss it at
the level you are interested in. They seem to go around the issue and
just mention computer technology in passing. Anyway, we'll see.
Ciao,
John
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toward a New Commitment?
The Opening of the World Conference on Science
by John Horvath
A world conference on science opened yesterday in Budapest, Hungary.
What made this conference special was that it is first such conference
world conference specifically dedicated to science. Also, taking into
account that 80% of all the world's scientists since the beginning of
time are still alive, it was a momentous opportunity to gather as many
of them together as possible.
The motto of the conference is "Science for the 21st century: a new
commitment". By the end of the conference, delegates will draw up a
declaration which they hope will define (or, as some would have it,
redefine) the place of science for the coming millennium.
The conference was officially opened by Arpad Goncz, President of the
Republic of Hungary. He emphasized the need to recognize the results of
science and chart the developments for the upcoming century. This was a
message reaffirmed by subsequent speakers. What was already apparent
with the opening session, however, was that although a unity of purpose
seem to prevail among delegates, there were some slightly divergent
paths to which the broad and hazily defined objectives were to be
achieved.
Although not specifically mentioned, the issue surrounding "the
privatization of science" nevertheless hovered in the background. This
was apparent even before the conference began. On the official web site
of the WCS, the Welcoming Salutation by the President of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences and Chairman of the Hungarian Organizing Committee,
Ferenc Glatz, wrote
"Since 1990, when the first free parliamentary elections were
held in Hungary in more than forty years, we have gone a long
way to build up the legal, institutional, and - in the broadest
sense of the word - cultural infrastructure of a modern society
and a market economy. Throughout these historic changes we have
tried to "position" science accordingly to its due place in a
modern society. In a society where knowledge is an enabling base
for both fostering economic growth and creating intellectual
wealth."
He went on further to note that, in Hungary's case, "never before in
history has any country had the job of this scale to decentralise the
centralised, to privatise the state-owned, to build up a civil society
based on individual freedoms on the ruins of a collective non-autonomy."
It came as no surprise, therefore, when he noted at the opening session
that "capital is our natural ally."
It is clear from Glatz that the underlying message of globalization --
that of privatization and a new world order based on neo-liberalist
economic principles -- should be the guiding force for science into the
21st century. This undoubtedly means the realignment of society into a
service state based on a hierarchy of power. Along these lines,
"knowledge" (scientific and other) is not geared toward personal
fulfillment and understanding, but to constantly adapt to the whims and
needs of the "market". According to Glatz, "this process should begin
with such developments as the improvement of the quality of the
workforce, with people seeking to obtain high-level scientific
qualifications, or the formation of a highly qualified local scientific
and technological elite." This was reinforced by Gatz's assertion that
scientists -- and only scientists -- can come up with the necessary
solutions that presently confront and confound the world. As far as he
is concerned, the pursuit of science is an elite activity.
This conservative, Aristotelian view of science, unfortunately, doesn't
take into account emerging models for finding possible solutions. A case
in point is with open source software development. All delegates thus
far have failed to take into account this model of collective problem
solving. One reason may be because information technology, ironically,
is not considered to be "science" in the classic sense of the war,
unlike chemistry, biology, or physics. Indeed, judging by the passing
mention that most delegates gave to "information technology" (the term
computer science was never referred to), many see computer science as
merely a tool for the enhancement and dissemination of "science". This
also holds true for the discussions related to poverty and environmental
degradation; the possibility of social exclusion induced by a two-tier
"information society" was conveniently side-stepped by not only Glatz
but, subsequently, all delegates.
Following Glatz was Pal Pataki, Chairman of the UNESCO Executive board.
His approach was more conciliatory in that science has become an
action-oriented undertaking and, in light of the present economic
climate, needs to be reconciled with the marketplace. Unlike Gatz, this
call for reconciliation does not openly condone the privatization of
science; at the same time, it does not condemn it either. Still, mention
was made of the need to address environmental issues. Pataki also felt
that there was a need to sustain support for science at the national
level. At the same time, he believed that research in the 21st century
should be based on the notion of "science with a conscious".
Echoing many of the same concerns and hopes of the previous speakers,
Professor Werner Arber, President of the International Council of
Science (ICSU), an NGO of prominent scientists from around the world,
added that issues related to global climatic change and bio-diversity
needed to be forefront on the minds of scientists. This was followed by
Frederico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO, who saw a need to
collectively map a new direction for science. Accordingly, the
priorities for science was to enhance development and human dignity, to
foster peace and democracy, and to provide solutions to global problems.
In order to achieve these general and obvious goals, Mayor recognized
that science can't be left to "market forces" alone. In fact, he saw
public support as the real life-line for scientific research. Hence,
what is needed is more political will on the part of governments -- both
nationally and internationally. Mayor is convinced that progress and
democracy goes hand in hand; therefore, it was time to forge a new
relationship between science, scientists, and the public sector.
The keynote addresses by leading scientists which followed these
speakers for the most part elaborated what had already been said. The
only difference was that a plethora of UN statistics usually peppered
the speech. And so Jose I. Vargas from Brazil, President of the Third
World Academy of Sciences, focused on the need for science to develop a
new social contract. Many arguments illustrating the vast discrepancies
between North and South and the extent of human misery. Interestingly
enough, the usual Third World comparisons were used; Central and Eastern
Europe, in where the conference was being held and which is neither
First nor Third World, was not mentioned. It seemed to be assumed that
these countries are not suffering, despite the fact that a continuing
brain drain has impoverished the scientific community for well over a
decade.
As with the organizing committee speakers of before, Vargas touched on
the obvious. For instance, more needs to be done to alleviate poverty
and environmental degradation needs to be tackled. Unlike the others,
Vargas did make mention of computer technology. He sees with the
exponential expansion of information technologies new risks are emerging
related to privacy, secure trade and national security issues, what he
referred to "cyberwar". In another departure from the standard issues of
the day, he made reference to the dangers inherent in biotechnology,
singling out the terminator technology of Monsanto without actually
mentioning the multinational by name.
In order to give some sort of hope for the future, Vargas mentioned the
need to establish links with the various regions of the world. Of
importance were inter-regional links, such as South-South co-operation,
as well as links which flow upstream as well, that is, South-North. He
also looked to the bright side of computer technology, specifically
virtual education. For Vargas, virtual education is important in not
only overcoming the barriers (i.e., narrowing the "knowledge gap") but
is also a tool for preserving cultural diversity. Finally, the
re-establishment of foreign aid to developing countries which, over the
past couple of years, has declined by 30%, should be done with the aim
of bolstering science and research.
Adding a little variety to his address by showing slides, M. S.
Swaminathan, President of the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation,
followed Vargas, elaborating on a few points that the Brazilian
scientist had already touched on. Swaminathan not only explored the
rich-poor divide, but also discussed the population explosion, the case
of food scarcity caused by economic access, global environmental
problems caused by excess consumption (in where the poorest are hurt the
most).
For the challenge of expanding inequality, he delved into the problems
caused at three different levels: by inequality at birth and mentioned
how information technology could help solve this problem (although he
didn't go into details how); inequality in later life that can only be
overcome through the eradication of poverty; and intergenerational
inequality, which are secured by UN conventions. Swaminathan observes
that overcoming these inequalities -- and the eradication of poverty
specifically, can only come about if the "market" is friendly to
multiple micro-enterprises. In other words, he sees big multinationals
as the root cause to expanding inequality.
As for the global environmental problems that the world faces,
Swaminathan sees this as a case to promote bio-diversity. In order to
assist researchers to achieve their goals, computer technology can come
in handy, as in the case of GIS mapping for planning conservation
strategies. He also goes one step further, remarking that "technology
can be an ally in empowerment."
Taking a "stockpile" of scientific discoveries and technological
innovations, Swaminathan concludes that the three great revolutions
which can further humankind are the gene revolution, the ecotechnology
revolution, and the information revolution. Consequently, it is in these
areas where science should focus its efforts.
The keynote speaker following Swaminathan was the President of the
National Academy of Sciences in the US, Bruce Alberts. Alberts was not
originally slated to speak, but his colleague had taken sick in Paris so
he read the prepared speech. Regardless of who read it, the speech was
full of Americana, with vague mention of "freedom" and "human rights"
thrown in for good measure. Also, obscure examples of US scientific
co-operation lent an air to the commodification and privatization of
science that lingered in the background, the same kind which was
apparent at both the Kyoto and Rio de Janiero summits.
According to the text read out by Alberts, science has undergone two
major shifts as it approaches the millennium. The first is the dawning
of the "information age". As if reading from Drucker, the concept of the
"knowledge-based society" was introduced as the most valuable resource
in existence. Not only this, because it is unlimited and
self-catalytic, it is also the most desirable. Thus, as the world moves
toward a knowledge-based economy, science has the challenge to re-invent
itself for the information age.
The second major shift noted by Alberts is the internationalization of
science (personally, this sounds like a euphemism for globalization).
This internationalization has come about because of four influences: the
first is information technology, both as a tool and a catalyst, which
has made the concept of a global village a reality, through the ease
with which information is shared; second, because of the complex
problems facing the world, it has led to a need for co-operation; third,
because of the problems facing the world are global in nature, such as
environmental degradation and drug trafficking (no kidding, that's what
he said), the concerns need international solutions; and, fourth,
growing inequities that can be overcome through the building of
knowledge).
Because of these major shifts, the challenge for scientists is to step
outside of their laboratories and interact with citizens. Consequently,
what needs to be developed is the concept of "civic science". Albert
pointed to Thomas Jefferson, America's third president, as a prime
example of a civic scientist.
The final keynote speaker, Sir Joseph Rotblat, founder and former
president of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, livened
up the end of the first day by breaking ranks with the speakers before
him. Briefly outlining the nature of scientific research, he used a
straightforward approach sans statistics to point at the root of the
problem: he blames scientists wholly for the problems the world is
facing.
Rotblat laments that the gap between pure and applied science has
narrowed to the point where the line separating the two has become
blurred, and that scientific research is now undertaken for the sake of
profit over intellectual endeavour. To this extent, Rotblat condemned
scientists in general for possessing an immoral (as opposed to an
amoral) attitude. He rejects the argument used by most scientists that
they are not responsible for their actions; their problem, argues
Rotblat, is that they cling to an "ivory tower" view of science. Every
citizen is responsible; however, for scientists the weight of
responsibility is heavier for they have the knowledge, and degrees of
knowledge entails degrees of responsibility.
Accordingly, Rotblat sees the solution within the scientist, that they
need to ignore this image of the "ivory tower" and no responsibility.
They must show that it's possible combine compassion and creativity, and
to make science take human values into account. To achieve this end, he
puts forward three recommendations. First, the main purpose of science
should contain an element of utility for the human good. Second, science
should be expressed through an ethical code for scientists, much as the
same for doctors. Rotblat concedes this would be difficult to implement,
but nevertheless it would have symbolic value and may influence young
scientists. To this extent, universities should adopt a pledge toward
obeying the ethical applications of science. Ethical committees should
also be set up; likewise, there is a need for fully independent
organizations (namely NGOs) to deal with ethical issues. Finally,
scientific results must be made available to everybody as opposed to
relying on patents and secret development. Indeed, the biggest danger
facing the world today is governments and scientists working in secret
together, as in the case of the US, the UK, and Russia.
Rotblat ended his keynote address, and thus the first day of the
conference, with a plea to eliminate nuclear weapons. The concept of
nuclear deterrence must be abolished, he argued, and no scientists must
be allowed to work on any project related in any way to nuclear weapons.
"We can't build peace," he said, "through a balance of terror."
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #311
******************************
