Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 327
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, August 4 1999 Volume 01 : Number 327
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
[netz] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:57:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
>From owner-list-outgoing@vrx.net Mon Aug 2 12:10:58 1999
Return-Path: <owner-list-outgoing@vrx.net>
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F9518C1E
for <ronda@panix.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:10:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
id 60BF3F019; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: list-outgoing@vrx.net
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
id 35DC3F029; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:17:58 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: list@vrx.net
Received: from bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca (bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca [128.100.132.16])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E3CF019
for <list@ifwp.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from elope.dialin.utoronto.ca ([142.150.129.134] HELO Craig.utoronto.ca ident: NO-IDENT-SERVICE [port 1038]) by bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <464222-8823>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:10:40 -0400
Message-ID: <004f01bedd01$2e849820$d9a76480@utoronto.ca>
From: "Craig McTaggart" <craig.mctaggart@utoronto.ca>
To: <list@ifwp.org>
References: <4.2.0.58.19990801185712.00aa9d20@mail.netmagic.com>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:07:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Sender: owner-list@ifwp.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
Status: R
"Craig McTaggart" <craig.mctaggart@utoronto.ca> wrote:
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> At 06:24 PM 8/1/99 , Dan Steinberg wrote:
>> >Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so,
>> >why the requests to make changes that would enhance the
>> >stablity of the internet were denied?
>
>> I would go one further and ask why and under what
>> authority the US Dept of Commerce is involved in
>> details of name server operations for an enhanced
>> information service on private computer networks.
There isn't any basis for commerce to give this away.
And the Internet isn't "private computer networks".
That's the trouble with the effort of both the Commerce
Dept trying to give this away and with the whole way
that the give-away started.
It was under this same set of terms.
There Office of Inspector General of the NSF in their Feb. 7 1997
report which the NSF and the Commerce Dept ignored, explained
what the authority and obligation of the U.S. government was to
protect the large public investment and development that has
built the Internet to see that the public purposes and needs
be served, rather than that these public resources are seized
by illegitimate private entities for their private purposes.
The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is
something that requires coordination and oversight and support
to continue its scientific development.
The Commerce Dept cannot understand this nor has any business
with any of it.
When I read the Dept of Commerce response to the early letter
that Bliley sent, it said that the NSF could cooperate with
the Dept of Commerce to write contracts, *but* not that the
NSF had the authority to give anything to the Dept of Commerce
to give away.
>By what authority did NSF give NSI's its monopoly? Why does NASA run root
>servers? I'm a little confused about the USG's involvement in this network
>too, but I think it has something to do with its funding and direction of
>the management of ARPANET and NSFNET. No, the Internet is not ARPANET nor
>NSFNET, and hasn't been for some time -- the physical infrastructure and
>content elements have changed completely. Yet we are still using the same
>technical infrastructure, the same restrictive root zone, and the same root
>server system. To the extent that I'm wrong, and it's not the same stuff,
>the difference is one of scale, of quantity, not quality.
The problem was that NSF allowed NSI to charge amounts on a government
contract that weren't appropriate. The NSF had the authority as
it has been part of the structure in the U.S. government to develop
the Internet (which still needs to be developed). But the NSF doesn't
have the authority to be privatizing public property, and thus
its allowing NSI to run the contract in a way that leads to privatizing
all this is the problem, *not* that it had the contract, and basically
it seemed from the letter of the Commerce Dept the NSF should still
have the contract.
ICANN had and will have no authority.
The U.S. government did have and does have the authority to continue
to support and oversee and even run the aspects of the Internet that
are necessary for the public to have the benefit of this scientific
development built with public funds and public cooperation.
If the U.S. government is not responsible in carrying out its
authority and responsibility, which is what is happening with its
trying to give these controlling resources of the Internet to
ICANN, then it is exceed and going outside of its authority.
>How private are the entities which operate the root servers? Why are they
>involved in the details of name server operations for an enhanced
>information service on private computer networks? They should just walk
>away and let a new root server system self-organize, since it sounds so
>easy. Commerce should just walk away and let the Internet community deal
>with NSI on its own. That would be a good way to make sure there is never
>any meaningful competition in TLD registration, especially if NSI were still
>in control of the root. The legacy root, mind you, and there's no reason
>there can't be others. Unfortunately, the legacy root (or more precisely
>.com) is the VHS tape, the 3.5" floppy, the Windows of the Internet. NSI
>should scare the hell out of multiple root supporters, but instead it has
>emerged as something of a hero in the battle against top-down regulation. I
>don't think Commerce has any authority here whatsoever, but I prefer them to
>NSI.
The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all.
They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity.
The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private.
That's the problem with what is happening.
Instead of endeavoring to understand the Internet and its nature
there are efforts to claim it is "private" and control over
it can be seized by the most powerful.
No it is built and maintained as a public entity though there
may be private companies who participate in particular aspects
of it.
It is the public nature of it that is crucial for it to function.
And the public nature is what has made it possible to develop it
and for it to grow and flourish. That public nature is what
makes possible the collaboration that it represents.
Get rid of the public nature and ownership and control of the
essential and scaling functions, and the world is left with
a fight among the AOL's and other such private entities who
run their private networks and can't internetwork.
>
>> Does the Commerce Department intend to begin managing
>> the operations of even more critical network functions
>> of the Internet?
>If the Internet isn't a network, how could it possibly have 'critical
>network functions'?
The Internet is just that an internetworking of networks
so they can communicate.
And the critical functions are critical for the internetworking
and communication.
>Craig McTaggart
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: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:05:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
"A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
>Dear Rhonda,
>>And the Internet isn't "private computer networks".
>>...
>>The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is
>I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the
>constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure,
>it is private. Most others are.
It can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of
the Internet.
If you want a private network, have your private network.
If you want to be part of the Internet, then you have become
something different from your private network, you have
become part of an internetworking of networks.
You are *no* longer private.
This issue came up on early Usenet and got clarified.
Those sites that wanted to be private, couldn't be on Usenet.
Once one was on Usenet, one announced one's site, agreed
to be part of the communication with others etc.
Usenet was a public entity.
If AOL or your network Tony, want to be private, then have your
network.
By agreeing to collaborate the way the Internet requires one
collaborate, one doesn't change the internal nature of ones
network, but one becomes part of a larger entity, and thus
not a private self contained entity.
The point is that Compuserve or the Source were private networks.
People signed onto them and had the benefit of what they provided.
But until they became part of the Internet their users couldn't
communicate with other users on other networks.
If you want a private network, why be part of the Internet?
Why not just have your private network?
The point is that if you are part of the Internet you agree to
be part of a people-computer-network communication system
that is something bigger than your private network.
If you don't want that, then have your private network and
perhaps figure out how to have a gateway to some other private
network that also wants to be private.
That is different from being part of an Internet.
>>The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all.
>
>>They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity.
>Is routing an essential function? How does it occur?
>Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential
>function?
Isn't there something public? Isn't it that the participating
networks are there to make the routing possible?
What about the IP numbers?
What about the root server system?
If these are essential for the Internet to function then the
private entity who will control them will control the Internet.
Then it will *no* longer be an Internet, but a privately controlled
entity which must be obedient to the whims and wiles of who
controls the IP numbers.
Then the open architecture concept that is the foundation of
the Internet is no longer functioning. It is no longer that
any network that wants to join can join, it is that there
is the power to decide who will join which will reside in
whoever controls the IP numbers.
Similarly if the root server system becomes private then
he who controls the root server system will control who will
have access and who won't.
Either these are public functions that mean that they are
in the public domain and have certain obligations and procedures
can be required to make sure that all have access, or they
are in the private control of the one who grabs the control.
>>The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private.
>Can't a private medium be used for communication
>among the general public?
But that isn't the Internet.
Tony, what is an Internet to you?
My point is that the Internet is a system that is made up
of a number of diverse parts that make it possible for there
to be communication. It depends on cooperation of those
diverse parts and of contributions from those diverse parts.
Once we start with something private we have a different paradigm.
We no longer have an Internet.
>--tony
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: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
>From owner-list-outgoing@vrx.net Tue Aug 3 15:54:10 1999
Return-Path: <owner-list-outgoing@vrx.net>
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BE318C1B
for <ronda@panix.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:54:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
id 22E8BF01D; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:01:20 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: list-outgoing@vrx.net
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
id DDDE0F01F; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:01:19 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: list@vrx.net
Received: from grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.100])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51B7F01D
for <list@ifwp.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:01:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.1] (ipa48.trenton2.nj.pub-ip.psi.net [38.26.139.48])
by grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27698
for <list@ifwp.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: cook@pop3.netaxs.com
Message-Id: <v0421010bb3ccf4fadc53@[192.168.0.1]>
In-Reply-To: <199908031905.PAA07628@panix3.panix.com>
References: <199908031905.PAA07628@panix3.panix.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:39:30 -0400
To: list@ifwp.org
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-list@ifwp.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
Status: R
Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com> wrote:
>Oh my god, so ronda as the denizen of usenet can't see the
>telecommunications world except through USEnet glasses.... too funny
Its disappointing Gordon that you make fun rather than try to understand
the distinction being made and try to help to clarify rather
than obfuscate.
>why can't you get it through you head ronda that Tony is talking
>international telecommunications *LAW* as defined by the ITU and by
>governments which are obliged to obey ITU decrees!?
But the Internet has been created through a process of RFCs that have
helped to define it, not as either defined by or in reaction to
ITU.
The RFC's point to the Internet as a public internetwork of autonomous
networks.
Those distinctions are important.
Also there is a need to understand the Internet's unique development
which is different from that of the telephone system.
Hence ITU law or reaction to ITU law is not an appropriate way
to determine the nature of the Internet.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:52:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Richard Sexton wrote about public computer networks:
> Prove it.
Here's the discussion of why Usenet was a public network:
>From Chapter 10 "Netizens: On the History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet" http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
- -----
Usenet as a Public Computer Users Network
While the ARPANET was subject to the regulations and
policies set by the U.S. Defense Communications Agency (DCA)
during this period, Usenet was considered a public computer users
network. Policies were proposed, and then were subject to
discussion by the Usenet community.
For example, in October, 1981, Horton proposed the following
statement of policy for Usenet:
USENET is a public access network. Any User is allowed to
post to any newsgroup (unless abuses start to be a problem).
All users are to be given access to all newsgroups except
that private newsgroups can be created which are protected.
In particular, all users must have access to the net and fa
newsgroups, and to local public newsgroups such as general
[net.general].
He continued:
"The USENET map is also public at all times, and so any site
which is on USENET is expected to make public the fact that
they are on USENET, their USENET connections (e.g. their sys
file), and the name, address, phone number and electronic
address of the contact for that site for the USENET
directory.(27)
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:07:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
U.S. Press Censorship of any Criticism of ICANN
Press Censorship of criticism of ICANN is rampant in the U.S.
A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played
an important role in reporting a story about some problems
in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they
would be willing to run a story investigating what was happening
with the creation of ICANN. The editor I wrote to told me
that I couldn't do that, but that I could do an op -ed as
long as it was limited to a certain number of words.
At first I found it difficult to do the op ed as it is hard
to write something short that is also specific. However, I
finally did something and sent it to the editor. He referred
me to the new op ed editor. The new op ed editor asked me
to redo the Op Ed. I did. He said it would be accepted and run.
Then 2 hours before he would be running it, he told me to
rewrite it, cut the word count, and answer a number of questions
he gave me.
I did so. Got it back to him in the 2 hours. And he wrote me
back that he wouldn't run it.
I had thought that op ed's were to be alternative viewpoints.
It became clear from my experience in accepting an invitation
to do an op ed that that isn't true, particularly for the
computer trade magazine that I was working with.
Following is the op ed I ended up writing, as a result of
all the rigid requirements I was given. I thought it should
circulate despite the censorship by the computer trade magazine.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Is ICANN out of Control?
On Thursday, July 22, 1999 the U.S. Congress held a hearing
on the subject: Is ICANN out of control? It was held by the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House
Commerce Committee.
ICANN or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
was created in Fall '98 as a private sector non profit
corporation to take over ownership and control of certain
essential functions of the Internet. These functions include
among others, the IP numbers, the domain name system and root
server system, and the protocols.
It is good to see the beginnning effort by the U.S. Congress
to investigate what has happened with the creation and manipulation
behind the scenes of ICANN.
Such investigation is needed. But it is only the beginning of the
needed government effort to find a solution to the controversy
over ICANN. The hearing was a very meager beginning of the kind
of study and input needed by Congress to understand the problem
that ICANN is creating for the Internet community. Unfortunately,
with a very few exceptions, most of the witnesses were supporters
of ICANN, or were involved in protecting their own stake in
gettting a piece of the wealth from transferring essential
functions of the Internet to the private sector. Some Congressmen
asked good questions. The absence of witnesses who would be able
to help to identify the problem, however, showed the pressure
by those who feel they will benefit from the privatizing of what
has functioned effectively as a public sector responsibility.
ICANN was created in the midst of a controversy over what would be
the appropriate institutional form for the ownership and control
of these functions of the Internet that are crucial to its
operation.
At an ICANN meeting in January of 1999, a panelist from the Kennedy
School of Government, Elaine Kamarck, explained that the nonprofit
corporate form was inappropriate for the administration of
functions like those that ICANN will be controlling. Since a an
individual's or company's economic life will be dependent on how
these functions are administered, there needs to be the kind of
safeguards that government has been created to provide. A nonprofit
entity, even if it is a membership organization, does not have such
safeguards for the kind of economic responsibility that ICANN is being
set up to assume.
The development of ICANN over the past seven months has indeed
demonstrated that the nonprofit corporate form, the
structural form of ICANN, does not have a means to provide
internal safeguards to counteract the tremendous power to control
the Internet and its users which is being vested in ICANN.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Internet is not a "finished"
entity. It is a complex system of humans, computers, and networks
which makes communication possible among these diverse entities.
Scientific and grassroots science expertise continue to be needed
to identify the problems and to help to figure out the solutions
for the Internet to continue to grow and flourish.
A crucial aspect of the governance structure for the first
12 years of the life of the Internet had to do with being
a part of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) of
the research agency in the U.S. Department of Defense known an
ARPA or the Advanced Projects Research Agency. ARPA/IPTO was
created to make it possible for computer scientists to support
computer science research like that which gave birth to and made
it possible to develop the Internet. This early institutional
form made it possible for people of different nations to
work together to build the Internet.
How this was done needs to be understood and the lessons
learned for designing the institutional form to support
vital Internet functions today and for the future.
The U.S. Congress needs to be willing to raise the real questions
and to look for the answers wherever they are to be found.
- ---------------
* URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/5106/1.html
See also: URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #327
******************************
