Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 320
Netizens-Digest Friday, July 23 1999 Volume 01 : Number 320
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Amendment process
[netz] House Commerce Committee hearings webcast
Re: [netz] Ads cloaked as posts or the Internet is under seige
[netz] kmm063 Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
Re: [netz] kmm063 Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:01:02 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Amendment process
The draft minutes of the Berlin Meeting, May 25-27 include
resolutions of the form,
"FURTHER RESOLVED, (Resolution 99.36) that the phrase
'except with the consent of the Board' shall be inserted after the
twenty-first word of Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws."
Studying those minutes, and those for the June 23 meeting, I see
no evidence that the proposed amendment has been moved or
seconded, altho it too is framed as being RESOLVED, that
Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of the Corporation is
hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:
"Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent
that Constituency on the NC, no two of which may be, except with
the consent of the Board, residents of the same Geographic
Region, as defined in Article V, Section 6. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no Constituency may have more representatives on the
NC than there are members of the Constituency. Nominations
within each Constituency may be made by any member of the
Constituency, but no such member may make more than one
nomination in any single Constituency."
Be that as it may, if the Board can amend the bylaws as noted
(and also re VII.3.a) in May without public comment, why is it
appropriate to call for comment on July 16?
In this connection, the 'resolution' in introduced
(http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnso-nc-amendments.htm ) "The
following proposed Amendments to the ICANN Bylaws are intended
to implement an evident consensus among participants in the
ICANN process ... At its Berlin public meeting, the clear sentiment
of the attendees and online participants was that the ICANN
Bylaws should be amended...
How is 'consensus' determined in the ICANN process? How many
people attended the Berlin meeting, approximately? How many of
them participated in the ICANN process? Was it made clear to
either RL or VR participants that a constituent could select
'representatives' for the Names Council who were not necessarily
affiliated with that constituent's organization?
- ---------------
Article VII, Section 3(c) states, " Until such time as the process for
the election of At Large directors shall have been approved as
contemplated by Section 9(c) of Article V, there shall be an
Advisory Committee on Membership." Is there a 'MAC' at present?
Will there be a MAC before the next board meeting? Will the report
of the prior MAC be acted on at or before the next board meeting?
In nine months, the Board has amended its organizing documents
at least twice, so it is clear that that part of the process works. It is
equally clear that if there had been some fundamental operational
flaw in the documents, it would have been caught in the scrutiny
leading to those April and May amendments. How is the present
proposal justified as more than an attempt to cover the Board's own
failure to recognize that there are, and have been for several years
prior to ICANN's coming into existence, TLD registrars whose
domains, however, are not resolved by the so-called 'authoritative'
root server network? Would not a simple apology suffice to permit
three or more registrars to be represented in the DNSO?
Conversely, if the primary obstacle to progress is NSI's 'monopoly,'
not merely as registrar but as manager (and putative owner) of the
domain names *registry, how does a continuing policy of refusal to
recognize alternative TLDs -- and with them, their respective
registries -- facilitate the 'ICANN process'?
kerry miller
Wilmot, NS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:14:19 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] House Commerce Committee hearings webcast
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/events
The room is packed, but there's lots of room on the web,
from 11:00 EST - 1?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bino Gopal <bino@rabi.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Ads cloaked as posts or the Internet is under seige
Just saw this whole "thread" (been away July 3-21 or I would have replied
sooner, as we actually had some real discussion about something! :), and I
have some comments:
1) I basically agree with Mark. The reason I do, and I that I didn't
greatly object to John Walker's first post that caused the furor, was
because it was ON-TOPIC! He posted about the Yahoo issue, and it's
resolution, and it was a news article related to Netizen interests, so it
was allowable. Also, the news summary was net-related news, so that was
cool.
2) Now, the little ad for his class was a bit excessive, but I felt he
could throw it in for two reasons:
a) He posted some interesting stuff, so a line or two of self-interested
stuff is usually allowable
b) It was computer, and sort of net related, being info on a Linux
course, something most would think was an acceptable Netizen related
subject.
Now, while I understand Ronda's points about this (ads in posts), I have
to say that I think she overreacted in this particular regard. John did
advertise his newsletter by posting excerpts, but again, it was
NET-related news; not like it was dog grooming lessons or something.
Also, it didn't say anything about costs, so if someone was really
interested, they could check it out, and decide for themselves if they
wanted to pay for it--AGAIN, only b/c it's net-related, hence relevant to
the general purpose of this list (as I see it).
BUT now, I think John's gone a little too far in "retaliation", so to
speak. John, I appreciate your posts, b/c they carry worthwhile
information about net-related activities, but I would ask you tone down
the "ad portions" of them. In your most recent two posts, the whole first
page or two is just details about your class. Previously, you just had a
link, which was fine. Now it's just too much.
Also, as I'm sure you know, your sig is a bit excessive--for a mailing
list, netiquette suggests 4 lines or less, and the ascii graphics are not
necessary. It just adds to the feeling of clutter and spaminess that the
extended course ad in the beginning gives, and it's just not cool.
Finally, I would say that as there are rules for every mailing list, this
would definitely fall under one of the ones that most lists have:
allowability of ads. Kerry, it would be "autocratic" for Ronda to just
restrict posts based on ad content, and I wouldn't like to see it done,
but it's done on many lists, and for the purpose of keeping things 'sane'
(which I'm sure you know what I mean). As I said, while I had no
objections to John's first post, and thought the excerpts were completely
on-topic and relevant to the list, and would even allow the info to the
link for his courses, as they were net/computer related too, I feel that
the spam/ad content was too high in the recent posts, and would like to
ask him to tone it down in future posts (allowing that his point has been
made) and failing that, call for some sort of moderation if need be, for
if John is allowed to do this, what's to prevent Joe Schmo Spammer from
joining in?
Ok, well, that was a bit of a ramble, but I think it was pretty coherent,
and revolved around some main ideas/points. Comments welcome. Oh, and
John, this was not an attack or anything; again to reiterate, I found the
previous CSS exceprts informative and helpful, it's just that (to be
honest) I get the feeling that you're overreacting to Ronda's (what I
would have to say is JMHO) overreaction, and thus spoiling your position,
know what I mean? And Ronda, while I generally would agree with you about
ads, and their nefariousness, I think that John's posts do not really fall
under that general category of badness b/c of their relevance, and rather
(well what used to be) small content of "adness".
Whew! Comments anyone? Oh, and yeah, I would post more too, but too many
other mailing lists, and too many other messages...I hate the lurking bit
too, but it's just a time issue, know what I mean? (I haven't even tried
subbing to IFWP for just that very reason! Another 200 messages/day?!
*shudder* 1000 is enough! :)
BINO
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Mark Lindeman wrote:
> FWIW, I thought John's posts were within the reasonable bounds of the
> list's purpose as I understood it. Certainly this would be a topic for
> discussion among interested list members. Incidentally, I have quite a few
> copies of Ronda's book's ISBN number on my hard drive, and they don't seem
> to have inconvenienced me.
>
> Now back to lurking... no, wait, am I a lurker under Kerry's
> definition? Auuuuggggghhhhhh!
>
> Mark Lindeman
> MTL4@columbia.edu
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:08:04 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] kmm063 Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
Bino wrote,
> 2) Now, the little ad for his class was a bit excessive, but I felt he
> could throw it in for two reasons:
> a) He posted some interesting stuff, so a line or two of self-interested
> stuff is usually allowable
> b) It was computer, and sort of net related, being info on a Linux
> course, something most would think was an acceptable Netizen related
> subject.
...
> Also, as I'm sure you know, your sig is a bit excessive--for a
> mailing list, netiquette suggests 4 lines or less, and the ascii
> graphics are not necessary. It just adds to the feeling of clutter
> and spaminess that the extended course ad in the beginning gives,
> and it's just not cool.
>
You raise some good points -- that to the degree that we *expect a
little bit of self-interest in everyone, some expression of that in
ones mail is tolerable, but that 'excess' is uncool -- but by the
same token, what we expect is itself a reflection of what we have
been exposed to *as normative*, so the standard is always
changing, whethewr we much like it or not.
It is important to recognize that Rondas objections also fit in this
picture (only, being an old hand, her expectations developed when
the norm was *no advertising* -- that is, we didnt talk about self-
interest at all) and they can be taken as a commentary to
'newbies'. Despite the kind of dogmatic language she is prone to
use, she is not saying there is only one Right Way, but rather that
it is possible to pick a standard and stand by it. (One gets the
impression that the neoliberal/ libertarian schtick is that anything
goes, as if one need not have *any stds, or be concerned how one
derives/ develops/ acquires/ recognizes them, at all. Pick em up at
the corner store, 2 for a nickel, eh?)
The interesting, i.e. Netical ;-) question is, once you move away
from *obvious clues like 'no ads,' is there anything one can use /
define/ etc as a standard? In theory, sure, I can 'standardise' on
every 6th word having to start with a consonant -- but where's Word
One? Do I count the msg header? Mail from the same person, but
different accounts? Mail from the same acct, but different persons?
(How do I know?) What are the penalties for transgression? Etc
Etc. - its not easy to find standards that work, and I submit that -- if
we lay out your terms, Bino, as a kind of spectrum from cool,
allowable and 'sort of related' to interesting and 'feeling of
spamminess' and excessive -- finding even one point on that curve
where people agree This is on-std; That is off-std is going to be
awkward (to put it nicely). More likely, we'll be all over the map
and, in the end all one can say is 'Well Im all right' and we might
as well forget the 'standard' stuff; if you dont like it, delete it. Surf
another channel.
But, coincidentally, the implicit dissociation of 'freedom' from
responsibility puts my hackles up, which makes it *allowable to do
a little Rant:
One of the little Post-its that comes drifting down from history is
that people really do better with standards than without, because
one of the dilemmas human consciousness gets into otherwise is
that *you cant tell whether you are indeed 'all right' or just think so
because someone told you its 'cool' to be that way. In other words,
the alternative to having stds (that is, knowing what your standards
are) is *not* no-stds, but not-knowing what they are because they
are second-hand.
Now, what do you do when you realize you dont know what youre
doing? There are two well-known tendencies (one is to split, pull
out, back up, withdraw, pull the plug; the other is to hang on, keep
on doing it, go with the flow) -- but they both are *fear reactions.
Fear is stress, and stress is not just hazardous to the health, its
addictive -- and if you care to read this spiel in terms of drugs, be
my guest -- but the *antidote to fear (you guessed it) is standards,
so that one can know what one is doing without having to dedicate
the entire Consciousness/ Perception Unit in high gear keeping
track (or rather, trying to find the track, or even a space between
the tracks).
IMHO, the concept of Netizens is that, even if being online is a
brand new way to spend time, its a human activity just like
anything else, and deserves to have some human attention paid to
how it fits into the general spectrum. Whether a sig is 4 lines or 12
lines, plain text or asciified, is not of concern in this light; some will
go one way and some another and thats fine. 'Standardised' does
*not mean, Everybody Shalt Have an Approved Sig of N Lines or
Less; it means, do what you please, but *know when you are
venturing off the standard, and dont be too darned indignant when
somebody calls you on it. On the contrary, *you know what the
standard is, and what having standards means, and if *they dont,
then that gives you an opportunity to help enlighten them: slowly
and gently, but confidently and consistently, so they come to see
what stds can do for a body and how much more energy it gives
you (to do *interesting things -- which is to say, things for which
standards are harder to realize/ define/ describe/ test/ etc etc. --
and there are always such things, no fear!) compared to the
continual drag-down of trying to convince yourself, single-handedly,
that you are all right even if the rest of world doesnt dig it.
Now, it may seem to be stretching things to talk about drug
addiction in the same breath as Internet connectivity -- but if
information addiction isnt what our capitalist friends are rushing us
headlong into, what in the world is it? But the price of not knowing
what your hooked on is not knowing how to kick it either, isnt that
right? So we have ads all over everywhere now, and any actual
discussion gets swamped under various degrees of self-interest/
self-righteousness as if we are all out here selling ourselves even if
our come on is No A(i)ds, or at least Not Very Many, and it must
be all right because so many people are telling us its all right, and
they *said they are taking care for us, didnt they?
Toujours gai,
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] kmm063 Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Thu Jul 22 22:12:28 1999
Return-Path: <owner-netizens@columbia.edu>
Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B3918C69
for <ronda@panix.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA26788
for netizens-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:05:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca (jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca [142.177.1.6])
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA26768
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:05:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from LOCALNAME ([142.177.62.19]) by jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca
(Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c)
ID# 607-60695U69000L69000S0V35) with SMTP id AAA15935;
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:05:38 -0300
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
To: netizens@columbia.edu
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:08:04 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: [netz] kmm063 Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
Cc: <rossin@tin.it>, <d2d@pd.highway.ne.jp>, <rmulvale@fox.nstn.ca>,
<connienash@yahoo.com>, <enkipper@online.no>
References: <4.2.0.58.19990709103921.00a5cac0@pop6.banet.net>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.3.95.990722132614.9768A-100000@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01d)
Message-ID: <19990723020536.AAA15935@LOCALNAME>
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Status: R
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Bino wrote,
> 2) Now, the little ad for his class was a bit excessive, but I felt he
> could throw it in for two reasons:
> a) He posted some interesting stuff, so a line or two of self-interested
> stuff is usually allowable
> b) It was computer, and sort of net related, being info on a Linux
> course, something most would think was an acceptable Netizen related
> subject.
First the post I complained about was not a post where there was
an abstract from something explaining how the one of the directories
had resonded positively to "Netizens" (I thought that was the word used)
complaining about advertising.
That was followed by John's ad for his classes and then there
may have been other things, but finally his long signature.
I was in fact responding to his sending an article so as to
then send his ad as the second item of his abstracts.
I was responding as I feel a citizen (offline) or Netizen
online has the right and necessity to respond to abuse
when it occurs. Not to ask for a discussion of it, though
there are times that might be what one would do, but to
say What is being done is an abuse of this list.
I have stopped for the most part listening to radio radio
because of the ads. In realize that in other countries the
radio is different, but in the U.S. you are listening to
something and suddenly before you have a chance to realize
what has happened your attention is drawn to an ad.
I also in general don't watch tv because not only are
the ads a problem but the general level of what is available
in the programming has become often as bad as the ads.
When I responded to the fact that I realized that John's
newsletter abstracts were to draw me into reading his
ads, I complained as I would hope anyone trying to act as
a Netizen will complain when they see something they feel is
not something that should be happening.
When the policeman outside at the scene of an accident
was telling people to leave the scene and go home and watch
tv, I complained to him and said that people were acting
as citizens coming to the scene and asking questions and
trying to figure out what had happened.
I didn't tell the people they should ask their questions
differently. I defended their efforts to be citizens with
the police officer who was telling them to stop being
citizens.
It is good to see that Bino has encouraged discussion of
this and that Kerry is talking about standards.
But the other issue that is being left out is that someone
should be protected on the Netizens Association list (sadly
no Netizens Associations have yet been created) to act
as Netizens, i.e. to speak up against what they feel is
violating the nature of the list.
Whether others disagree or not, and one can say they may
disagree, but still important that people be supported to
watch what goes on on the list and to speak out if they
feel it shouldn't happen.
Mark L. if you feel that my posting the ISBN number of Netizens
in my signature is a violation of the Netizens list, you should
say so. I post it because the original company that said they would
publish the book tried to delete all the places we say commercialization
of the Internet is a problem and we said we wouldn't agree to
the book being published with the rewrites they insisted on.
They said that they wouldn't publish the book and that we would
never get another publisher. And they have the book listed in
Books in Print with an ISBN number and when you order the book
from that ISBN number you get back a notice six weeks later
that the book isn't available.
But to complain about something that I do as a way to tell me
to not complain about something someone else does is not helpful
to what is happening. I want you to complain if I do something
wrong, but to recognize that it is good if I complain when
I feel something is wrong as well.
I had noticed John's ads before and thought of complaining but
hadn't. However, when he had an excerpt about Netizens complaining
and the commercial entity they complained to changing in response,
and when I then saw that the reason he had that excerpt was
not because he was contributing to the Netizens list, but because
he was drawing me in, to then read the next item in his
excerpts which was about signing up for his classes, that said
that I was being manipulated and that his activity on the Netizens
list was manipulating people.
It seemed that if the Netizens list is not a place to be able to
complain about this happening, then what list is such a place.
And in response to my complaint, John made no effort to see if
there was a problem with what he was doing, but to do it all
the more intensely and to claim that he had to support of
people on the Netizens list to do so. Thus the very excerpt
he had posted, about how a commercial entity changed because
of complaints, was shown not to be anything he had sense was
the right thing to happen. Instead he nastier in response
to someone doing the very thing his post had said a commercial
entity should recognize as a sign that what they are doing
is a problem.
I have more I have wanted to write about all this, but I don't
have the time now. It's good to see Kerry bring up the
importance of standards, but also important is citizenshipx
or Netizenship, which in this case is someone speaking up
when they feel something is a problem and looking out to
watch what happens and to speak out about things that seem
egregious or bad to be happening.
And to ask that they stop happening, not only for a discussion
of them happening.
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #320
******************************
