Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 324
Netizens-Digest Saturday, July 31 1999 Volume 01 : Number 324
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Censorship of the Press around ICANN and its lack of legitimacy
[netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:33:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Censorship of the Press around ICANN and its lack of legitimacy
Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com> wrote:
>Frankly, I don't why this story has not been covered.
>All that I know for certain is that 1) it *hasn't* been
>covered, and 2) "confusion" is an explanation that simply
>doesn't work for me (especially when I have personally
>described, in no uncertain terms, my perspectives to
>many of the reporters writing these biased pieces).
I have some experience with why the story is *not* being covered.
1) When we did cover it at the ISOC meeting last year in Geneva
in 1998 for the Amateur Computerist the reports I wrote on
line and in the Amateur Computerist -- see Report from the
Front at http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACN9-1.txt
but we were denied press passes to attend the next INET meeting
INET '99.
2) I was invited to write an op ed for one of the computer
trade magazines. I wrote something on "Is ICANN out of Control?" after
Congressional hearing was announced. The editor in charge said
the article was accepted but he would wait till after the hearing
before deciding in what issue to print it. After the hearing
he told me to totally rewrite it in 2 hours answering very narrow
questions he asked, despite the fact this was my op ed and he
had already said he was printing it.
He then rejected the new version he had requested.
For an op ed one would expect that the views would be different from
the views regularly expressed in the newspaper or magazine,
and that the writer would be allowed to express his or her own
views. I found that wasn't the case. I was asked to totally rewrite
my op ed after it had been said to be accepted.
The questions I was given were very narrow questions and then what
I did was rejected anyway even though it had already been accepted.
Obviously there is pressure on publishers and reporters to tow
the administration line on the story.
3) After a reporter wrote a helpful story about what happened at
the November ICANN meeting for the online version of the paper
she wrote for, an ISOC member criticized her story on Farber's
I P list, and then Esther Dyson criticized the story. The following
Monday a different story was run in the print version of the newspaper
taking out some of the dissent that the reporter had originally
reported in her online story.
4) After a story was printed in a German online journal critical
of ICANN, the writer got an email from an EU official asking who
he was and what he did and complaining about the article, with
the complaint also sent to the editor of the journal.
5) It seems that either stories critical of ICANN are to be moderate
if allowed to be printed at all and officials of ICANN or
other official entities take care to watch what is being
printed and to complain to the reporters and editors etc.
6) I asked to put a statement into the record for the
"Is ICANN out of Control?" hearing at the Commerce Committee
subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. I was told to
go to my local Congressman because I would have to have
a committee member swear me in to submit testimony. I spent
two days trying to contact my Congressman and he contacted
the committee minority and they refused to let me submit
anything as did the committee majority staffer.
7) The witnesses who were allowed to present testimony at
the hearing in Congress on July 22 were for the most part
either in support of ICANN claiming that what can one
expect as ICANN is learning. Or the witnesses represented
a very narrow spectrum of the large spectrum of those
who recognize that ICANN is not a legitimate entity and
can't be as it is being given government functions to
do and public property, and it is neither an entity
that has government oversight mechanisms nor an entity
that can protect or will protect public property.
Thus the Congress needs to hear from the broad spectrum
of those who understand there is a serious problem with
ICANN, but it seems the political pressure from those
who see their fortunes are to be made off of the abuse
of the Internet do all they can to keep that from happening.
8) Government has mechanisms of saying that way is being
done is illegal and unconstitutional. These include
the Office of Inspector General of the NSF's report
of Feb. 1997, the Government Corporate Control Act,
and a number of other internal government processes
or checks and balances. A Congressman at the hearing on
July 22 said that they had suspended using some of these
to set up ICANN. ICANN thus will have none of the safeguards
that can provide the needed oversight to prevent the abuse
of the Internet. The U.S. government needs to utilize all
of its procedures and checks and balances to figure out
what is the way to safeguard and protect the Internet
names, numbers, root server system, protocols, etc.
These are the nerve center of the Internet and they are
being treated like extraneous baggage to be given away
to the strongest bully.
9) It seems that in the U.S. policy is made by some entity
and then the parties and political entities fall in behind
it. That is a very dangerous situation in general, and
particularly when something as important as the Internet
and its scaling mechanisms are at stake.
10) The lack of coverage of the story of what is happening
with this giveaway by the Executive Branch of the U.S.
government of essential functions of the Internet to an
institution that is totally inappropriate is similar
to how the newspapers and other means of mass media in
the U.S. deal with important stories where there is
a lot of wealth and power behind a particular desired
outcome. Instead of the needed discussion and debate,
there is a public relations campaign on behalf of
what the U.S. Executive Branch or other powerful entity
has chosen to do.
The public discussion is needed to figure out what to do,
but the administration seem to use their power to keep
that from happening.
Some thoughts on what is happening. Other observations and
experiences welcome.
But essentially this all flies in the face of how the Internet
has been built where the debate and discussion among those with
differences was seen as precious and welcomed.
And so ICANN is clearly *not* any inheritor of the traditions
of the Internet.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:48:29
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
Please note that if you have any trouble reaching the site just try
again a little later. Service outages have been kept to an absolute
minimum.
Bestnet is at present under cyber attack for hosting a mirror site
of the Falundafa/gong site. This sect was banned by the Government
of China and the attacks appear to be coming from sources inside of
China.
Even though these Denial of Service attacks affect the CSS Internet
News site, along with 5,000 others hosted by this service I fully
support Bestnet's effort.
The Government of China may use intimidation to rule inside it's own
borders but I'll be damned if I will let them get away with it here.
John Walker
Publisher
CSS Internet News
Links:
http://www.falundafa.ca
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/
_/ John S. Walker _/
_/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
_/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
_/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
_/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
_/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
_/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
_/ _/
_/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
_/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
_/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:21:18 -0400
From: "Al Sessions" <cedar@telenet.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Is it me, or is this signature getting longer?
- ----- Original Message -----
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
To: <netizens@columbia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 8:48 PM
Subject: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
>
> Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
>
> http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
>
> Please note that if you have any trouble reaching the site just try
> again a little later. Service outages have been kept to an absolute
> minimum.
>
> Bestnet is at present under cyber attack for hosting a mirror site
> of the Falundafa/gong site. This sect was banned by the Government
> of China and the attacks appear to be coming from sources inside of
> China.
>
> Even though these Denial of Service attacks affect the CSS Internet
> News site, along with 5,000 others hosted by this service I fully
> support Bestnet's effort.
>
> The Government of China may use intimidation to rule inside it's own
> borders but I'll be damned if I will let them get away with it here.
>
> John Walker
> Publisher
> CSS Internet News
>
> Links:
>
> http://www.falundafa.ca
>
>
>
>
> On-line Learning Series of Courses
> http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
>
> Member: Association for International Business
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/ _/
> _/ John S. Walker _/
> _/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
> _/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
> _/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
> _/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
> _/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
> _/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
> _/ _/
> _/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
> _/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
> _/ _/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Hi,
Responsible net use has always suggested a maximun of 4 lines for a signature.
John Walker's signature is at present 4 times that suggested maximum.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:48:51 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
>
> Responsible net use has always suggested a maximun of 4 lines for
> a signature. John Walker's signature is at present 4 times that
> suggested maximum.
>
Responsible net use has always suggested not sending *any
extraneous material -- some number of lines of text might have
been a useful criterion 5 or 6 years ago, but what does it mean in
this age of bloatware? Im thinking specifically of the automatic
HTML and graphical businesscard attachments that folks usually
arent even aware that they are sending.
If youre looking for a reasonable criterion of spam or superfluity, I
would hope you can come up with something better than that.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:11:22 -0400
From: "Al Sessions" <cedar@telenet.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
This is a thread I've been following for some time now. I wanted to see how
it sorted out before posting. All I can see is John Walkers defiance, the
.sig gets larger and the content diminishes. This is clearly against the
wishes of the majority, so as a netizen...I will simply ask that he stop.
Oddly enough, I received a personal message from Mr. Walker, it was clear
and concise without a sales pitch or a signature. Is that because I am
obviously not a potential client?
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kerry Miller <kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca>
> > Responsible net use has always suggested a maximun of 4 lines for
> > a signature. John Walker's signature is at present 4 times that
> > suggested maximum.
> >
> Responsible net use has always suggested not sending *any
> extraneous material -- some number of lines of text might have
> been a useful criterion 5 or 6 years ago, but what does it mean in
> this age of bloatware? Im thinking specifically of the automatic
> HTML and graphical businesscard attachments that folks usually
> arent even aware that they are sending.
This is an issue of propiety, not one of software or 'bloatware' . I have
yet to encounter a mailer that defaults to html and/or sends attachements
withoutthe users knowledge. When I send a message in html or enclose an
attachement, it is a conscious decision.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Walker has not sent mail in html or
enclosed attachements. There is no harm, per se, in enclosing a url in a
signature. I think the question here is whether or not this list is being
used for commercial purposes. To preface a post with a sales pitch, and end
it with a sixteen line .sig, seems excessive.
Mr. Walker is fully aware of what he is posting...his 'bloatware' did not
automatically concoct his signature and send it without his knowledge.
>
> If youre looking for a reasonable criterion of spam or superfluity, I
> would hope you can come up with something better than that.
Spam, no. Superflous, most definately.
My spam criteria is very simple, any unwanted solicitation sent to me is
spam. However, I signed on to this list voluntarily, and can sign off at any
time. Therefore, any posting I recieve is not spam.
Al
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:41:51
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
At 09:11 PM 7/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
>This is a thread I've been following for some time now. I wanted to see how
>it sorted out before posting. All I can see is John Walkers defiance, the
>.sig gets larger and the content diminishes. This is clearly against the
>wishes of the majority, so as a netizen...I will simply ask that he stop.
>
>Oddly enough, I received a personal message from Mr. Walker, it was clear
>and concise without a sales pitch or a signature. Is that because I am
>obviously not a potential client?
>
No Al. Since you seem to want to continue being petty I will explain it
to you.
I use two sig files when posting to lists. One is for excerpts from the
'news and the other is for posts from me. It is usual to include a .sig
file.
The message I posted dealt with the serious matter of a government sanctioned
attempt to deprive Internet access to over 5,000 Canadians by 'denial of
service' attacks on an ISP.
Something that I consider to be of importance to all Netizens.
All this list heard from you and Mr. Hauben was a whine about a .sig file.
As I told you, if you want to whine do it in a private message.
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/
_/ John S. Walker _/
_/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
_/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
_/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
_/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
_/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
_/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
_/ _/
_/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
_/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
_/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 07:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bino Gopal <bino@rabi.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Kerry Miller wrote:
> > Responsible net use has always suggested a maximun of 4 lines for
> > a signature. John Walker's signature is at present 4 times that
> > suggested maximum.
> >
> Responsible net use has always suggested not sending *any
> extraneous material -- some number of lines of text might have
> been a useful criterion 5 or 6 years ago, but what does it mean in
> this age of bloatware? Im thinking specifically of the automatic
> HTML and graphical businesscard attachments that folks usually
> arent even aware that they are sending.
>
> If youre looking for a reasonable criterion of spam or superfluity, I
> would hope you can come up with something better than that.
>
> kerry
I don't quite follow your point Kerry, and I also don't see the problem
with the criteria that Jay stated. 4 lines of text is an almost
universally accepted standard in all mailing lists. Many lists that I
know of, and am on, also ban any sort of attachments, html postings,
vcards, etc. I'm actually surprised that this list doesn't have rules of
that sort! It's still useful, even in this 'age'.
Taking that a step further, it is common courtesy to respect others by
preventing them from having to download extraneous crap by keeping your
sig (irrelevant parts of a postings), down to a minimum--hence 4 lines.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, it has a long history of being accepted
as the general standard, and thus I believe it should be something any
list member who is conscientious (a netizen, maybe?) should follow.
The content of that 4 line clause is completely another issue, but again,
I don't see the problem with the 4 line limitation. Seems a perfectly
reasonable size for anyone to include contact info (which is the usual
use). Your statement about not sending 'any' extraneous material is just
not true; the 4 line sig standard shows that.
BINO
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:20:08 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Delays Accessing CSS Internet News Site.
Bino,
> Your statement about not sending 'any' extraneous material is just
> not true; the 4 line sig standard shows that.
>
The purpose of a .sig was to ensure that the ID of the sender
was visible to recipients whose mail readers did not display the
header information. This purpose is now almost completely
iimaterial under the systems in use now, but the point is, that *as
such* it was not extraneous.
As to what may or not have been the 'standard,' I think one will find
much more evidence to describe it in terms of senders name and
email address, and that even the 4-line idea was a compromise
with those who liked ascii art and quips.
kerry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #324
******************************
