Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 316
Netizens-Digest Thursday, July 8 1999 Volume 01 : Number 316
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
[netz] Personhood
[netz] Computer Science and Government: Draft paper for comment
[netz] re: Posts, CSS Internet News
[netz] Ads cloaked as posts or the Internet is under seige
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:17:47 +0200
From: Carsten Laekamp <carsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 12:17:57AM +0000, Kerry Miller wrote:
> Thus, yes, you see CCs to names not on Netizens -- there is
> almost never any *original traffic -- but the intent is to inform people
> such as yourself that *something is going on, and hopefully arouse
> your curiosity, even to the extent of forwarding those same posts to
> other lists again.
That's exactly the way I have seen this list. But then, I don't know
why it should be ironical, as you said, that most people subscribed
to this list don't participate. When I read that remark of yours,
I thought I had missed the point of this list. Seems everything is OK,
no ?
Cheers,
- --
Carsten Läkamp
carsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:39:23 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
> > the intent is to inform people
> > such as yourself that *something is going on, and hopefully arouse
> > your curiosity, even to the extent of forwarding those same posts to
> > other lists again.
>
> That's exactly the way I have seen this list. But then, I don't know
> why it should be ironical, as you said, that most people subscribed
> to this list don't participate.
When your curiosity is aroused, what do you do? Take an aspirin,
and lie down until it goes away -- or act on it?
- What happened today, dear?
- Oh, nothing. There was a chap walking on his hands down the
road, and a dog singing in the tree, and smoke coming from under
the car -- but you know how it is...
- - Wasnt your curiosity aroused?
- - Sure, but you dont think I would miss All My Days, do you? By
the way, we have to change our name -- some outfit in America
has trademarked Weisenheimer, and we are infringing. Give me a
kiss.
kerry
When I read that remark of yours,
> I thought I had missed the point of this list. Seems everything is OK,
> no ?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:27:52 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Personhood
When ICANN membership was the issue, the furore (sorry,
discussion) centered on the possibility that corporations would not
only represent themselves in their relevant 'Supporting
Organization' caucus, but have all the employees vote the same
way in the at-large /public catch-all group. Secondarily, how would
'ballot stuffing' by bots and multiple personas be prevented?
Ultimately the 'Membership Advisory Committee' (to which, you
may recall, I applied on behalf of the consituency of skeptics)
recommended that since *verifying cyber identities would be so
expensive, at-large reps should be elected by snail-mail ballots.
(I guess addresses are easier to verify than bodies?)
Since personhood has now re-emerged as a point of discussion
(some ccTLDs permit only one domain per registrant), this might
be something for public comment. (The MAC report was accepted,
although the Membership has yet to be constituted one way or the
other, so at present only commerce-oriented SOs exist; this is why
*we, the netizenry, have to start to begin to prepare to mobilize).
One can send comments to the write-only list
<comments@icann.org> , or one might consider trying to formulate
a position statement, around which further discussion might
develop. IFWP archives are at http://lists.ifwp.com/archives .
- --------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:25:56 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection
Act
> > > Why not one-domain-per-customer?
> >
> > Why ?
>
> A proposed solution to the "cybersquatting" problem Mr. Crispin
> raised (one person registering tons of generic words and jacking up
> the price for the "real" users). This is the solution that some
> ccTLDs have used. dc
>
Ah, but how does one enforce it?
Arent you just moving the goal posts to 'personhood' from
'registered markholder'? And when that fails (through spoofing and
forged documents and underground retina scanners), what? Only
individuals who are progeny of 'real' authorized individuals can have
a domain name?
Infinite regression is a logical concept, but there is only one reason
why any human activity finds itself going down that path: simply,
because the humans have surrendered/ forsaken/ forgotten/ {never
understood in the first place{ their humanity to *denatured* ersatz
roles, variously called rules, regulations, laws, conventions, etc etc.
One of these days, we'll realize that the way out of the ambiguity of
domain names (for all the armwaving, thats all the 'cybersquatting'
argument is about) is for *real people* to participate -- if one is not
enough, get a few; if a few is not enough get a bunch -- isnt that
what the internet can do for any cause on earth (maybe even a few
on the outer planets as well)? Participate in what? First, in *observing
whether ambiguity exists: can *we tell the difference between (e.g.)
attt.com and the real thing? Second, in *deciding what to do about it,
through the gamut of recourse from tar and feathers to shunning to
the supreme act of justice, pulling the plug.
kerry
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:20:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Computer Science and Government: Draft paper for comment
Draft for Comment
Computer Science and Government: ARPA/IPTO (1962-1986)
Creating the Needed Interface
by Ronda Hauben
rh120@columbia.edu
Mr. McCormack. The important thing about a man in science is
that he must have demonstrated ability to think originally,
isn't that right.
Mr. Marchetti. Yes
Mr. McCormack. They are discovering things and looking ahead
maybe 10 and 20 years sometimes.
Mr. Marchetti. That is right
[Riehlman Comm. hearing, pg. 249]
During the war there developed a partnership between
military men and scientific men. It was not brought about
automatically; it is not a thing that occurs readily. These
men come from different backgrounds, and it is hard for
each group to understand the other....I can say to you that
the morale of the scientists today as I meet them is so low,
so low that while they will not refuse to serve, they will
serve without enthusiasm and without fruitful inspiration.
[Vannevar Bush, Riehlman Comm hearing 1954,
pg. 454-455]
ARPA is considered throughout the field as being the main
supporter and perhaps the most important force in the course
of U.S. and probably world history in the computer....the
country never would have grown in the computer field the way
it did if it hadn't been for ARPA."
[Ibid., pg. X-22. Discussion with Dr. L. Roberts,
April 23, 1974]
1. Preface
This paper is a beginning effort to explore the role of the
U.S. government in building the Internet. The Information
Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) created within the Advanced
Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) is the early and most significant institutional form of
this role. Working within this institution, scientists provided
leadership in creating the new field of computer science and in
giving birth to the Internet. Understanding the role of
government in the creation and development of the Internet
involves exploring the interface between the computer scientists
working as part of IPTO and the military officers in the DOD.
More fundamentally, this interface is actually an interface
between the computer science community and the U.S. government.
During much of its 25 year existence, from 1962-1986,
the Information Processing Techniques Office funded and provided
leadership, not only for the creation of the new field of
computer science, but also for a large number of significant
accomplishments in this field. Among these accomplishments are
the creation of time-sharing and interactive computing, of packet
switching networking, VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration), AI
(Artificial Intelligence), the ARPANET, and perhaps most
sensationally, of the Internet. Also, under its direction and
support, interactive computing and the Internet have spread into
many aspects of our society and lives.
And yet the Office of Information Processing Techniques was
ended in 1986. This raises the question of how did it provide
the leadership to make such accomplishments possible? And then,
if it was successful in doing such important feats, why was it
ended?
Before the creation of ARPA, and IPTO, there was concern
within the scientific community and in the U.S. government about
how to fashion an appropriate peacetime institutional form within
government to support basic scientific research. ARPA/IPTO
succeeded in a significant way in providing such a form, but it
also encountered problems that eventually ended its existence.
This paper suggests that study of IPTO's birth, development and
ending will be helpful in trying to determine what institutional
form within the U.S. government is necessary to continue to
provide leadership for computer science research and for the
continued growth and development of the Internet.
The development and problems of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) are also relevant research questions to be
studied toward determining what form of institution is needed for
the future. However, since such important developments in
computer science were made under leadership from ARPA/IPTO, it is
more important to explore how this happened. Future study is
needed, however, to examine the extent to which the NSF
contributed to this effort and the problems this agency
encountered that prevented any greater contribution.
To state the problem more simply, I am proposing that there
is a need to study ARPA/IPTO, both its achievements and the
problems it encounter, as it presents important experience toward
determining how to design a U.S. government institution to
support the continued development of basic research in computer
science. This study is also important to provide an answer to
the question of how to design a government institution to provide
the needed continued oversight and support for scaling and other
critical functions for the child of computer science and the IPTO,
i.e. for the Internet. This paper is intended as a contribution.
URL for full paper: http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/arpa_ipto.txt
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 00:12:57
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] re: Posts, CSS Internet News
I would like to thank all of the list members for their comments, both
on the list and privately.
The majority feel that the posts are appropriate.
This is not a new issue but rather a continuation of a very old one.
I have been on the 'Net since 1987. That was before there was a
World Wide Web.
At that time there was a very concerted effort by a small but powerful
group to keep the Internet out of the hands of the general population
and especially any commercial interests.
Most of these people belonged to the Academic Community and they created
an Acceptable Use Policy to attempt to enforce this.
The only real problem was that they wanted us to foot the bill for their
own private little chat line.
Well, we all know what happened to that one.
The Internet is now a part of daily life for all of us. Commerce must
participate in order for it to expand and grow.
The real fight is to make the 'Net truly available to all.
There are groups who would like to control the Internet for their own
purposes or for profit and we cannot allow that to happen.
The CSS Internet News has been in continuous daily publication since
1996. It takes about 60 hours per week to produce a 40 page daily
newsletter dealing only with the 'Net.
That is why there is a fee for the newsletter.
I send on-topic excerpts to many lists. I believe that these provide
list members with information that they would not normally have the
time or expertise to access.
Excerpts reach about 4.5 million Netizens per week.
I don't charge for the excerpts.
There is no large institution backing this effort. The expenses are
covered by subscriptions and course fees.
That is why both are mentioned in the excerpts.
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, 8 Jul 1999 10:14:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Ads cloaked as posts or the Internet is under seige
John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca> writes:
> I would like to thank all of the list members for their comments, both
> on the list and privately.
John isn't thanking people for their comments. If so he would
try to describe the discussion and the differences represented
in the discussion. Also not *all* of the list members made
comments. In fact there has not been any direct discussion of
the issue.
>The majority feel that the posts are appropriate.
No majority of list members feel the posts are appropriate.
And that isn't the issue. The issue is are ads for someone's
private business which are clothed in a newsletter form to
cover that they are ads and that the purpose of newsletter
is to spread John Walker's ads appropriate for the Netizens
list.
Are ads appropriate for the Netizens list?
Whether they are clothed in a newsletter form or other form
such as a 10 line signature.
That is the issue.
And people on the Netizens list have said that they aren't appropriate.
Even if only one such person said that they aren't appropriate, then
that would be something that one would expect a Netizen to take
seriously.
But it isn't that John Walker took that seriously. Instead he
has his business to defend so he will find all sorts of subterfuges
to dismiss any objection to his using the Netizen list to advertise
his business interest.
What he is doing shows how there is no dialogue possible between
business interests and Netizen interests.
>This is not a new issue but rather a continuation of a very old one.
Yes there has been a long struggle of those who understand the
importance of the Internet as a communications medium and those
who are seeking to make the Internet into something for their
business interests with no regard to the nature of the communication
it makes possible or of the fact that their private interests
are harming the public purpose.
The Internet and the people on it need protection for their
communication purposes. For the Internet to survive as a
communications medium it needs the protection of government
and science for the communication.
>I have been on the 'Net since 1987. That was before there was a
>World Wide Web.
What does the World Wide Web have to do with the Internet?
Commercial networks like compuserve which were designed to promote
commercial and business interests couldn't build a global network.
Because commercial and business interests were restricted in their
use of the Internet it was possible for the Internet to spread
broadly and widely.
>At that time there was a very concerted effort by a small but powerful
>group to keep the Internet out of the hands of the general population
>and especially any commercial interests.
Commercial interests are *not* the general population.
There has been a concerted effort by many online to keep commercial
interests from destroying the Internet.
There is a concerted effort by many of those same people to have
the Internet spread broadly and widely so all who want access
- -- all the population who want to use the Internet for communication --
have access.
The commercial interests want to restrict the spread of the Internet
to use for their buying and selling and other profit making purposes.
But the Internet was built with a great deal of public funding
and voluntary contribution so it would spread as a communications
medium.
The Freenets were created to spread access to the Internet. They
were *not* commercial. John is falsifying history and reality to
serve his private purpose of spreading his ads.
>Most of these people belonged to the Academic Community and they created
>an Acceptable Use Policy to attempt to enforce this.
The Acceptable Use Policy was created by the governments like
the U.S. and applied to those who had access through public
funding like Universities (that is the history in the U.S.).
The acceptible use policy promoted use for educational purposes
and forbid it for commercial profit making purposes.
That was because there are obligations of what is to happen
with public funding. That it cannot be used (or at least at
that time) to promote narrow private purposes.
>The only real problem was that they wanted us to foot the bill for their
>own private little chat line.
What a distortion. The U.S. government was not allowed to use
public funding to pay for private profit making. That is very
different from what is being presented by John.
The people online had an educational obligation and the result
was that the educational purposes grew and flourished and spread.
And it was exciting to see what flowers developed online under
the conditions where the weeds weren't allowed to kill them.
>Well, we all know what happened to that one.
What do we all know?
That the educational use of the Net is under serious attack
and instead there is a concerted effort on the part of governments
like the U.S. to replace the educational content of the Net
with profit making buying and selling markets.
And that that is an abuse ofthe Intenret nad of the users
and a sad sign of the problem citizens have with their
government in the U.S. today.
Yes John is that the we all know what happened that you are referring to?
And John did you forget that the way you got on the Netizens
list is that I had written an article about the ISOC
meeting trying to give IANA to unknown private interests.
My account was called "Report from the Front" and you claimed
you would help challenge the commercialization.
>The Internet is now a part of daily life for all of us. Commerce must
>participate in order for it to expand and grow.
Commerce might have a way to participate, but not by swamping
the educational and scientific purposes and uses of the Net
as it is doing today. And by hiding your ads inside of
a few educational excerpts your newsletter shows how commerce
operates in ways that one doesn't know what it is up to
until one tries to ask it to be reasonable.
Then one learns there can be no reason, as the purpose of
business is a private purpose and so it can't recognize
a public purpose.
>The real fight is to make the 'Net truly available to all.
Truly avialable to the private purposes of business?
That is what you are advocating.
No that is *not* the "truly available to all" that the Netizens
list was created for. The Netizens list was created to help
to spread the Internet as a communications medium to all.
That is a public purpose.
That doesn't seem to be a public purpose you can even acknowledge
exists.
>There are groups who would like to control the Internet for their own
>purposes or for profit and we cannot allow that to happen.
What groups are you talking about?
It seems you are actually upset with the academic community and the
pioneers who built the Internet.
It seems that you want the Internet safe for your ads, not for
communication.
>The CSS Internet News has been in continuous daily publication since
>1996. It takes about 60 hours per week to produce a 40 page daily
>newsletter dealing only with the 'Net.
And when you asked me to put my article "Report from the Front"
in it I agreed. I wouldn't have agreed if I had known
that you use the newsletter to advertise your private business interests
and that when asked not to do so on a mailing list, you only attack
the people who make such a request.
i
The Netizens list is supported by Columbia. Columbia is one
of those Universities you are attacking as being narrow enties
only interested in their chit chat.
>That is why there is a fee for the newsletter.
I didn't hear any one ask why there is a fee for the newsletter.
I only heard some people ask that ads not be clothed in it
and posted on the Netizens list.
It is inappropriate to post the ads on the Netizens list.
>I send on-topic excerpts to many lists. I believe that these provide
>list members with information that they would not normally have the
>time or expertise to access.
You can believe what you wish. If the purpose of your excerpts
is to publicize your ads, the information may be on topic,
but the ads are an abuse of the list -- of the Netizen list.
And it seems the information is as well as it is only being
sent to advertise for what you are charging for.
>Excerpts reach about 4.5 million Netizens per week.
They shouldn't be posted on the Netizens list.
>I don't charge for the excerpts.
But you use the excerpts to advertise for the newsletter and other
businesses interests?
>There is no large institution backing this effort. The expenses are
>covered by subscriptions and course fees.
But you are using the Netizen list to promote your business.
You are using something that other people are doing voluntarily
and donating their time and effort to to promote your private
business.
So your expenses are being backed by people who have no desire
to be your advertising means.
>That is why both are mentioned in the excerpts.
You are using the Netizen list for something that it is not
intended for nor should it be intended for.
If you want a means of raising money for your efforts, it
is appropriate you find such, but not that you figure out
how to use unsuspecting people and lists to do so for you.
Your signature is also an abuse. As a 4 line signature
is appropriate as a signature.
Your signature is almost a screen and its purpose isn't as
a signature but as an ad.
>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! _/
>_/ _/
>_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #316
******************************
