Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 321
Netizens-Digest Saturday, July 24 1999 Volume 01 : Number 321
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] New Internet name registry defends itself to Congress (US)
[netz] Re: Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
[netz] Re: Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
[netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
[netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:31:44
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] New Internet name registry defends itself to Congress (US)
Do you support the FREE flow of information on the Internet?
Record your vote at http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
or by sending a blank e-mail message to jwalker@hwcn.org with
Yes or No in the subject line.
Registrations for the On-line Learning Series of Courses are now
being accepted. All courses are delivered by e-mail, are two to
three weeks in duration and cost between $5.00 US and $25.00 US.
Information is available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
The following is an excerpt from the CSS Internet News. If you are
going to pass this along to other Netizens please ensure that the
complete message is forwarded with all attributes intact.
- --------------------
New Internet name registry defends itself to Congress (US)
Copyright © 1999 Nando Media
Copyright © 1999 Associated Press
By TED BRIDIS
http://www.techserver.com/noframes/story/0,2294,72841-115170-818677-0,
00.html WASHINGTON (July 22, 1999 11:00 a.m. EDT
http://www.nandotimes.com) -
A top official with the private organization assuming the future
management of the Internet is defending the group's decisions to
skeptical members of Congress who are unhappy months into the
process.
In what's become a tumultuous power struggle affecting the
increasingly critical network, the federal government is in the
midst of largely handing over management to the California-based
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
For years, a Virginia-based company, Network Solutions Inc., has
coordinated the most important functions under a lucrative,
exclusive contract. It's registered more than 5 million Internet
addresses ending in the "com", "net" and "org" suffixes.
The interim chairwoman of ICANN's directors, Esther Dyson, planned
to testify Thursday at a hearing before the House Commerce oversight
subcommittee. The panel dubbed the hearing "Is ICANN out of
control?"
Dyson is seeking to assuage lawmakers by promising to defer a
controversial fund-raising plan to charge companies and consumers $1
for each Internet address they register.
The chairman of the Commerce Committee, Republican Tom Bliley,
earlier accused the group of "imposing a tax on the Internet behind
closed doors."
"ICANN must have a stable source of income," Dyson said in prepared
written testimony. "The United States Government has asked ICANN to
do an important job, but it has not provided the means by which to
carry it out, leaving the job of providing funds to the Internet
community itself."
Dyson also promised that ICANN's August meeting - but not
necessarily future meetings afterward - will be open to the public.
The group's previous closed-door meetings have also fueled
criticisms.
But Dyson, in her prepared statement to lawmakers, urged patience.
"Transitions from monopoly to competition are difficult and messy
under the best of circumstances," she said, warning that Network
Solutions "should not be permitted to unilaterally determine how
this important global resource will be managed."
The chief executive officer for Network Solutions, Jim Rutt,
complained in his prepared testimony that ICANN was "off track,"
arguing that "there is no need for a new global government for the
Internet."
Network Solutions is based in Virginia, the home state to the
Commerce Committee's chairman.
Under current plans, Network Solutions ultimately will compete with
others registering most of the world's Internet addresses - which
cost roughly $35 annually to license - but will continue to maintain
the network's master list of addresses, called its registry.
"The incumbent continues to thwart the process," argued Ken Stubbs
of the Internet Council of Registrars, a group comprised of companies
that will compete with Network Solutions. "... NSI will still be the
big kid on the block, but it must allow the new kids to play."
America Online Inc., which also will compete with Network Solutions
assigning Internet addresses, is urging Congress to let the
disparate groups work out their own problems.
"We believe that an untried, yet-to-be determined alternative to
ICANN's leadership would merely slow down a train that has not only
left the station, but is nearing its destination," said James
Bramson, an AOL lawyer who also was scheduled to testify Thursday.
"... Legislative action is presently unneeded."
- -------------
- - New Internet name registry defends itself to Congress (US)
A top official with the private organization assuming the future
management of the Internet is defending the group's decisions to
skeptical members of Congress who are unhappy months into the
process.
- - The War on Spam Heats Up (US)
Anti-spam activists are taking their cause to the Net, and to the
courts If you spend any time at all on the Internet, you probably
get spam unsolicited e-mail containing advertising and other
unwanted dreck.
- - Gas wars fuel Internet revenge (Canada)
TORONTO -- Consumers fed up waiting for governments to find a way to
stabilize the wildly fluctuating cost of filling up at the gas pumps
are taking their fight to the Internet.
- - FTC Sues Free Web Site Designers (US)
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Web site companies, working with telemarketers,
have bilked thousands of small businesses of millions dollars by
billing for unauthorized services, according to a lawsuit filed by
the Federal Trade Commission. Recent cases prompted a congressional
inquiry.
- - New Web Tools Get Daily Tasks Done (US)
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - To the list of things you can do simply by
going online, you may add the following: plan a party, hold a
meeting, and store files.
- - Net's Great Minds Network (US)
LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif.The Internet industry turned out in its full
Gatsby-esque form this week. Atop a windy bluff overlooking the
Pacific Ocean, wealth, glitter, self-infatuation and self-doubt were
on display in quantities worthy of the fictional social pretender.
- - Ministry plan will enable full-time, cheap Net access (Japan)
The Posts and Telecommunications Ministry plans to allow in
September companies other than Nippon Telegraph and Telephone East
Corp. and Nippon Telegraph and Telephone West Corp. to access a
subscriber telephone line without connecting to an NTT switchboard,
enabling users be continuously connected to the Internet, The Yomiuri
Shimbun learned Wednesday.
- - Web Talk Getting Crowded (US)
Utilities that allow people to post messages on the Web page they're
viewing is becoming a bona fide industry "space."
- - Internet helps mix summer with school (US)
Summer at my house is the season for a camp or two, the pool, car
trips and leisure. And, most importantly, no school.
- - Latin Americans To Discuss Electronic Trade (Latin American)
BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - Representatives from Latin America and the
Caribbean will gather in Argentina on Aug. 2 and 3 to discuss
electronic trade and copyright enforcement, conference organizers
said Thursday.
- - Netscape releases Chinese-language browser (Asia)
SHANGHAI, China--Netscape Communications is searching for more
partners in China to expand its Internet business, a top company
official said today.
- - Computer Void Limits Working Poor, Study Finds (US)
At a time when many companies are posting job opportunities on the
Internet and are requesting that job applicants submit their resumes
via e-mail, a new study finds that less than half of the working poor
have access to the Internet or a computer at work or at home.
- - Surfing the net to buy abroad (Ireland)
French Property: Dream retreats can be readily surveyed on many
websites, writes Kate McMorrow
- - A Special Report
Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?
Testimony of Jon Weinberg, Professor of Law, Wayne State University
before the U.S. House of Representatives Commerce Committee
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
- - New Lists and Journals
* Tea Lovers.....
* Vets in the UK
* Wedding Planning List (New)
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
- -------------------------------
Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____
For subscription details email / | ' \
jwalker@hwcn.org with ( ) 0
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----'
subject line. ==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
"On the Internet no one / __/~| / |
knows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________|
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
- -------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:05:58 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
> 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.
>
...
> 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.
>
Is it time to bite the bullet and try to define (or at least describe) a
Netizen? It seems that it is largely used as a way to emphasise
personal convictions, when 'I' or '*I*' dont seem strong enough:
'As a Netizen...' resonates like 'As an Ambassador,' or 'As a
leading exponent of gollymorphism' does: our well-trained ears perk
up to receive a morsel of expertise -- so we reallly ought to have
some kind of catechism for the Netizenry or the word will inevitably
decline into humdrum meaninglessness, like 'leading scientists'
and 'consensus of the Internet community.'
In this light, I *personally take objection to the use of 'asking' to
mean 'telling' or 'demanding,' but that's a question of semantics;
much more significant is the conflation of 'responding' or 'speaking
up' about an issue with proceeding to state ones opinion of what
should be *done* about it, and on this head, I aim to speak as a
Netizen.
As any journalist knows, there's a distinction between reporting
and editorialising. In civil engineering, its the difference between
'picking up' and 'setting out' a surveying point. In common speech,
it is the difference between 'knowing' and 'believing.' In ethics, its
the difference between description and prescription, and I will use
those terms to serve the present Netical purpose.
To *describe is to provide a perspective, so that someone else
(who already has her own perspective, of course) has more
information about what she is seeing, and therefore can draw a
wiser conclusion *for herself* as to what to do about it.
To *prescribe is to take the responsibility for drawing conclusions
away from somebody else -- even if she didnt know she had it in
the first place, even if her own perspective is at odds with that
conclusion, even if she is as competent to draw conclusions as the
prescriber is.
Now, I (personally) interpret global connectivity as directly implying
that on any question, there is a full spectrum of information, all the
way from superstition and misguided opinion to past master (not to
mention the equal and opposite gamut of inauthentic expression),
and that therefore *I* not only need not but *can not ethically
assume responsibility for anyone elses judgement. I may be older
or wiser or stronger or more astute than *somebody, but not
everybody, and until I know who Im talking with, I personally give
them the benefit of the doubt: Ronda, for instance, is as competent
as I until proven otherwise.
That's my personal position; my Netizen self happens to agree --
but it is for just that reason that, as a Netizen, I do not run up and
down telling everyone they 'have to' give everyone the same benefit,
or that they 'ought to' run up and down, or that their sitting like
bumps waiting to be told where to go and what to do is an abuse
of some subscription list. On the contrary, as a Netizen, I raise
the issue. I give my opinion. I present my perspective. And I hope
against hope that those folks who see this conundrum my way
*without my telling them to do so will take up the challenge of
trying to make *their perspective (sure - why should *I* own it?)
clear in the face of the growing juggernaut of evidence that there
are many more people online who have never thought about such
things for two minutes on end.
I'm not sure what rights exist in cyberspace, but Im pretty sure
there is no necessity, and Im thankful for that -- Im much happier
doing and saying things that I choose to do and say rather than
'having to' swallow some line about Stopping this or that just
because somebody who *believes they know more than I do tells
me its necessary. I dont have to tell you this, but I trust you all to
appreciate the same privilege (where, by the semantical by,
'appreciate' doent just mean 'indulge'; it means to increase the
value - and how do you increase the value of speech except by
making room for others to use it?)
kerry, ready to set a spell
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 09:07:48 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
I wrote,
> the growing juggernaut of evidence that there are many more
> people online who have never thought about such things
Of course, the evidence is not what they say but the way they
write: domineering, autocratic, small-minded statements of opinion
that leave no room for any response except those their own train of
thought has defined as acceptable even before the packets leave
the terminal.
It is in this regard that thinking and acting as netizens come
together. If we can't find a way to express ourselves that makes it
clear which side of the bench we're sitting on, we might as well give
it up, and just be personal bigots with the rest of em.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:25:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca> wrote:
> Do you support the FREE flow of information on the Internet?
To me this is a strange question especially to appear on the Netizens
and Universal Access - Canada mailing lists. Netizens like citizens make
an effort to take responsibility for bettering the situations they are in.
"Free" means the opposite. Think of "I am free to do anything I want!" or
"Putting ads on the Internet is a free ride." I am aware there are some
possible positive uses of the word free. But basically "free: means without
restriction and without responsibility. That is what Free Enterprise means.
And that seems to be the sense in which John Walker is asking his question.
He wants to post his ads and commercial content without restriction and without
responsibility to the lists he posts them to. Free Flow For Commercial Content
may be his aim but it is something I oppose.
Jay
,_ /\o \o/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above graphic is from the director of a French gov't research center.
He says it is the internet: someone is in trouble and someone else is coming
to help.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:38:48 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
> I am aware there are some possible positive uses of the word free.
> But basically "free: means without restriction and without
> responsibility. That is what Free Enterprise means.
> [*]And that seems to be the sense in which John Walker is asking
> his question.[*] He wants to post his ads and commercial content
> without restriction and without responsibility to the lists he
> posts them to. Free Flow For Commercial Content may be his aim but
> it is something I oppose.
Merely by way of illustrating my earlier point, I have added some
emphasis to these comments. Up to this point, Jay is expressing
his thoughts on the subject which John has raised, as is fit and
proper for any person to do. In the highlighted statement, he
switches to his interpretation of what *John Walker* thinks, and on
that basis, presents his own conclusion. It is this switch which I
think is important to learn to recognize, especially in Net discourse
where casual speech can conceal any amount of sloppy thinking.
(Btw, I am not claiming any holier-than-thou position. I can get as
sloppy as the next person, especially when its late at night or its a
busy topic. However, I have become acutely aware of these details
over the past 2-3 years, as I have been trying to figure out why --
despite the vaunted global reach of information and communication
technology -- so little *agreement* is ever (seen to be) reached. My
hypothesis is that while the 'speaker' attends to one thing, the
'listener' is listening to something else -- I call them 'contents' and
'container' sometimes).
Am I reading too closely, or has Jay started off rather awkwardly?
> Netizens like citizens make an effort to take responsibility for
> bettering the situations they are in. "Free" means the opposite.
Can one be 'responsible' (or even 'make an effort,' for that matter) if
one has no choice? Does he mean to say that 'free' meant
irresponsibility to, say, Jefferson and Adams?
And, in moving from these vague generalities to the specifics of
'free enterprise' which he conceives as covering John's case, hasnt
he jumped the 'reasonable' step of *asking John what he means?
And since there is not the slightest evidence in Johns proposition
on which to state it as a *conclusion*, isnt it this *assumption* that
is hidden in the genteel phrase, "that seems to be the sense" (and
revealed in the 'may be' a little further along)?
What is achieved may be called a power play: who can hold the
focus calls the shots. After all, what position remains to John (or
any one else) now? He can protest it, or he can accept it (it really
doesnt matter) -- but there is no space for him to clarify what he
means by 'free information' without dealing with Jay's assumption.
(Consider, by contrast, if Jay has *asked, "Is that the sense in
which...?")
If 'power play' seems too strong, continue to consider these two
alternatives. Assumption is a discursive shortcut; if it is correct,
one saves the time that would have to go to exchanging pedantic
messages about the sense or senses of freedom that are intended
in an unadorned call for 'votes.' But the one who can successfully
accelerate a conversation ('get ahead of the curve') is in a much
better position to guide it to his or her desired outcome.
(If the assumption is wrong, of course, it takes a few K at least to
get the *original discussion (such as it was) back on track -- but
power players rarely go that route; its much easier to drop the topic
altogether, letting a void 'send the message,' "Until you can refute
my point, I rest my case" *even though it wasnt their case to start
with*.)
Now (since *my focus is to clarify the role of a netizen), to my
mind, the question is a simple one: does one 'better the situation
one is in' by forcing the pace ('getting the edge') on the other
participant(s) -- or by finding a rate at which we can all go along
together, tucking in clarifications as necessary without losing the
thread or equally, accepting the occasional jumps and lacunae,
exaggerations and diversions we each may may succumb to in our
enthusiasm as a necessary part of honest open civilized decent
human conversation? ('Scuse my bias.)
To put it another way, what if we took the job of using language
seriously, as if we really expected to learn something from one
another?
kerry
=============
DICTATORSHIP OF VOCABULARY
The moment a word or phrase begins to rise in public value, a
variety of interest groups seek either to destroy its reputation or
more often, to co-opt it.
In this latter case, they don't necessarily adopt the meaning of the
word or phrase. They simply want control of it in order to apply a
different meaning that suits their own purposes. Words thus are not
free. They have a value. More than any commercial product they
are subject to the violent competition of the emotional, intellectual
and political marketplace.
Moral and ideological crusades fuel this desire for control over
words. They are kidnapped for the cause and strung up like flags.
Others then feel obliged to use them in order to indicate that they
are in tune with the times. Deregulation. Efficiency. Free trade.
Global economy. Their meaning really doesn't matter. The
important thing is not to be caught without them. And then, like
transubstantiation and the dictatorship of the proletariat, their day
passes, the market in their use collapses and the pressure to
capture a new vocabulary reasserts itself. [...]
- -- John Ralston Saul, _The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of
Aggressive Common Sense_ (NY: Free Press, 1994), p 132
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #321
******************************
