Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 313
Netizens-Digest Saturday, July 3 1999 Volume 01 : Number 313
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Breaking News: Yahoo: Your Homestead's Your Own (US)
[netz] Community Networking Conference In Australia (fwd)
[netz] ICANN Watch News Site (fwd)
[netz] Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
[netz] Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
[netz] Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 15:44:23
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] Breaking News: Yahoo: Your Homestead's Your Own (US)
At 01:00 PM 7/1/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>This is really an ad it would seem and doesn't seem appropriate
>as a post to the Netizens list.
>I am sending this as well to John asking him *not* to post such
>things on the Netizens list.
>
>Ronda
>
I learned a long time ago that you can't please everyone. On-topic
excerpts from the CSS Internet News appear on many lists. It is up to
you the list members to decide whether they will appear here.
You can let me know your feelings privately so as not to tie up the
list.
The purpose of the exercise was to force Yahoo to admit error and
change its policy. This was accomplished in less than 24 hours.
This is not the first time that the power of the 'Net has been used
to protect the rights of Netizens, nor is the last.
A few weeks ago the US government was considering cutting the Balkans
off from access to a communications satellite. This would have removed
their Internet access.
The word was spread around the Internet and Netizens let the government
know in no uncertain terms what they thought of this. The policy was
again reversed within 24 hours.
The Internet has 174 million inhabitants. This is growing by tens of
millions each year. That is a powerful force to reckon with.
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, 1 Jul 1999 23:20:46 -0300 (ADT)
From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca>
Subject: [netz] Community Networking Conference In Australia (fwd)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:37:54 +1000
From: Ken Young <ken@CIV.ORG.AU>
Reply-To: "The Virtual Community Mailing List (gna-vc)"
<GNA-VC@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
To: GNA-VC@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Community Networking Conference In Australia
Community Networking 99: Engaging Regionalism
Community Information Victoria
and the Australian Community Networking Alliance
invite you to Engaging Regionalism: Australia's premier
community networking conference
29 September - 1 October, 1999, Ballarat, Australia
See the Conference web site for details:
http://communityconference.vicnet.net.au
or email mailto:cn99@civ.org.au
Cheers
Ken
- --
Ken Young Community Information Victoria Inc.
Email: ken@civ.org.au Homepage: www.civ.org.au ICQ: 29401754
- -------
gna-vc: http://admin.gnacademy.org:8001/uu-gna/text/vc/gna-vc.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:14:18 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] ICANN Watch News Site (fwd)
For anyone trying to inform themselves where the Internet per se
fits in the larger scope of human /cultural/ economic development
(i.e. beyond its 'natural' function as a medium of information
exchange),
http://www.icann.org provides precious little to go on.
http://www.icannwatch.org helps to build such a perspective, and
suggest that blind faith that the technology will 'govern' itself or
'automatically' bestow equity on its beneficiaries, is as misplaced
in this case as any other (Im sure Devel-L participants can think of
plenty to point to.)
Nor will ICANN determine the entire net by any means, but it
covers a major portion, and will set the pattern for other
administrative entities (thinking of ccTLDs and their relation to their
nominal host countries). But if 'development' means anything, it is
that the broadest field of comprehension and determination should
be at the *beginning of any process, not after a few self-defined
specialists have decided what's best for everyone.
Very little of the Internet governance structure is yet in place, but
even those few pieces strongly suggest that broad participation is
not high on the agenda. By the same token, any consciousness-
raising one can do at this point can be more effective than protests
and complaints (to whom?) will be at any later time. 'Done deals'
exist only because we stand by and let them be done.
kerry
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:35:48 -0300
Send reply to: Universal Access Canada <UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA>
From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA>
Subject: [UA-C] [DW] ICANN Watch News Site (fwd)
To: UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA
I don't know if anyone with an Internet policy related position in Ottawa
is monitoring the UA-C list... Casual observation suggests not...
What is most likely is that Internet policy in Ottawa [and other national capitols] is being set by a
very small number of those with a rather (narrow) technical or commercial
set of understandings, while those with broader political/civil society
knowledge will make a contribution where they feel it necessary but they
lack the technical knowledge or the technical advice to have much
influence.
This is extremely dangerous...
Note the below and the information available on the identified web-site.
David Farber is a very distinguished professor of Computer Science at the
University of Pennsylvania and a frequent advisor to the White House and
the US Congress, David Post is a professor of Internet Law at Georgetown
University and an advisor to the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and
Michael Froomkin is also a Law Professor and a former member of the ICANN
advisory board. Take a look at what these folks are saying about ICANN
and it's likely future significance!
An implication of their discussion is that decisions concerning
Internet governance are being made and structures being put in place at an
overwhelming speed. These developments are occuring at such a rapid rate
and within such arcane technical spheres that the traditional policy
processes are not capable of keeping up even in the US, and are being left
defacto and by default to non-publicly accountable bodies such as ICANN.
(As an aside if the US's processes can't keep up with all of their insider
knowledge and experience, what of the policy processes in the rest of the
world?... How are the interests of the global citizenry to be protected
when in many cases, at best only a handful of techies even understand the
technical issues involved? {How can there not be] long term
social/political/economic policy or governance implications?
[...]
What is needed is not an anti-US position, but rather a thoughtful policy
stance and on-going policy review and development process that recognizes
that the Internet and its' long-term governance requires a perspective
which reflects the diversity of interests globally. And particularly one
that includes an accommodation to and incorporation of the long term and
diverse needs of global civil society and of the entire range of countries
with their highly divergent economic and technical "challenges".
Is anyone in Ottawa listening?
Mike Gurstein
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:36:59 -0400
To: ip-sub-1@admin.listbox.com
From: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: IP: New Web Site to Monitor ICANN
Send reply to: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:44:38 -0400
>To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (Dave Farber)
>From: David Post <Postd@erols.com>
>
>New Web Site to Monitor ICANN
>
>Check out http://www.icannwatch.org/
>
>Edited by David Post, Michael Froomkin and Dave Farber, ICANN Watch will
>serve as a forum for understandingof, and informed debate about,
>ICANN's role in managing the Domain Name System.
>
>Reorganization of the Domain Name System, far from being an arcane
>technical detail of Internet engineering, is a pivotal event in the
>history of the Internet.
>
>Whoever controls the DNS will be subject to immense pressure to stray
>far beyond any limited technical functions because the domain name
>system is the one place where enforceable global Internet policy can be
>promulgated without any of the messy enforcement and jurisdictional
>problems that bedevil ordinary law-making exercises on the Net.
>Businesses, which now realize the huge economic stake they have in this
>medium, and governments, which have spent the last few years worrying
>about how they would ever get back their taxing and regulatory
>authority over Internet transactions, will view ICANN as the means to
>impose their particular vision on Internet users worldwide.
>
>With so much at stake, how can we be assured that ICANN will be able to
>resist the pressure that will be brought to bear upon it? Where are the
>checks on the new corporation's exercise of its powers? How can all of
>those with a stake in the Internet's future i.e., all of us -- be
>assured that ICANN will exercise its powers in the best interests of
>the Internet community as a whole, rather than on behalf of one
>particular faction or another?
>
>ICANN Watch will serve as a forum for understanding and informed debate
>about the implications of ICANN's activities. We have no particular
>viewpoint to push or axes to grind; we will offer commentary and
>criticism from a wide variety of different perspectives, guided only by
>our belief in the power of ideas and informed discussion and debate to
>shape events and institutions.
>
>We hope you'll check it out.
>
>David Post
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
"A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
At 07:10 AM 7/3/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
>>Insofar as we are talking about the imperial ICANN, the one that wants
>>to regulate the Internet, the one that is trying to obtain legal authority
>>over all IP address space and the domain name system, it is of primary
>>importance that we know who the ICANN board represents. No one living in
>>a democracy can be at all comfortable with hidden manipulations, with
>>groups of great power created by shadowy forces without any clear legal
>>authority.
>Jim,
>Great overview. It's also important to look at alternatives
>to the single world government approach that's represented
>by ICANN. The Internet arose and was successful because of
>distributed administrative models, not centralized ones.
That's not really accurate. This leaves out the role of the
Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) of ARPA
in the creation and development of the Internet.
The role was one which made it possible for computer scientists
to collaborate and direct the development of the Internet keeping
foremost the scientific principles and needs.
That has gotten lost in the conception for ICANN.
The names and numbers and protocols of the Internet need to
be protected. ARPA and then IPTO was created to make that possible.
These were the models that needed to be drawn on and they have
been totally ignored.
>Even in other Internet legal areas, the emphasis is on
>mechanisms of accommodating multiple administrative
>approaches rather than proceeding with a centralized one.
>Unfortunately, the names and addresses arena was seized upon
>by traditionalists (which includes much more than the EU),
>who are enamored with the prospect of global Internet governance.
>--tony
There would never have been an Internet according to what Tony
is proposing. But the international cooperation that gave birth
to the Internet and made it possible is what is needed, not
other models. My proposal began to build on this but it was
important to learn more about the founding of ARPA and IPTO
to understand what is needed to provide the kind of protection
needed now, and I have been doing some research on this. What
I have found is of great interest.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:40:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
"A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> writes:
>I would argue that no one should have "the authority to make exclusive
>assignment of Internet identifiers." Indeed, there is no such thing.
>You can today use any identifier you choose - and many institutions do.
>However, unless you have made special arrangements, your traffic might
>not end up in the right place. As a shared user network, the users
>vote as to whose identifier system is used and on what terms, not
>some higher authority - ICANN or otherwise.
The point is that unique global identifiers are needed for IP
number as part of TCP/IP.
That that is how the protocol was designed.
Tony would you claim that there shouldn't be any exclusive assignment
of license plate numbers as well?
The Internet flourished because computer scientists were able to
play a crucial role as part of a government entity.
The Internet isn't some wild and wooley west. It grew up as
a communications system because of the collaboration of
government and scientists and those operating the computers and
the networks, etc.
Isn't it necessary to figure out what made this collaboration possible
and do something to build on those lessons, rather than pretending
that the Internet is some figment of someone's imagination and
one can make up any means one wants to manipulate it.
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: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:44:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Pete Farmer wrote:
>> > I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
>> substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
That's true. ICANN is taking over as the government entity to give
out Internet contracts. But ICANN isn't a government entity, has
none of the machinery or safeguards of a government entity.
As Elaine Kamarck from the Kennedy School of Government said at the
Berkman Center meeting in January about ICANN and whether a membership
structure could provide oversight, the nonprofit or any other corporate
form for such an organization is an inappropriate form for somethimg
that will have companies and people's economic lives in its control.
She said that was what government has been created to do, not
a nonprofit, membership organization. A nonprofit membership organization
is for a voluntary organization of people joined together to influence
governnment or do something else like that. It is not an appropriate
form for an entity that will control essential functions of the Internet.
>
>> Perhaps the establishment of ICANN was the worst possible way to handle the
>> situation -- except for all of the alternatives.
>Churchill's original was better phrased and made far more sense.
>People should not forget that what gave us ICANN in its current form was
>the death of Jon Postel. Had he lived, ICANN would have made a certain
>sense. It would have had an amiable but ill-informed board whose main
>function would have been to deflect attention from Postel and friends,
>who would be actually setting policy. This would have been a continuation
>of the status quo, which worked.
Jon Postel was being used in the creation of ICANN. I was at the
IFWP meeting in Geneva and he sat outside the meetings for much of
the IFWP meetings that I saw him around. It wasn't his creation.
He was a contractor for the U.S. government and it was the U.S.
government that was creating ICANN.
And I wonder who you are referring to by Postel's friends who
would be setting policy. The point was that those around him
who were part of the IANA government advisory committee have
been pushing for ICANN and to control ICANN and are not folks
with a means of contributing anything useful at this point.
The problem is that no thought that considers the nature of
the Internet has gone into creating ICANN. If it had, my
proposal would have been taken very seriously. It was one
of the original proposals for what to do about figuring
out how to create an appropriate institutional form to
protect IANA. Its at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
ICANN builds in the conflict of interest problems that
make it impossible to solve any of the policy questions.
And the U.S. government has no authority to give these
functions away to any private entity.
>>You say that there was no better alternative. You are quite wrong.
>>>The better alternative would have been that Jon Postel not die in
>>October of 1998. Then ICANN would be something that we could disagree with
>>but trust.
No - Postel had thrown his hands up with this all. He is quoted
at a roundtable discussion at INET '98 (in IEEE Spectrum) as
saying something like Wall Street investment people and bankers
are getting involved in this now.
>>ICANN in its present form is an accident, a monstrosity, a thing
>>potentially of great power, but without any practical understanding of
>>the Internet or any vision of where it should go.
It's no more an accident than the Nato bombing of Serbia was nor
the bombing of civilian populations in Germany by Great Britain
during WWII was.
It is an example of an ill founded policy decision. One that claims
objectives will be accomplished that are impossible to accomplish
by the means being taken.
For example, the British bombing of German civilian targets during
WWII claimed it would end the war. It extended the war, killed
British military folks as well as German civilians. This is
an example of a bad policy decision.
On the other hand the policy decision to develop radar before
WWII was a good policy decision on the part of the British
government.
The problem is to stop bad policy decisions from being made
by governments, especially where it concerns science and technical
issues. This means there needs to be a good mechanism of advice
for government officials who will make these decisions. This
process broke down in the U.S. with regard to the decision to
create ICANN, and it doesn't seem the problem is as of yet
being acknowledged.
On the other hand the creation of the Internet is the result of
the good policy decision to create ARPA and then IPTO and to
have government support computer scientists.
>> My hope is that you not get all hung up in the "who knew what and when did
>> they know it" story of how the interim Board was selected. The selection
>> was at best messy and chaotic. No question. So it is with the formation of
>> most new organizations.
>In fact we must never ever lose sight of this essential question.
Yes I agree. It is important to know who was involved in the behind
the scenes manuevers to create ICANN and why.
It may be that that is what is crucial in order to figure out
what the obstacle is to create an appropriate protective institution
for the essential functions of the Internet.
>>In fact while the formation of most new organizations may be chaotic,
>>where the organisation is of any significance it is usually quite clear
>>who is forming it and what its authority derives from. In this
>>particular case, the organisation is of global significance and many
>>of its proponents claim that it will govern the Internet, so these
>>questions are unusually important.
Yes - thought has often gone into creating an appropriate organization
or institution to establish the principles that it is being created
to promote.
My sense is that there is some plan for why ICANN is being created
and how, but it is being done in secret because it is something
the parties realize is a violation of existing law and also
the U.S. Constitution. The law I feel is being violated is the
Government Corporate Control Act which prevents the U.S. Executive
from forming private corporations to do government functions.
This law was enacted in the 1940's to stop the kind of unaccountable
entities that had been created to get around the kind of accounting
and oversight rules that government institutions had to adhere to.
>Insofar as ICANN is the successor to IANA, it is a body of quite narrow
>scope and extremely limited powers. IANA was a focal point of cooperation
>in the Internet. Its authority was moral authority, derived from trust.
>Time will tell whether that trust will pass on to ICANN. So far the
>evidence is that trust is limited.
But did *not* exist in a vacuum. It was a contract with ARPA.
And both IANA and ARPA were subject to rules and laws of the U.S.
government.
What my study of ARPA/IPTO has clarified is that it is because of
the nature of the entity providing the leadership of computer
scientist, that the grassroots were able to have democratic and
participatory processes. Take away the leadership and the responsibility
of the leadership and you lose the ability to have grassroots processes.
The trust that IANA had gained was because it had grown up as part
of an important government institution ARPA/IPTO and it functioned
according to the principles and procedures that that institution
had created.
Take all that away, and you are left with the battle of potential
and present government contractors for a bigger cut of the pie.
ARPA IPTO had been created to protect scientists against the vested
interests and their power plays.
Get rid of the government connection and all you have are the
power plays of the vested interests.
>Insofar as we are talking about the imperial ICANN, the one that wants
>to regulate the Internet, the one that is trying to obtain legal authority
>over all IP address space and the domain name system, it is of primary
>importance that we know who the ICANN board represents. No one living in
>a democracy can be at all comfortable with hidden manipulations, with
>groups of great power created by shadowy forces without any clear legal
>authority.
>The essential problem is that IANA's moral authority, which was based on
>trust and long experience, is to be replaced by legal authority vested in
>ICANN, without any mandate for this transformation from the Internet
>community at large or from the various political entities involved in the
>transformation.
But it wasn't that IANA had a "moral" authority. It's authority derived
from the fact it was an entity doing a legitimate function of government.
And it was doing it as part of government.
>Gordon Cook claims that the "European Union" is behind all of this. In
>fact the vast bulk of the people in Europe have never heard of these
>issues and have no understanding of them. What you have instead is a
>very small and loose grouping of middle ranking civil servants in what
>everyone now understands to be a throroughly corrupt European Commission
>claiming that their own policies are the policies of the European Union.
I saw that the Federal Networking Council meeting in 1996 where there
was discussion of privatizing the domain name system mentioned bringing
in the EU. So I wonder which came first, the U.S. government ill founded
decision to privatize the IANA functions or the EU effort to get their
piece of the privatized pie.
Sadly it hasn't up to now seemed as if any of those involved early on
have said that the Internet is important and that it needs protection,
from the vested interests, not power plays over which vested interest
gets which piece of pie.
.
>In other words, don't blame what is going on on the EU and don't claim
>widespread political support for all of this.
>> Instead --
>
>> - Focus on the ICANN bylaws and the method for structuring the ICANN board
>> **going forward**
>
>> [more suggestions that we look away from ICANN's essential problems
>> deleted]
>> I think these are the issues that matter.
>If ICANN is an organisation with very narrowly defined technical purposes,
>as its articles of incorporation say it is, the issue that matters is
>whether this woolly little group can carry out those narrow purposes.
>My guess is that it can't, but if it can't, the Internet will just work
>out another way or set of ways to carry out these functions.
But ICANN is *not* an organization with any "narrow" anything.
The IP numbers, root server system, domain name system, and protocol
process are such that whoever controls them controls the Internet
and wields enormous power.
Thus it can't be that any by laws or articles of incorporation limit
this power, they are just a means of masking who is gaining that power.
>If ICANN is to become the seat of global Internet governance, something
>that IANA never aspired to, then the core issues are authority,
>legitimacy, and trust.
Whether IANA aspired to something or not is not the issue.
What power does control of the IP numbers and other essential
functions of the Internet bestow on whoever controls these functions?
And then how can one protect the Internet and its users from
those who want to grab this power? This is the question that
the U.S. governments illegal decision to privatize IANA leads to.
>ICANN claims ultimate authority over the Internet, without any
>shred of justification for this claim. They claim the right to
>control our name servers and tax our IP address space. There is
>no basis in law for these claims, especially where this California
>corporation claims to have rights over assets in foreign countries.
ICANN is an illegal entity. It is *not* a charity but it is
incorporate under laws for charities.
But that doesn't seem to bother those who are behind the scenes
making their power play to grab control of the Internet.
>We have no way of knowing where these people came from or who they
>represent. They have no mandate from the Internet community. They
>may represent those who selected them. But we don't know who did the
>selecting. That is, the ICANN board lacks any legitimacy.
They have no mandate from the Internet community. But why are
they there? Who are they and why were these people willing to
do the bidding of this secret process?
Why don't they reveal what they know?
They have no concern for the Internet. Otherwise they would
be letting the Internet community know where they came from
and helping to unravel the mess that put them on the board.
>The ICANN board refuses to conduct its deliberations in public. So we
>also have no way of knowing how they reach the decisions that they lack
>the authority to make. There is good reason to believe that they keep
>their deliberations private to prevent the outside world from seeing
>that certain board members never participate and from learning just how
>ill-informed and partial this board is.
It seems those involved were picked because they represented
a conflict of interest, rather than that they were able to
act above narrow private interests in the internet of the Internet
and the Internet community.
>Personally, I think that the arrogance of the ICANN board is astounding.
>Your insistence that we bow to it is incomprehensible.
Yes it is incredible that after over a year of discussion
and clarification of what harm ICANN represents to the Internet,
the U.S. government and the other government entities who seem
involved such as the EU and Japan and Australia and France mainly the
U.S. that none of these seem to be willing to come out and say
that something is wrong with what is happening with regard to
ICANN and that the ICANN creation process needs to be stopped
and something healthy put in its place.
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #313
******************************
