Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 306
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, June 9 1999 Volume 01 : Number 306
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: "I represent the little guy" -- Esther Dyson as hypocrite
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Re: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
[netz] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
[netz] [Fwd: 3rd Annual National Rural Telecommunications Conference]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:27:02 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: "I represent the little guy" -- Esther Dyson as hypocrite
Esther,
> I make trade-offs, as we all (most of us) do.
Yesterday, Ronda mentioned the 3/98 HR committee hearing.
Supposing the points made there to be still relevant to ICANNs
mandate and methodology, Ive borrowed a few quotes from the
transcript (at
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy090140.000/hs
y090140_0.htm ) and have interpolated 8 questions for you.
Charles Pickering says,
[W]e need to keep in mind that our goal is not simply to transfer
the DNS to the private system just to get it out of the hands of the
U.S. Government. For years the U.S. Government, through the
National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, has been an excellent steward of the Internet.
The American taxpayer has put quite a bit of money behind this
project, and we have to ensure that the investment is not harmed
during this transition.
Lastly, we need to remember that the most important people, in
terms of the Internet, are the actual end-users. That is the Internet
user at his or her desk in Houston or Los Angeles or Jackson,
Mississippi, home of the largest Internet provider today. I think all
of us agree that our decisions on this topic must be made with the
best interests of the individual Internet user in mind...
[Q 1. If we suppose his "actual end-users" are at least some of
your "little guys," can you say with whom you are compromising
their "most important" interests, and why those compromises are
necessary?]
=============
Robert Kahn says,
In my view, the Internet is not really in any crisis. It's not in danger
of any immediate failure and, basically, any tact on our part to try
and make some premature decisions seems to me is ill-founded.
We really do have the time to consider these issues.
[Q. 2. Can you tell us how the timetable was set for the various
decision which the interim board has made (particularly in the light
of point #5 of ICANNs FAQ, "... it seems desirable to set artificial
deadlines to encourage early action on the formation of the
constituencies") and how these help the little guy? ]
... A critical part of this is to systematically structure a process by
which we can get the use from as many of the relevant parties as
possible, not just using mechanisms like e-mail for comment, but I
would think we should get the international community and as
many of those who have chosen to weigh-inwho have chosen not
to weigh-in yetas we can and to do it with more deliberate
interactions between the parties. I think this will actually help
determine a long-term, stable solution of Internet governance.
[...]
*In addition* to the overall goal of stability in the Internet, other
specific goals should be to ensure integrity in the management of
the Internet addresses, the numbers; openness in the standards
process; and, competition in services so the Internet can continue
to evolve and thrive.
[Q. 3-5. Can you say what you have done on the board to get
"those who have not chosen to weigh in" to do so? (How many
attendees at your international meetings did *not have e-mail
access?) Can you say why ICANNs comment boards are not even
e-mail lists, but are accessible only by Web browser, even though
listserver software is one of the most fully developed internet
applications available to the "actual end-user"? What have you
done to keep the *additional* points from overriding the "critical
part"?]
=========
Dave Farber says,
Any foundation for governance of the Internet must support
fundamental human rights, a free expression, free association, due
process, and nondiscriminatory administration. What may not be
obvious at first glance, the management of the domain naming
system impacts greatly on these basic human rights. It's through
network addresses and domain names that organizations place
their speech on the Internet. And it's through these addresses that
others can locate this speech. It is easy for those responsible for
administrating basic Internet functions to loose sight of this and to
act in ways that unnecessarily burden the ability to exercise free
speech. Already censorship has appeared in arbitrary and uneven
manners on the network, and it is damaging our rights to speak.
[...]
Sitting on the net and watching, over the last 6 months, this debate
take place, reminds me of a set of people launching a nuclear
missiles at each other via e-mail. There's been, I think, inadequate
opportunity for people to actually sit down in a relatively neutral
setting and actually talk to each other. That's unfortunate. The e-
mail sometimes gets so hot, my computer melts, and that's not
productive.
In a sense, what we need is an organization that can a
mechanism, not an organization which can pull together the
stakeholders. One of the problems that I always have is, when you
say a private enterprise, not-for-profit will take over, the problem is
that there are a lot of people who want to establish that right now,
and that's part of the basic problem. There's no way of getting
together and saying, ''Yes, that's a good idea, let's get together and
decide how to do it.''
[This point is reinforced by an unidentified Mr Ehlers:]
Also, the comment that was made about the people who really
need to be involved and should be involved, often don't have either
the time or the inclination to send e-mail or to engage in these
battles is very true. I've been involved in the peacemaker's role
oftenand so far I haven't been shot, cursed, perhaps, but not
shotbut that's a role that often we can play very effectively, and
getting together the right people.
And that's the key, identifying the people who should be around the
table, getting them around the table and serving as mediators. I'm
sure that Mr. Magaziner can play that same role, as well. But that,
I think, is a good informal function of government and I've seen it
work many times, and work very, very effectively. So I hope that in
this case, also, it will be successful.
[Q. 6-8. Do you agree that "getting people around the table" is a
good idea? Can you explain why the Board has not adopted the
proposals you have doubtless made to it repeatedly, to use the
facilities of the Internet to involve the "most important people"? Do
you think that, if established government is not to have even an
oversight capacity, more can be done to "represent" this good
informal function of government?]
As one of the little guys, weighing your continuing representation of
my interests, I look forward to your considered replies.
kerry miller
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com> wrote:
Kerry responding to
Ronda,
>>> The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on
>>> March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt
>>> officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and
>>> Libraries Corporation.
>>
>>> That this was in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act.
>>
>>> Were the Green and White paper issued to try to go around that law?
>>
>> You have to go by 'the letter of the law.' It doesnt say USG cant
>>simply give assets to a private corp, only that it cant *create* the
>>corp to give them to. Conflict? What conflict?
>Doesn't that take Congressional approval?
It's not quite an issue of Congressional approval.
The USG can't simply give assets to a private corp. And it can't create
the corporation to give the assets to.
The law passed by Congress in 1945 was passed to make such corporations
accountable to Congress for their operations...
There are laws regarding what the U.S. Dept of Commerce is doing
that seems to forbid what they are doing. And it is an issue
for Congress to examine and figure out what to do about it all.
So it is strange that in the hearing at the House of Representatives
Committee on Science, subcommittee on Basic Research a Congressman
just asked Becky Burr if she needed legislation.
The history of the law/s involving this is that the Executive Branch
of the U.S. government was constantly trying to create quasi-government
corporations with little accountability. The corporations had
little congressional or executive branch supervision and few fiscal
controls, and other problems.
The Congress recognized the need to establish "over-all public control"
over what was happening.
So it seems that the effort to create so called "private corporations"
like ICANN is a common practice of the U.S. Executive as a way
to go around the obligations of the law and the constitution and
that this problem has been recognized and dealt with in the past.
I found the GAO opinion in the FCC Schools and Libraries Corporation
issue and it seems to shed quite a bit of light on how in fact
ICANN is a U.S. government created corporation and is in violation
of laws forbidding the U.S. Executive to create such corporations
as the U.S. Dept of Commerce has created ICANN.
The GAO opinion is B-278820.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
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: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:53:13 -0400
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Could you send me the below?
I will see it is circulated.
> I found the GAO opinion in the FCC Schools and Libraries Corporation
> issue and it seems to shed quite a bit of light on how in fact
> ICANN is a U.S. government created corporation and is in violation
> of laws forbidding the U.S. Executive to create such corporations
> as the U.S. Dept of Commerce has created ICANN.
>
> The GAO opinion is B-278820.
TIA
- --
P.A. Gantt, pgantt@icx.net
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
"Cone of Silence: ICANN or Internet democracy is failing"
~~John Horvath~~
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:45:22 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Ronda,
> > I found the GAO opinion in the FCC Schools and Libraries Corporation
> > issue and it seems to shed quite a bit of light on how in fact
> > ICANN is a U.S. government created corporation and is in violation
> > of laws forbidding the U.S. Executive to create such corporations
> > as the U.S. Dept of Commerce has created ICANN.
> >
> > The GAO opinion is B-278820.
>
I see two implications in the docs I found: 1) E-Rate is alive and
well and USG is not going to dismantle it (or, therefore ICANN) on
some picayune legal grounds; 2) Sen Stevens might be worth
bringing up to date on the DNS mess.
kerry
===========
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-59-98.htm
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT of the HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON WAY AND MEANS
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
July 31, 1998
JCX-59-98
BACKGROUND AND PRESENT LAW
On May 7, 1997, the FCC adopted an order to implement the
principles of section 254 of the Telecommunications Act. This order
subsequently was modified on June 12, 1998. Under the order,
charges are imposed on all telecommunications carriers that
provide service between States, including long distance carriers,
local service providers, cellular telephone companies, paging
companies, and payphone companies.
[...]
The Telecommunications Act is structured to require the provision
of these discount services and to provide for reimbursement to the
telecommunications carriers of the costs of providing the discount
services. The source of the funds for reimbursements is the
"equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions" by
telecommunications carriers provided for as a "principle" in the Act.
The FCC created a fund, capped at $2.25 billion per year, to
support universal service discounts for schools and libraries. On
June 12, 1998, this maximum funding amount was reduced to
$1.925 billion over an 18-month period (January 1, 1998 to June 30,
1999). Required "contributions" were allocated among covered
telecommunications carriers based on the carriers' receipts during
prescribed prior periods.
In its initial order, the FCC provided that the expanded universal
service program would be administered by two non-profit
corporations: the Schools and Libraries Corporation and the Rural
Health Care Corporation. In its June 12, 1998, revised order, the
FCC proposed to merge these corporations into the Universal
Service Administrative Company, which administers other portions
of the universal service program.(10) In January 1998, the
Congressional Budget Office issued a determination that the
"contributions" required to support the universal service program
are Federal revenues.(11)
Telecommunications carriers have challenged the "contributions"
required under the FCC orders, taking the position that the charges
are in substance taxes, and that if they are authorized, the
authorization represents an unconstitutional delegation of the
taxing power by Congress.(12)
| 10. In a February 10, 1998, letter, the General Accounting Office
| (the "GAO") concluded that the FCC had exceeded its authority
| when it directed that the Schools and Libraries Corporation and
| the Rural Health Care Corporation be created. See, U.S. General
| Accounting Office, Letter to Senator Ted Stevens, February 10,
| 1998 (B-278820).
[http://www.neca.org/usac.htm
USAC was created in 1997 as a not-for-profit subsidiary of the
National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., and is governed by a
Board of Directors that includes a broad representation of both
industry and non-industry interests, including representatives of
service providers, schools and libraries, health care providers,
consumers, and state regulatory commissions...
See also http://www.universalservice.org ]
11. See, Congressional Budget Office, Federal Subsidies of
Advanced Telecommunications for Schools, Libraries, and Health
Care Providers, January 1998.
12. See, Texas Office of Pub. Utility Counsel v. FCC, Civ. No. 97-
60421, currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for
the 5th Circuit.
============
http://www.arentfox.com/telemed/reports/gao_stevens.html
Office of the General Counsel
B-278820
February 10, 1998
The Honorable Ted Stevens
United States Senate
Dear Senator Stevens:
[...]
The Government Corporation Control Act specifies that [a]n
agency may establish or acquire a corporation to act as an agency
only by or under a law of the United States specifically authorizing
the action. 31 U.S.C. § 9102. These entities act as the agents of
the Commission and, therefore, could only be created pursuant to
specific statutory authority. Because the Commission has not
been provided such authority, creation of the two corporations
violated the Government Corporation Control Act.
Because the Commission has argued that it did not establish or
acquire the corporations, we provide some background about the
establishment of the corporations. More detail is contained in the
attached Appendix.
[...]
It is the Commissions view that it has authority to establish the
Schools and Libraries Corporation and the Rural Health Care
Corporation under sections 4(i) and 254 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended. Section 4(i) of the Act provides that:
The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules
and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this
chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions. 47
U.S.C. § 154(i).
Although we recognize the breadth of section 4(i),(7) the provision
is constrained by the later passage of the Government Corporation
Control Act. Under the Control Act:
[a]n agency may establish or acquire a corporation to act as an
agency only by or under a law of the United States specifically
authorizing the action. 31 U.S.C. § 9102.
Section 4(i) does not provide the specific statutory authority
needed by the Commission to meet the requirements of the Control
Act.
[...]
=======
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 20:41:33 -0400
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] [Fwd: 3rd Annual National Rural Telecommunications Conference]
Comments?
- -------- Original Message --------
From: Toni Black <black@coloradomtn.edu>
Subject: 3rd Annual National Rural Telecommunications Conference
To: pub-adv@s1.net
ANNOUNCING RURALTELECON '99
3rd Annual National Rural Telecommunications Conference
October 10 - 13, 1999
Aspen Institute, Aspen, Colorado
Early Registration: $195 for the three full-day conference
* Registrations are now being accepted on-line at http://ruraltelecon.org,
click on "Conference" then click on "Registration." Registration is limited
to 350 people, so register early.
* RuralTeleCon '99 provides the information rural leaders need to know to
"make technology work for communities."
* The conference is organized around four natural and easy to understand
themes: technology, applications, community, and policy.
* Variety in program format promotes interaction and participation, the
hallmark of RuralTeleCon '99: keynotes, seminars, topic panels, roundtable
discussions, posters, peer-to-peer sessions, and plenty of time for
networking.
* New to this year's program:
- Seminar sessions for in-depth learning at both tutorial and advanced
levels.
- Presentation of the 1999 AOL Rural Telecommunications Leadership
Awards. Go to http://ruraltelecon.org and click on "Awards" to learn more
or to apply.
* Attendees will include a rich mixture of grassroots practitioners and
national proponents. Last year's evaluation indicated that 92% of attendees
felt they met their personal goal in attending. We hope you will come this
year.
For more information:
Dr. J. Jeffrey Richardson
RuralTeleCon Chairman
jefr@cati.org, 303-620-4777 ext. 305
Registration and On-site Information: Toni Black
Colorado Mountain College
black@coloradomtn.edu, 1-800-621-8559 ext. 8365
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
To post a message to the list, send to: pub-adv@s1.net
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
To Leave The List:
Email: pub-adv-request@s1.net
in the body: unsubscribe
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Archives of past Pub-Adv messages can be found at:
http://pub-adv.s1.net/
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Please direct any problems or inquiries to tpreston@pop.ncal.verio.com
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
PUB-ADV is a service of Libraries for the Future, a national
non-profit organization of public library advocates.
http://www.lff.org
- --
P.A.
pgantt@icx.net
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #306
******************************
