Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 310
Netizens-Digest Monday, June 28 1999 Volume 01 : Number 310
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] New York Times article about Usenet
[netz] Reuters Article about Investigation of ICANN by U.S. Congress
[netz] Pac-Bell Loses
[netz] The Grand Poobah
[netz] Re: [IFWP] quasi-government role of ICANN illegal under U.S. law
[netz] Re: [IFWP] quasi-government role of ICANN illegal under U.S. law
[netz] Re: [IFWP] quasi-government role of ICANN illegal under U.S. law
[netz] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
[netz] Re: [IFWP] quasi-government role of ICANN illegal under U.S. law
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] New York Times article about Usenet
There's a NYT article today in the Circuits section about Usenet
and the web sites that are trying to commercialize Usenet.
The article is "Old Newsgroups in New Packages" on G1 and G10
in the Circuits section. And it is at the Times web site
http://www.nytimes.com/circuits
Ronda
ronda@ais.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:49:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Reuters Article about Investigation of ICANN by U.S. Congress
There's an interesting article in the San Jose Mercury today
about the U.S. House of Representatives beginning an investigation
of ICANN.
>[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Reuters]
>(http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/083148.htm)
Silicon Valley Breaking News
Mercury Center Breaking News
Posted at 9:49 a.m. PDT Tuesday, June 22, 1999
Lawmaker blasts Clinton Internet address reform
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration's laborious efforts
to privatize the Internet's addressing system could be further slowed
as the House Commerce Committee Tuesday issued a blistering critique
and opened an investigation into the program.
Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley said he was ``greatly concerned''
that the nonprofit corporation chosen to run the system by the
administration had exceeded its authority by deciding to impose a $1
fee on every Internet Web site address.
In letters to Secretary of Commerce William Daley and the head of the
nonprofit, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), the Virginia Republican said the planned fee and other
decisions went beyond what the Clinton administration had announced
last year.
``Rather than promote the Internet's evolution, your organization's
policies actually may jeopardize the continued stability of the
underlying systems that permit millions of people to use, enjoy and
transact business on the Internet,'' Bliley said in the letter to
Esther Dyson, interim chairwoman of the nonprofit corporation.
(see the URL for the rest of the story)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:36:40 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Pac-Bell Loses
http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,1087,8_144931,00.html
California Regulators Deal Pacific Bell Loss
June 25, 1999
By Cyrus Afzali
InternetNews.com Managing Editor
The California Public Utilities Commission this week ruled Pacific Bell must
continue paying competitors who handle its local customers' calls to Internet
service providers.
By a 3-to-2 vote late Thursday, the commission stayed the fees between
Pacific Bell and Pac-West Telecom. The board said it may consider the
issue again in the future, however.
California's decision comes after the Federal Communications Commission
ruled in February that calls to Internet providers are interstate in nature.
However, it said states have the right to decide reciprocal compensation
disputes while it conducts an in-depth investigation.
[...]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:42:45 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] The Grand Poobah
Diane Cabell wrote on IFWP,
> I think it would be lovely and convenient for everyone, not just
> the business interests, if there were UDR for all TLDs.
I agree, if there *already were Uniform Dispute Resolution policies it
would be marvelous -- but that implies there would have been years
of convergence, ranks of enlightened parties realizing they had to
give up some of their favorite edges for the sake of a greater vision,
a broad public acceptance that parochial head-in-the-sand (and
king-of-the-castle) postures were not sustainable ('scalable'). (Too
bad those factors fall into the 'procedural' black hole when only
substance is spoken here, eh?)
In plain language, its not the end result, but the process of
*retrofitting such an ideal on the present virtual land-rush which
brings out the venal and short-sighted and manipulative tendencies
in some -- and the paranoia of trying to deal with those folks in
others -- that makes 'getting there from here' so tendentious.
> The point is that everyone who has an interest that is threatened
> will need time to reflect and consider the alternatives. Part
> of accepting change is understanding the advantages and just
> plain getting used to it. The debate itself is part of the
> adjustment process.
Again, the cynic in me reads this as saying, "everyone who feels
the pinch needs time to accept the inevitable failure to consider
their particular situation. The 'debate' is just part of the hollering and
screaming as Procrustes gets to work."
More optimistically, of course, one says, 'What's done is done,
let's try to look ahead.' It's ironic nevertheless, dont you think, that
this vaunted global communication network doesnt seem to be
appropriate to the process of letting the victims *see what
kind of boom is about to be lowered on them?
How much pressure, just for an instance, is WTO putting on
WIPO? From a certain point of view, a UDL might just be the key
to locking in the Grand Poobah, a uniform trade and investment
'treaty' (UTIT) -- and from that pov, a little bit of old fashioned local
legal juris*prudence might be worth putting up with, just to preserve
local employment, local economy, local education, local environmental
standards and other such detritus of an unglobalized, illiberalized age?
('Independence' is one of the words that was popular then, I believe.)
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:00:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] quasi-government role of ICANN illegal under U.S. law
"A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
>Which reminds me - are there any historical examples where
>an entity playing a quasi-governmental role like ICANN has
>ever displayed such amazing behavior as we've witnessed over
>the past couple of weeks - and whether it doesn't essentially
>disenfranchise it from playing that role? It's worthy of
>research.
>--tony
Seems it was the common fare in the U.S. at least until the
Government Corporate Control Act was passed in the 1940s to
stop all the abuse that these run-a-way so called private
entities were up to as a way to cover what government was
doing. Since ICANN is being created as an effort to evade
U.S. law and constitutional obligations it can only do
things that are incredible. It starts out as a gangster.
ICANN seems to fit the pattern of what I saw described
in the GAO opinion that ruled that when the FCC tried
something much less flagrant a violation, was illegal
under U.S. law. The GAO opinion indicated that the
U.S. Executive branch created quasi-government bodies
in part to avoid any financial accountability and thus
the so called "private corporations" that were created
by government had none of the financial accountability
obligations of the U.S. government and were the effort
to avoid those obligations. The activities therefore
of such bodies were prime examples of financial
corruption.
I posted the GAO opinion info a few weeks ago.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] quasi-government role of ICANN illegal under U.S. law
"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu> writes:
Ronda Hauben wrote:
ICANN is illegal and the U.S. government's effort to create
ICANN is unconstitutional.
Is the Government Corporate Control Act law online? If so where?
I will take a look at your article when I get the chance, but have
you looked at the opinion issued on the illegality of the FCC
schools and libraries corporation?
>You will note there that most of the corporations the GCCA aimed to squash
>were formed by US government employees and owned in whole or part by the
>USG. ICANN is different: no USG employees formed it, and the USG owns none
Postel, whose name all was being done in was U.S. government contractor
when ICANN was incorporated and essentially it was in his name
that the bylaws etc were supposedly all done.
And the Schools and Libraries Corporation that the FCC tried
to create wasn't the kind of example you give.
In fact it is the opposite. The fact that the U.S. government is
creating a so called private corporation to do government
activity means that the people involved in ICANN become government
functionaries, as they are acting under the color of the law
guiding what U.S. government entities have to do.
You are turning the law on its head. You are claiming that
if someone isn't a U.S. government employee, but the U.S. government
creates a corporation for him to do public business as a private
entity than that is ok.
That isn't ok. That is a violation of the law. The point of the
law is not the employee status of the person who incorporates
though that will have some bearing on trying to figure out what
is going on, but it is if the corporation is being created
as a private entity to do the public's business.
That is the essence of the letter of the law that has to
be examined and that is the essence of how ICANN is in
violation of the law.
Also the U.S. Dept of Commerce treatment of my proposal submitted
before ICANN was given the U.S. government
contract shows how ICANN is in fact a creature of the U.S. government.
My proposal wasn't even considered despite the fact that it
deals with the problem of protecting the Internet Names and
Numbers and protocols in a way that ICANN fails to do, but the
claim was that my proposal didn't match the dictate of the U.S.
government design.
My proposal is online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
For the U.S. government to design ICANN is the violation of
the law.
But more seriously, the U.S. government has a responsibity
to deal with the standards of the Internet. It cannot
farm that out to some private sector concocted facade.
The Internet is too important to the U.S. and others around
the world for the U.S. government to be trying to evade
its obligations under the constitution to be responsible for
social welfare of its population. The problem of how to
protect the Internet names and numbers and protocols from
power grabs by corporate or national or international entities
is a problem that requires considered treatment. The issue
is how to provide an appropriate institutional entity to
deal with the Internet names and numbers and protocols and
other standards.
That was the problem my proposal took up. That is *not*
the problem that ICANN takes up. ICANN is only being created
with built in conflicts of interest to figure out how to
share up the loot between the most powerful contenders.
Playing games of violating the Government Corporate Control
Act with sleazy claims that Postel didn't work for the U.S.
government or that the U.S. government isn't funding
ICANN are only further evasions of the fact.
ICANN has announced it will fund itself by taxing all Internet
users.
The U.S. government is responsible for this as it has no
authority to give ICANN the Internet names or numbers or
protocols.
Thus the deeper in the U.S. government and ICANN get the more
of a mess they will be making of the Internet.
The point is to figure out what is needed to protect the
proper functioning of the DNS, IP numbers and protocols, and
that isn't ICANN.
Also what is needed to make it possible to scale the Internet.
That isn't to create some bogus domain name councils, to try
to disenfranchise all users of the Internet who are the
real stakeholders.
> However, the USG appears to have urged that it be formed, and
>provides its main support with a critical contract (although significant
The USG did more than urge that ICANN be formed. It provided
the blueprint that had to be followed. This is forming
ICANN regardless of the figureheads it gets to sit on its board.
>funding comes from outside the USG, via donations). So ICANN is probably
That is bogus. The U.S. government claims it is giving ICANN
billions of dollars of public and cooperative resources in planning to
turn over to ICANN controlling functions of the Internet.
The so called companies making donations are making it to an
illegal entity and are only making investments for the windfall
they expect to reap from getting the contracts that ICANN will
bestow on them. (Haven't some already benefitted in this way.)
ICANN has no basis in law to be giving out contracts potentially
worth millions or even billions of dollars. ICANN is incorporated
under laws treating it as a charity. This biggest giveaway
in U.S. government history to a supposed charity is creating
a new low in U.S. government unconstitutional activity.
ICANN has no basis to be overseeing government functions or taking
them on.
Yet that is what is happening.
There is a constitution in the U.S. that oversees government,
ICANN is the effort of the U.S. Executive Branch to annul
the Constitution. The U.S. government is *not* allowed
to give away functions of government to private corporations.
It can't give away the right to tax U.S. citizens, though
I realize it is trying to bestow that privileges on its
corporate friends.
The U.S. government has *no* constitutional or legal authority
to create ICANN nor to give it ownership nor control over
the essential functions of the Internet. This would be illegal
under the anti trust act if any corporation came by such
legitimately, and is doubly illegal for the U.S. govenrment to
try to create such a corporation.
>in technical compliance with the letter of the GCCA, even 31 U.S.C. sec
>9102 (although that's the closest call). Whether it complies with the
>spirit of that act is another question.
There is no technical compliance or you would have stated the basis
here and were not able to.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] quasi-government role of ICANN illegal under U.S. law
Reposting for a non list member:
>From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Michael and all,
Interesting how that woks out isn't it? B. Burr counsels the
formation of the GAC, and than automatically sits on it. Kinda
sounds allot like self serving fix, doesn't it? Maybe I am paranoid?
ROFLMAO!
And the divisiveness continues....
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law a écrit:
>>
>> You will note there that most of the corporations the GCCA aimed to squash
>> were formed by US government employees and owned in whole or part by the
>> USG. ICANN is different: no USG employees formed it
>
>Not strictly speaking true. B. Burr sits on the GAC and, if the
>history of the formation of the GAC were investigated, it might very
> well turn out that it was she who counseled and approved it.
Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Computer science or the "market", government or ICANN
william@dso.net (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>The internet, by definition, is a network of interconnected networks.
>These networks are not a "uniform" set of networks. They are diverse,
>and the attempt to force on them a set of policies that are "uniform"
>in nature, when there is no compelling technical or legal reason for
>doing so, is difficult to understand.
>The ultimate consensus of the internet stakeholders will be letting
>the market decide which models will work and succeed. Those that do
>not, will be forced to change their models or die off. =20
The Internet is a communications medium. It is not some mythical
"open market" ideology.
It was created under IPTO at ARPA, *not* via some corporate or
private framework.
The diverse networks *internetwork* because they efforts were
made by the founding fathers of the Internet to create an
open architectural model and because the IPTO made it possible
to have the broad view and government connection to do what
was needed to make the grassroots standards process function.
The crucial need for the Internet is the government-science
interface within government to make it possible to have the
collaborative and cooperative relationships that will
solve the problem of how to deal with the need for globally
unique IP numbers, when this falling into the wrong hands
will put all users of the Internet at the mercy of those
who control the IP and other domain name, etc. functions.
Government is an institution that has grown up over many
years to do certain things, some of which are to provide
for standards activity and for the kind of centralized
functions that are needed to make the Internet viable.
All of this is being ignored in the effort to claim that
ICANN can be a substitute for government accountability.
Or that it can be the entity that substitutes for the
kind of support for science that today takes government
action.
The effort to substitute the so called "market" for
the computer science community in providing the needed
standards decisions and framework, and to substitute
ICANN for government is either ill informed or hostile
to the Internet and its future as a communications medium.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] quasi-government role of ICANN illegal under U.S. law
Repost for non list member (sorry these last few posts were out of oder):
A. Michael Froomkin submitted this post:
An article on US federal government corporations appears at
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm
You will note there that most of the corporations the GCCA aimed to squash
were formed by US government employees and owned in whole or part by the
USG. ICANN is different: no USG employees formed it, and the USG owns none
of it. However, the USG appears to have urged that it be formed, and
provides its main support with a critical contract (although significant
funding comes from outside the USG, via donations). So ICANN is probably
in technical compliance with the letter of the GCCA, even 31 U.S.C. sec
9102 (although that's the closest call). Whether it complies with the
spirit of that act is another question.
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
>
> >Which reminds me - are there any historical examples where
> >an entity playing a quasi-governmental role like ICANN has
> >ever displayed such amazing behavior as we've witnessed over
> >the past couple of weeks - and whether it doesn't essentially
> >disenfranchise it from playing that role? It's worthy of
> >research.
>
> >--tony
>
> Seems it was the common fare in the U.S. at least until the
> Government Corporate Control Act was passed in the 1940s to
> stop all the abuse that these run-a-way so called private
> entities were up to as a way to cover what government was
> doing. Since ICANN is being created as an effort to evade
> U.S. law and constitutional obligations it can only do
> things that are incredible. It starts out as a gangster.
>
> ICANN seems to fit the pattern of what I saw described
> in the GAO opinion that ruled that when the FCC tried
> something much less flagrant a violation, was illegal
> under U.S. law. The GAO opinion indicated that the
> U.S. Executive branch created quasi-government bodies
> in part to avoid any financial accountability and thus
> the so called "private corporations" that were created
> by government had none of the financial accountability
> obligations of the U.S. government and were the effort
> to avoid those obligations. The activities therefore
> of such bodies were prime examples of financial
> corruption.
>
> I posted the GAO opinion info a few weeks ago.
>
>
> Ronda
>
>
>
- --
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot here. <--
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #310
******************************
