Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 341
Netizens-Digest Friday, October 1 1999 Volume 01 : Number 341
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Internet privatization history
[netz] Fwd: LEO email survey
[netz] (Fwd) Nader/CPT: A framework for ICANN and DNS Management
[netz] Recent NSI/ICANN agreement solves none of problems with ICANN
[netz] Re: New Legislation For Telcos? (fwd)
Re: [netz] Recent NSI/ICANN agreement solves none of problems with ICANN
[netz] Sad News
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner)
Subject: [netz] Internet privatization history
If you are interested in what some people on the IETF mailing list
thought about the impending Internet privatization, you might be
interested in looking at
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ietf/1990-all
Of particular interest (imho) are the threads on "reasonable use" and some
comments by Dave Farber. Note that these comments predate the creation
of the com-priv mailing list; in fact, these threads spawned the creation
of com-priv.
- --gregbo
gds at best.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:22:44 -04
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Fwd: LEO email survey
I presume responses go to Gary.
=====================
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:18:52 -0400
From: Gary Garriott <mailto:garyg@VITA.ORG>
Subject: Responses requested
To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
COMMUNICATIONS SURVEY
Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA), together with its
collaborators, is gathering information on the use of
communications by non-governmental organizations in
development. A store-and-forward email system using existing low
earth orbting satellites to serve humanitarian and development
purposes will soon be a reality. Information from this survey will
help ensure that the system is designed to meet real needs. It will
be very helpful if a response to the survey question could be
prepared and the form returned by October 1st. Thank you very
much for your cooperation.
Henry Norman, President, VITA.
1. Does your organization have projects in developing
countries? Yes____ No____
2. Do you have offices in rural areas of these countries?
Yes_____ No ______
3. Are communications between your home office and country
offices or between country offices available? Yes_____
No______
If available, are communications reliable? Yes______
No______
Are they reasonably priced? Yes_____ No______
4. Is email available? Yes_____ No______
5. If the answer to question 4 is yes, is it reasonably priced?
Yes_____ No_____
6. Would a reliable store-and-forward email system in which
messages would reach their destination in 90 minutes or
less be of interest to you? Yes_____ No_____
7. Would a cost of $1,500 or less for a ground terminal be
regarded as reasonable? Yes______ No______
8. If such a system is of interest to your organization, would
you be willing to become a member of an NGO associat
on and pay annual dues that permit you to use the system without
further cost or, if possible, would you prefer to pay a
fee for each use to support the system (which will be on a not for
profit basis)?
Pay annual dues __________ Pay a user fee__________
9. If you prefer annual dues, what level would you regard as
reasonable?
$100 _______ $500________
$1,000 _________
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:41:50 -04
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] (Fwd) Nader/CPT: A framework for ICANN and DNS Management
- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:10:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: Nader/CPT: A framework for ICANN and DNS Management, Initial Proposals
INFO-POLICY-NOTES
List management at http://www.cptech.org/lists.html
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
The following are proposals presented by Ralph Nader to "Governing
the Commons: The Future of Global Internet Administration," a
conference organized by Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, September 24-25, 1999, in Alexandria, Virginia.
A framework for ICANN and DNS Management
Initial Proposals
(comments welcome)
version 1.02
September 25, 1999*
1. ICANN's authority should be based upon a multilateral
government charter. That Charter should define and limit
ICANN's authority.
2. The charter should be based upon a limited purpose sui
generis agreement among countries that express interest in
working together, and that agree that ICANN's role should be
limited to tasks essential to maintaining an efficient and
reliable DNS management, and that ICANN will not be used as
an instrument to promote policies relating to conduct or
content on the Internet. (Additional multilateral
institutions may be desired to address electronic commerce
issues, but ICANN itself should not become the foundation
for a vast Internet governance institution. See
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/cpt-wcpo.html)
3. ICANN should not use its power over domain registration
policy to exclude persons from the use of a domain on issues
that are not germane to managing the DNS system of mapping
IP addresses into domain names. The right to have a domain
on the Internet should be considered the same as the right
to have a street address, a telephone number or a person's
name.
4. ICANN should identify a membership and elect its board of
directors from its membership before it makes additional
policy decisions (in those areas appropriate for action by
ICANN).
5. Membership should be open to anyone who uses the Internet.
There should be no fee associated with membership or voting
rights.
6. The records of ICANN should be open to the public. The
public should have rights to documents as, similiar to
rights provided in the US Freedom of Information Act.
7. The meetings of ICANN should be open to the public.
8. The public should be given an annual opportunity to review
and comment on the ICANN budget.
9. The Budget of ICANN should be subject to review by the
countries that provide the ICANN charter. Fees associated
with domain registration should only be spent on activities
essential to the management of the DNS system.
10. National governments should be permitted to exercise
discretion over policies relating to the use of country top
level domains (.fr, .uk, .us, etc).
11. For generic top level domains (.com, .org, .net, and new
gTLDs), the domain space should be declared a public
resource. The registrar or registries perform services on
behalf of the users of the domains, and will not own the
domain space. It should be possible to replace firms engaged
in registration services and DNS management, without risking
the stability of the Internet.
12. On matters of public interest (in the narrow areas where
ICANN will operate), such as policies regarding the use of
trademarks or the privacy of domain registration
information, ICANN should make recommendations to the sui
generis multinational body created to manage ICANN, and the
multinational body should accept, reject or modify the
recommendations, after giving the public a fully adequate
opportunity to review and comment on the proposals.
13. On the issue of trademarks, the Charter should explicitly
protect the public's rights to parody, criticism and free
speech. For example, domain names like GM-sucks.com, which
would not be confused with GM.com, should be permitted.
*Corrected
Comments to James Love, love@cptech.org or Ralph Nader,
ralph@essential.org.
- --
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
I can be reached at love@cptech.org, by telephone 202.387.8030,
by fax at 202.234.5176. CPT web page is http://www.cptech.org
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:09:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Recent NSI/ICANN agreement solves none of problems with ICANN
In a recent post about the ICANN/NSI announcement someone on
a mailing list I am on tried to assure others on that mailing
list and commented that the agreement would "supposedly will
put to rest all that inconvenient squabbling".
However, the problem with ICANN is *not* inconvenient squabbling.
And though the U.S. media has tried to present the problem with
ICANN as only a factional fight between ICANN and NSI, that is
*not* the reality.
The ICANN structure and conception are the result of serious misconceptons
about the nature of the Internet and how far certain business interests
can go to seize control of essential Internet functions, and still
have the Internet function in a way that will make it possible to
continue as an Internet, rather being split apart.
The Internet requires scientific and accountable administration.
The U.S. government activity creating ICANN as a way to throw its
support to certain corporate entities to vie for control of
essential functions of the Internet is the opposite of what was needed.
The essential functions of the Internet require protection from
governments and to be put in the hands of scientific administration
and developers.
That is the process that made it possible for the Internet to
develop. That is the process that needs to be understood for
the Internet to continue.
So called "private sector" control via a so called "nonprofit U.S.
corporation" is *not* an entity that can be held accountable to
protect the essential functions of the Internet from being the
continual target of the fight of vested interests.
ICANN is under the control of whom? Accountable to whom?
And Ralph Nader's so called proposal to CPSR shows that he
has no understanding of the nature of the Internet nor the
problem with ICANN. His proposal is intended to prettify what
has been exposed to the world as a power grab by the U.S. government
to give certain U.S. corporate entities control over essential
Internet functions. Having a multilateral agreement of nations
wouldn't change that as they have no way to have scientific
leadership and oversight over the essential Internet functions.
This multilateral agreement would only be a rubber stamp for
ICANN's dirty deeds.
There is *no* basis to give the essential functions of the
Internet to a private entity.
These essential functions have been in public hands and their
administration has functioned in a way that has had an
obligation for public accountability. This system needed
to be strengthened, *not* destroyed, as it has been by the
creation of ICANN.
>
The proper form for the administration and ownership and control
of the functions essential for the Internet, of the root
server system, the protocols creation and decision process, the
IP number allocation, etc. is *not* a private form.
There is a need to understand what the form was that made it
possible for these functions to be protected from "vested"
interests and how to strengthen that form. That is *not*
what ICANN represents.
Those who care about the continued development of the Internet
will recognize the need to protect its essential functions
from vested interests. How that is to be done needs to be
explored based on understanding how that has been done
in the development of the Internet.
My proposal to the U.S. Dept of Commerce last year before they
set up ICANN gave a means for cooperative effort of computer
scientists from those countries interested in trying to be
part of understand the problem and then proposing a solution.
My proposal gave a means for creating a prototype to make it
possible for those nations interested in providing the needed
protection to work together.
My proposal gave a means for creating an online form to help
in the process.
My proposal is online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
ICANN does none of these. It hasn't identified what problem
really needs to be solved, and so is only setting a basis for
vested interests to make their power grabs for control of
the Internet and all its users.
So the ICANN/NSI agreement is only the basis for a much more
serious squabbling and a basis for ever greater instability
for the Internet and its users.
Ronda
ronda@ais.org
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, 29 Sep 1999 10:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: New Legislation For Telcos? (fwd)
(In general, I recommend that all netizens try to follow comp.dcom.telecom.)
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:55:42 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Legislation For Telcos?
Message-ID: <telecom19.441.12@telecom-digest.org>
Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA
Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org
Approved: [comp.dcom.telecom/c7597b52bab04f8f133b4a2930133629]
X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/
X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 19, Issue 441, Message 12 of 14
In article <telecom19.440.3@telecom-digest.org>, Bill Ranck
<ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
> US senator seen in a TV advertisement asking everyone to talk to their
> congressmen about local telephone monopolies. He claims there is some
> sort of "loophole" being proposed by rural phone companies that will
> prevent local competition for Internet connectivity. But, it's all
> very vague and doesn't reference a specific bill before congress.
> Does anyone know what that's about, and who is paying for the air
> time?
A notice was sent around our company about this, since it could impact
our ability to provide Internet service if the GTE/Bell Atlantic
merger is consummated.
Apparently the FCC is applying provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act, which were intended to regulate the entry of local phone
companies into the long distance market, to local phone companies
trying to offer advanced services over the Internet. The notice
doesn't go into detail about what the FCC is doing.
The bills that they want us to have our legislators vote for are:
H.R. 2420, the "Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 1999"
H.R. 1685, the "Internet Growth and Development Act"
H.R. 1686, the "Internet Freedom Act"
S. 1043, the "Internet Regulatory Freedom Act"
Our company has even implemented an intranet server we can use to
automatically send faxes to our legislators (it's kind of strange that
it sends a fax -- don't all the federal legislators have email
addresses these days?).
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:42:21 -04
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Recent NSI/ICANN agreement solves none of problems with ICANN
> Ralph Nader's so called proposal to CPSR shows that he
> has no understanding of the nature of the Internet nor the
> problem with ICANN. His proposal is intended to prettify what
> has been exposed to the world as a power grab...
I have no idea what his propsal is intended to do, but in
> 3. ICANN should not use its power over domain registration
> policy to exclude persons from the use of a domain on issues
> that are not germane to managing the DNS system of mapping
> IP addresses into domain names. The right to have a domain
> on the Internet should be considered the same as the right
> to have a street *address*, a telephone *number* or a person's
> name.
he fell into the same trap as everyone else: 'a name is just a
specially coded number.' (Its hard to imagine any nonliterate
person being this confused!) Are the folks who read _meaning into
domain names going to just disappear? Whether one stands on the
technical side and _defines the entire DNS as meaningless, or on
the political side and accepts that distinguishing between meaning
and meaninglessness is an act of governance, one cannot expect
ICANN to do both.
It may be that, 'like a person's name,' the wiser course is to *let
someone else name you*. Take the 'freedom' to name your own
domain away, and the picture changes entirely.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:08:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Sad News
Hi,
When I logged on to Cleveland Free-Net I got the following screen:
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
/\
WELCOME TO THE... _! !_
_!__ __!_
__ ! !
_! !_ ! ! ! !
! ! /\ ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !___
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !_!_ ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
_! ! !_!_ ! ! !_
! ! !_! ! !
! !
! CLEVELAND FREE-NET !
! COMMUNITY COMPUTER SYSTEM !
!____________________________________!
brought to you by
Case Western Reserve University
Office of Information Services
The Cleveland Freenet has discontinued operation. The project has
concluded. Thank you for your participation.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Official academic and political support was ended. I do not know the details
but would like to share what was written what seems now to be a long time ago.
Jay
- ---------------------
A Brief History of Cleveland Free-Net
[Editor's Note: The following article is taken from a talk
presented at the Mid-Manhattan Branch of the New York Public
Library, July 10, 1995.]
The Cleveland Free-Net computer networking system is often
cited as the grandfather of the worldwide community computer
networking movement. This movement takes as its goal the provision
by community networks of free or at-cost dialup and public terminal
access to community and world wide communication. Cleveland
Free-Net and other community networks are made possible by
volunteers from all sectors of the community. In 1992, Cleveland
Free-Net had well over 40,000 registered users making more than
10,000 accesses per day. Over 250 volunteer system operators
maintained and upgraded the system and kept the information fresh
or got answers to questions posted by users. This model is proving
attractive to citizens around the world. It is worth looking
at how the first Free-Net got started in Cleveland.
Cleveland Free-Net traces its origin to 1984 when an education
professor, Tom Grundner, was involved in monitoring the quality of
education offered to medical students and interns who were spread
over five Cleveland hospitals and clinics. He devised a system that
used an Apple II+ computer and a 300 baud modem to receive
questions over phone lines from the medical students and interns
who had access to a microcomputer or a computer terminal with a
modem. The questioners were provided within a reasonable time,
with answers from relevant doctors. The system was eventually
called Doc-in-the-Box. Within a week of starting up the system, the
telephone number to reach the central Apple II+ computer had gotten
out and lay people started to leave medical questions with the hope
the doctors would answer them also. The doctors answered all
questions. What was in many cases quality medical advice was
available to some who ordinarily might not have been able to afford
the usual fee or find a doctor for such advice. It dawned on those
involved that a new medium for dispensing medical information was
opening up.
In 1985 Grundner expanded this system which was intended
especially for medical students and interns to a new system open
to all who had a medical question and a computer and modem. He
called the new system Saint Silicon's Hospital and Information
Dispensary. Saint Silicon operated in some ways like a real
hospital. When you used your modem to dial up, the first question
on the screen was, "Have you been a patient here before?" If you
answered No, the next screen had the title, "Admitting Desk" and
required you to provide some information about yourself. Then you
could post medically related questions in the message area of the
system called the Clinic to be answered by a doctor within 24
hours. A doctor would read the question and post the question and
his answer on the system so all who dialed in to Saint Silicon
could read them. Within a few weeks of the launch of Saint Silicon,
a steady average of more than 300 calls were being received per
week, saturating the one line system.
Grundner wrote up the Saint Silicon experience in an article
for the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).* At about the
same time, representatives of American Telephone and Telegraph
(AT&T) offered to donate an AT&T 3B2-400 Unix based minicomputer
to support the operation and expansion of Grundner's experimental
system. Unix is a multitasking, time-sharing computer operating
system and the AT&T 3B2-400 was a much more powerful computer
then the Apple II+. With the better equipment, Grundner designed
a system based on the networking software used to make the news-
group system know as Usenet possible. The new system was intended
for the posting of questions and answers across the whole spec-
trum of areas that make up a community. Grundner envisioned an
electronic city with a post office, government house, library,
court house for legal questions, etc., in addition to a hospital.
Eventually the system would also have hobbyist areas, special
interest areas, and kiosks and coffee shops for people to meet at
and have discussions. This was Free-Net 1, the first version of
Cleveland Free-Net (1985-1989). The sections of Free-Net were
staffed by doctors, lawyers, hobbyists, etc., each contributing
as part of his or her job or voluntarily. People who dialed into
Cleveland Free-Net were never charged to use the system nor did
those who provided information or their expertise get paid by the
Free-Net.
The museums and parks and theaters and clubs of Cleveland
voluntarily provided the information about themselves and some
staff time and in exchange that information was readily accessible
by the users of the Free-Net. Doctors, lawyers, car mechanics,
etc. volunteered in large numbers. One incentive being that
Free-Net users satisfied with the online answers to relevant
questions often became paying clients and customers. Someone I
know is no longer on crutches because a doctor who showed a
genuine understanding of her condition by his response to her
post on Cleveland Free-Net was chosen by her to do an operation.
The success of that operation solved a condition doctors in her
own state said was permanent.
In 1989, Case Western Reserve University became the dominant
sponsor of Cleveland Free-Net. It supported development of the
software and eventually took over the system, now Free-Net 2, the
Cleveland Free-Net that exists today. This Free-Net includes many
areas of active discussion, some for senior citizens, some for
teenagers, some for any group with a common interest. Also, by
giving its users access to Usenet newsgroups, Free-Net makes it
possible for people in Cleveland to be communicating and
interacting with Usenet users all over the world. Cleveland
Free-Net serves as a means of limited free Internet access for
its users who each get a sizable electronic mail storage area,
limited file handling and transfer capability, and connectivity to
other Free-Nets in the U. S. and around the world. For many people,
Cleveland Free-Net has served as the starting point for their
online activities. And as an example Cleveland Free-Net has given
impetus to a global community computer networking movement. By
1995 there were at least 150 similar community networking systems
up or soon to be up around the world and many more in some
stage of planning. There are organizing committees in at least 40
U.S. States, all across Canada and in 10 or more other countries.
Some of the guiding vision behind the community networking
movement is that every community will benefit if all the citizens
of that community have free access to global communication tech-
nology and to information about community resources. If access
has to be paid for by the users, some segment of the community
will be left out both from use of the resources but also as a
resource. For many community networks the name Free-Net conveys
their principle that access has to be free of cost to the user.
Some communities like Seattle, Washington provide terminals or
computers in public libraries to fulfill this requirement. In
most communities where community networks are being organized
there is however opposition from some who want to charge for
access. Also, there are expenses involved for the equipment and
especially for leasing phone lines even if all the staffing and
administration is done by volunteers. A widely verified assessment
is that in North America the line leasing expense amounts to
about $8 to $12 per user per year (roughly $1.00 per user per
month). The challenge to each organizing or operating committee
is to solve these and similar problems. Even Cleveland Free-Net
is currently facing the problem that Case Western Reserve
University may withdraw some of the $50,000 annual budget that
has been its sponsorship contribution in the last few years.
There are many active community oriented people and some
government bodies throughout the world who see some level of
community provided access to community based computer network
information and communication as crucial to modern life. There are
people in many cities and rural areas who are looking to a
community network or Free-Net as a first step into the
telecommunications revolution. Cleveland Free-Net has been
an inspiration to many such people.
*"Interactive Medical Telecomputing: An Alternative Approach to
Community Health Education," NEJM, Vol 314 no 15, April 10, 1986,
pp. 982-985.
- --------------------------------
Note: The sources of information for this article were help from
people on Cleveland Free-Net (telnet free-net-in-a.cwru.edu), an
e-mail correspondence from Tom Grundner, the NEJM article, and a
chapter in The On-Line User's Encyclopedia: Bulletin Boards and
Beyond, by Bernard Adoba, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA., 1993.
- --------------------------------
[Author's Note: In late 1995 it was reported that Tom Grundner
resigned as Director of the National Public Telecommunications
Network. Subsequently, it was reported that the Deputy Director
also resigned. The NPTN had been formed by Grundner in September
1989 to coordinate the activities of the Free-Nets that formed on
the model of Cleveland Free-Net.
On the mailing list serving members of the NPTN affiliated
Free-Nets, questions were raised as to what was happening. The new
leadership responded that it will take a little while to put the
finances back in order and would not answer the questions until
then. Many subscribers to the list were not satisfied and
requested a national meeting to discuss the crisis, assess the
situation and propose ways forward. When the new leadership turned
down that proposal, there were submissions to the list documenting
a long history of top down unhelpful NPTN practices and the
lack of democratic forms within NPTN to deal with the crisis. In
a similar way, the recently formed NPTN affiliated New York City
Free-Net Organizing Committee has held no public meetings nor
shared with those interested any of its inner workings or
documents.]
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 1. Free from jrh@ais.org
____________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #341
******************************
