Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 340
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, September 22 1999 Volume 01 : Number 340
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Is CPSR Program Promoting Privatization of the Internet?
[netz] No national borders on the Internet? No way! (China PRC)
[netz] (Fwd) Nanoose Bay and the rights of citizens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:11:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Is CPSR Program Promoting Privatization of the Internet?
James Love <love@cptech.org> wrote:
> CPSR is holding a workshop on the future of global internet
> administration in Alexandria, Virginia, on September 24-5.
> They have an impressive and interesting cast of speakers,
> including, in no particular order, Esther Dyson, Ralph Nader,
> Tony Rutkowski, Milton Mueller, Michael Froomkin, Coralee Whitcomb,
> Don Telage, David Post, Jamie Love, David Farber (invited),
> Paul Scolese (invited), Theresa Amato, Jean Camp, Hans Klein,
> Mike Vita, Paul Garrin, Chris Ambler, Scott Bradner, Karl Auerbach,
> Peter Deutsch and some others not yet named.
> Here is the CPSR announcement:
> * * * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) * * *
Has this organization now become Computer Professionals for
the Privatization of the Internet? CPSR has a proud origin and it
is a challenge to it to see if it will respect its roots in this
important battle over the soul of the Internet.
>Ralph Nader will give the keynote speech at CPSR's conference on global
>Internet administration. The conference, to be held in Alexandria,
Ralph Nader has been a consumer advocate, but the issues involved
here are those of net.citizens or Netizens, not of consumers.
The is a new paradigm and not one that it is clear Nader recognizes
as something new.
URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.xpr
The issue involved is the privatization of the administrative functions
of the Internet.
The Office of Inspector General of the National Science Foundation (OIG
of the NSF) in February 1997 issued a report opposing the privatization
of these functions.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jrh29/geneva/NSF.inspector.general.txt
There was a proposal submitted to the NTIA in summer of 1998 opposing
the privatization of these functions.
See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
>Virginia, on September 24 and 25, will examine the issues surrounding the
>creation of a new Internet corporation, ICANN, to manage core technical
>functions of cyberspace. A full conference announcement is below.
This leaves out that the issue is *not* the management, but the
privatization of public functions, and public property in a new
way with some of a new cast of advocates.
In the past the CPSR has promoted the privatization, rather than
the protection of the public property of these functions. Is
that what this conference is to do as well?
There is no indication that the real question will be explored by
the CPSR program.
The real question is why these public functions should *not* be
privatized.
Why the public administration of the Domain Name System, and
other essential functions of the Internet, such as the root server
system, the IP system, the protocols, etc. need to be in public
hands and *under* public protection.
And that users are *not* customers, nor are users consumers.
That the whole structure of the ICANN is to create a privatized,
and illegitimate entity under the control of private interests
(ask who is currently funding ICANN), to change the fundamental
nature of the Internet by grabbing control of its essential
functions in the greatest givaway ever by the U.S. government.
Instead of the U.S. government protecting the Internet, and its
naming and addressing functions and its protocols development
and agreement processes, these processes are being put under
the control of those who can grab power in a big power play.
The whole concept of ICANN is flawed.
The Internet was created by computer scientists in a computer
science supported community.
The continued scaling of the Internet requires that such public
and scientific processes and institutional forms continue to
be the forms overseeing and protecting the Internet.
See for example: What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace
ICANN? ICANN was created on the wrong model.
URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5183/1.html
URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/5239/1.html
The CPSR conference has invited advocates of ICANN and advocates
of consumer affairs. But users of the Internet are *not*
consumers. The Internet is a participatory medium and users have
been part of those creating the content and form.
The user as Netizen or net.citizen is the social form that has
emerged with the development of the Internet. The Netizen
is being disenfranchisized by the creation of ICANN.
And temporary structural forms such as the Domain Name System
are being made permanent, when they need to be changed as
the scaling of the Internet continues.
But the creation of ICANN shows that the whole model of privatizing
the Internet is a serious paradigm change in the nature of
the Internet. The Internet is the creation of a research
entity, and continued computer science research is needed to
continued the growth and spread of the Internet, not privatizing
of the public processes and property.
The role of government in the development of the Internet needs
to be examined and the role of government in support of computer
science needs to be better understood.
See for example:
URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/5106/1.html
or http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/arpa_ipto.txt
Is the CPSR conference raising such questions? Or is it only
trying to find a more palatable means to carry out the privatization
of the public processes and property?
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
See also http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/dns_supplement.txt
and http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACN9-1.txt
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, 22 Sep 1999 04:45:37
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] No national borders on the Internet? No way! (China PRC)
The CSS Internet News (tm) is a daily e-mail publication that
has been providing up to date information to Netizens since 1996.
Subscription information is available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/inews.htm
or send an e-mail to jwalker@bestnet.org with
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the SUBJECT line.
The following is an excerpt from the CSS Internet News. If you are
going to pass this along to other Netizens please ensure that the
complete message is forwarded with all attributes intact.
NOTE: Registrations for the On-line Learning Series of Courses
for October are now being accepted. Information is available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
- ------------
No national borders on the Internet? No way! (China PRC)
China Youth Daily, 9/13/99
http://www.sinopolis.com/
Some believe that national borders do not exist on the Internet.
Absolutely not! Borders on the Internet are Internet security!
Some believe that the threats on the Web are only from "viruses" and
"hackers." Absolutely not! There are also threats from information
hegemony and cultural infiltration!
Today when we are entering a Web age, Web security has become an
important indicator of a new and necessary concept of security for
the state. The key to Web security is in grasping "web domination."
Without "web domination" there is no Web and information security.
In today¡¯s society, politics, economy, military, and social
activities are gradually depending on networking. As a major
infrastructure component of the state, networking will certainly
become a main target of information warfare of the 21st century.
With the development of computer networks, network society formed
gradually. Online territory became another dimension besides land,
ocean, sky, and space, and became part of the territory under
sovereign jurisdiction. However, different from the territory of the
conventional sense and though online territory belongs to the field
of national sovereignty and security, it does not have clearly
definable borders, and any web user can enter this dimension and
conduct activities. This creates conflicts occurring in this "soft
border" more secretive and dangerous.
Conflicts on the web have neither smoke nor bloodshed; it is very
likely that the opponent has already launched an attack or already
won a decisive victory while you are still unaware. The attacks by
computer "viruses" and "hackers," the infiltration of web culture,
and the unfair invasion of the people who horde web information will
politically deceive the people, cause economic losses, leak out
classified military intelligence (and hence lose the power to
command), and cause ideological chaos and social disturbances. In
this respect, attacks and infiltration in the online territory can be
deadly for national politics, economy, military, and society.
Because of this, we can say that "web domination = territorial
domination," and we must firmly establish the awareness for the
security of national defense online. We must develop an independent
national Internet industry so that our online territory and
sovereignty is not violated. But how is the current situation?
In terms of establishing an awareness for online territory and web
security, most people¡¯s understanding of web security remains on
the level of protecting the information online, mainly by means of
building firewalls. Among the 3,700 websites in China now, 91% of
them use WindowsNT as the server operating system, and its stability
and security cannot satisfy the need to protect the online territory.
Web security products are being imported and used without independent
rights and control. This will inevitably harbor dangers such as
imbedded viruses, hidden passageways, and decodable passwords.
Looking at the rule of the online game, the power to register
Internet domain names, and the TCP/IP protocol commonly used on the
Internet, we see these are in the hands of the US as well. Where is
independence and self-control on the web?
The security of a country cannot be built upon a completely imported
foundation, just like a country¡¯s Customs, military, and police
cannot be in the hands of a different country.
In order to actually grasp "web domination" and strengthen our
online national defense power, we must take a road of
self-development and self-perfection. We must start from the
following aspects:
First, we must strengthen citizens¡¯ awareness of online territory
and national security. Through propaganda and introduction, we must
make each citizen understand the importance and function of online
territory, understand the danger and urgency of online invasion.
Second, we must develop an independent network information industry.
We must independently develop hardware chips and operating systems,
as well as core technologies including security coding standards. We
must construct an information security system which we can control
ourselves, and hence be in the offensive in the web information
industry.
Third, we must strengthen management of web security and
legislation. We should establish a web security infrastructure. For
instance, a web national defense research center, a web international
port monitoring center (information customs), virus monitoring and
prevention center; system attack and counter-attack system, web
security education center, security products evaluation center, and
key web system disaster recovering centers. We should also establish
and perfect a whole set of laws and regulations to prevent "digital
crimes."
For important government, military, and technical fields, we must
strengthen the management of Internet ports. It is best is to
construct relatively closed and independent networks, and form a
so-called "one country two networks," or "one country multiple
networks" system and speed the building of supporting systems,
thereby reaching the goal of improving our network¡¯s ability to
destroy enemies.
- --------------
Also in this issue:
- - No national borders on the Internet? No way! (China PRC)
Some believe that national borders do not exist on the Internet.
Absolutely not! Borders on the Internet are Internet security!
- - Quake disrupts Net traffic (Asia)
SINGAPORE (Bloomberg) - An underwater cable providing Internet
connections from Asian countries to the U.S. was damaged in the
aftershocks of Taiwan's earthquake, disrupting Internet services.
- - India awaits wisdom from exported Internet gurus (India)
NEW DELHI, Sept 21 (Reuters) - Some big names in the Internet
business will descend on New Delhi for a three-day show and
conference to address aspiring entrepreneurs -- and many of those big
names are Indian.
- - Tracking Users Across The Web by Cliff Allen (US)
New opportunities for web partnerships enable us to provide more
options and better service to customers, but these same
opportunities also bring new challenges in tracking web behavior.
- - Guide To Search Positioning! (US)
I've been asked to sum up what everyone should know about search
engine positioning.
- - Sub-continent in Web war (India/Pakistan)
ANOTHER bloody chapter was written in history of the sub-continent
earlier in the year, when more than 1000 solders from Pakistan and
India died fighting an undeclared war in the mountains of Kashmir.
- - Inquiry is to aid disabled Net access (Australia)
AN INQUIRY into whether e-commerce and e-government are alienating
older and disabled people should look to the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C) for guidance, local advocates say.
- - Corel Ships Linux Beta (Canada)
Corel will release a beta version of its Linux operating system to
beta testers on Tuesday, said company CEO Michael Cowpland. Corel,
in Ottawa, will also unveil technology partnerships with other
software companies, Cowpland said.
- - China Net policy worries U.S. companies (US)
LOS ANGELES (AP) - U.S. companies and investors are moving ahead
with projects to tap China's potentially vast Internet market, but
that could change quickly if the Chinese government makes good on a
threat to enforce its longstanding ban on foreign investment in
Web-based ventures.
- - China Reports First Crash From '9999' Bug (China PRC)
BEIJING, Sep 21, 1999 -- (Reuters) A pharmaceutical factory in China
suffered a computer crash on September 9, 1999, when the system read
the date as a command to stop, the China Youth Daily reported on
Tuesday.
- - New Lists and Journals
* NEW: Violence in the US
* ADD: LLAMAS
* NEW: Jewish World
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
- -------------------------------
Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____
For subscription details email / | ' \
jwalker@hwcn.org with ( ) 0
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----'
subject line. ==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
"On the Internet no one / __/~| / |
knows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________|
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
- -------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:55:16 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] (Fwd) Nanoose Bay and the rights of citizens
There might be tips here for anyone contemplating a suit against
USG in re ICANN and the devolution of authority.
- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:56:04 -0700
To: cfogal@netcom.ca
From: Connie Fogal <cfogal@netcom.ca>
Subject: Nanoose Decision:NO
RE NANOOSE COURT ACTION IN BCSC SEPTEMBER 21,1999
NO: A992161
The Human Rights Institute of Canada, Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Archdiocese of Canada, Citizens
Concerned About Free Trade, Rose-Marie Larsson, Defence of
Canadian Liberty Committee, and Constance Fogal were in B.C.
Supreme Court September 21,1999 to hear judgement on their
application to set aside the transfer of the Nanoose Bay lands from
BC to the federal government.
The good news: once again the court held that we , the citizens
have standing, i.e. the right to be in court to make the challenge.
The bad news: the Court held that it is not possible to get an
injunction against the Crown; that to do so is prohibited by the
Crown Proceedings Act. The Court referred to 3 cases that followed
this principle of law, including the Delgam Uukw case. As a result
the judge dismissed our application.
The good news: The Court did not order costs against us today. It
ordered costs in the cause.
The bad news : The final Court could order costs against us for this
application.
The good news: Our lawyers have already tonight researched the
question of this technical reason for dismissing us and have found
case law that says such a technicality does NOT apply in
constitutional cases where the Crown has acted unlawfully. The
judge is wrong in law.
English translation of all of this: Mr Justice Bauman dismissed our
case on a technicality saying there is law that says you cannot
get an injunction against the government. Our lawyers have found
other case law that says , yes we can in cases based on the
Canadian constitution where the government has acted unlawfully;
i.e., contrary to our constitution. Our fundamental case is that the
federal government acted unlawfully in this expropriation; it did
what our Constitution says it cannot do.
This means we have grounds to appeal this interim decision of
Bauman, J.
Where does this leave us?
Still in the trenches.
Before we even get to court on the fundamental issue, the core of
the case, we can take another step to appeal this decision of
Bauman.
Why should we appeal? Why not give up and go away?
Because no one else is going to stand up for us. Because what the
federal government is doing is wrong. Because the direction the
world has taken is harmful. Because the ease with which the
federal government is throwing away our rights should not go
unchallenged. Because no one else is going to do the fight for us.
We are taking on the whole apparatus of the state in this kind of a
case, just like we are doing in our lawsuit against the MAI. (We
await a hearing date on our appeal in our MAI case). Indeed we are
taking on the whole apparatus of the real government , the
unelected government that dictates to our elected government. It is
not going to be easy. It has not been easy. It will not get easier.
Why not give up the judicial arm of this struggle and go back to the
political arm?
There is no political party currently elected that is supporting our
Nanoose lawsuit. We have been in two courts to try to get an
injunction: The federal court on August 30th 1999, the BCSC on
September 17,1999. Not one Member of Parliament nor Member of
the Legislative assembly showed up in court to stand beside us.
Not one has even sent a message of support. NOT FROM ANY
PARTY.
The BC provincial government only issued the first starting papers,
(the writ), which means nothing without the second set of papers,
(the statement of claim). The province has one whole year to sit
on their first papers and do nothing.
The fed lawyers tried to use the fact the BC government writ exists
to throw us out of court. They did not succeed on that point. We
have not been thrown out of court, i.e., our basic case is still
before the court and will continue through the various steps.
(These applications were interim applications, i.e applications to
get an order to tide us over until the full case can be heard. We
were not able to get interim injunctions, but that does not affect the
hearing of the full case finally. And we have filed our appeal in the
federal court over the federal court refusal of an injunction there.
We can appeal this BCSC interim order for rejecting an injunction
there.)
Why bother? Because it matters.
We can be cynical, discouraged, angry. We can give up and retire
to the cabbage patch and await the cabbage moths.
Or we can hunker down, put our heads into the wind, and keep
going. We still have lots of room to manoeuvre.
La lutte continue. Riria! Riria!
Onward!
Connie Fogal
DEFENCE of CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE/LE COMITÉ de la LIBERTÉ CANADIENNE
C/0 CONSTANCE FOGAL LAW OFFICE, #401 -207 West Hastings St.,
Vancouver, B.C. V6B1H7
Tel: (604)687-0588; fax: (604) 872 -1504 or (604) 688-0550;cellular(604)
202 7334; E-MAIL cfogal@netcom.ca; www.canadianliberty.bc.ca
The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament,
or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that
the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to
which they are entitled Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova
Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R. 1951 pp 32
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #340
******************************
