Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 346
Netizens-Digest Saturday, November 27 1999 Volume 01 : Number 346
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Some Analysis of ICANN from the IFWP mailing list
Re: [netz] Some Analysis of ICANN from the IFWP mailing list
Re: [netz] Some Analysis of ICANN from the IFWP mailing list
[netz] The vision of access for all versus the e-commerce hype
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:44:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Some Analysis of ICANN from the IFWP mailing list
The following appeared in the IFWP mailing list digest. The archive for
the list is at http://list.ifwp.org/
(For an archive of the digest of the list see for example
http://www.columbia.edu/~jrh29/ifwp/ifwp.n24 )
- ----------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:48:35 -0500
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Fenello.com>
Subject: [IFWP] ICANN Update
Here's an update on the ICANN situation:
Jay.
>At 10:17 PM 11/22/99 , msondow@iciiu.org wrote:
>
>At a National Press Club conference transmitted today by NPR, John Sweeney,
>President of the AF of L-CIO, said that the WTO was a world government whose
>laws, made without the consultation or participation of workers, are
>establishing a world oligarchy of transnational corporations that will throw
>back workers' rights and environmental protection to the union-busting days
>of the nineteenth century.
>
>Is the Internet to be the mechanism for WTO world government? Is this why
>the U.S. Department of Commerce has created ICANN? What role are MCI and
>Vinton Cerf supposed to play in it? Was Jones Day selected as ICANN's
>lawfirm because of their connection with the transnational corporations
>controlling the WTO and benefitting from the GATT? Under what law will we
>live in the 21st century, constitutional democracy or the dictatorship of
>ICANN and the WTO?
[Note: Jamie Love is the Director of Ralph
Nader's Consumer Project on Technology]
At 11:18 PM 11/22/99 , James Love wrote:
>Funny you should say this. I was just at a Department of State briefing
>on information policy last week, and when discussing a the need for new
>global rules on consumer protection, Don Heath suggested ICANN as a
>model, where NGOs (he meant business NGOs like MPAA and the BSA) played
>a role.
At 09:50 AM 11/23/99 , msondow@iciiu.org wrote:
>Jones Day would not have lent its foremost international antitrust lawyer
>to create ICANN for any other reason than that ICANN should be the
>communications tool for the trade hegemony of its transnational clients
>through the WTO and GATT. The DOC would not have gone to the lengths it
>has to protect ICANN, even to violating its own charter, nor would it have
>run the risks of dissembling in congressional testimony, for a lesser purpose.
>
>Why has the Antitrust Division of the DOJ refused to investigate and
>pursue ICANN? Merely because Joe Sims used to work there and is a friend
>of the Division's counsel? If that were so, then Scott Sacks, to whom I
>supplied the same information I gave James Tierney, and who is supposedly
>beyond the influence of the Division's counsel, would have acted on it,
>and the same goes for the Division's director, Joel Klein, and Janet Reno,
>who have been apprised of the situation by Tom Bliley. Yet nothing has
>been done by them to change it.
>
>Clearly, ICANN is an integral part of the U.S. Government's plans to
>control world trade through the pseudo-world government of WTO. Don Heath
>is no doubt privy to those plans, as are also the ICANN board and the
>Berkman Center. Why else would the DOC have allowed the ICANN board and
>staff to give ISOC and CORE control of the DNSO and, through the IETF, the
>PSO as well? But it is Vinton Cerf and MCI who are the key. Mr. Cerf's
>characterization of the Internet as the device of world trade in the 21st
>century, in his "Internet Is For Everyone" paper, was no exaggeration. In
>the Western power-block politics of the cold war period, it was ITT that
>provided U.S. communication and control; in the coming period of unopposed
>U.S. domination, it will be MCI, through the Internet.
>
>John Sweeney, because he has learned the effect of U.S.-controlled foreign
>industrial production on American workers, understands what is at stake.
At 04:16 PM 11/12/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>The way I see it, we have a
>confluence of activities that paint a very
>interesting picture.
>
>Specifically, we have presidential candidate
>and senator John McCain saying that soft money
>is a legalized form of graft. And he's right,
>especially if you look at the totally unfair
>process used to put in place ICANN. But with
>literally 100s of millions of dollars being
>funnelled into Washington on behalf of those
>supporting ICANN, what could be expected?
>
>We have presidential candidate Pat Buchanan
>saying that this may be the last election where
>the people have any chance of getting back their
>government. Funny, while the White Paper expresses
>concern over capture of the Internet, the capture
>of Washington goes unabated.
>
>And we have a U.S. Air Force report that does
>a scenario analysis of the next 25 years:
> http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/af/a-f.htm
>I'd say we are already pretty far into the scenario
>where multinational corporations exceed the power
>of sovereign nations.
>
>Throughout this debate, we've had to constantly
>up the ante when it came to describing the meta
>issue that we are all fighting about. And this
>leads me to former ambassador and presidential
>candidate Alan Keyes. He believes that the U.S.
>Constitution requires a moral citizenry, and
>without morality, even the Constitution can't
>help us.
>
>In other words, when all is said and done,
>this is a fight over morals and values.
>
>Some people say (I think it's the Buddhists),
>that awareness is the first step on the road
>to enlightenment. I believe that the Internet
>can be the vehicle that leads to the awareness
>that leads to the enlightenment, that allows
>humanity to evolve to the next level.
>
>Unfortunately, the Trademark lobby's "deal with
>ICANN" is a serious threat to *that* scenario.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
- - ------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
"We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction
we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are
building it just outside the constitution's review."
-- Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:20:29 -04
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Some Analysis of ICANN from the IFWP mailing list
Jay,
> The following appeared in the IFWP mailing list digest. The archive for
> the list is at http://list.ifwp.org/
Actually its http://lists.ifwp.org -- and all the archives are in the digest
form (set at a 40k trigger, so they are quick to load).
The Berkman Centre (cyber.law.harvard.edu) hosts the IFWP.General
newsgroup as well, which may be more useful when one is looking for a
specific post.
I might mention that some parallels between ICANN and the WTO were
drawn (by myself) on that list some 8 months ago.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:48:10 -0500 (EST)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Some Analysis of ICANN from the IFWP mailing list
At 09:50 AM 11/23/99 , msondow@iciiu.org wrote:
>Jones Day would not have lent its foremost international antitrust lawyer
>to create ICANN for any other reason than that ICANN should be the
>communications tool for the trade hegemony of its transnational clients
>through the WTO and GATT. The DOC would not have gone to the lengths it
>has to protect ICANN, even to violating its own charter, nor would it have
>run the risks of dissembling in congressional testimony, for a lesser purpose.
>
It is interesting to consider why the Jones Day Lawfirm has been brought
in to transform IANA and the IETF into an e-commerce entity in the hands
of certain large telecommunications and computer companies.
Who is doing this and why?
I came across a description of the Office of Telecommunications
Policy set up in the White House during Nixon's Presidency.
The office was to centralize power over telecommunications in
the hands of the President. The counsel was from a lawfirm
Jones, Day, Cockley and Reavis.
(Now the Jones Day lawfirm has a different is called Jones
Day Reavis and Pogue so the relation isn't exactly clear, but
it seems like they are probably related.)
A little booklet that I found about the Office of Telecommunications
Policy (OTP) put out by the Network Project at Columbia U in 1973
said that this office would become "the most powerful voice in the
formulation of national commuications policy." (pg 3)
The booklet mentions a White House report prepared by Peter
Flanigan, the laison to the corporate community and his
assistant Clay T. Whitehead. And it described the duties
of the office to include national telecommunications policies
and "U.S. participation in international telecommunications
activities."
It was also to develop executive branch policy on telecommunications,
including regulatory policies.
I wonder if anyone knows if the NTIA has now taken on these
powers?
I remember at Geneva last year listening to the lawyer from
Jones and Day saying that all power of ICANN, according
to the bylaws, would reside in the board, and that the councils
would be under the board.
The point of all this is that it seems that it is somehow U.S.
government policy to create this so-called private corporation
to have centralized in it all the power that result from
the ownership and control of the essential functions of the Internet.
>Why has the Antitrust Division of the DOJ refused to investigate and
>pursue ICANN? Merely because Joe Sims used to work there and is a friend
>of the Division's counsel? If that were so, then Scott Sacks, to whom I
>supplied the same information I gave James Tierney, and who is supposedly
>beyond the influence of the Division's counsel, would have acted on it,
>and the same goes for the Division's director, Joel Klein, and Janet Reno,
>who have been apprised of the situation by Tom Bliley. Yet nothing has
>been done by them to change it.
>
It seems it is more likely a situation where it is executive branch
policy (U.S. govt policy) to be setting up ICANN and not to allow
the anti-trust division to investigate.
It seems as if ICANN is being protected by the President's office.
I recently read an article about another effort of the US government
to privatize an important public function. The article is
about the effort to set up the Research Board for National Security
in 1944-46 in a what is a nongovernment body, (though one set up
by government) - the National Research Council.
The effort in this other instance was to put the basic research for
national defense into this nongovernmental entity.
There was a disagreement in the US military about whether or not
this was advisable, with one of the branches of the Services preferring it,
as this as it would give them control over what happened by their providing
the funding, while another branch of the Services was against it as they
felt they wouldn't have enough control over the research for their
mission.
The Bureau of the Budget at the time was not happy with the fact
of entrusting public responsibility to private hands.
The U.S. Code prohibited agencies established by Executive order
from spending governmental monies without explicit congressional
authorization.
Also there was a concern in the Bureau of the Budget that it would
involve appropriations to a private agency whose officers were not
subject to confirmation by the Senate.
In this situation the President's office was won to the fact that
it was harmful to put public responsibility into private hands.
>Clearly, ICANN is an integral part of the U.S. Government's plans to
>control world trade through the pseudo-world government of WTO. Don Heath
>is no doubt privy to those plans, as are also the ICANN board and the
>Berkman Center. Why else would the DOC have allowed the ICANN board and
>staff to give ISOC and CORE control of the DNSO and, through the IETF, the
>PSO as well? But it is Vinton Cerf and MCI who are the key. Mr. Cerf's
>characterization of the Internet as the device of world trade in the 21st
>century, in his "Internet Is For Everyone" paper, was no exaggeration. In
>the Western power-block politics of the cold war period, it was ITT that
>provided U.S. communication and control; in the coming period of unopposed
>U.S. domination, it will be MCI, through the Internet.
>
It is also helpful to remember that the Internet is a computer-communications
medium. Control over such a communications media is very important to
the US government, as it is to other governments around the world.
The booklet I have on the OTA which is from 1973 says that the
U.S. government's total investment in telecommunications is more
than $60 billion and its annual investment exceeds 4-billion.
That "the government's dependence upon the communications industry
as supplier of hardware and services is matched by the industry's
reliance upon government as financier of telecommunications advances".
(pg 10).
So it is helpful to keep in mind that the US government and its
telecommunications industries might want to create a
a situation where they dominate rather than including other
countries in the decisions about what should happen with the
Internet's essential functions.
I had read elsewhere that US industry was not happy with organizations
where countries got a vote, rather than just industry, as then
US industry couldn't dominate.
Unless governments are involved in an open way, and a way that
is consistent with the development of the Internet, which is
where the governments supported computer scientists to collaborate
to create the Internet, then it seems that power politics rather
than scientific and technical judgement will prevail over the
decisions about these essential functions of the Internet, to
the detriment of all but a few.
The public interest needs to be maintained, but those with a
private interest are involved in a contest to eliminate the
public interest.
>John Sweeney, because he has learned the effect of U.S.-controlled foreign
>industrial production on American workers, understands what is at stake.
At 04:16 PM 11/12/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>The way I see it, we have a
>confluence of activities that paint a very
>interesting picture.
>
>Specifically, we have presidential candidate
>and senator John McCain saying that soft money
>is a legalized form of graft. And he's right,
>especially if you look at the totally unfair
>process used to put in place ICANN. But with
>literally 100s of millions of dollars being
>funnelled into Washington on behalf of those
>supporting ICANN, what could be expected?
But it is a contest. ICANN is the effort to privatize
public policy, not only harming citizens in the US
but around the world as well.
With the effort to privatize government research activity
into the Research Board for National Security, this effort
didn't succeed.
The fact that government machinery was involved in the way
that the research was subsequently done by government entities
helped to make it possible that the research efforts could at
various times be protected against vested interests. (This also
broke down at times inside government, but it is only inside
government that it has the chance of succeeding. Only government
has the ability to challenge the large corporate entities
or other government entities that are the vested interests
trying to impede the development of the new concepts
and developments that are part of the computer communications
revolution that are materialized in the development of
the Internet.)
It seems crucial to understand what the contest is about
to be able to understand what will be a means of the
public interest prevailing.
Also it is crucial to understand the public and government
role in the development of the Internet - that role was
at its best, essentially the support for computer science
research and development where the best scientific solution
to a problem could prevail rather than politics preventing
that solution.
There is an effort to portray the Internet as the creature
of some self organizing private force, but that is inaccurate.
It is very much the result of government support for scientist
who were able to provide scieentific leadership to a community
of people and to learn from that community. This is the role
played the ARPA's Information Processing Techniques Office.
And there was a way that other countries provided similar
support to scientists who worked collaboratively with
scientists at ARPA/IPTO to develop the Internet.
The lessons from this development need to be learned and
applied to how to continue this development.
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: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 17:14:12 -0500 (EST)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] The vision of access for all versus the e-commerce hype
from a post to Nettime mailing list about whether there is an
e-litism of those who are online in relation to those who don't
yet have Internet access or can't afford it:
Susanna Paasonen <suspaa@utu.fi> wrote:
I have wanted to make some input into this discussion but have
been busy lately and not able to reply.
>I'm jumping on this discussion a little late, but reading it I felt
>increasingly uncomfortable - not just beacuse of the tacky term
>"e-litism", but rather because of some rather simplified views of "us" and
>"privilidge".
I wanted to put suggest that the discussion of "e-litism" be framed
a bit of a different way.
>There is no simple answer as to how using the net makes you priviledged:
I have been studying writing about the history of the Internet,
and of Usenet and what strikes one as important in this history
is that there has been a commitment among those who have found
the Internet and Usenet valuable as communications media to
spread them as broadly and widely as possible.
With a communications medium the more people who are accessible,
the more valuable that medium is to all who are using it.
The Internet was created as a means of sharing resources across
diverse networks. Thus the more resources the more to share.
In the context of this, when I got online in 1992 there was a
challenge which had to do with spreading a cheap or inexpensive
connection to the Internet via Free-Nets to home users and
spreading it to educational institutions and libraies.
During the NTIA online conference in Nov. 1994 this issue
was debated, and the question raised of what should be the
goal of public policy, high end usage of video and audio
which took more bandwidth for a few, or widespread access
to email and text based Internet access for all, and then
to move to more high bandwidth uses after all who wanted
to be connected could be connected at a low cost.
The Canadian Freenet movement estimated that it would cost
$12 a year to connect every Canadian to a Freenet.
Thus the goal of access for all has been a goal for quite
a while of many Internet users.
However, the ability to influence and get government policy
that would support this goal has been a problem not yet
solved in the US and I don't know if it is solved in other
countries but would be interested to hear of their progress.
Hence, for many, including especially those who committed
themselve to do what they could to spread the access to
the Internet as a medium of communication to as many people
as possible, this has been the goal of the concept developed
of netizenship.
The e-commerce hurricane, at least in the U.S. is actually
a political attack on netizenship and the hacker ethic of
spreading the Internet as broadly and widely as possible.
The reason I say that the e-commerce hurricane in the US is
a political attack and is about politics not economics,
is that the US corporations and elements of the US government
insisting on making the world safe for "e-commerce" are
systemmatically trying to end the public nature of the
Internet as a means of resource sharing across diverse
networks and replace it with one monolithic, centrally
controlled network that US industry can dominate.
That is very different from the view of the Netizens and
of the pioneers whose vision led to the development of
the Internet.
The question is do those who recognize the importance of
global communication do what they can to spread what
I call the "netizen vision" of the Internet rather than
blindly assuming the e-commerce program is the only game
in town?
And if they do so, how do they do this?
That seems important to be discussing, *not* how those online
are part of an "e-lite".
If those online can help to spread the Internet as a communications
medium to others around the world, then that is a continuation
of the process that helped us to get online in the first place.
For a while we had a mailing list where we were trying to understand
how to do this. The Freenets were part of this effort and spreading
knowledge about the Freenets helped.
It wasn't compuserve that grew and spread, with its proprietary
software and its online shopping. It was the Internet with its
open protocols and interfaces and its resource sharing activity.
I recognize that those who control the offline media are able
to spread their hype about the glories of "e-commerce", but
the reality of the experience of many many people online is
that the global communication made possible by the Internet
is what we want to spread far and wide.
How we do this is a challenge we haven't yet solved. But at
least we recognize that this is the goal, and that those
intent on the hype of "e-commerce" have forsaken this goal
and are chasing a phantom that can't compet in any fair
competition.
>Stefan Wray posed the question "If its true that over half of adults in
>the U.S. have Internet access, then are those people in an elite group?"
It isn't true that over half the adults in the US have Internet access,
not by a long shot.
The goal of the US govt isn't to spread Internet access but to
spread e-commerce.
But the goal of netizens is to spread Internet access and knowledge
about why the Internet is so important to our lives and times
and why it is important that all be able to have very cheap or
(or free) access so that access will be a right *not* a privilege.
This is the vision that has made it possible for the Internet to
develop thus far, and this is the vision that will make it possible
for it to reach all those who we need to have access so we
can communicate ever more broadly and widely via the Internet.
Cheers
Ronda
ronda@ais.org
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
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 #346
******************************
