Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 359
Netizens-Digest Saturday, June 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 359
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] No Taxation w/o Representation: .za says no to ICANN
Re: [netz] No Taxation w/o Representation: .za says no to ICANN
[netz] E-governemnt or Netizens and the public sphere
[netz] House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
[netz] about government role in development of internet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@umcc.ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] No Taxation w/o Representation: .za says no to ICANN
ICANN wants money to use in its capture of the crucial central functions
and therefore the direction of the Internet. If it got that money from its
corporate sponsors the nature of its service to them would be too obvious
and its capture would be overwhelmingly opposed. Instead it is trying to
get that money by taxing the domain name registries. But will they let
themselves be taxed without representation?
Jay Fenello http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480 posted the following to
the IFWP mailing list as part of a longer post raising that question:
Below, from a public list, is an exchange with
Mike Roberts and a ccTLD registry. They are
debating why .za should pay ICANN's tax.
(or mandatory fee, if you prefer ;-)
- - ----- Forwarded
From: Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>
Subject: [IOZ] Re: Financial Support for ICANN
To: Mike Lawrie <mlawrie@apies.frd.ac.za>
CC: IOZ List <ioz@internet.org.za>
Mike - Nice to hear from you. I gather that .za has lots of changes
ahead of it in the near future. If we can be of assistance, please
let me know.
As the largest ccTLD in Africa, and the recent host of the meetings
regarding AFRINIC, etc., we appreciate the leadership you are
providing for the Internet in your part of the world.
Even though the process leading to the creation of ICANN has been
going on for several years and has involved extensive consultation
with all parties, I can understand that the complexity of our
organizations might result in some misunderstandings. Let me make a
few comments about your text below in the interests of clarity and
improved communication.
(1) ICANN has been created to assume responsibility for policy
development and administration of a number of technical management
responsibilities associated with Internet domain names and addresses
and protocols. We are not a service organization except to the minor
extent required by administration of our policy responsibilities.
(2) The financial structure of ICANN is based on proportionate
contributions to our policy making activities from registries and
registrars - gTLDs, ccTLDs and Address Registries. The current
contribution shares were worked out last year by a task force
composed of members of the registries and registrars. They were
publicly discussed and adopted by the ICANN Board last November. If
you have questions about how the process worked, and what the
detailed recommendations of the task force about funding were, the
report is easily accessible on our web site at
<http:www.icann.org/tff/final-report-draft-30oct99.htm>
(3) The benefit of supporting ICANN fundamentally lies in the premise
that the Internet community and more particularly those organizations
and individuals who are directly involved with domain names and
addresses wish to take responsibility for self-rgulation of this
important area of activity. What the US government previously
sponsored Jon Postel to do is now the responsibility of the
community, including the responsibility to fund the expenses
necessary to carry out ICANN's mission.
I hope that you will agree with me that it is in the interest of .za
to continue to carry forward the public trust relationship it has had
with IANA, even though this now requires a funding commitment to
ICANN.
(4) A number of ccTLDs have suggested that there may be a formula for
allocating the $1.5 million share of our current year expense which
the funding task force allocated to the ccTLDs in a more equitable
manner than the gTLD formula used in calculating your invoice. I'd
like to emphasize that ICANN remains open to the use of such an
alternative formula, provided that it is broadly supported in the
ccTLD community and can be applied in an equitable manner to all
ccTLD organizations.
Regards,
- - -Mike
At 15:40 +0200 5/23/00, Mike Lawrie wrote:
>ICANN
>
>I have received your email regarding payment of USD17,520.18 by the
>ccTLD .ZA (South Africa) for undefined services for the period 1 July
>1999 to 30 June 2000.
>
>It is highly unlikely that payment will be made. The .ZA ccTLD runs
>without any charging mechanism in place to generate any future income,
>never mind any arrear income. The admin of .ZA is in transistion, it may
>be that the new admin might be willing to pay this kind of money to
>ICANN, for whatever reason either party finds acceptable, but I don't
>speak for them. I cannot say when the new admin will be in place, nor
>whom they will be, because the South African government is now proposing
>to get into the act, some 15 months after a wide consultative process
>had begun. Be that as it may, I must reject out of hand any attempts by
>anyone to introduce a charge in arrear - were I to accept that
>principle, then who knows who would demand payment for all kinds of
>services dating back to 1990 when .ZA first came into use.
>
>Even if there were that kind of money lying around in a .ZA ccTLD
>budget, it is highly questionable whether the principle of parting with
>that kind of money would be agreed to without there being a clearly
>defined benefit to that value being received in return. Your documents
>don't spell out such benefit - I don't regard vague terms like "build
>sensible policies and structures to promote the growth and stability of
>the Internet" as being of direct value to the .ZA administration,
>although of course I support those concepts.
>
>Your documents don't spell out any benefit or service level, but rather
>they give a somewhat arbitrary figure of 35% of the annual ICANN budget
>as being "attributable to the ccTLD registries/registrars", all told an
>amount of USD1,480,974. The only service of any nature that the .ZA
>ccTLD receives from ICANN is administration of root servers, which I
>have the greatest difficulty in believing costs ICANN that kind of
>money. Given that the few changes that I have ever requested for .ZA
>root server NS entries have taken ages to be implemented, you must
>allow that I view the service with the greatest sceptcism.
>
>The principle of paying the true costs of services received by the .ZA
>admin, agreed in advance in a contract, is acceptable to me, and I'd be
>willing to negotiate along these lines. It may well be that .ZA would
>prefer to return services in kind, eg run a root-level nameserver,
>rather than pay the amount that ICANN is suggesting. I trust that your
>minds will be open to this.
>
>Regards
>Mike
>
>On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:43:50PM -0700, IANA wrote:
>> ccTLD Managers:
>>
>> Hi! This email includes several documents that you will shortly be
>> receiving in a postal mailing from ICANN (if you have not received them
>> already). Because it may take some time for all the letters to be sent and
>> received, we thought it might be helpful to circulate the text of these
>> documents via email. The documents included in this email are the
>> following:
>>
>> (1) Letter from Mike Roberts to ccTLD Managers (in generic form -- the
>> letter you receive via postal mail will be personalized and specific
to your
>> ccTLD).
>>
>> (2) ccTLD Budget Contribution Formula and Table of FY99-00 Contributions.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> ICANN
>>
>> =======================
>>
>> LETTER FROM MIKE ROBERTS TO ccTLD MANAGERS
>>
>> May 10, 2000
>>
>> Dear <name>,
>>
>> The purpose of this letter is to ask your assistance with funding
>> support of
>> ICANN for the current fiscal year, 1999-2000.
>>
>> The ICANN Board and staff have been working over the past year to
>> develop a
>> funding structure for the organization that is fair and equitable to all
>> those who contribute to and benefit from the Internet Domain Name System.
>> Although this effort is by no means finished, we believe that sufficient
>> progress has been made that it is appropriate at this time to send all
>> administrative contacts of country code Top Level Domain organizations a
>> package of background materials and an invoice for your current year
>> contribution to ICANN.
>>
>> Background. As the private sector organization charged with technical
>> management of the Domain Name and Address System, ICANN must look to the
>> name and address registries and registrars for financial support to carry
>> out its work. Last July, the ICANN Board of Directors asked me to form a
>> Task Force on Funding (TFF), composed of representatives of the name and
>> address registries and registrars. The TFF was charged to review ICANN's
>> financial needs and budget and to make recommendations on the most
>> equitable
>> way of determining allocations of budget support. The ccTLD community was
>> represented on the task force by individuals from Brazil, Japan and the
>> United Kingdom.
>>
>> The task force report, endorsed unanimously by its members, was
delivered to
>> the Board in October and posted on the ICANN Website. Following public
>> comment, its recommendations were adopted by the Board at the annual
meeting
>> in November in Los Angeles. The full text of the report is available at
>> <http://www.icann.org/tff/final-report-draft-30oct99.htm>.
>>
>> Invoice for FY99-00 Budget Contribution. The TFF report recommends
that the
>> ccTLD community contribute a total of US$1,496,000 toward ICANN's
expenses.
>> One of the enclosures to this letter is an invoice for your FY99-00 budget
>> contribution to ICANN based on a formula which measures the total
number of
>> assigned names in your individual registry against all of the names
assigned
>> in the ccTLD community. A description of the formula and a table of
>> contributions for all of the ccTLDs is included in the enclosed materials.
>>
>> A number of ccTLDs have made advances to ICANN for the current fiscal
year.
>> If you have done so, the amount of the advance is shown as a credit on
your
>> invoice. If there are specific circumstances which affect your
organization
>> and its budget contribution to ICANN for this year, and you wish to
discuss
>> revision of your invoice amount, please contact me at your convenience.
>>
>> ccTLD/IANA Relationship. In addition to budget support issues, many ccTLD
>> administrators are concerned about their continuing relationship with the
>> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), now that ICANN has been formed
>> in accordance with the U.S. Government's decision to transfer technical
>> management of the DNS to the private sector. At the present time,
ICANN is
>> continuing the past policies of Jon Postel in administering ccTLDs and has
>> published a policy statement, ICP-1, which incorporates the major
>> administrative practices of IANA as they were being carried out
immediately
>> prior to the creation of ICANN.
>>
>> While these informal arrangements generally worked well in the past, the
>> evolution of the Internet has made it necessary to consider a more formal
>> legal framework in which ccTLDs operate. Indeed, the United States
>> Government has indicated that appropriate formal legal relationships
>> respecting ccTLDs must be established before it will complete the
transition
>> to private-sector technical management of the DNS. At ICANN's meeting in
>> Cairo in March, various proposals for a legal framework for ccTLDs were
>> presented by groups of ccTLD managers, the Government Advisory Committee,
>> and others in the Internet community. We expect that discussions of these
>> proposals will continue through the 14-17 July ICANN meeting in Yokohama,
>> where possible resolutions will be considered. In the meantime, we would
>> welcome any comments you might have on how to proceed in this area.
>>
>> Next Steps. I realize that you may have a number of questions about the
>> ICANN budget and your invoice. There is a substantial amount of
information
>> posted on our website, but please feel free to contact me at
>> <roberts@icann.org> or at the phone or fax numbers on this letter. The
Board
>> and I appreciate your support, both financially and with our ongoing
work as
>> a community to build sensible policies and structures to promote the
growth
>> and stability of the Internet.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Michael M. Roberts
>> President and Chief Executive Officer
>>
<snip>
>
>--
>Mike Lawrie, Phone: +27 12 481-4148
>Manager:UNINET, Fax: +27 12 349-1179
>National Research Foundation, <mlawrie@apies.frd.ac.za>
>P O Box 2600, Pretoria 0001 South Africa
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] No Taxation w/o Representation: .za says no to ICANN
It will be interesting to see what happens if in response to the ccTLDs
refusing to pay ICANN fees, ICANN removes those domains from the roots.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] E-governemnt or Netizens and the public sphere
Norman Solomon, in an article "E-Government": Point-and-Click Democracy?
wrote:
>In a country such as Singapore or Egypt, the e-government pretensions are
>likely to be transparent. In the United States, the pronouncements of
>politicians and media commentators are apt to encounter credulous
>enthusiasm when we confuse convenience with democracy -- and technical
>advances with civic ones.
It is appropriate to be critical of Al Gore's claims to
being a founding father of a new form of democracy that he calls
e-government, just as he is promoting the privatizing of the
Internet's infrastructure out of the public hands and into the
hands of the vested interests. Also it is important to remember that
his slogan for internet development is "the private sector will lead."
We have seen where they have led Internet development since 1995.
Millions for dot.com speculation, and poor people taxed on their
phone bills to pay for minimal internet access for schools.
But that's somehow secondary to the fact that the concept of
"Netizen" as someone who is a new form of networking citizen and
one who does what they can to make it possible for the Internet
to grow and flourish, that this concept grew up and spread round
the world in opposition to the Gore concept of "the private sector
will lead".
So while it is appropriate to question what Gore is planning for
the world with his calls for e-government, it isn't appropriate
to question what will be the response of Netizens
both in the US and around the world to the lack of understanding
by Gore and other government officials of the nature and power for
democracy of the Internet.
US industry advisors to government try to keep government officials
ignorant of the nature of the Internet and of the science that has made
it possible to create the Internet.
And the US press for the most part goes along with this effort.
The challenge is to have a public discussion online and off
of what is needed for the kind of increased democracy that the
Internet makes possible.
In "Netizen: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet"
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ we begin this process.
Also it is important that people online who care about the
Internet and about democratic processes take on to challenge
the Gore program of "the private sector leads" in Internet
development. If the Clinton administration succeeds in giving
the infrastructure of the Internet to the private sector, what
public resources will they try to give to the private sector next?
The Internet was developed by science and science supported by
government (or as part of government), and science needs to lead the
way.
This is the real challenge that Gore and other public officials
should be considering and learning about.
We need a scientific institution within the US government like
the Information Processing Techniques Office which made it possible
to create the Internet. We need a scientific institution inside
the US government to protect the infrastructure of the US portion
of the Internet from vested interests and which would give leadership
and support for the needed scaling of the Internet.
(See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/arpa_ipto.txt)
This is the challenge for Gore and by taking on this challenge he
would be in a position to give advice to other countries about
how to protect and scale the infrastructure of the Internet in their
countries.
The creation by the US Clinton administration of ICANN is contrary
to US law as it is putting public functions in private hands.
This gives a hint at what kind of e-government vested interests
are pressuring Gore to provide for them.
And this presents a challenge to the US government to understand
why the U.S. government-corporate control act to stem abuses that come
from putting government functions into unaccountable private sector
ownership and control is a law that should be followed and ICANN
should be acknowledged as an illegal entity under that law.
The Internet presents important challenges for government officials,
and they need a vibrant public discussion to begin to recognize
what these challenges are.
It is good to see that such discussion is beginning.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.3113:
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] about government role in development of internet
This is a response to a post on Dave Farber's IP list
Farber raises the question of what role does government need to play
in the development of the Internet
It would be good to see some discussion of this issue on the Netizens
list and online in general.
In "IP: Washington Diary #3 -- The Facts of Life in DC", Dave Farber
wrote:
>This is the first in a set of diary entries addressed to the
>important issues facing the government, public and industry in cyberspace
>and what I have a learned about the Government in general and the
>regulatory bodies in specific.
>While I promised not to keep disclaiming, in this report I must emphasize
>that this certainly is not the FCC speaking nor any of the Commissioners --
>just Dave Farber.
>First the FCC, The attitude at the FCC is very much to loosen regulation on
>traditional services; to encourage the exploration of new services on
>established systems and to count on market forces to control competition
>and drive prices down. Sounds great and works rather well in a competitive
>market place -- like cellular and long distance,
Dave,
What this leaves out is that we have lost the long term basic research
that has brought us to our current situation.
There is no longer a "Bell Labs" that is required by government
obligation to support and protect researchers of the quality of
those who produced the transistor, or the theories that have
helped bring us into this period like Shannon's "A Mathematical
Theory of Communication".
Those arguing for "market forces to control competition and drive
prices down" have no understanding of the development of science
and technology as a process that depends on basic research and
the support of science and scientists.
The economic theories have failed to keep up with the realities
of large scale production and the creation of new theories and
new concepts as the crucial link in keeping prices down, because
they bring into the world something new.
The economic theories governing the FCC activities are theories
that perhaps serve certain investment interests, but they don't
serve the public or the citizens who depend on an up to date
and future looking infrastructure.
>In the Internet space, the attitude of Washington outside the Congress is
>"we don't understand it and lets leave it alone" [ at least till they
>understand it better :-) ]. Again it is very much , "let market forces do
>the regulation".
In the past, for example in the 1950s, there were scientists like
von Neumann and spokespeople like James Killian who spoke up against
the bogus theories of "market forces" to do "regulation".
They made clear the need for government to support scientific
development in the field of basic research.
>I have a big problem with this strategy. not that I like the other obvious
>one any better -- namely regulate, My concern is centered around the
>question of whether in a dynamic field such as the Internet where
>technology drives it fast -- can the reliance on market forces work to
>avoid damaging our citizens.
Good to hear that you have recognized the problem that has already
been allowed to go on for too long.
There are those who spoke up against relying on so called "market
forces" to do what is needed to get access to all to the Internet
in 1994 at the NTIA's online conference held by the US department
of Commerce. In "Netizen: On the History and Impact of Usenet
and the Internet" we have two chapters on the conference and the
concerns raised at the time. (Chapters 11 and 14).
There is a need for a very different process to develop the Internet
and to get access to all than relying on so called "market forces".
The Internet is something new that has grown up through a new process
of development, and abandoning it to old worn out theories for its
development was recognized as a disastrous strategy in 1994 and
has proved to be even more disastrous than was predicted.
There are many people who are very frustrated today with what is
happening in Internet development.
But more importantly, there is no longer a vision among the scientific
community to help light the path forward for the development of the
Internet. Licklider's vision of the importance of access for all
the a participatory process where all would help to develop the
Internet has been ignored. Any serious discussion of what this
vision suggests is needed for Internet development is absent in
both the technical community and the major press in the US.
>The center of the issue is whether by the time you determine that there
>has been a failure of market forces, will it be too late to correct things.
To the contrary, the center of the issue is that the kind of Internet
that so called "market forces" would develop even if they could is
not the general purpose and future oriented Internet.
It is not the Internet that would reach all and that has researchers
considering the problems that need to be solved to have the Internet
reach all with a broad form of participatory access.
The so called "market forces" see the Internet user as a passive
coach potato who they want to lure into buying this or that new
form of entertainment.
The notion of the Internet as an advanced communications infrastructure
is totally absent in the vision of those pursuing the "market forces"
dream.
The essential nature of the Internet isn't explored or understood.
That essential nature is as a general purpose human computer communications
system.
The notion of the Netizen has grown up on and as a part of the development
of the Internet.
The so called "market forces" leaves out that the Netizen is a participatory
concept, where those online participate in development the future
of the Internet, and in doing what is needed for the Internet to
be able to grow and develop.
"Netizen forces" not so called "market forces" are what are needed
for the development of an Internet.
>Counting on such slow acting forces such as regulation and anti-trust will
>leave dead bodies and bankrupt companies and dominant players either
>slowing innovation or controlling price/service.
The goal of Netizen force is a vibrant and general purpose ever
developing Internet, not of some successful company.
The goal of so called "market forces" is to the development
of "companies" or "players".
These are very different goals and they produce a different future.
Already we see what the infatuation with "market forces" as the
means of developing the Internet has led to.
We are seeing the development of big corporate entities, and
of a media blitz about dot.coms but no support for the technical,
scientific, educational, and other general purpose nature
that the Internet promised for the future.
>A case in point is Microsoft, IF the government contention is upheld, we
>have a case where clearly market forces did not work, where many hopeful
>competitors are dead and where even after the proposed breakup, the
>established customer base and startup nature of real competition will still
>give Microsoft a big edge.
Not only did so called "market forces" not work with regard to
the creation of other companies, more importantly, the kind
of research that Bell Labs made possible, was not part of nor
could it be part of a companies agenda.
This is the bigger problem that Microsoft represents.
The software they produce is not one to create a future oriented
infrastructure but a software to give them permanent dominance
of product from the past.
>I should have said early on I am not a trained economist. I am a scientist
>and a entrepreneur so my terms may be incorrect in economic theory but are
>the ideas right?
The sadder part is that the entrepreneurial economic theory is
not scientific.
That a scientific approach to economics is not something that
those advocating "market forces" are able to apply.
Otherwise they would realize that the kind of scientific foundation
for the economy is routed in good government regulation like that
which supported the development of Bell Labs, or the kind of
government activity that led to the creation of the Information
Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) inside of ARPA.
See for example http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/arpa_ipto.txt
>So what can be done. Real hard! I can give you a set of future scenarios
>which would make the Robber Baron's envious.
First there needs to be some public discussion to try to determine
the public interest on this issue.
That kind of public discussion is woefully absent in the US in
the major media.
And it isn't even allowed to happen on your list Dave, unfortunately,
up to now. Opening your list up to such discussion, would be a sign
of the fact that there are not yet any answers.
In fact it isn't yet even understood what the problem is.
(This is another situation like the creation of ICANN. The problem
isn't yet understood. But already the vested interests are campaigning
for their side to make out like bandits. And so the so called
"solution" only makes the problem worse, rather than providing
any means for a solution.)
>The only way I can see out of this is for the Government to establish a set
>of trip wires that define the boundaries of acceptable behavior. The
>purpose of the trip wires is not to just constrain behavior but to help
>companies not to trespass on dangerous ground. Without such understood trip
>wires no one knows when they go to far.
The problem is that this doesn't deal with the fact that the installed
operating systems software creates a form of infrastructure of sorts,
and as such needs to be treated as an infrastructure. That means having
a way of supporting the future research for its development, as
well as considering what form is needed to sell and distribute
that software.
>How are these trip wires articulated, not in private negotiations but in
>very public speeches by , in the FCC case , the Commissioners and senior staff.
Your "trip wire" suggestion sounds an awful lot like "market forces"
It doesn't get to the essence of the problem.
That essence is that we need a good form of infrastructure for
software development.
It isn't that public infrastructure and the interests of different
corporate entities are the same.
Infrastructure needs government support and protection.
That is the opposite of the corporate goal of its bottom line.
Those two goals are not synomous.
>In many ways this reminds me of Herman Kahn at the RAND Corp in his books
>on Thinking the Unthinkable -- on Thermonuclear war. Herman was endlessly
>criticized for daring to think of thermonuclear war. His comment was it was
>the highest form of irresponsibility not to understand the steps involved
>so you had an understanding of what actions would result in -- hundreds of
>millions of dead. I believe Herman helped to stop nuclear Armageddon.
But the need was to figure out a way to make communication possible
that would stop any thoughts of nuclear war.
>The analogy in this case is there is no Herman Kahn (I am just a learner)
>who has articulated future scenarios and established based on the analysis
>of these scenarios, where the trip wires are and what are reasonable
>directions.
If you are still a learner, hopefully you will not only go to
the vested interests to learn. The importance of government is
that it needs to determine what is a public interest, not
what are the commercial self interests.
The voices of those who don't have a commercial interest have
to be encouraged and they need to be considered and understood.
>Example, would a duopoly that controls data access to homes control path
>and content be acceptable? Would an equivalent of the ALLEGED behavior of
>MS mapped over to the communications field be acceptable? What are the
>scenarios that would allow this to happen and how realistic are they and
>where to be put the tripwire such that we can detect problems before it is
>too late and what do we then do.
No a duopoly wouldn't be acceptable.
But more important the fact that how to get access to a participatory
communications medium for all is the question, not access to a new
form of tv.
I suggest you read the NTIA online conference discussion from Nov 1994,
which we not only write about in Netizens, but which should also
still be available online at the NTIA.
The kind of access that is important is not the kind of access
that either "market forces" or "trip wires" will bring to citizens.
>Boy, it was easy in the old days when progress was slow and you had time to
>react and patch prior to a rip in the economic fabric -- not now people!!
No it has never been easy. The anti trust laws didn't come from
a time when it was easy, for sure.
But there was a vigorous press in the past so there was a public
debate that had a broad range of views.
That is what is missing now with the corporate control of the major
media.
The NTIA online conference in 1994 showed the Internet makes
some of the needed public discussion possible when government
recognizes the need for that discussion.
However, as in 1994 the discussion was then ignored and 6 years
later the problems that were predicted are even harder now to deal
with than they would have been then.
It is good to hear that you are raising these questions.
But will you welcome a broad discussion of them?
That will be a sign of whether or not the problems can be
successfully solved.
>In the next Diary entry -- will security issues sink the internet into
>regulation (hint my call is yes).
>Dave
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #359
******************************
