Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 336
Netizens-Digest Friday, August 20 1999 Volume 01 : Number 336
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: The Internet way
Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
[netz] Re: more on governments, individuals and businesses
Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
[netz] routing (was: more on governments, individuals and businesses
[netz] Re: The Internet way
Re: [netz] routing (was: more on governments, individuals and businesses
Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
Re: [netz] routing (was: more on governments, individuals and businesse
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Ruckus (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:10:16 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: The Internet way
> > Respect does not make an elite (read your Bible); privilege does.
>
> Well, I guess what I meant was that having been highly respected
> technical innovators, they became priviledged when the Internet became
> popular.
Maybe so, but then again maybe they were the people on the spot
with the knowledge and experience and understanding of issues
and the ability to present them to others who felt they needed to
know at the time. All that, however, is not privilege but
_competence, and, AFAIK, that category is open to everyone.
Elite, on the other hand, is a *class, and referring to the
characteristics of a class by 'privilege' rather than the class itself
doesnt change the point. If all elements belong to a single class or
set, then there is no meaningful characteristic of the set. (This is
what Godel proved mathematically, and its otherwise known as the
law of significant contrasts. Every time you *think youre saying 'all
elements are in A,' there is at least one element being held out in
~A -- even if it is yourself.) So a) there was no elite until there was
a 'normal' class to distinguish it; and (more useful in human
relations terms) b) the characteristic property (say, a) that
(members of the set) E has is *identified* by (members of the set)
N as something they themselves do *not have: ~a.
Now, the logic does not force us to assume that N has special
powers of perception or analysis; a does not have to be a real
property. (Most social class identifications - 'classifications' - are in
fact illusory; N merely *thinks it is ~a *because it didnt know what
a looked like until it was visible* -- but it could have been some
property _b_ that triggered the perception.
Translating: or'nery hackers looked at Cerf and Postel being
competent and said, 'Gee, hows come they are standing around
talking to congresscritters and we arent? They must have
*privilege*.' If they had recognized themselves as *also competent
in their own ways*, and that there wasnt any _class privilege_
unless they made it so by demeaning themselves, the
egalitarianism of the early net might have survived; instead, we've
got a bunch of demoralized, incoherent, paranoiacs railing against
anyhting either C or P said or did or touched or thought (and of
course others who are equally paranoid abt anything the first gang
is doing.)
I might add that they (all) are making themselves progressively less
competent in the process, because they are *fixated on criteria
which (*even if they were valid to start with) are running out of date.
(You want to test a hypothesis? What proportion of the traffic on
IFWP in the past 12 mo has been about *past events, vs plans,
predictions, agenda building, organizing for the future, or even (god
forbid!) collaboration on any present activity - e.g. putting together a
journalistic presentation? )
If you conclude that ('from a netizodiacal p.o.v.') the conflation of
individual and class descriptors is more than a little alarming, you
wouldnt be far wrong. Any paisan growing his rice and corn knows
enough to make that kind of distinction, but history is likely to
record that the Net was too little and too late to save mass self-
annhiliation of *the elite of the world* -- through its own (blissful, oh
yes!) ignorance of how to put two and two together:
"It never occurred to them that the people who *deserved to
be globally interconnected were not themselves, but the
'peasants'; that those from whom *they could learn most about
communications and governance were the peasants; or that
their precious 'free market values' (by which any transaction
had to 'justify' itself) only exacerbated the disparities between
themselves and the peasants. The outcome --the sequential
crucifiction of their leading [e-]lights -- was inevitable."
-- _Reading Without Lines_, ed. Efi Mira, S. (Wilmot, 2007)
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:10:16 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
> You are correct that the number of computers that can be assigned a
> unique IP address is constrained by the size of the IP address field.
...and by the fact that so far addresses have not been recycled.
> That is currently 32 bits. IPv6 addresses are 128 bits.
>
> A more practical consideration is that addressing architecture must be
> aligned with network topology in order for routing to scale, using
> known routing algorithms. Thus there is a need to allocate addresses
> in accordance with the layout of the network topology.
I can grasp how a fixed number of adresses would have to be
'aligned'; but when IPv6 supercedes IPv4, wont all existing
addresses will be maintained? That is, wont every v4 site become a
(potential) v6 node? Doesnt that make allocation very fractal like?
What meaning then does 'scale' have?
Is there any hardware reason the routing for IPv8, say, couldnt be
installed at the same time as the v6 upgrade? What kind of
economic arguments are there for doing 'just enough' in this case?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:35:10 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: more on governments, individuals and businesses
> Why? How can? What limits? These are three questions that must be
> asked when talking about governments and cyberspace.
>
> Of course, this takes into account that we know what we mean by
> government; cyberspace; limits; protection; civil liberties etc..
>
Is 'what we mean by government' that prime contractor who has
tendered to provide certain 'essential services' to the economic
community? Arent the limits then - the terms and conditions of
performance - already set? (at a rate of increase not to exceed 2%
p.a., labour shall be made available in the following categories... ;
at a rate of decrease not to exceed 1.2% p.a., labour shall be
removed... operations overhead for maintenance of the proletariat
<labour-producers pool>, e.g.. appurtenant contracts for fire,
medical, lawnorda - not to be more than x% of Gross Economic
Product as calculated by ... ) What business is it of ourn to know
how them margins are either calculated or achieved?You know
good n well labour units hadnt oughta be gettin uppity, or the
'tract'll go to sumbudy what hasnt got such a big ole heart as the
Baas.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> ...and by the fact that so far addresses have not been recycled.
Actually, some addresses have been recycled. See http://www.arin.net.
> I can grasp how a fixed number of adresses would have to be
> 'aligned'; but when IPv6 supercedes IPv4, wont all existing
> addresses will be maintained? That is, wont every v4 site become a
> (potential) v6 node? Doesnt that make allocation very fractal like?
> What meaning then does 'scale' have?
I think it is more likely that people will take their IPv4 addresses
and establish them within address blocks of the larger IPv6 space.
Scalability will still be important. It is a routing issue.
> Is there any hardware reason the routing for IPv8, say, couldnt be
> installed at the same time as the v6 upgrade? What kind of
> economic arguments are there for doing 'just enough' in this case?
I can't answer these questions offhand because I don't do a lot of
IPv6 work. There is a web site,
http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html, which has
links to lots of information on the subject, plus mailing lists where
issues like allocation are discussed and debated. I will note that
about four years ago, there was a vicious flame war (like the ones we
see on IFWP) among various IETF members regarding address allocation
policies. One camp argued that the address allocation group was in
bed with the router manufacturers. The router manufacturers defended
themselves by saying that the address allocation policies were
necessary in order to make the routing algorithms scale. From what I
know about routing algorithms, I would tend to side with the router
manufacturers.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> Well, I guess what I meant was that having been highly respected
>> technical innovators, they became priviledged when the Internet became
>> popular.
> Maybe so, but then again maybe they were the people on the spot
> with the knowledge and experience and understanding of issues
> and the ability to present them to others who felt they needed to
> know at the time. All that, however, is not privilege but
> _competence, and, AFAIK, that category is open to everyone.
I think you and I are using different words to express the same idea.
Basically, what I am saying is that as the Internet became more
popular, Cerf, Postel and some of the others became recognized
worldwide as technical leaders. With that recognition came certain
privileges, like working for companies that enabled them to fly around
the world in private jets (this applies to Cerf), serve on
presidential technology committees (Farber), etc. They became an
elite, relative to others who may have had the same technical
knowledge but weren't recognized as such.
> Translating: or'nery hackers looked at Cerf and Postel being
> competent and said, 'Gee, hows come they are standing around talking
> to congresscritters and we arent? They must have *privilege*.' If
> they had recognized themselves as *also competent in their own
> ways*, and that there wasnt any _class privilege_ unless they made
> it so by demeaning themselves, the egalitarianism of the early net
> might have survived; instead, we've got a bunch of demoralized,
> incoherent, paranoiacs railing against anyhting either C or P said
> or did or touched or thought (and of course others who are equally
> paranoid abt anything the first gang is doing.)
This is part of the culture clash I wrote about earlier.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:17:52 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
Greg,
> ... that, however, is not privilege but
> > _competence, and, AFAIK, that category is open to everyone.
>
> I think you and I are using different words to express the same idea.
> Basically, what I am saying is that as the Internet became more
> popular, Cerf, Postel and some of the others became recognized
> worldwide as technical leaders.
As the Internet became popular, it became apparent that there
were very darned few people who were competent to deal with it by
conventional 'real world' criteria.
> This is part of the culture clash I wrote about earlier.
I agree. Now, does labellling it as such help *you to think about
what to do about it, where to go from here, etc?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> As the Internet became popular, it became apparent that there
> were very darned few people who were competent to deal with it by
> conventional 'real world' criteria.
Well, I think this is pretty much borne out in practice. When people
like Stef and Tony Rutkowski say things like "the net is edge-controlled,"
and that the net is generally resistant to people's attempts to control it,
that's what they mean.
[Earlier I wrote]
>> This is part of the culture clash I wrote about earlier.
> I agree. Now, does labellling it as such help *you to think about
> what to do about it, where to go from here, etc?
Offhand, I don't have any suggestions.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:51:09 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] routing (was: more on governments, individuals and businesses
> > wont every v4 site become a
> > (potential) v6 node?
>
> I think it is more likely that people will take their IPv4 addresses
> and establish them within address blocks of the larger IPv6 space.
> Scalability will still be important. It is a routing issue.
>
So instead of 209.180.36.177 becoming
209.180.36.177.000.000, it will be 123.456.209.180.36.177?
Doesnt that mean that the blocking is *either the same as it was
(only the area is called 123.456 instead of 209.180) *or it can be
cut and pasted, jiggled and juggled every time the addressing
protocol is generated? If its fixed, then whats the problem? If its
dynamic, whats the problem and why not use v5 for practice?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:51:09 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: The Internet way
> >> This is part of the culture clash I wrote about earlier.
>
> > I agree. Now, does labellling it as such help *you to think about
> > what to do about it, where to go from here, etc?
>
> Offhand, I don't have any suggestions.
>
Its unfortunate that one sees 'cultural' conditioning only when
the parties *clash (and that too may be a cultural condition), but in
fact there are specimens everywhere, from education (isnt the
teacher deliberately 'clashing' with the 'mindset' of the pupil?) and
art to sex and politics. The question is not whether shit happens --
but how to think about it; it's a curious aspect of human nature
that the way we call things *conditions* how and what we think.
(And vice versa, of course; most of what is called 'culture' is
nothing but the way things and names relate.)
Jay sees the 'ICANN (vs ICIIU) ruckus' as the focus of a media
conspiracy; Dave sees narrow-mindedness vs collegiality; you see
moneymanagers vs nerds -- butno one sees that polarization itself
is the *problem* that has to be addressed and thus they cant
address it; they can only batter away with their chosen
dichotomies - or shrug and say 'no suggestions' *precisely
because they share the same 'extremist' conditioning (which says
a thing is what *I say* it is) instead of looking at how words might
*help them think instead of getting in their way.
Now it sounds like Im just waiting for you to ask what my hotshot
'solution' is ;-) Not at all; but I have noticed (a time or two) when
people get to thinking with instead of against, they figure stuff out a
lot faster than any(single)body is doing now.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] routing (was: more on governments, individuals and businesses
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> So instead of 209.180.36.177 becoming 209.180.36.177.000.000, it
> will be 123.456.209.180.36.177?
Under the scenario I gave, yes.
> Doesnt that mean that the blocking is *either the same as it was
> (only the area is called 123.456 instead of 209.180) *or it can be
> cut and pasted, jiggled and juggled every time the addressing
> protocol is generated?
I can't really answer this question definitively, because IPv6 is not
my area of expertise, and even if it were, I am not sure that the
addressing architecture has been fully worked out yet. In any event,
I would suggest that you follow the discussions regarding addressing
that are available via the ARIN and IPv6 web sites I directed you to
earlier.
> If its fixed, then whats the problem? If its dynamic, whats the
> problem and why not use v5 for practice?
If you have suggestions, you really ought to present them to ARIN and
the IPv6 working groups. There are in fact operational IPv6 networks
running on the 6bone.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Its unfortunate that one sees 'cultural' conditioning only when
> the parties *clash [...]
Actually, I was aware of the culture clashes long before the DNS
wars. It became apparent to me when interacting with various groups.
> Jay sees the 'ICANN (vs ICIIU) ruckus' as the focus of a media
> conspiracy; Dave sees narrow-mindedness vs collegiality; you see
> moneymanagers vs nerds -- butno one sees that polarization itself
> is the *problem* that has to be addressed and thus they cant
> address it; [...]
I believe I have pointed out the polarization as being a problem; for
example, I noted that in the formation of the FCC, there were
activists who opposed what the USG was planning, but they were divided
amongst themselves.
This situation is similar, but because it is much easier to set up an
alternative DNS or IP addressing architecture than to set up
alternative broadcast outlets, people who have both the knowledge to
build them and ability to draw participants (users, customers, etc),
can go off and do their own thing.
If you can find ways to get people who are in deep dispute to
reconcile differences and work for a common good, you will have solved
a fundamental human problem, not just an Internet problem.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] routing (was: more on governments, individuals and businesse
s
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> If its fixed, then whats the problem? If its dynamic, whats the
> problem and why not use v5 for practice?
I should point out that the issue is not the addresses per se; it is how
packets bearing those addresses are routed. You should probably read the
CIDR RFC (I don't remember the number offhand), which explains the situation
regarding the tiein between addressing and routing and how an allocation
policy is required to minimize routing overhead. I should also point out
that the future (IPv6) network topology is probably not fully worked out
yet. My guess is the ARIN and IPv6 people are working together to develop
this. The future architecture is probably going to involve a lot of high
speed backbones and access to homes via cable.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Ruckus (fwd)
- ----- Forwarded message from Ellen Rony -----
Message-Id: <l03130304b3e35e3cc825@[204.188.254.57]>
In-Reply-To: <19990820021030.AAA4661@LOCALNAME>
References: <19990819215232.663F5F083@ns1.vrx.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:46:40 -0800
To: list@ifwp.org
From: Ellen Rony <erony@marin.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Ruckus
>>
>> Throughout this debate over Internet Governance,
>> there has consistently been two very different and
>> distinct perspectives.
>>
>> One looked at the transition of authority from IANA
>> to ICANN as a purely technical matter, one that should
>> remain under the control of a technocracy.
>...
>> The other side looked at this transition as the establishment
>> of world-wide self governance, one that should be firmly based
>> on representative and democratic structures. Here, process was
>> more important than decisions, representative structures were
>> more important than political appointments.
>
Why must people so often cast things in binary terms, as this OR that? I
disagree with the assertion stated above, since I can list at least FIVE
perspectives in this debate:
1) the transition of authority should remain under the control of a
technocracy;
2) the transition of control should be based on a bottom-up self-organizing
structure;
3) lip service should be given to a representive, self-organizing
structure, but in reality the transition of authority will based on
behind-the scenes insider arrangements;
4) there should be NO transition of authority; the Internet is a public
resource and should not be in the hands of a private corporation.
5) regardless of what occurs, those with technical expertise will simply
route around the damage.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
========================== ^..^ )6 =============================
ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
erony@marin.k12.ca.us W W Tiburon, CA
DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- ----- End of forwarded message from Ellen Rony -----
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #336
******************************
