Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 397
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 17 2002 Volume 01 : Number 397
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[none]
[netz] Welcome to the newcomers
[netz] A talk on the Emergence of the Netizen, etc
[netz] The ICANN Wars: Part 2
[netz] Internet surveillance in Hungary
Re: [netz] The ICANN Wars: Part 2
[none]
[netz] how can "the people" rule?
Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:46:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Sophan Thong <sophan_thong@yahoo.com>
Subject: [none]
Hello, my name is Sophan and I joined this mailing
list as part of an assignment in my Internet
Technology class. Please excuse my mistakes if I
happen to make any, for this is my first time joining
a mailing list. I hope to learn more about what this
association is all about.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:00:12 -0500 (EST)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] Welcome to the newcomers
I am happy to see newcomers on the netizens list.
I hope some old time readers of this list will use this as a chance to
contribute to the list so it might again show some spirit and interest in
the net. Today in Strasbourg in France Ronda Hauben gave a talk that
traced the emergence of netizens. I will post a version of her talk here
soon.
Again to the new comers I want to say welcome to what I try to help make
the wonderful world of the Net.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:52:54 -0500 (EST)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] A talk on the Emergence of the Netizen, etc
Ronda Hauben has posted a talk she gave to students on the International
Origins of the Internet, the Emergence of the Netizen and Is the Early
Vision Still Viable.
The talk is a draft paper and she welcomes any comments on it.
It is at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/strasbourg.txt
She can be reached at ronda@panix.com
Take care.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] The ICANN Wars: Part 2
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:41:51 +0200
From: John Horvath <jhorv@helka.iif.hu>
Hi there all,
This list has been rather quiet lately so I thought I'd ask an obvious
question to which the answer is not all that obvious. As most of you
know (or should know), ICANN is in the headlines again. I'll leave it to
someone else to provide the appropriate links to resources, but in a
nutshell the controversy is this: ICANN wants to put itself under the
control of government authorities.
My question is this: is this necessarily a bad thing? When Esther Dyson
was running the show, many cautioned against giving over a public
resource, funded by the government, over to a private entity which has
little or no transparency and is not accountable to the public.
Of course, this doesn't mean government control is fully transparent and
accountable. You just have to look at the European Commission for that,
where unelected officials basically dictate policy.
Nevertheless, in theory at least, we are the government. Is it necessary
to create a separate governing entity responsive to users? Isn't it
better to work with what we have, and make sure the rules are in place,
as well as the necessary checks and balances? Isn't the whole issue of
Internet governance a little like the "New Economy", a tech savvy
concept to say the least, but at the end of the day just as reliant on
the old way of doing things, perhaps with the addition of a few novel
mechanisms?
These are just some of my thoughts. I don't think the idea of ICANN has
to be like a Gordian Knot. Rather, it's our own pretensions which are
all tangled. And if so, what's all the fuss about?
All the best,
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 23:07:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] Internet surveillance in Hungary
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:22:42 +0200
From: John Horvath <jhorv@helka.iif.hu>
Hi,
I thought the following excerpt might be of casual interest to some of
you. The full article can be found (in English and German) on the
Netizen site at the following address: <www.heise.de/tp>. If you have
any questions or comments, or have trouble locating the article, let me
know through this list (because others may also want to know).
Enjoy,
John
- -----------------------------------------
Internet Backdoors in Hungary
by John Horvath
Legitimating unwarranted and total data surveillance in Hungary
As in many countries, law enforcement authorities in Hungary require a
warrant issued by a judge in order to "obtain information from" (that
is, to eavesdrop on) various telecommunication systems, such as the
telephone, and other sources, including computer databases. However,
according to the 1995 National Security Law, Hungarian law enforcement
doesn't require a warrant in order to obtain information categorised as
"confidential". This means the secret police can spy on an individual
without any form of oversight by simply and arbitrarily classifying a
certain operation as a state secret.
Apparently, this has happened with Internet traffic, raising the
prospect of total surveillance via computer mediated communications.
According to one report, men in suits approached an ISP a couple of
weeks ago and requested a link to their lines. To this they attached a
computer which the ISP was forbidden to handle. In another incident
where men in suits sought to install a transponder, the ISP tried to
refuse by claiming they had no right to do so, to which the men agreed,
adding that the company also no longer had the right to be an ISP. The
transponder was subsequently installed.
Although these and other stories are of the recent past, some claim that
this isn't a new development, that it has been going on for years. In
fact, in order to obtain a license, all ISPs are forced to sign a
contract allowing for full access to all data that passes through their
servers, better known as a "backdoor". The National Security Service
(NSS) then installs the necessary eavesdropping equipment with which to
monitor the traffic.
For their part, ISPs have remained mum on the issue. There are two main
reasons for this. The first is that part of their "agreement" with the
NSS is to maintain strict confidentiality about the existence of
backdoors. The other is that the public knowledge of backdoors is bad
for business.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:39:45 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re: [netz] The ICANN Wars: Part 2
I think that private or public governance is much better than any
governmental. Since I am supporter of effective solutions I just
wanted to ask why isn't ICANN controlled by internet public, that is
surfers? I think this kind of control would be the most democratic one
and certainly effective too since fast response to problems is
available and needed.
In todays internet it shouldn't be (and certainly it is not) any
problem to create system in which users can log and vote on any
solutions proposed, eventually propose some new solutions.
Of course this would create the problem of participation whether users
would participate or would not. Actually, this question is much deeper
than it seems. ICANN should be controlled by users but then do you
think that any user could create their account and vote? In my opinion
this should be possible but still question is if user who had an
account would be willing to participate. It is clear that only some of
formerly created accounts would be active and more people would just
check in sometimes to see if anything happens.
But then again there are still some unanswered questions - who should
finance ICANN then? Only the Government of USA or governments of all
countries whose citizens created their accounts?
Since internet is no borders thing today ICANN shouldn't be subsidized
only by US. Could OECD (since users come mostly from developed
countries) help with this or...?
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- the bat! is my servant, is yours? http://www.ritlabs.com/the_bat/ -*
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:12:29 -0400
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: [none]
Hello:
I am responding to this article by fellow netizen late but I think he has
established interesting points. I would like to see the net controlled
solely by the people not by private enterprise or by government who are
allies.
Luis de Quesada
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:01:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
>From: John Horvath <h8801joh@helka.iif.hu>
What Dan and Luis brought up are points that most will agree with and
that I also support. However, it still doesn't answer the very hear of
the question: what system can you put in place of ICANN?
This might sound academic, but I fear it's something which needs to be
looked into immediately. Because I have a feeling that people like
Esther Dyson are playing for time. Because of the opposition which
confronted the Dyson regime, they ended up creating something that could
never work in practice. Meanwhile, Dyson has now taken up sides with the
opponents of ICANN. However, this is not because of genuine concern for
users of the Internet to decide their own fate, but to eventually leave
the whole affair in such a mess that the powers that be turn to
neo-liberal logic to solve their problem; let the markets decide, the
private sector is more efficient, profitable, etc., etc., despite the
evidence that the private sector didn't want anything to do with the
development of the Internet until after it was more or less built by the
research community.
Of course, leaving ICANN in the hand of government is the next best
thing for the private sector, since they have quite a bit of influence
(cf. Enron). However, it's not as good as if it's entirely in the hand
of the private sector, for there is still small measure of
accountability when in the hands of government (I stress the word
small).
Yet what's the alternative? Saying that it should be in the hands of
"the public" is fine, but what does that mean? If politics were not so
overwhelmed by business interests, then this would naturally mean the
government, for we put our respective governments in place (or at least
some of us try). Of course, since this is clearly not a perfectly world,
we have NGOs, watchdog groups, and others which try their best to keep
an eye on government activity.
The enigma of "Internet governance" is its global character, or at least
the need for it to be global in character. There needs to be a public
institution which has influence or at least connections, much like a
computer network, that spans the globe. And this is what is lacking.
Working through government, however, is convenient because it already
has structures in place for international collaboration. Perhaps putting
ICANN under the research auspices of countries, such as the proposed ERA
in Europe (the proposed European Research Area)? That's one solution,
but most poorer countries have little or no research infrastructure to
speak of.
What about the UN? Perhaps it's possible to create a body with that
organisation, which is truly international, to handle what has become a
truly international resource. And of course, it's easier to put in place
watchdogs and observers within the UN -- one that can network and
co-ordinate with one another -- than any intergovernmental organisation.
Has something like this been proposed before? Is it possible? Saying
that ICANN should be in the hands of users is fine, but as it has been
pointed out the question of user membership is a problem. It's not
simply a question of on-line identities; I have half a dozen different
e-mail accounts, and can easily maintain a virtual identity, an alias.
And this lies at the heart of the concept of a netizen, in the same way
as that of citizen; membership in a community. The community provides us
with an identity, and we are granted with rights and responsibilities
toward the community.
And so how should we assume our identities, in conjunction or parallel
with our existing identities as citizens? This question is not a trivial
one, especially when considering the establishing the possibility of a
governing organisation outside the realms of national government.
I would argue that finding an answer to this, that is, how to establish
a netizen identity -- not in just word, but deed -- will enable us to
better resolve the ICANN enigma and give us a clearer understanding of
how to apply the idea of Internet governance by users at large.
Any thoughts on this?
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:24:27 -0400
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
Hello: ICANN can be replaced by a federation of collectives run by the
people. Decisions will be made by and for the people and without
interference from the government who favors control by the corporations.
Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by themselves
effectively when they are united in a common cause.
Lou D.
>From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>Subject: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
>Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:01:10 -0400 (EDT)
>
> >From: John Horvath <h8801joh@helka.iif.hu>
>
>What Dan and Luis brought up are points that most will agree with and
>that I also support. However, it still doesn't answer the very hear of
>the question: what system can you put in place of ICANN?
>
>This might sound academic, but I fear it's something which needs to be
>looked into immediately. Because I have a feeling that people like
>Esther Dyson are playing for time. Because of the opposition which
>confronted the Dyson regime, they ended up creating something that could
>never work in practice. Meanwhile, Dyson has now taken up sides with the
>opponents of ICANN. However, this is not because of genuine concern for
>users of the Internet to decide their own fate, but to eventually leave
>the whole affair in such a mess that the powers that be turn to
>neo-liberal logic to solve their problem; let the markets decide, the
>private sector is more efficient, profitable, etc., etc., despite the
>evidence that the private sector didn't want anything to do with the
>development of the Internet until after it was more or less built by the
>research community.
>
>Of course, leaving ICANN in the hand of government is the next best
>thing for the private sector, since they have quite a bit of influence
>(cf. Enron). However, it's not as good as if it's entirely in the hand
>of the private sector, for there is still small measure of
>accountability when in the hands of government (I stress the word
>small).
>
>Yet what's the alternative? Saying that it should be in the hands of
>"the public" is fine, but what does that mean? If politics were not so
>overwhelmed by business interests, then this would naturally mean the
>government, for we put our respective governments in place (or at least
>some of us try). Of course, since this is clearly not a perfectly world,
>we have NGOs, watchdog groups, and others which try their best to keep
>an eye on government activity.
>
>The enigma of "Internet governance" is its global character, or at least
>the need for it to be global in character. There needs to be a public
>institution which has influence or at least connections, much like a
>computer network, that spans the globe. And this is what is lacking.
>Working through government, however, is convenient because it already
>has structures in place for international collaboration. Perhaps putting
>ICANN under the research auspices of countries, such as the proposed ERA
>in Europe (the proposed European Research Area)? That's one solution,
>but most poorer countries have little or no research infrastructure to
>speak of.
>
>What about the UN? Perhaps it's possible to create a body with that
>organisation, which is truly international, to handle what has become a
>truly international resource. And of course, it's easier to put in place
>watchdogs and observers within the UN -- one that can network and
>co-ordinate with one another -- than any intergovernmental organisation.
>
>Has something like this been proposed before? Is it possible? Saying
>that ICANN should be in the hands of users is fine, but as it has been
>pointed out the question of user membership is a problem. It's not
>simply a question of on-line identities; I have half a dozen different
>e-mail accounts, and can easily maintain a virtual identity, an alias.
>And this lies at the heart of the concept of a netizen, in the same way
>as that of citizen; membership in a community. The community provides us
>with an identity, and we are granted with rights and responsibilities
>toward the community.
>
>And so how should we assume our identities, in conjunction or parallel
>with our existing identities as citizens? This question is not a trivial
>one, especially when considering the establishing the possibility of a
>governing organisation outside the realms of national government.
>
>I would argue that finding an answer to this, that is, how to establish
>a netizen identity -- not in just word, but deed -- will enable us to
>better resolve the ICANN enigma and give us a clearer understanding of
>how to apply the idea of Internet governance by users at large.
>
>Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>John
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:48:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
>Hello: ICANN can be replaced by a federation of collectives run by the people.
How does one police voting by these collectives? Can one of the
people belong to more than one collective? What are the criteria for
membership in collectives -- what if a collective throws me out?
> Decisions will be made by and for the people and without
>interference from the government who favors control by the
>corporations.
>Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by
>themselves effectively when they are united in a common cause.
Examples of proof (i.e., of pure popular democracy in a
technologically advanced state)?
>Lou D.
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:50:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
I hate to follow up my own posts, but the discussion of directories
below was just posted:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3254.txt
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> responding to Lou D wrote:
>>Hello: ICANN can be replaced by a federation of collectives run by the people.
>How does one police voting by these collectives? Can one of the
>people belong to more than one collective? What are the criteria for
>membership in collectives -- what if a collective throws me out?
Also the US government is left alone. And if there are powerful companies
like the equivalent of Enron, for example, who want to fill the vacuum
created, they pressure the US government to give them the power rather than
anyone in any of the collectives.
I have proposed the need to learn from the early development of the
Internet what made possible the international collaboration. It was
the treaty between Norway and the US to create the Norwegian Seimic
facility NORSAR that set a foundation for Norwegian and then
British participation in the ARPANET.
This wasn't some set of collectives. But because the US government
was supporting research groups in the US and there was some
Norwegian and British support for their research groups, international
collaboration was possible.
>> Decisions will be made by and for the people and without
>>interference from the government who favors control by the
>>corporations.
>>Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by
>>themselves effectively when they are united in a common cause.
But that leaves the government to support certain powerful corporations
and such corporations are already powerful enough, as the Enron case shows.
>Examples of proof (i.e., of pure popular democracy in a
>technologically advanced state)?
And on the contrary, the examples of proof of how technological and
social collaboration is possible can be found in the researching
and understanding the research done in the 1970s and 1980s to create
the Internet.
>>Lou D.
Ronda
See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/strasbourg.txt
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #397
******************************
