Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 378
Netizens-Digest Friday, April 6 2001 Volume 01 : Number 378
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] I couldn't resist...
[netz] tentative comments to nas on committee members
Re: [netz] tentative comments to nas on committee members
Re: [netz] tentative comments to nas on committee members
[netz] Comments to nas on committee members
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:51:20 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: [netz] I couldn't resist...
>
>> "It has been proposed that a million monkeys at typewriters would
>> produce the works of Shakespeare. The experiment has been tried.
>> It is called the Internet, and no new Shakespearean material was
>> detected."
>
>But what do you think Shakespeare would think of the Internet?
>
>I suggest he would marvel at it :-)
>
Good domain naming for man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of my soul
Who steals my purse steals something, nothing...
(Its contents belonged to the venture capitalists, anyway)
But he who filches from me my good name
Robs me of what not enriches him
(except in his business plan)
And makes me poor indeed.
[Apologies to Iago, if he deserves any]
Food for NAS?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:42:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] tentative comments to nas on committee members
I welcome comments on this draft of the comments I am considering
submitting to the NAS. Ronda
Comments on the Provisional Appointments of the NAS to the
Committee on Internet Searching and the Domain Name System:
Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications
I am requesting that the National Academy of Science reconsider
the appointments of those who you have chosen as members of
this committee, with the exception of those who members who
are technical experts in the areas that the committee will consider.
The other members are not appropriate for the problems and study
this committee will need to undertake in order to be able
to make a step forward in advising the US government on a
difficult technical and policy issue.
As can be seen with regard to the problems that the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has demonstrated,
the choice of who will constitute a committee or board is of
critical importance to whether there is any possibility that the
public interest will be served.
It seems that the criteria governing who you have appointed
to this committee are an inappropriate set of criteria.
Since the Internet is a global metasystem with millions of users
around the world who are part of very different networks under
dissimilar administrative and political authority and with dissimilar
technical requirements, it is crucial that those appointed to this
committee have a broad public interest perspective and that they
be knowledgable tin the history and development of the Internet.
How is it that it has been possible to create such a broad and
international metasystem of communicating networks?
A part of the answer is that the principles of open architecture
were were identified and guided the creation of the tcp/ip protocol
which has served as an architectural framework for internetwork
communication.
The principle of open architecture are identified and described
in a paper I wrote "The Birth of the Internet: An Architectural
Conception for Solving the Multiple Network Problem"
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/birth_internet.txt
Also these principles are explained in a paper by Barry Leiner
"A Brief History of the Internet"
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.html
Also Robert Kahn and Barry Leiner have an understanding of these
principles and the role they have played in making the Internet
the metasystem that can welcome such a diversity of dissimilar
networks into a complex human-computer communications system.
They are the kind of committee members with relevant expertise
who it was impotant to have place on the committee, instead
of those who have irrelevant and inappropriate expertise,
such as one member whose expertise is in corporate governance.
These two people I have suggested as members for the ocmmittee
also understand the issues involved in the need to create
an adequate directory structure for the Internet to help
solve the problem that has been caused by trying to make
the current DNS system become a directory structure, a function
it was not created to serve and it cannot serve.
Also it was important to include someone with knowledge of the history
and development of the Internet. Unfortunately the NSF is not
supporting the needed research so that the important advances
represented by the Internet can be recognized and built on.
I have a number of papers on the history which it would be crucial
for any committee to consider and to find a way to further the
study of.
For example, the basic nature of the Internet as a complex system
relying on feedback to adjust to a changing environment is
clarified if one understands some of the background of JCR Licklider
who has been called the grandfather of the Internet. The goal
that he identified for the developing network has served as
a vision inspiring the engineers and programmers who have worked
on Internet development over the past number of years.
I recently submitted a proposal to the NSF describing the importance
of this study. The proposal is at
http://www.colubmia.edu/~rh120/other/nsfprop.txt
I have offered to contribute to the committee and thus far such
an offer has been ignored.
Also in a situation like this where there is a significant
public interest at stake, it is crucial that there be an open
process and an open means to encourage online discussion of the
issues being considered by the committee. In this regard it
would be a minimum requirement that the committee have a
newsgroup that was open for all to post to and to discuss as part
of, and that supported collaborative discussion of the issues
under ocnsideration by the committee.
To begin with it would be appropriate to reconstitute the committee
by asking for public discussion and comments on the draft statement
of scope and rewriting that statement based on the discussion that
ensued. There has been some important and interesting discussion
on at least one mailing list, the Netizens mailing list,
and it would be good to see much more such online discussion.
This is the process needed to identify the key issues to be
determined by this committee in order to provide a useful report
to the US Congress.
Please also see the article I wrote that is in Telepolis on the
creation of this committee.
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/7248/1.html
Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
(212)787-9361
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:19:24 -0400
From: "R, v Head" <rvhead@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] tentative comments to nas on committee members
I assume you will edit your comments for grammatic errors?
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:42:19 -0400 (EDT) ronda@panix.com writes:
>
> I welcome comments on this draft of the comments I am considering
> submitting to the NAS. Ronda
>
>
> Comments on the Provisional Appointments of the NAS to the
> Committee on Internet Searching and the Domain Name System:
> Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications
>
> I am requesting that the National Academy of Science reconsider
> the appointments of those who you have chosen as members of
> this committee, with the exception of those who members who
> are technical experts in the areas that the committee will consider.
>
> The other members are not appropriate for the problems and study
> this committee will need to undertake in order to be able
> to make a step forward in advising the US government on a
> difficult technical and policy issue.
>
> As can be seen with regard to the problems that the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has demonstrated,
> the choice of who will constitute a committee or board is of
> critical importance to whether there is any possibility that the
> public interest will be served.
>
> It seems that the criteria governing who you have appointed
> to this committee are an inappropriate set of criteria.
>
> Since the Internet is a global metasystem with millions of users
> around the world who are part of very different networks under
> dissimilar administrative and political authority and with
> dissimilar
> technical requirements, it is crucial that those appointed to this
> committee have a broad public interest perspective and that they
> be knowledgable tin the history and development of the Internet.
>
> How is it that it has been possible to create such a broad and
> international metasystem of communicating networks?
>
> A part of the answer is that the principles of open architecture
> were were identified and guided the creation of the tcp/ip protocol
> which has served as an architectural framework for internetwork
> communication.
>
> The principle of open architecture are identified and described
> in a paper I wrote "The Birth of the Internet: An Architectural
> Conception for Solving the Multiple Network Problem"
> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/birth_internet.txt
>
> Also these principles are explained in a paper by Barry Leiner
> "A Brief History of the Internet"
> http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.html
>
> Also Robert Kahn and Barry Leiner have an understanding of these
> principles and the role they have played in making the Internet
> the metasystem that can welcome such a diversity of dissimilar
> networks into a complex human-computer communications system.
>
> They are the kind of committee members with relevant expertise
> who it was impotant to have place on the committee, instead
> of those who have irrelevant and inappropriate expertise,
> such as one member whose expertise is in corporate governance.
> These two people I have suggested as members for the ocmmittee
> also understand the issues involved in the need to create
> an adequate directory structure for the Internet to help
> solve the problem that has been caused by trying to make
> the current DNS system become a directory structure, a function
> it was not created to serve and it cannot serve.
>
> Also it was important to include someone with knowledge of the
> history
> and development of the Internet. Unfortunately the NSF is not
> supporting the needed research so that the important advances
> represented by the Internet can be recognized and built on.
>
> I have a number of papers on the history which it would be crucial
> for any committee to consider and to find a way to further the
> study of.
>
> For example, the basic nature of the Internet as a complex system
> relying on feedback to adjust to a changing environment is
> clarified if one understands some of the background of JCR Licklider
> who has been called the grandfather of the Internet. The goal
> that he identified for the developing network has served as
> a vision inspiring the engineers and programmers who have worked
> on Internet development over the past number of years.
>
> I recently submitted a proposal to the NSF describing the importance
> of this study. The proposal is at
> http://www.colubmia.edu/~rh120/other/nsfprop.txt
>
> I have offered to contribute to the committee and thus far such
> an offer has been ignored.
>
> Also in a situation like this where there is a significant
> public interest at stake, it is crucial that there be an open
> process and an open means to encourage online discussion of the
> issues being considered by the committee. In this regard it
> would be a minimum requirement that the committee have a
> newsgroup that was open for all to post to and to discuss as part
> of, and that supported collaborative discussion of the issues
> under ocnsideration by the committee.
>
> To begin with it would be appropriate to reconstitute the committee
> by asking for public discussion and comments on the draft statement
> of scope and rewriting that statement based on the discussion that
> ensued. There has been some important and interesting discussion
> on at least one mailing list, the Netizens mailing list,
> and it would be good to see much more such online discussion.
> This is the process needed to identify the key issues to be
> determined by this committee in order to provide a useful report
> to the US Congress.
>
> Please also see the article I wrote that is in Telepolis on the
> creation of this committee.
> http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/7248/1.html
>
> Ronda Hauben
> ronda@panix.com
> (212)787-9361
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:25:26 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] tentative comments to nas on committee members
>I welcome comments on this draft of the comments I am considering
>submitting to the NAS. Ronda
Ronda,
Based on pure intuition, I don't think you will have much success
challenging the specific appointments. You'll trigger defensiveness
by both the individuals and NAS -- and the "stakeholders" that
consider themselves important, even if you don't.
Incidentally, people can turn out to be surprisingly helpful even if
backgrounds don't seem to match. When I was at the Corporation for
Open Systems, an extremely corporate-politicized not-for-profit,
virtually every move we made, especially at the beginning, was
scrutinized by EVERYONE's counsel. Any document I wrote in my
secretariat (as opposed to engineering) role was scrutinized, and the
primary legal people seemed to be focused on:
1. How much billing they could generate
2. What was the absolute minimum that could be documented
At some point, the rainmaker from the outside law firm, who had been
general counsel to the CEO when both of them were in government,
delegated the detailed review to a more junior partner: Anita
Esslinger, whom I regard as the Intellectual Property Angel. Anita's
first step was to say to me, "It's silly that I review every routine
document. You need me for the more policy stuff, and it's more fun
anyway. Let me teach you about what I routinely look for, so you can
do that yourself, with the caveat I will also teach you when you MUST
call for my help."
Subsequently, we obtained an inside counsel from the Dark Side of the
Force, and things were never the same. But you win some and you lose
some.
With the NAS/DNS situation, what you do have a chance of doing is to
influence the process. Focus on such things as getting working
discussions and drafts to be net-accessible (as documents, not in
real time), and encouraging a culture where comments are specific and
the committee has something specific to which to respond.
>
>
>Comments on the Provisional Appointments of the NAS to the
>Committee on Internet Searching and the Domain Name System:
>Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications
>
>I am requesting that the National Academy of Science reconsider
>the appointments of those who you have chosen as members of
>this committee, with the exception of those who members who
>are technical experts in the areas that the committee will consider.
These areas need to be identified, including the issue that DNS is
not a directory and the future direction needs to be compatible with
directories, and the issues of how DNS works with respect to other
operational services (e.g., IP addressing and public key
infrastructure).
It's unrealistic to dismiss the trademark/intellectual property
concerns. Ideally, there would be people with a reasonable grounding
in both technical and legal aspects. The question is not how to
exclude legal people, but how to keep their role in its proper
perspective. I think you need to come up with some definition of
that role, rather than provoking an instant defensive reaction from
people whose fundamental training is how to be adversarial.
>
>The other members are not appropriate for the problems and study
>this committee will need to undertake in order to be able
>to make a step forward in advising the US government on a
>difficult technical and policy issue.
>
>As can be seen with regard to the problems that the Internet
>Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has demonstrated,
>the choice of who will constitute a committee or board is of
>critical importance to whether there is any possibility that the
>public interest will be served.
>Since the Internet is a global metasystem with millions of users
>around the world who are part of very different networks under
>dissimilar administrative and political authority and with dissimilar
>technical requirements, it is crucial that those appointed to this
>committee have a broad public interest perspective and that they
>be knowledgable tin the history and development of the Internet.
It's not just history and development. There also must be an
understanding of current operational practices, and how not to break
what is working. Paul Vixie is certainly one good point -- he is the
principal author of the BIND code, which is the base for the majority
of DNS implementations.
>
>How is it that it has been possible to create such a broad and
>international metasystem of communicating networks?
>
>A part of the answer is that the principles of open architecture
>were were identified and guided the creation of the tcp/ip protocol
>which has served as an architectural framework for internetwork
communication.
First, TCP and IP are two specific protocols. Protocols are
developed as parts of an architecture. While the Internet
architecture is often informally called the TCP/IP architecture, that
really is not correct. See, for example.
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1958.txt, and also note that this is a
1996 document that codified a lot of things not written down in one
place.
Second, requirements, architecture, implementation and operations are
four related but different things. In his wonderful book on software
engineering, _The Mythical Man-Month_, Fred Brooks gave my favorite
definition of architecture and implementation.
He explained architecture defines how you read time, and what the
hands on an analog clock mean. Implementation, in contrast, defines
how a specific clock drives those hands or a digital display.
Building on his definitions, I would suggest that requirements define
why it is useful to have time, and operations procedures specify who
winds the clock or changes its batteries.
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:16:00 -0400
From: Philip Busey <veld@veld.com>
Subject: [netz] Comments to nas on committee members
Feedback submitted on NAS Project CSTB-L-99-07-A, Committee on Internet
Searching and the Domain Name System: Technical Alternatives and Policy
Implications regarding committee composition; Project described at
http://www4.nas.edu/cp.nsf/Projects+_by+_PIN/CSTB-L-99-07-A?OpenDocument
Submitted at 23:59:48 EST 05 April 2001
Openness
The proposed committee is strong in engineering, math, and business, but is
essentially vacant in the areas of humanities and social sciences, e.g.,
history, sociology, linguistics, and anthropology. Considering the broad
impact of names and addresses, and their multiple interpretations in the
world's cultures, I think there should be more representation in the
humanities.
Also, it would be desirable if the committee would entertain public comments
that could be available for public view.
Philip Busey
veld@veld.com
Earthfire, http://earthfire.com/
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #378
******************************
