Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 376
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 4 2001 Volume 01 : Number 376
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NASCommmittee
Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee
Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NASCommmittee
Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NASCommmittee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:04:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NASCommmittee
I'm trying to catch up on some of the aspects I wanted to respond
to in previous comments on the list.
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> hcb@clark.net
Sun Apr 1 08:48:27 2001 wrote:
>But remember this was all happening in an environment where no one is
>in charge. The Internet is the most successful anarchy in the history
>of humanity. There was no one to tell either the ICANN or IETF people
>that one was right and one was wrong, and to enforce this. Only a
>Darwinian model seems to apply.
Interesting. Because the Internet really isn't an anarchy.
It's a form of servo mechanism - a system (complex system)
that is able to learn from past behavior toward achieving
a goal (be it a changing goal.)
I had spent quite a while participating online, researching
the developments and had the sense that there was something
important with regard to Internet development that needed
to be understood.
The Internet grew up out of the work of the Information
Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at ARPA.
JCR Licklider had a sense of the kind of computer development
and networking development that it would be good to see as
the future but he realized there would be steps to making
that happen.
He had come from a community of researchers who had studied
information processing science and the science of servo
mechanism in natural and artificial systems.
He brought that background into the work he did at IPTO
and the foundation he set for it.
It was IPTO where first time sharing research, then research
in packet switching and then in the Internet developments
were originated.
So it isn't that there was any anarchy. There was a scientific
research foundation which it would be good to see continued
in order to continue the development of the Internet.
>>and I want to be a bit more awake when I try to expalin
>>what I have come to understand about Internet governance
>>from the study I have done of Internet development and mechanisms
>>of feedback and the experience I have
>>had over the years online.
>
>>Basically there are systems that are built where the feedback
>>is crucial to their development and there are systems that
>>don't use feedback. The Internet is a system that is built
>>as a system dependent on feedback.
>The role of (to use proper control system theory terminology) proper
>negative feedback can't be overstated. There are delicate balances
>between stability and freedom. I don't think you are saying that the
>Internet should be totally ungoverned, but that, of course, is just
>the position of many "Hacker collectives." Don't know about you, but
>I wouldn't want telepresence surgery done on me, with the control
>residing in a network where "information is free" and anyone can do
>whatever they want. At the same time, I want telepresence surgery to
>be available in underdeveloped area, and using IP technologies (not
>necessarily "the Internet" in the public sense) is the only way we
>can afford such availability.
It is helpful you bring up control system theory and negative
feedback.
I have spent a few years doing research about the early mailing
lists and newsgroups on the ARPANET and early Usenet and feel
there is another important level of negative feedback that
has functioned with regard to the development of networking
and then of the Internet.
This has been the open discussion on mailing lists and newsgroups
of the problems of the developing network.
I have several papers looking at this that are online at
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers
For example the early human-nets mailing list discussed the
social vision for the developing network.
>If it was a simple problem, it wouldn't be much fun, would it?
Yupe that is true :-)
Cheers
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/nsfprop.txt.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/nsfreview.txt.
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:12:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee
This was posted on Dave Farber's IP mailing list on Sunday I think,
but it is interesting that it didn't mention that the appointments
were provisional and that public had 20 days from the date of
their being posted to comment on them.
It does seem that the NAS DNS process is already an even more
closed process than the ICANN situation, and that was a serious
problem because of the closed nature of that whole process.
So I called and spoke with Margaret Marsh and asked when
the date for comments to be in by was, and she said April 5, 2001.
I mentioned to her that it would be good if the comments could
be posted publicly, not just disappear into the bowels of
the NAS committee never to be paid any attention to.
In any case, probably it would be good to try to utilize the
procedure, though all indications I have had from the NAS
DNS committee is that there is no means of their taking
seriously that they are dealing with a public question
and that there is a public interest at stake and that
a small, closed group of people like those on the committee
cannot represent that public interest unless they find
a way to open up the whole process.
BTW I have sent two posts about this to Farber's IP list
and he hasn't sent out either. This is indicative of the nature
of what the NAS DNS committee process is unfortunately at
this juncture. Ronda
>From: "Alan Inouye" <AInouye@nas.edu>
>To: dave@farber.net
>
>The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB)
>of the National Academies announces the launch of its study on
>
>INTERNET SEARCHING AND THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM:
>Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications
>
>This project will examine the impact of technological developments
>and policy changes on the domain name system and other mechanisms
>that individuals rely upon to find the information that they seek on the
>Internet. The final report (to be issued in 2002) is expected to characterize
>the institutions, policies, procedures, research, and development needed
>to ensure that searching on the Internet remains feasible and can improve
>in capability throughout the decade and will include a discussion of the
>important and unresolved issues concerning trademarks.
>(See below for the full project scope and roster of members of the
>study committee) This study is sponsored by the U. S. Department
>of Commerce and the National Science Foundation and is mandated
>by the U. S. Congress through Public Law 105-305.
>
>* First Meeting of the Project
>The first committee meeting of this study will take place on
>April 9-10, 2001, at the National Academies in Washington, DC. There
>will be a session open to the public on April 9 from 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
>The panel sessions on April 9 will focus on the relevant policy context;
>panelists will be asked to identify those topics that should be
>emphasized in this study. Panelists include Becky Burr
>(Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering), Alan Davidson (Center for Democracy
>and Technology), Michael Froomkin (University of Miami),
>M. Stuart Lynn (ICANN), Steve Metalitz [invited]
>(International Intellectual Property Association), David
>Post (Temple University), Michael Roberts (formerly of
>ICANN), Shari Steele (Electronic Frontier Foundation), and
>Emerson Tiller (University of Texas); additional panelists may
>also participate. Aubrey Bush from the National Science
>Foundation and representatives of the U. S. Department of Commerce
>will also address the study committee. Since space is limited for
>observers, advance registration is strongly recommended; please
>contact Margaret Marsh at <mmarsh@nas.edu> or 202-334-2605
>to register. Additional details concerning this first meeting or the
>study may be found at the Web site of the National Academies
><www.nationalacademies.org>. Click on "current projects"
>(at the top of the screen) and search for the name of this study.
>
>* Public Comment and Project Updates
>Public comments to the study committee are welcome and may
>be made at any time by sending email to <nrcisdns@nas.edu>.
>CSTB will also be providing periodic updates on the project
>and notices of upcoming sessions open to the public via an
>e-mail list. If you wish to receive these updates, please send
>your request to <nrcisdns@nas.edu> as well.
>
>* Project Scope
>This project will examine the impact of technological developments
>and policy changes on the domain name system and other mechanisms
>that individuals rely upon to find the information that they seek on the
>Internet.
>It will assess the effect on Internet name assignment, addressing, and
>searching of trends such as the continuing increase in the number of
>Internet users and sites, the growth in embedded computing devices,
>and the introduction of permanent personal and object identifiers. It will
>identify, describe and evaluate emerging technologies that can affect
>Internet searching. Some of the approaches to be considered are: the
>addition of generic top level domains; new name assignment,
>addressing and indexing schemes; new directory structures for locating
>information or sites of interest; and improved user interfaces for
>accessing information on the Internet.
>
>The technologies that support finding information on the Internet are
>deployed within a complex and contentious international policy context.
>The "right" to use a particular domain name can often be disputed--
>sometimes as an honest conflict among multiple, legitimate claimants;
>sometimes by cybersquatters seeking to profit in the secondary market
>for domain names; and sometimes by those who wish to post negative
>information or parody a like-named organization. Effective solutions
>must consider the potentially competing interests of domain name
>owners and trademark holders; the different interests of large multinational
>corporations, small business owners and individuals; and public interests
>such as freedom of speech and personal privacy.
>
>This study will examine the degree to which the options offered by new
>technology or new uses of existing technology can mitigate concerns
>regarding trademarks and other economic or public interests, facilitate or
>impede further evolution of the Internet, and affect steps being taken to
>enhance competition among domain name registrars, the portability of
>Internet addresses, and the stability of the Internet. For each of the
>prospective technologies, the final report is expected to characterize
>institutions, policies and procedures that should be put in place
>to complement it and will specify the research (if any) required to
>develop it.
>
>Additional information describing the National Academies
>study process may be found at
><http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/ensuring.html>.
>Additional information concerning CSTB may be found
>at <www.cstb.org>.
>
>* Committee Roster
>Provisionally Approved by the National Academies
>
>ROGER LEVIEN, Chair
>Strategy & Innovation Consulting
>Principal and Founder
>
>ROBERT AUSTEIN
>Vice President of Engineering
>InterNetShare.com
>
>CHRISTINE L. BORGMAN
>Professor & Presidential Chair in Information Studies
>Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
>University of California, Los Angeles
>
>JEAN CAMP
>Assistant Professor of Public Policy
>John F. Kennedy School of Government
>Harvard University
>
>TIMOTHY CASEY
>Partner Resident
>Fried Frank Haris Shriver and Jacobson
>
>LESLIE DAIGLE
>Executive Vice President
>Rattlenote Technology Inc.
>
>HUGH DUBBERLY
>Principal
>Dubberly Design Office
>
>CHARLES H. FERGUSON
>Chairman
>Juice Software, Inc. and Capital Thinking, Inc.
>
>TAMAR FRANKEL
>Professor
>Boston University Law School
>
>PER-KRISTIAN HALVORSEN
>Director
>Solutions and Services Technology Center
>Hewlett-Packard Research Labs
>
>MARYLEE JENKINS
>Partner
>Robin Blecker & Daley
>
>JOHN C. KLENSIN
>Internet Architecture Vice President
>AT&T
>
>MILTON L. MUELLER
>Associate Professor and Director
>Graduate Program in Telecommunications and Networking Management
>School of Information Studies
>Syracuse University
>
>WILLIAM RADUCHEL
>Executive Vice President
>AOL Time Warner
>
>HAL R. VARIAN
>Dean
>School of Information Management and Systems
>University of California, Berkeley
>
>PAUL VIXIE
>Chairman
>Internet Software Consortium
>
>
>S T A F F
>
>ALAN INOUYE
>Study Director and Senior Program Officer
>
>CYNTHIA PATTERSON
>Program Officer
>
>MARGARET MARSH
>Senior Project Assistant
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:45:15 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NASCommmittee
Ronda wrote,
>I'm trying to catch up on some of the aspects I wanted to respond
>to in previous comments on the list.
>
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> hcb@clark.net
>Sun Apr 1 08:48:27 2001 wrote:
>
>>But remember this was all happening in an environment where no one is
>>in charge. The Internet is the most successful anarchy in the history
>>of humanity. There was no one to tell either the ICANN or IETF people
>>that one was right and one was wrong, and to enforce this. Only a
>>Darwinian model seems to apply.
>
>Interesting. Because the Internet really isn't an anarchy.
>
>It's a form of servo mechanism - a system (complex system)
>that is able to learn from past behavior toward achieving
>a goal (be it a changing goal.)
I'm reminded of a few good buttons/T-shirts:
"1,000,000 lemmings can't be wrong."
"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."
>
>I had spent quite a while participating online, researching
>the developments and had the sense that there was something
>important with regard to Internet development that needed
>to be understood.
>
>The Internet grew up out of the work of the Information
>Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at ARPA.
>
>JCR Licklider had a sense of the kind of computer development
>and networking development that it would be good to see as
>the future but he realized there would be steps to making
>that happen.
>
>He had come from a community of researchers who had studied
>information processing science and the science of servo
>mechanism in natural and artificial systems.
>
>He brought that background into the work he did at IPTO
>and the foundation he set for it.
>
>It was IPTO where first time sharing research, then research
>in packet switching and then in the Internet developments
>were originated.
>
>So it isn't that there was any anarchy. There was a scientific
>research foundation which it would be good to see continued
>in order to continue the development of the Internet.
But again we come back to the issue of their being a monolithic
definition of the Internet -- which I don't really think can exist.
The scientific research model absolutely, positively has its role. I
don't make the distinction you do between science and engineering in
the Internet context. Even what is academically funded "Internet
research" blurs: Internet II versus Abilene. There is research on
network-enabled applications, and there is research into networking
itself.
Scientific research communities publish their open results, but
frequently have invitational workshops and other quite closed
discussion forums. Both in computing and in medicine, where I am
most familiar with research communities, there emphatically are
non-public forums.
Yet in earlier discussions, you seemed to describe Freenets as the
ultimate expression of "the Internet."
So I'm confused. There are other aspects that don't fall into either
a scientific or a public model. In a developed country, there's
little question you will have dial tone when you pick up the
telephone. In a developed country, there are quite serious questions
of Internet reliability.
Telephone networks are tightly engineered and run by rigid standards.
They are primarily run by corporations. At the same time, there is
active research into improving telephony.
Where, in your model, is the place for highly reliable IP
connectivity? Neither scientific nor "public" organizations are
geared to run production environments.
When I need to have heart surgery, I do not go to a pure scientist
whose primary interest is genetically modulated angiogenesis. I go
to a surgeon who does several procedures per week. Science is not
the ultimate goodness.
Correct me if I misperceive, but I am tending to detect a message
that "anything is better than a corporate model".
>
>
>>>and I want to be a bit more awake when I try to expalin
>>>what I have come to understand about Internet governance
>>>from the study I have done of Internet development and mechanisms
>>>of feedback and the experience I have
>>>had over the years online.
>>
>>>Basically there are systems that are built where the feedback
>>>is crucial to their development and there are systems that
>>>don't use feedback. The Internet is a system that is built
> >>as a system dependent on feedback.
OK. Can you accept the model that business, engineering/science, and
public interest all represent sources in control systems? If so,
what is the appropriate controlling negative feedback on each?
>
>I have spent a few years doing research about the early mailing
>lists and newsgroups on the ARPANET and early Usenet and feel
>there is another important level of negative feedback that
>has functioned with regard to the development of networking
>and then of the Internet.
But you seem to insist that the 1970s model of Internet development
is the pure one and should continue to apply. In a military context,
that would mean that the people that took 2nd place in the Southeast
Asia War Games should have applied all of their methodology to the
Persian Gulf. Or that the sexual practices of the seventies should
continue in a world containing HIV. Having lived in the seventies,
I'm not happy about the latter!
There's no question that the current economic environment is not the
classical free market, in which building value and reputation was an
economic good. But any market, even a warped one, does have feedback
mechanisms. Again, I keep getting a sense of anti-corporate bias.
Don't get me wrong -- I've spent far too much time in corporate
environments where Dilbert is real.
Free the ISO 9000!
Howard
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NASCommmittee
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> hcb@clark.net wrote:
>>Interesting. Because the Internet really isn't an anarchy.
>>
>>It's a form of servo mechanism - a system (complex system)
>>that is able to learn from past behavior toward achieving
>>a goal (be it a changing goal.)
>I'm reminded of a few good buttons/T-shirts:
> "1,000,000 lemmings can't be wrong."
> "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 :-)
However, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying.
I'm saying that it was good science and research that made
the Internet possible.
And that we should try to look at what has been developed and
how and build on it.
Are you saying it was an accident?
(...)
>But again we come back to the issue of their being a monolithic
>definition of the Internet -- which I don't really think can exist.
I'm not saying its something monolithic.
But I am saying that it can be understood. And that that
understanding is significantly aided by understanding
the research process and science at its roots.
Do we disagree?
>The scientific research model absolutely, positively has its role. I
>don't make the distinction you do between science and engineering in
>the Internet context. Even what is academically funded "Internet
>research" blurs: Internet II versus Abilene. There is research on
>network-enabled applications, and there is research into networking
>itself.
>Scientific research communities publish their open results, but
>frequently have invitational workshops and other quite closed
>discussion forums. Both in computing and in medicine, where I am
>most familiar with research communities, there emphatically are
>non-public forums.
But what I have found in my studies of the development and
ending of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO)
at ARPA (1962-1986) is that there was a change in the autonomy
the Director of the Office could exert at various times,
and then the Office was ended. The office had been an important
government institutional form to support some of the kind of basic
research that had been helpful in making the Internet possible.
So the ending of the Office was a blow to that basic research,
and there is a need to learn from the lessons of IPTO and to
find a way to support basic research again of a similar quality.
That I agree that there are forms of research now, but I haven't
seen the general nature kind of research that IPTO was able to
support and inspire. And IPTO provided leadership to a research
community.
I realize I don't know all that is going on.
I do try to pay attention to what I have access to.
But I also pay attention to the research that has helped to
make possible the advances we have today, and that is important
too as a background in understanding the research roots of
these developments.
I am surprised that there seems so little effort in the computer
science curriculum to familarize students with the important
papers that were some of the foundation of the important
networking and interactive computing achievements of our times.
I see you follow medicine as well as networking based research.
That is a good sign.
That means you make an effort to be broad, not narrow.
Licklider came out of a community that studied servo mechanisms
in natural and artificial systems.
And I have a sense that his contributions to the creation of
the IPTO and the vision that has guided networking development
in good part grew from his research instincts about the human
brain, as well as from his respect admiration for the power
of the computer and the need for an Intergalactic network.
By the way, in an earlier post you pointed to the need for
human factors research expertise. I guess Licklider helped
to pioneer that field.
And I agree that it seems to need to be reinvigorated today,
building on Licklider's vision of the need for a symbiotic
relationship between the human and the computer (and I would
add network).
>Yet in earlier discussions, you seemed to describe Freenets as the
>ultimate expression of "the Internet."
I didn't say it was an ultimate expression, but it was an early
means of making access to all available that was different
from a commerical model.
(I realize you may have a different notion of freenet )
I was referring to the Cleveland Free-Net which began in the late
1980's. I learned about it in 1988 and it was then a cooperative
means of people in Cleveland working together to make dialup
access to the Internet and Usenet available at no charge to
the people in Cleveland using dialup modems.
I got onto Cleveland Free-Net in 1992 via an Internet connection
from Michigan (using telnet). And I was able to get on Usenet
from the Cleveland Free-Net and also to get access to mailing
lists like com-priv .
The Cleveland Free-Net model spread around the US fairly rapidly
and then to Canada and to a few places in Europe. For example
I think there was one in Erlangen Germany at one point.
>So I'm confused. There are other aspects that don't fall into either
>a scientific or a public model. In a developed country, there's
>little question you will have dial tone when you pick up the
>telephone. In a developed country, there are quite serious questions
>of Internet reliability.
>Telephone networks are tightly engineered and run by rigid standards.
>They are primarily run by corporations. At the same time, there is
>active research into improving telephony.
>Where, in your model, is the place for highly reliable IP
>connectivity? Neither scientific nor "public" organizations are
>geared to run production environments.
>When I need to have heart surgery, I do not go to a pure scientist
>whose primary interest is genetically modulated angiogenesis. I go
>to a surgeon who does several procedures per week. Science is not
>the ultimate goodness.
>Correct me if I misperceive, but I am tending to detect a message
>that "anything is better than a corporate model".
Interesting. When the ARPANET as split into an operational
MILNET and a research ARPANET which would communicate via
TCP/IP, that was my sense of probably one of the earliest
Internet's.
MILNET was operational. It wasn't commercial. It seems you are
equating operational with commercial and suggesting that I
am denying the need for a commercial Internet.
I don't equate operational with commercial.
I do agree that there is probably a place for operational
networks that are part of an Internet.
The Cleveland Free-Net and other Free-Nets that existed in the
1990's (and there are still some) were an example of a means
access that wasn't commercial but still that provided
an important form of Internet access to many people.
Before the breakup of AT&T, the US had the best phone company in
the world with its regulated AT&T and the Bell Labs section of AT&T.
AT&T was a company, but it was under certain constraints and
restraints from the US government to make it possible for
there to be universal access and the research component
(Bell Labs) that provided the most advanced technology to make
it possible to provide that universal access to telephony
for people in the US.
So I am not denying that there is a reason to provide
the kind of service that the pre-break-up AT&T was
obligated to provide to the people of the US. I am
though not agreeing that this means one has to have
a commercial model to provide this service, and the
research that makes it possible.
In fact, there are many signs that the commercial model
being used to privatize the Internet cannot provide
the kind of service and research that is needed for
the Internet to be able to thrive in the US.
In fact I have been told by one of the people who is
now in ICANN that the educational network is a
hole in the commercial Internet.
That seems to me to be fundamentally opposed to what
I have learned about the design and nature of the Internet.
That seems a rationale to try to end the Internet and
replace it with the kind of one big network under
one political and administrative power.
>>>and I want to be a bit more awake when I try to expalin
>>>what I have come to understand about Internet governance
>>>from the study I have done of Internet development and mechanisms
>>>of feedback and the experience I have
>>>had over the years online.
>>
>>>Basically there are systems that are built where the feedback
>>>is crucial to their development and there are systems that
>>>don't use feedback. The Internet is a system that is built
>>>as a system dependent on feedback.
>OK. Can you accept the model that business, engineering/science, and
>public interest all represent sources in control systems? If so,
>what is the appropriate controlling negative feedback on each?
This is something we should discuss further as it is an interesting
question you pose.
However, thus far the supposed effort of the US government has
been to create what seems to be a means for business governance
and that has been a real problem.
This has not only left out the public interest and the engineering/science
community, and all the other online communities like the educational,
government, artistic, etc. But also the business model is the model
that doesn't allow for the negative feedback. Rather it is a no
feedback model.
This seems some of the source of the problem with the conception of ICANN.
The business and investment folks who got themselves in power
in it have no reason to hear from anyone.
And their goal isn't a social goal. It is a goal that
is dictated by their own self interest.
This flies in the face of the social goal that Licklider
articulated in the 1960s' -- of all having access to this
intellectual public utility. Licklider in an article he
wrote with Robert Taylor said "For society, the impact
will be good or bad depending mainly on the question:
Will "to be online" be a privilege or a right?"
(See the end of chapter 2 of "Netizens: On the History
and Impact of Usenet and the Internet"
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook)
Also this social goal was a goal raised by the NTIA online
conference in 1994 where many people challenged the
privatization plan of the US government.
I do see that there is a need to have an infrastructure
for the Internet that provides for the negative feedback
to make the system able to scale. This means a better
feedback system than currently exists for users (of
all strata) to be able to participate more fully in
helping to identify and then solve the ongoing problems
of the Internet's scaling.
I proposed such a prototype collaboration to make it possible
to build such a feedback system to Ira Magaziner after
talking with him about my problems with what was to become
ICANN. He asked me to provide an operational form
to demonstrate the import of the problems I had identified
with the creation of ICANN.
My proposal was up at the US Department of Commerce. It
was submitted before the ICANN proposal.
I proposed an international scientific collaboration to
review the current means of human feedback systems
and to propose a way to create a more effective feedback
system.
The proposal is at the US Department of Commerce web site
and also at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/dns_proposal.txt
You might be interested in taking a look at it and commenting
on it.
>
>I have spent a few years doing research about the early mailing
>lists and newsgroups on the ARPANET and early Usenet and feel
>there is another important level of negative feedback that
>has functioned with regard to the development of networking
>and then of the Internet.
>But you seem to insist that the 1970s model of Internet development
>is the pure one and should continue to apply.
You didn't say the problem with open architecture and the
creation of the tcp/ip protocol.
Nor do you look to see what this model has created and what
can be learned from the achievement.
Instead it seems you are trying to discredit the architecture
by claiming it is from the 1970s.
Isn't this a bit like trying to discredit the US by saying that
it grew from a 1770's model (the Declaration of Independence)
or an 1780's model (the Constitution).
If you have a critique of open architecture and the creation
of TCP/IP, you can make it. But it seems that to give the date
that an advance happened as the means to discredit it
isn't very helpful.
(...)
>There's no question that the current economic environment is not the
>classical free market, in which building value and reputation was an
>economic good. But any market, even a warped one, does have feedback
>mechanisms. Again, I keep getting a sense of anti-corporate bias.
The market model seems to be an equilibrium model, not a dynamic model.
It's the feedback model, however, that allows for internal and external
changes and adjustments when needed. It isn't a feedback model
that allows for a changing goal and for feedback to understand
how to reach that goal.
And its the feedback model that was the basis to create and
develop the Internet. And its the feedback model that is needed
to determine how to scale it.
That is the findings of my research thus far.
There is a need to understand the implications of this.
But the NAS DNS committee flies in the face of these findings.
>Don't get me wrong -- I've spent far too much time in corporate
>environments where Dilbert is real.
I can understand. I have had my experiences as well :(
And I continue to have them with the research agencies that seem
determined to impose a market model on the Internet rather than
to provide the needed support for the work to understand the
model that is relevant to the development of the Internet.
(I just had a bad experience with the NSF :( )
But the importance of the research is it helps to understand
what is needed and that will find a way to have its effect :)
Cheers
Ronda
And to remember: This is something we should discuss:
>>>Basically there are systems that are built where the feedback
>>>is crucial to their development and there are systems that
>>>don't use feedback. The Internet is a system that is built
>>>as a system dependent on feedback.
>OK. Can you accept the model that business, engineering/science, and
>public interest all represent sources in control systems? If so,
>what is the appropriate controlling negative feedback on each?
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 #376
******************************
