Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 373
Netizens-Digest Monday, April 2 2001 Volume 01 : Number 373
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
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 NAS Commmittee
Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:32:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> wrote:
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
I appreciate the discussion of these issues.
I promised to get back to this point.
>>
>>Steve Crocker's statement in RFC-3 that those with differing views
>>are encouraged to speak is some of what I feel is at the foundations
>>of Internet governance.
>But was the RFC process truly governance? At the time he wrote
>RFC-3, the Internet (well, it wasn't called that yet) did not have to
>deal with funding issues.
I had cited the words of Steve Crocker's RFC 3 about welcoming diverse
viewpoints and philosophies and technical solutions to problems
as the basis for Internet governance.
That wasn't saying the RFC process itself is equated with Internet
governance.
What I was saying was that welcoming of diverse opinions is at
the foundation of the way the Internet has been able to develop
and thrive.
I wasn't commenting on the RFC process as it is currently maintained
by the IETF or on the IETF. In fact, in my experience there is
unfortunately an active mechanism of censoring people who just post
to the IETF mailing lists.
Several times in the past I have posted something to
the IETF mailing list that was relevant to the IETF and have
gotten emails from certain IETF officials that I shouldn't be posting
to the list. (And I have seen where others have posted something
relevant and their posts have been less than welcomed.)
Some of these were contributions to the IETF mailing list about the
process of putting the IETF under the domination of ICANN. This
was indeed relevant to the IETF and its future development. But
there was an active process to discourage any open discussion on
the issues involved.
However, I am not commenting about what is the current practice in the
IETF.
Rather in my research I have found many instances where support
for open discussion on difficult or controversial problems facing
the development of the Internet helped to make it possible to
solve those problems.
That was what RFC 3 proposed as the guiding methodology for the networking
community (then the networking working group) and which has continued
as a vibrant methodology when it has been continued.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/birth_internet.txt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:09:50 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee
At 12:32 PM -0400 4/2/01, ronda@panix.com wrote:
> "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> wrote:
> Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>
>I appreciate the discussion of these issues.
>
>I promised to get back to this point.
>
>>>
>>>Steve Crocker's statement in RFC-3 that those with differing views
>>>are encouraged to speak is some of what I feel is at the foundations
>>>of Internet governance.
>
>>But was the RFC process truly governance? At the time he wrote
>>RFC-3, the Internet (well, it wasn't called that yet) did not have to
>>deal with funding issues.
>
>
>I had cited the words of Steve Crocker's RFC 3 about welcoming diverse
>viewpoints and philosophies and technical solutions to problems
>as the basis for Internet governance.
>
>That wasn't saying the RFC process itself is equated with Internet
>governance.
>
>What I was saying was that welcoming of diverse opinions is at
>the foundation of the way the Internet has been able to develop
>and thrive.
>
>I wasn't commenting on the RFC process as it is currently maintained
>by the IETF or on the IETF. In fact, in my experience there is
>unfortunately an active mechanism of censoring people who just post
>to the IETF mailing lists.
Which lists did you have in mind? I'd certainly not appreciate
people posting to the general IETF-ANNOUNCE list, which I regard as
exclusively for notices about documents and specific working group,
IESG, IAB, etc. activities.
I'll freely admit that I don't know of a general Internet policy
issue sponsored by the IETF/IAB, and it's quite reasonable to suggest
there will be one. In general, I'd support creation of a discussion
list, but I would be opposed to co-opting lists that have
well-defined administrative policies.
There is a difficult question, however, in having completely open
lists. Historically, in venues including address policy, lists where
often overwhelmed by what I can only call conspiracy theorists that
refused to take their medication. I'm sorry -- while I'm all for
open discussion, there is a point at which I really don't want to
have the discussion diverted to how intergalactic routing and
addressing should work (and I am _not_ making this up). There is a
point where loud cybervoices screaming for an anarchical model can't
coexist with people that are interested in an inclusive Internet --
one that can include general information dissemination, research, and
commerce. When the same person posts dozens of accusatory messages
daily to the same list, that is the equivalent of drowning out a
public meeting with human waves and bullhorns.
Practical differences exist between virtual discussions such as
mailing list and chatrooms, and in-person meetings. Not everything
needs or should run like the classic New England town meeting, where
everyone can discuss their point until exhaustion of everyone else.
Again, I want to hear opinions -- but I've gotten to the point of
having mail filters at the level of:
1. kill any message originated by person xxx
2. kill any message in which person xxx appears as an addressee
3. kill any message in which any reference to person xxx appears in
the header or body.
I don't insist on living in an anarchy or pure democracy. There is
value in having some well-intentioned screening.
>
>Several times in the past I have posted something to
>the IETF mailing list that was relevant to the IETF and have
>gotten emails from certain IETF officials that I shouldn't be posting
>to the list. (And I have seen where others have posted something
>relevant and their posts have been less than welcomed.)
>
>Some of these were contributions to the IETF mailing list about the
>process of putting the IETF under the domination of ICANN. This
>was indeed relevant to the IETF and its future development. But
>there was an active process to discourage any open discussion on
>the issues involved.
Not sure what you mean by domination. As I remember the situation,
there was a sense that ICANN was going to happen regardless of what
the IETF did, a certain level of governmental response was going to
go to ICANN, and the IETF could have a controlled advisory role --
certainly not dominance in either direction -- as a PSO to ICANN.
The IETF regards itself as self-governing, which was not necessarily
a well-received idea in all parts of NSF and the US Department of
Commerce. To some extent, ICANN was born in that governmental
context, as something that the prior governmental officials felt
comfortable handing things off to.
>
>However, I am not commenting about what is the current practice in the
>IETF.
>
>Rather in my research I have found many instances where support
>for open discussion on difficult or controversial problems facing
>the development of the Internet helped to make it possible to
>solve those problems.
>
>That was what RFC 3 proposed as the guiding methodology for the networking
>community (then the networking working group) and which has continued
>as a vibrant methodology when it has been continued.
With the caveat that the original RFC/IETF process began in
relatively small groups of experts who had a degree of civility and
mutual respect. The issues they dealt with were technical.
If one accepts the idea that the continuing Internet involves issues
that impact wealth distribution, then lawyers, accountants, etc.,
can't keep from becoming involved. Their model is often zero-sum and
adversarial, not the classic IETF "rough consensus and running code."
The challenge is to find governance strategies in which these models
can coexist, admittedly with conflict. There is no way the lawyers
are going to submit to the engineers' models, or vice versa.
Howard Berkowitz
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:30:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> writes:
>Something that is urgently needed, and to which this list potentially
>could make a contribution, is proposing a generally acceptable
>definition, which does need to include research, informal
>collaboration, commercial activities both to the public and closed
>groups, etc. Unless there are some widely accepted definitions, each
>constituency is going to frame their debate with respect to THEIR
>Internet.
Interesting that you suggest the importance of this.
I recently made an application to the National Science
Foundation for a study of the Internet as a "mixed system".
That is a term that Norbert Wiener used in the early 1960s
to describe how there was a need for computer development that
would take into account the relationship between the human and
the machine.
JCR Licklider in a similar, but even more specific way proposed
that there was a need for research in the desirable relationship
between the human and the computer. He proposed as well, that
the relationship that would be most fruitful would be a symbionic
relationship, a relationship where the human and the computer were
recognized as dissimilar species but were recognized as each
being dependent upon the other.
Licklider's notion of human-computer symbiosis was the basis for
his joining ARPA and setting up a research office to support the
development of computer technology to make this human-computer
symbiosis a reality.
My proposal explains more of the backgound of these developments,
but essentially Licklider's vision set the foundations for
the development of first time-sharing, and then the creation
of the ARPANET packet switching network and eventually the Internet.
Licklider was a neuroscientist who had studied the brain and was
similarly fascinated with computer technology and its potential.
And he saw the analogies and differences between the human and the
computer.
I will put my proposal online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/nsfprop.txt
I didn't get the NSF grant, but I did get a very interesting review
of the proposal which I will also put online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/nsfreview.txt
The reason I am raising this issue is that one can't just look
today at the Internet and understand or describe its nature.
To understand the nature of the Internet it is important that
its origins and development be considered and the path of its
development be taken into account and considered.
Otherwise we are in danger of replacing it with something that
is more like current tv or radio, or an electronic shopping
market, all of which would be a great loss.
The kind of research I proposed would have helped in this process
but the NSF seems too busy, unfortunately, with funding or encouraging
commercial development of the Internet to recognize the need to
understand its origins in basic research and the need to maintain
a connection with the conceptual framework of that basic research.
>>I am not sure of the leaders but I do know that the Corporation for
>>National Research Initiatives (CNRI) has been developing a
>>directory system called the handle system and that they
>>have a RFC with the IETF on it.
>>I don't know its strengths or weaknesses, but it is the effort
>>to provide a directory system that can help the Internet to
>>scale by providing that functionality.
>I can't comment on the specific individuals, as I don't know their
>current work. But it sounds as if a focused letter to NAS,
>questioning the lack of directory expertise, is warranted -- copies
>to appropriate political and newsorganizations.
>You might take a look at
http://www.handle.net/introduction.html
I am considering writing a comment on the provisional committee
appointments to submit to the NAS.
It is hard though to feel it will not just be a waste of effort
as any efforts to make input into their process up to now have
only been a waste.
What I am realizing is that there are two different models for
Internet development
One of the models is a "feedback model" where feedback is encouraged
and welcomed to modify the activity so that there will be a way
of reaching the desired goal. This is the model I found operating
for example when tcp/ip digest was created to help with the cutover
from the NCP to the TCP/IP protocols.
This is the model that I have found for the most part operating on Usenet
over the years that I have been on it, though there are those who
make an effort to squelch opposing viewpoints more recently.
However, there is another model for Internet development. That model
is the "non-feedback" model. In that model feedback is discouraged
and even if it is offered, it will not function to modify the
the activity. This "non-feedback" model is what has tried to dominate
Internet development since the commercialization, privatization
process was encouraged in the mid 1990's.
This "non-feedback" model is what ICANN was founded upon.
And in my efforts to contribute to the NAS process, I have
found that they are also acting on this "non-feedback" model
of Internet development.
I have tried to make input into their process and only find it
has had no affect.
Thanks for the further information about Bill Mannings research.
It sounds like he would have been a good person to have on the
NAS committee if it was trying to solve a real problem about
the scaling of the Internet.
>What is Bill's quarterly walkthrough? Is it online?
>See http:www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-audit.html (wincing a bit at
I will take a look as soon as I have the chance.
At 10:59 PM -0800 3/5/01, Paul A Vixie quoted from a press release:
>New.net (http://www.new.net), a domain
>name registry created to meet the market demand for Web addresses with
>logical, easy-to-remember extensions that make Internet navigation easier,
>today officially released its first 20 new top-level domains. New.net has
>developed a novel, proprietary approach, using software technology deployed
Is Paul Vixie involved with this "proprietary" web addressing enterprise?
I haven't had a chance yet to look at the web site.
>New.net acted unilaterally, creating their own set of top-level
>domains.
It does seem very problemmatic to have a corporate entity acting
unilaterally this way.
>>I have seen in several places in my research that the original
>>Internet was in fact conceived of as a public utility.
>I'd have to disagree. Public in the accepted academic and research
>community, but certainly not acceptable to the general public. In
>the seventies, while doing legitimate commercial research (networking
>and/or medicine), I could not get access without explicit sponsorship
>from a government or academic organization.
This is an example of why the history of the Internet is so important.
There was *no* Internet in the 1970's. There was an ARPANET, one
big network that one had to get permission to join by contacting
BBN or whoever from the DoD was in charge.
The Internet, begins with the creation and implementation of
the TCP/IP protocol. (originally called TCP). The cutover to
the TCP/IP protocol was in January 1983 and in the fall of 1983
the ARPANET was split into an ARPANET (a research network) and
MILNET (an operational network for the DOD) These were able to
communicate via TCP/IP because the design of the protocol was
to make it possible for dissimilar networks to be able to function
under different political or administrative authorities and to
create their networks based on the constraints of their own situations,
yet be able to communicate with other networks.
Only after the implementation of TCP/IP could dissimilar networks
connect to the Internet and hence communicate with each other.
In the 1970's this was impossible. One had to essentially become
part of the BBN controlled ARPANET in the 1970's.
>I always regarded CIX as parallel to the academic/research structure,
>and complementary to it. There's a very key principle here: from a
>pure technical standpoint, once we got beyond the basic ARPANET and
>NSFNET, there was/is no central Internet core or central Internet
>authority. It's a collaboration: "be liberal in what you accept, be
>conservative in what you send."
The problem with CIX and other commercial networks is that
with the privatization of th NSFNet in 1995, the US govenrment
stopped any protection for those who weren't commercial,
and the ocmmercial networking needs took over and dominated
the networking development.
>>I do indeed consider as one of the great achievements of the Internet,
>>the interactive, particatory process that the Internet encourages
>>and rewards.
>
>>This is something very special.
>I can only say that I saw the worldwide free information exchange
>take place AFTER there were alternatives to the AUP-based
>communications. In my own experience, when the ARPANET was under
>AUP,. I couldn't join protocol mailing lists.
I disagree. That is because I have found I guess that Usenet, being
transported in part on the Internet in 1992 was a place where there was
free and open exchange among people from around the world. The
research my co-author of "Netizens: On the History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet" did in 1992 via Usenet and the Internet
and which he documented in Chapter 1 of Netizens, demonstrates
this open and valuable communication.
>>And further that this process is the nature of the Internet.
>>Efforts to make the Internet into a network where
>>the user is passive and someone's "customer" will represent a
>>fundamental change in the nature of the network.
>But can this be a parallel, coexisting change rather than a
>disruptive one? I don't see them as mutually incompatible.
No it hasn't worked that way.
The commercial and private entities have no regard for the educational
or research entities. And they also put pressure on government
to support their commercial objectives at the expense of
the social objectives.
Compuserve was a commercial network. It didn't develop an Internet.
The public Internet did develop. There is an important lesson to
be learned from this fact with regard to what kind of leadership
is needed to have a socially valuable Internet continue to develop
and scale.
>Exactly. There's a very close correlation between "customer" as
>described above, and "for profit." Clearly, there are a substantial
>number of people who don't want to participate in the technical
>details, and think of the Internet as an alternative to the telephone
>or television. There is a legitimate desire to use online buying --
But if the user is to become passive, the Internet will become
the next "television" *not* an *alternative* to television.
The tv industry ruined the promise that television held for
social good.
Unless government can be persuaded to act forcefully to prevent
a similar disaster for Internet development, there is the danger
of it going the way television went.
>Amazon as a good example, but I increasingly use the net to track
>down source for obscure gardening and cooking supplies. There is a
>desire to use the net for entertainment. These desires are not
>illegitimate.
But all the Amazon.com's in the world don't compensate for losing
access to the kind of cooperative activity and technical cooperation
that the Internet makes possible.
It is important to determine what is most important and what is
secondary and to have public policy that supports such development.
>
>See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
>
>Once you were online. Outside government and academia -- and I'm
>talking about the seventies and eighties, it was quite difficult to
>get online. Even when I worked directly for the Library of Congress,
>we either needed to make substantial investment or get a government
>sponsor to connect.
I got on the Internet in 1988 via the NSFNET in Michigan. It was
just being built at the time. So there wasn't an Internet really
until the development of the NSFnet which was by the 1990's.
(NSF took over networking development from DARPA in 1987 or so)
So when I got on Usenet via the Internet and the Cleveland Freenet
in 1992 that was actually the early Internet.
And the rush was on by then to commercializa and privatize it,
even those the Free-Nets had begun to spring up and they were
a helpful model to make inexpensive access available to all.
By 1995 and the privatization, there was a real effort to shut
up those who were challenging that as the road to the development
of the Internet.
And from that point on the discussion, at least in the US, has been
muted as to what is the form that Internet development should take.
This is a public question but it is being treated as a private
perogative.
>Until the mid-80's, these could be accessed only by relatively small
>communities. Even then, in 1984-1986 my first access to most of
>these mailing lists was via USENET, which was external to the
>Internet.
But that was because there wasn't yet an Internet. There were
ways of supporting Internet development by the late 1980's
and the early 1990's that would have encouraged the development
of public access. By the mid 1990's you could have had access
to the mailing lists via USENET or via Free-Nets.
So the problem wasn't that the Internet was *not* commercial
in the 1980's.
The problem is that this is a public issue but only a very small
set of interests are encouraged to be part of the discussion.
That is what happened with the privatization in 1995 and then
with the creation of ICANN and now with the creation of the NAS
committee.
>Certainly, some of the newcomers do. Others want the model to evolve
>to something that accomodates both commercial and noncommercial
>interests. Increasingly, in my publications, I make the distinction
>between providing "Internet" service and providing "Internet
>Protocol" service. The former has to exist in the public environment,
>but, while the latter can coexist within the service provider
>environment, is more for intranets and extranets
To accomodate both takes a protection for the noncommercial, because
the commercial otherwise dominate all.
Good you are making an effort to recognize that there is something
besides the commercial.
This is already quite a long response, so I will leave the rest to
comment on in a future response.
This is an important discussion and I appreciate you are willing
to make it possible. It would be good to see that it was held
more broadly and widely.
Cheers
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/birth_internet.txt
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #373
******************************
