Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 384
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 24 2001 Volume 01 : Number 384
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Act Now and Avoid the Wrath of Genius 2000
[netz] Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
[netz] Response on Farber's IP mailing list to my article Behind Closed Doors
[netz] about NAS committee
[netz] Froomkin's response to Telepolis article "Behind Closed Doors"
[netz] Re: Fwd: FC: FTC action against kids sites...
[netz] interesting comment from Einar Stefferud on "Behind Closed Doors"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:31:55 EDT
From: Nmherman@aol.com
Subject: [netz] Act Now and Avoid the Wrath of Genius 2000
++
My fellow humans:
I have struggled with the question of clemency and how I can in good faith
offer absolution to those who have fought against the ideas of Genius 2000.
The only answer I have conceived is that any person wishing to make amends
for acts against Genius 2000 must send me an email containing the following
two sentences, their full name, and their email address:
"People should see the Genius 2000 Video First Edition. It has very
important ideas in it."
I will consider anyone who sends the described email to me even-steven with
G2K as regards past actions. (Future behavior obviously will not be excused
in this manner.) The deadline for receipt of your message is May Day 2001.
After that, it's war.
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000
++
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:21:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
I thought people on the Netizens list would find this of interest:
I welcome discussion on the list of the article and the issues it
raises. Ronda
Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
Ronda Hauben 20.04.2001
Report on the First Meeting of the NAS Committee on Internet Searching
and the Domain Name System
The first meeting of the new National Academy of Science (NAS) committee to
study the Domain Name System (DNS) demonstrated the sharp contrast between
the closed processes of the committee and the broad mandate from their US
government sponsors.
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/7421/1.html
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Response on Farber's IP mailing list to my article Behind Closed Doors
I thought folks on the Netizens list would find interesting the
2 reponses that appeared on Dave Farber's IP mailing list this morning
to my recent Telepolis article about the First Meeting of the NAS DNS
committee. Ronda
- ------------------
:Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 04:09:16 -0400
:To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
:From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
:Subject: IP: Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
:I am sending this to IP for its reporting on the open meeting NOT for the
:point of view taken by the author which I happen to disagree with. The
:National Research Council is the study arm of the National Academies of
:Sciences and performs studies usually motivated by the Government. I have
:served on many such study committees and for 10 years served on the
:Telecommunications and the Computer Science Board. The tone of this report
:makes it seem that the closed door sessions are somehow bad. My experience
:is that they serve a useful purpose in exposing the real facts that are
:essential to the value of the resultant report. The panels have in my
:experience both been well balanced and very willing to tick off both the
:sponsors and the NRC if necessary in order to seek the truth. There have
:been attempts to open all NRC panel meetings and the courts, wisely in my
:opinion , have rejected such changes.
:These panels do in fact seek the truth. Witness the crypto panel as just
:one example of many.
:Dave
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:02:59 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <ronda@panix.com>
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>Subject: Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
>
>Dave
>
>It is important that folks know what is happening with the
>new committee at the National Academy of Science that has
>been created to write a report for Congress proposing the
>next generation DNS. Following is brief excerpt and the url
>for an article published in Telepolis on Friday about the first
>meeting of the committee: Ronda
>
>
> Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
> 20.04.2001
>
> Report on the First Meeting of the NAS Committee on Internet Searching
> and the Domain Name System
>
> The first meeting of the new National Academy of Science (NAS)
> committee to study the Domain Name System (DNS) demonstrated the sharp
> contrast between the closed processes of the committee and the broad
> mandate from their US government sponsors. Those attending the one
> open session in two days of otherwise closed meetings were told that a
> reason this session was open to the public was because there is a
> legal requirement that a NAS committee cannot meet with its government
> sponsors in closed session.
>
> Though the study was requested by the U.S. Congress, the sponsors for
> the study are the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S.
> Department of Commerce (DOC). At this meeting [0] of the committee,
> the sponsors were invited to present the rationale and the need for
> the study and the issues to be emphasized or avoided by the committee.
>
>
> See http://www.telepolis.de/english/inhalt/te/7421/1.html
:For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
2)
:Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:09:09 -0400
:To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
:From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
:Subject: IP: another view on : NAS DNS Committee meeting
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:36:20 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
>To: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>Subject: NAS Committee meeting
>
>I too attended the NAS committee meeting, and my take is somewhat
>different from Ronda Hauben's. You can see it up at
>http://www.icannwatch.org (article number 120).
:What Really Happened at the NAS Committee's First Meeting?
:Telopolis, that marvelous German magazin der netzkultur with
:English-language articles for the linguistically challenged, publishes a
:report from Ronda Hauben on the first meeting of the National Academy of
:Science (NAS) Committee on Internet Searching and the Domain Name System.
:Having been present as an invited speaker (you can see slides of my
:12-minute talk), I think there are some problems with some parts of Ms.
:Hauben's account, and with her general spin of the event, although some of
:her account is right on the money.
:For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:55:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] about NAS committee
I have an appointment to speak with some of the officials at the National
Academy of Science about the criteria for appointing people on the
committees there, the process of reviewing the appointments and confirming
committee members and opportunities for public input.
I wondered if there are any suggestions for what it would be good to
ask.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:53:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Froomkin's response to Telepolis article "Behind Closed Doors"
I wondered if people on the netizens list have looked at the response
that Michael Froomkin posted to my Telepolis article. I have put together
this beginning response and was thinking of posting it on my web site
at http://www.ais.org/~ronda
I wondered if this seemed worth doing. Or if there are any comments
on the response. Ronda
A Brief Response to Michael Froomkin's "What Really Happened at the
NAS Committee's First Meeting?" which he posted on ICANN Watch on
April 23, 2001.
Much of what Froomkin says in his response to my April 20 2001 Telepolis
article is untrue.
First he says that there were speakers who talked about whether
"a general purpose communications infrastructure should be changed
to accommodate the desires of a particular group of users."
He gives as examples his talk and and Shari Steele's
I was out of the room during most of Shari Steele's talk but asked someone
who was in the room what she had said. I was told that she had talked
about how users should be able to have domain names they wanted, that that
was their freedom of speech. This was the other side of the coin of the
trademark issue, but it wasn't talking about the Internet as a general
purpose communications infrastructure. It wasn't talking about how
email and related uses of the Internet were the important uses.
And Froomkin's talk didn't touch on this issue. I have even looked back
at the overheads he posted and and didn't see any basis for his claim
that his talk to the committee had taken up the issues I raised.
But basically my comments in the article were about the committee and
the fact that folks on the committee didn't raise any of these issues
for the speakers and so the committee members seemed to be very weak
choices of people if they didn't have any basic understanding of
the important issues regarding the Internet and its development.
Also Froomkin says that about 50% of the inaugural meeting was public.
The first part of Monday's meeting was closed. The committee met in
closed session from 8 am till 11:30. (that is 3-1/2 hours of closed
session. The open part of the meeting started late and was from 12:00
to 6:00 including the lunch time. That is 6 hours. Then the next day
the committee met from I think 8 am till 3 pm. That is 7 hours.
So it seems there was probably 10-1/2 hours of closed sessions and
6 hours of open sessions for this first meeting.
Froomkin claims that "important distinction between naming and
addressing" came up later was his "recollection" but he gives no
details.
So he has nothing to offer by way of showing how what I wrote was
inaccurate, but he is quick to try to defend those on the committee
as "really, really smart people". Why he was one of those chosen
to make a presentation he doesn't explain. Basically it seems there
is a very narrow set of people who are being involved in this whole
process and he is part of that set.
And he is acknowledging that the issues raised in the Telepolis report
about the committee meeting are important issues to be raised. He claims
that speakers to the committee raised them, but gives no evidence
of such. However it is interesting that he has made the slides he
presented to the committee public.
Why the committee has been formed and what the report it is
has been created to do is a genuine question. It is hard to believe
that the committee can have any handle on the question that needs
to be taken up, let alone the answer, in the closed process it
is part.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:40:55 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: [netz] Re: Fwd: FC: FTC action against kids sites...
The attached message is a discussion that Ronda and I were having
offline, but decided it should be shared with the list.
Unfortunately, I can't find the article I originally forwarded to
start this discussion, but I think you'll find the fragments here
making reasonable sense on their own.
Howard
>
>(Ronda) I don't have much time now, but I will try to start answering
>some of what I wanted to respond to .
>
>>"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2001
>
>>Just in case you don't subscribe to the politech list -- I think you
> >do -- I've attached the relevant note. The article is somewhat
>>sensational, but does touch on an important Internet growth issue: if
>>it's corporate, it's somehow evil.
>
>I'm not on the politech list so thanks for sending me something
>you thought I would find of interest from it. I looked briefly
>thru Lessig's book and didn't see it as very helpful or representing
>what I have been exploring in both my research and writing. The
>folks who were doing the early development of interactive computing
>talked about social technical pioneers. Folks who were technical
>but had a social perspective and vision. When I looked at Lessig's
>book briefly I didn't see much sign of a social perspective, but
>rather an individualist one. But communication is a social function
>not an individualist one.
>
>>Don't misunderstand my position here. Perhaps even more than large
>>corporations themselves, I tend to believe that the short-term focus
>>of the current financial environment -- and just plain greed that
>>ignores the classic lesson of the tragedy of the commons -- has done
>>enormous damage to the free market. I often trust government more
>>than private industry to "do the right thing," although I certainly
>>am reluctant to give government more power than absolutely needed.
>
>Do you think there is a "free market"? that can support the scaling
>of the Internet? If so can you explain what this means to me.
Howard> I'm not convinced there is a single free market, although
market principles do apply in some cases. But I keep coming back to
the question -- where are the resources for scaling the internet
going to come from?
>
>I don't understand how a "free market" could function in terms of
>providing the needed support and development to the Internet.
Howard> Let's assume that it does not. The reality is that scaling
the Internet takes considerable investment. All the fiber, routers,
servers, amd skilled people represent billions of dollars, at the
very least. Even if you look at free software models like GNU,
there's still lots of cost.
So -- and this is a question -- where does this funding come from?
General tax revenues? That gets really complex in a multinational
situation. Even at the national level, it can get highly politicized.
User fees? If so, how are they collected and paid?
>
>
>The Internet is a child of scientific and technical research nad
>to scale it we need the continuation of this scientific and technical
>research.
Howard> Historically -- and I go back to the middle ages here --
research has never been self-funding. It has enormous economic
benefit, but scholars and researchers always had patrons. At first,
these came from the aristocracy or even the church. In the 19th and
early 20th centuries, we certainly saw industrial research centers
evolve. Massive government support of research is mostly a construct
of the Cold War.
>
>>But the reality is that the corporate interests are there, and that a
>>substantial amount of the funding for increased Internet capacity is
>>going to come from them. I've always liked the criterion for a good
>>political solution that has all actors leaving the table equally
>>unhappy, but feeling they received at least some value.
>
>But the Internet is a new development. And its a development that
>requires an infrastructure. And that infrastructure requires scientific
>research to keep it evolving and developing. And the Internet has
>been created as a complex system built on feedback. And a system
>that is built on feedback is different from one that isn't.
>How does one support the continued development of a complex system
>built on feedback? One can't just assume that corporations can and will
>do it.
Howard> Then who will, and who pays for it?
>
>
>Traditionally corporate entities are often not able to do research
>that is 10 or 20 years into the future.
Howard> At the current rate of technological progress, even the
academics I know are hesitant about trying to look at networking
models that far ahead. Current thinking in Internet scaling focuses
the operational forums in methods for the next 2 years or so, the
IETF protocol groups up to about 5 years, and the Internet Research
Task Force aiming at solutions that could start deploying in about 5
years.
In some of my other fields of interest, such as medicine, the
acceleration of knowledge there also is such that 10 years is a long
time, and very few will express opinions beyond that. Bell Labs
could, indeed, look that far ahead given the rate of knowledge growth
in 1950.
>And they are not happy with
>others doing research that may obsolete their investments.
>But also there is a special issue about whether corporations can
>be open and work in the open way that is needed for a feedback system's
>development.
>
>So I don't see how corporate entities can be seen as the most important
>aspect of Internet development. While scientists working in government
>with the academic and even the coroporate community can work in the open
>way that is needed. That is what I have learned from my research
>of the Internet's early development. Also there is an international
>issue with regard to Internet development that has to be understood
>and taken up. There is a need for international collaboration to
>make Internet development possible.
>
>There was an interesting discussion online about all this in 1997
>-- about who can do the basic research and how Bell Labs was able
>to support basic research because it was regulated -=
>It's online at http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/discussion.txt
>
>>To me, netizens have to operate in such a politicized environment.
>
>What are you saying here? What do you see are the implications
>of operating in such a "politicized environment"?
Howard> Constant compromise. Lobbying, not presented as abstract
goods but to give all parties a sense they are playing in a
non-zero-sum game.
>
>
>The key I feel is understanding the nature of the Internet and
>what it needs for its further development. To me its a social
>question, not one of commercial self interest.
Howard> The social question _includes_ commercial self-interest,
unless you are talking about a completely socialist system where a
central body provides funding. Or do you have some other funding
model in mind?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] interesting comment from Einar Stefferud on "Behind Closed Doors"
- ----- Original Message -----
>From: Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>
>To: ORSC Policy <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:31 AM
>Subject: [ORSC.DOMAIN-POLICY] Fwd: IP: Behind Closed Doors: Planning the
>Next Generation DNS?
I agree with Dave Farber's comment (below), in that I also disagree with
Ronda Hauben's slant on this NAS DNS Study's first meeting, but I do agree
with her sense of alarm that something is not right in what has happened
with the staffing of this study, and the direction it is taking.
In particular, it is my fear that this NAS study group is staffed with far
too many ICANNites who will channel the work into the framework of defending
the past work of ICANN and continue moving down the same path of handing
control of the Internet to the Intellectual Property Interests.
Quite frankly, the panel seems to be trying to fix the "fact" that the DNS
is not a Directory Service, just because the panel members initially believe
it should be a Directory Service.
(Actually, I think that "facts" are not something for someone to "fix";-)...
I believe the NAS panel should be looking for ways to add a directory
service for users, in addition to the existing DNS (distinguished name)
service.
Or they should be looking for ways to get DNS naming out of the
clutches of ICANN;-)... But here, the foxes are in charge of the Chicken
Coop...
And hiding behind the NAS Study rules for secret meetings.
On Substance, the Staff has not yet discovered that those (unidentified)
people who years ago promised the US Govt Bureaucrats that the DNS would
"soon" be replaced with a "Good Directory Service" did not (and still do
not) understand the different purposes of DNS Name resolvers and
Personal/Service/Product Directories.
The NAS Study staff seems to be amazed that all their prior efforts to kill
the DNS have not succeeded (yet).
The solution trick is to hide or bury the DNS under the desired new general
directory service (like IP is buried under DNS), not to replace the DNS with
a new Directory. The entire open architecture of the Internet is based on
layering of protocols and services, and Directory should be just another
service layer.
As I recall from when I worked on it, the original Magic Directory service
was called OSI ISO/CCITT X.500 ("The Directory Service"), which has since
been reduced to LDAP for use on the Internet. LDAP is still with us, but it
fails to provide the imaginary magic total service that lets everyone find
everything they are thinking about with little or no effort.
Aside from that, we have all of the various Search Engine Services and other
stuff like RealNames attempting to service the branding industries need to
assert private ownership over all use of brand names. I note that Brand
Names are rarely imbedded in any kind of naming hierarchy such that a brand
name will by itself take you to all the stores where related branded stuff
is available for sale.
Brand names, when used in commerce, do not identify the category of the
brand's "class of commercial use". Hence Brands are inherently ambiguous in
their fundamental design.
In fact, there is no such thing as a global directory of all registered
brand names, which I would expect the branding (TradeMark) industry to build
for itself, and link to the DNS Service with a Brand Name Resolver
Service;-)...
After all, it is the TM Industry that knows where all the trademarks are
listed.
Interestingly, they seem to have such a list, but they charge huge fees for
each specific search requested by its industry users (lawyers). Works a lot
like a monopoly (or a Cartel when viewed as an International conspiracy).
In my view, the great error in the NAS Study is that, contrary to the NAS
starting premise that DNS should be a directory, I find that the DNS MUST
NOT be converted into (or replaced by) a directory. So, I suspect that they
are starting with their conclusion (ICANN is it) and trying to find the
problem "it" solves.
The DNS is only an object naming service, such that its registered names may
be used in building addresses for web sites, EMail posting and delivery
points, etc., and referenced by directories of many kinds.
Even the Telephone Directory System is not a naming system. It is a system
for relating existing (Civil) names and addresses from Civil Naming and
Addressing Systems to Phone Numbers, without concern for duplicate names
(collisions), thus leaving the directory users to resolve ambiguities with
their own devices. It should be noted that the telephone directory is
careful to avoid number collisions, with the same number attached to more
than one named holder.
My general concern is that the study panel has been severely biased in its
membership, which makes its secrecy most unwelcome in this instance. not
withstanding NSA Study Traditions and prior NAS Study results.
This study may well be the case that breaks the tradition.
But, you all should read Ronda's NAS Study Report and decide for yourselves.
Best;-)...\Stef
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 04:09:16 -0400
>To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
>Subject: IP: Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
>
>I am sending this to IP for its reporting on the open meeting NOT
>for the point of view taken by the author which I happen to disagree
>with. The National Research Council is the study arm of the National
>Academies of Sciences and performs studies usually motivated by the
>Government. I have served on many such study committees and for 10
>years served on the Telecommunications and the Computer Science
>Board. The tone of this report makes it seem that the closed door
>sessions are somehow bad. My experience is that they serve a useful
>purpose in exposing the real facts that are essential to the value
>of the resultant report. The panels have in my experience both been
>well balanced and very willing to tick off both the sponsors and the
>NRC if necessary in order to seek the truth. There have been
>attempts to open all NRC panel meetings and the courts, wisely in
>my opinion , have rejected such changes.
>
>These panels do in fact seek the truth. Witness the crypto panel as
>just one example of many.
>
>Dave
>
>>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:02:59 -0400 (EDT)
>>From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
>>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>>Subject: Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>It is important that folks know what is happening with the
>>new committee at the National Academy of Science that has
>>been created to write a report for Congress proposing the
>>next generation DNS. Following is brief excerpt and the url
>>for an article published in Telepolis on Friday about the first
>>meeting of the committee: Ronda
>>
>>
>> Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
>> 20.04.2001
>>
>> Report on the First Meeting of the NAS Committee on Internet Searching
>> and the Domain Name System
>>
>> The first meeting of the new National Academy of Science (NAS)
>> committee to study the Domain Name System (DNS) demonstrated the sharp
>> contrast between the closed processes of the committee and the broad
>> mandate from their US government sponsors. Those attending the one
>> open session in two days of otherwise closed meetings were told that a
>> reason this session was open to the public was because there is a
>> legal requirement that a NAS committee cannot meet with its government
>> sponsors in closed session.
>>
>> Though the study was requested by the U.S. Congress, the sponsors for
>> the study are the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S.
>> Department of Commerce (DOC). At this meeting [0] of the committee,
>> the sponsors were invited to present the rationale and the need for
>> the study and the issues to be emphasized or avoided by the committee.
>>
>>
>> See http://www.telepolis.de/english/inhalt/te/7421/1.html
>
>
>
>For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
_______________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe please see http://lists.open-rsc.org
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #384
******************************
