Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 360
Netizens-Digest Monday, July 24 2000 Volume 01 : Number 360
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] discussion on the role of govt in development of Internet
[none]
[netz] GAO issues report about ICANN
[netz] US GAO ICANN article announcement
[netz] Counterspin Interview about GAO Report
[netz] Interview about GAO Report done by FAIR online in audio
[netz] Response to Weinstein/Neumann Proposal to replace ICANN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] discussion on the role of govt in development of Internet
Some recent discussion on nettime about the role of government in
the development of the Internet:
Ronda Hauben ronda@is.org wrote:
Declan McCullagh <declan@wired.com> wrote:
At 09:32 6/21/2000 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>There needs to be a summary of this good process and the lessons
>>taken to determine how to continue a good role for government
>>in the continued development of the Internet.
>In theory, this is a nice view. In reality, it doesn't happen.
Sure it doesn't happen when there there is the effort to ignore
government and to give it over to the pressure from the corporate
enties who are certainly *not* ignoring government, but doing what
they can to keep government and science away from anything that
will interfere with their bottom line profits.
>I would refer you to the accumulated work of several decades of public
>choice theorists. They have pointed out, among other things, that while
>there may be market failures, there are also "government failures." Just
>because a person is a government employee does not automatically mean he
>will look out for the "public interest" -- in fact, he's going to be
>looking out for his own self-interest. History has shown that you can't
>create a structure to isolate the "good" things without having "bad" things
>-- and I think an unacceptable number of bad things -- follow.
I guess your "public choice theorists" whoever they are, at least
from your account, don't recognize that we wouldn't have interactive
computing, or Unix tools, or the Internet if not for government
and the good role that it played in supporting science.
We would still have punch cards and stand alone computers and
only the microsoft variety of corporate dominated operating system
with all its problems.
>Pie-in-the-sky rhetoric may have its place, but let's get down to cool
>reality here for a moment. And let's not forget abuses like these:
No the pie-in-the-sky is actually those who have been preaching
leave government to the corporate sector to enrich them and
to leave the people without any public sector.
Good government takes effort - it takes citizens overseeing government,
it takes an active press that watches the abuse and challenges it.
These are some beginning tasks.
Maybe you are happy to cede all the institutions of society, especially
government to major corporate entities to have a field day with.
I am not happy to cede that without a challenge.
We need good government, government that benefits from the scientific
lessons that have made it possible to create the important computer
achievements of our time.
We need institutions that are appropriate for the greater oversight
over technology that a cybernetic society requires.
And surprisingly, we have something to learn from if we look at how
these new scientific achievements were created.
We need an institution inside the US government that will build
on the lessons of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO)
so that it can make it possible to scale the US portion of the Internet.
And a number of other countries also have government scientific institutions
that were created to develop computers and computer science.
We need knowledge of these institutions and a way to pressure that,
at least in the US, the lessons of IPTO be summed up and used to
create an appropriate entity to continue the needed computer science
leadership to support the continued scientific and technical development
of the Internet.
In the US we have had IPTO, we have had Bell Labs (when we still
had AT&T before the breakup). These have been premier scientific
institutions, in the case of IPTO, inside of government, and in
the case of Bell Labs, supported by the requirements of the government
regulation on AT&T.
Regulation is part of the scientific development of government.
There are those that only want regulation that will benefit corporate
entities and they preach "no regulation" for the rest of us.
But that doesn't stop the regulation, only it makes it totally
in the interests of the corporate entities and leaves everyone
else at their mercy.
>>There is an infrastructure of the Internet that needs government
>>protection.
>Reasonable people may differ here. I'd rather the Net develop free of
>government meddling.
I haven't seen any discussion challenging the need for government
protection for the infrastructure of the Internet.
To call protection "meddling" is not an argument or a form of
discussion. It's the opposite. It acknoweldges there is no
good argument to say that you can put an infrastructure like
the infrastructure of the Internet, into the hands ofvested
interests and have any public benefit from that process.
That is what is happening with ICANN and should contain a lesson
that can be understood from this experience.
>>If there is to be a continuation of the development that has
>>made the Internet an important new human-computer-communications system,
>>the public sector has to oversee and protect that development.
>What, the same laudable "public sector" of government bureaucrats and
>publicity-hungry legislators who gave us the Clipper Chip, the
>Communications Decency Act, CALEA, proposals to ban unapproved encryption,
>plans to wiretap a huge percentage of simultaneous telephone conversations,
>the DMCA, the "copying software for your mom is a felony" NET Act, plans to
>ban gambling online, plans to require banks to monitor customers for
>"suspicious" activities, the creation of ICANN with a secret board
>selection process approved by the White House, Secret Service databases
>with your drivers' license photo surreptiously acquired from DMVs, Y2K
>liability "immunization" for well-heeled corporations, plans to allow
>secret searches of your home, ECHELONesque surveillance schemes, plans to
>ban anonymity, treaties to limit privacy, restrictions on publication of
>important chemical data online, plans to make it a crime to link to
>drug-related info online, and a host of other schemes noteworthy only for
>how pernicious they are?
What are you saying? Are you saying that government is only "pernicious"?
That we should let IBM and MCI make the rules and that will be the
solution for us?
Government is an institution that has evolved over a long period of
time. Obviously it needs the means for citizens to affect what
it is doing. That is a challenge to be taken up.
To claim that we shouldn't take up the challenge, to claim that
the creation of ICANN with a secret board selection process
because the US government took up to violate its own laws and
processes with very little press oversight, is a sign of the problem
with your claim.
Obviously Wired and other computer press were needed to yell that
there is a corporate government control act that says that the US
government can't give public property and functions to the private
sector as the Clinton Administration set out to do in creating
ICANN.
It would have been good for Wired and other computer press to
report that there was an alternative proposal submitted for the
protection of the Internet's infrastructure - my proposal.
It would have been helpful had they monitored the opposition and let
the public know of the problems.
Unfortunately, instead there are those in the media and elsewhere
claiming that instead of monitoring and overseeing government,
we should ignore it.
I don't see the Wall Street Journal telling the Fortune 500 companies
to ignore government. That they shouldn't put any pressure
on government to do things in their interests.
Instead I see folks telling the public stay away from government.
There is a nice book called "Government and Science" by
Don Price. It documents some of the efforts withnin the US
government over a long period of time to have institutions
in government and regulations by government that are scientifically
developed and that support the development of more public processes
and wealth. These include labor legislation, farming innovation
like the agricultural colleges, and support for scientific work
like the creation of ARPA.
The challenge is to take up to discuss how to get government to
do what is in the public interest, not to cede government to
the corporate vested interests.
>Sure, let's let those same folks "continue the development of the Net."
My longer paper takes on some of the challenge of looking at a
good institutional form that developed in government and trying
to understand how it functioned and what happened with it.
That is what I am proposing is some of what is needed.
You don't comment on that, but ignore it and substitute examples
where there aren't scientific processes functioning.
Why?
The 5 part draft I have done so far which starts at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/arpa_ipto.txt
(and continues with the other URL's given at the end of the first part)
merits serious examination and discussion, not flippant dismissal.
There is a serious problem to be solved, which has to do with
the protection of the Internet.
There may be disagreements about what to do about the problem,
but those who agree it is a real problem need to find some way
to discuss it.
And to figure out how to collaborate.
I am proposing that serious discussion of the draft paper I have
been working on is a start and would welcome folks finding ways
to help spread it around and get it out to those interested in
this problem.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
ronda@ais.org
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:55:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [none]
The following comment on ICANN was posted on the IFWP mailing list:
> From: owner-list-digest@ifwp.org (IFWP_LIST)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:34:08 -0400
Subject: Re: [IFWP] That register.com commercial
> Ellen Rony wrote:
>
> > The Registrar Accreditation Agreement implies a prohibition against
> > warehousing of domain names:
. . .
> It doesn't make any difference what the Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement, any other ICANN agreements, their own bylaws, or even the
> laws of the United States say. Since there is no effective means of
> penalizing anyone who breaks these supposed laws and rules, they can
> be violated with impunity. ICANN and the U.S. Government, as regards
> the Internet, have become a gangster state.
============================================================
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] GAO issues report about ICANN
For those on the Netizens list interested in how the US govt is
privatizing the Internet's infrastructure without any regard for
law or procedure- have a look at the recently issued GAO
report on ICANN (Government Accounting Office).
I haven't had the time to read it through yet but what I did
read indicates that the U.S. Dept of Commerce claims now that
in creating and transferring the infrastructure to
a private entity it is not transferring any public property.
But that it wouldn't be appropriate to transfer public property.
In any case, I want to sit down and read it through and welcome
discussion and comments on the Netizens list on the report from
the GAO.
www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:57:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] US GAO ICANN article announcement
Who Can Watch the Watchdog?
The GAO Report on ICANN is Issued
by Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
On Friday, July 7, 2000 the US Government Accounting Office
(GAO) posted its report....The report is interesting, both
in what it does and what it doesn't do....
One of the essential issues the GAO raises is whether the U.S.
government has the authority to transfer government property or
functions to a private non profit corporation. This is an important
question in view of the U.S. government plan to transfer key
assets of the Internet infrastructure to a private corporation. The
GAO Report notes that the Department of Commerce "states that no
government functions or property have been transferred" under its
agreements with ICANN.....
See http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/8369/1.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:51:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Counterspin Interview about GAO Report
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has done an interview
with me about the GAO-ICANN report in their radio program this
week. Their radio program is called "Counterspin".
See their web site for when the program airs in different
locations.
The URL is http://www.fair.org/
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Interview about GAO Report done by FAIR online in audio
The radio interview that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) did
with me on the GAO report is now online in audio.
______________________________________________________________
A recent report from the General Accounting Office appears to give
a green light to something called ICANN, or the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Critics call it a
brazen attempt by private interests to gain significant control
over the Internet, while the few media accounts of the
controversial agency indicate that ICANN will bring some
much-needed order to the online world. Technology writer Ronda
Hauben will join us to explain a story that most people may have
never heard about, but will likely determine the future of the
Internet.
The general URL for counterspin
Linkname: CounterSpin
URL: http://www.webactive.com/webactive/cspin/
For the interview (I think)
Linkname:
URL:
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/cspin/cs
pin20000714.ra&start="15:34.5"&proto=pnm
This is all online at http://www.fair.org/
ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:00:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] Response to Weinstein/Neumann Proposal to replace ICANN
Hi,
Another criticism of ICANN has appeared. This time from Lauren Weinstein
and Peter Neumann who both have substantial reputations on the Internet.
It is contained in a proposal to replace ICANN. It can be seen at:
http://www.pfir.org/statements/policies .
Ronda Hauben (ronda@panix.com) posted the following response to the
Weinstein/Neumann proposal. Following her response is the Executive
Summary of the proposal taken from the web site.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
> PFIR Statement on Internet Policies, Regulations, and Control
Where is there a way to focus and welcome discussion on any of this?
It is good to see the recognition that ICANN is an anti-model for
Internet governance.
But in order to not just end up with a next generation ICANN it
is important to sort out the problems that ICANN represents,
and the principles needed to protect the vital functions of the
Internet infrastructure from "vested interests"
>It is increasingly clear that the Internet, as embodied by the World Wide
>Web and a wide variety of other Net-based services and technologies is
>rapidly becoming a critical underpinning and foundation to virtually every
>aspect of our lives, from the very fundamental to the exceedingly mundane.
The Internet is *not* embodied by the World Wide Web but is a general
purpose interactive human computer communications system.
This is crucial to keep in mind and to recognize.
The efforts to deny the general purpose nature of the Internet
and the interactive nature of the Internet is at some of the
basis of the problem with the conception of ICANN which has
been created to protect certain very narrow vested interests.
>It is likely that few aspects of commerce, education, communications,
>government, entertainment, or any other facets of our daily existence will
>be unaffected by this exceedingly rapid change that is sweeping the globe
>far more rapidly than would have been anticipated only a few years ago.
Somehow this is secondary.
The point is that the Internet is a unique new system and one
that needs to be understood as something new, not as only an
improvement of something old.
>These global and interconnected developments, unprecedented in human
>history, suggest that decisions regarding policies, regulation, control, and
>related Internet activities will be of crucial concern to the *entire*
>world's population. Consequently, the proper representation of many varied
>interests regarding such activities must be respected.
Good to see the acknowledgment that the "entire" world's population
has an interest in the future of the Internet. But then one can't
go and try to talk about "proper representation".
The issue, instead, which a 1997 U.S. government report pointed out
is that there is a public interest involved.
This is different from representing different vested interests in
a so called "proper representation" way.
To determine how to fulfill the public interest one must go outside
of those with a vested interest.
So there is a need to determine how to serve the "public interest"
and to contain and protect against the "vested interests".
Unfortunately the proposal you put forward still includes the
"vested interests" only it enlarges the circle of these.
I want to recommend that Lauren and Peter and others interested
in the problem of how to provide the needed institutional form
to protect the vital functions of the Internet's infrastructure
look at the proposal I submitted to Ira Magaziner at his request
and then to the U.S. Department of Commerce before they even
had the ICANN proposal.
My proposal is up at the NTIA web site and also at both of
my web sites. It is called "The Internet an International Public
Treasure" and it is online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
It is also online at http://www.ais.org/~ronda
I identify the problem that has to be solved, whereas I don't
feel the PFIR statement does. And that problem is how to protect
the vital functions of the Internet from the vested interests.
How to have these vital functions administered in a way that
will serve the long term interests of the Internet and its
users around the world, all of them.
To do this there has to be a way to protect those doing the administration
from the vested interests who have narrow self interests they are
trying to serve.
It won't help to put all of the vested interests into an organization
and give them representative rights. The problem to be solved is
how to protect the organization from them, not how to give them
the ability to exercise their power.
Also my proposal describes how to do this, and the way is in line
with the way that the Internet was born and reared. And that
is to create a working prototype based on the needs and to have
it function in the most open way possible and online as much
as possible. And then to see if that prototype does what is
needed, and if so to build on it. And if not, to learn from the
experience, to build a new and better prototype.
Also my proposal is that computer scientists supported by their
governments be the people who build this prototype, not business
people or others who don't have a way to understand the nature
of the technology and science that has made it possible to create
the Internet and to have it spread around the world.
It would be good to see some means of discussing my original proposal
to the Dept of Commerce, as part of any broader discussion that
goes on about what is needed to protect the vital functions of
the Internet's infrastructure.
I welcome comments and discussion on my proposal "The Internet
An International Public Treasure" and invite
people to disseminate it or to help find a means to give it the
needed public discussion and exploration it should have.
Cheers
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
ronda@ais.org
http://www.ais.org/~ronda
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html
PFIR Statement on Internet Policies, Regulations, and Control
July 23, 2000
http://www.pfir.org/statements/policies
PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
[ To subscribe or unsubscribe to/from this list, please send the
command "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" respectively (without the
quotes) in the body of an e-mail to "pfir-request@pfir.org". ]
Executive Summary
- -----------------
It is increasingly clear that the Internet, as embodied by the World Wide
Web and a wide variety of other Net-based services and technologies is
rapidly becoming a critical underpinning and foundation to virtually every
aspect of our lives, from the very fundamental to the exceedingly mundane.
It is likely that few aspects of commerce, education, communications,
government, entertainment, or any other facets of our daily existence will
be unaffected by this exceedingly rapid change that is sweeping the globe
far more rapidly than would have been anticipated only a few years ago.
These global and interconnected developments, unprecedented in human
history, suggest that decisions regarding policies, regulation, control, and
related Internet activities will be of crucial concern to the *entire*
world's population. Consequently, the proper representation of many varied
interests regarding such activities must be respected.
It is our belief that the current mechanism for making many key decisions in
this regard, as embodied in The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, "ICANN" (http://www.icann.org), is proving to be inadequate to the
task at hand. We believe that this is the result primarily of structural
and historical factors, not the fault of the individuals directing ICANN's
activities, whom we feel have been genuinely attempting to do the best
possible job that they could with highly complex, contentious, and thankless
tasks.
We are convinced that the Internet's future, and the future of humanity that
will be depending upon it to ever increasing degrees, would be best served
by consideration being given to the establishment of a new, not-for-profit,
voluntary, international organization to coordinate issues of Internet
policies and related matters. This organization would be based on a
balanced representation of private-sector commercial and non-commercial
interests, and public-sector interests including governmental bodies and
organizations, educational institutions, and other enterprises.
Although the proposed course of action is expected to be difficult, the
risks of inaction are enormous and likely to increase dramatically in the
coming years.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #360
******************************
