Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 398
Netizens-Digest Monday, April 29 2002 Volume 01 : Number 398
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] ICANN -- complete message
Re[2]: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
[netz] linguistic part of it
[netz] Vint Cerf: The Internet is for Everyone
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: Re: [netz] ICANN -- complete message
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
>>>From: John Horvath <h8801joh@helka.iif.hu>
>>
>>What Dan and Luis brought up are points that most will agree with and
>>that I also support. However, it still doesn't answer the very hear of
>>the question: what system can you put in place of ICANN?
One of the problems of the ICANN effort and that which led up to it
is the notion of "stakeholders". I've done a little research on
this, and the term, in this context, seems to have first appeared in
an Ira Magaziner memo around 1998. I've never found a precise
definition of "stakeholder," except perhaps for someone that assists
at the execution of a vampire :-).
To some extent, stakeholders indeed seemed to be named on the basis
of financial interest and/or lobbying ability.
I'll ignore the addressing part of ICANN for the moment and focus on
naming, where most of the controversy exists. First, the web
explosion has overloaded the DNS to become a "white pages" or even
"yellow pages" service, which it was never intended to do.
There's a truism in software, at least, that there are no technical
solutions to management problems. The management problem here is a
desire to control trademarks, squat on potential names, etc., in a
system that was not designed for the purpose. Stakeholders are often
people that don't want to be confused by the facts. Unfortunately, I
often find the same thing of self-appointed "collectives." Some
technologies are not intuitively obvious.
In general, people have let the original engineers run the addressing
system, because it is less controversial, simply won't work without
centralized authority, and can to some extent be enforced by the
major IP service providers.
I don't see a long-term solution to the naming problem until the
"stakeholders", etc., draw up a list of business, etc., requirements,
and a directory system meeting these requirements can be developed.
>>
>>This might sound academic, but I fear it's something which needs to be
>>looked into immediately. Because I have a feeling that people like
>>Esther Dyson are playing for time. Because of the opposition which
>>confronted the Dyson regime, they ended up creating something that could
>>never work in practice. Meanwhile, Dyson has now taken up sides with the
>>opponents of ICANN. However, this is not because of genuine concern for
>>users of the Internet to decide their own fate, but to eventually leave
>>the whole affair in such a mess that the powers that be turn to
>>neo-liberal logic to solve their problem; let the markets decide, the
>>private sector is more efficient, profitable, etc., etc., despite the
>>evidence that the private sector didn't want anything to do with the
>>development of the Internet until after it was more or less built by the
>>research community.
>>
>>Of course, leaving ICANN in the hand of government is the next best
>>thing for the private sector, since they have quite a bit of influence
>>(cf. Enron). However, it's not as good as if it's entirely in the hand
>>of the private sector, for there is still small measure of
>>accountability when in the hands of government (I stress the word
>>small).
>>
>>Yet what's the alternative? Saying that it should be in the hands of
>>"the public" is fine, but what does that mean? If politics were not so
>>overwhelmed by business interests, then this would naturally mean the
>>government, for we put our respective governments in place (or at least
>>some of us try). Of course, since this is clearly not a perfectly world,
>>we have NGOs, watchdog groups, and others which try their best to keep
>>an eye on government activity.
>>
>>The enigma of "Internet governance" is its global character, or at least
>>the need for it to be global in character. There needs to be a public
>>institution which has influence or at least connections, much like a
>>computer network, that spans the globe. And this is what is lacking.
>>Working through government, however, is convenient because it already
>>has structures in place for international collaboration. Perhaps putting
>>ICANN under the research auspices of countries, such as the proposed ERA
>>in Europe (the proposed European Research Area)? That's one solution,
>>but most poorer countries have little or no research infrastructure to
>>speak of.
>>
>>What about the UN? Perhaps it's possible to create a body with that
>>organisation, which is truly international, to handle what has become a
>>truly international resource. And of course, it's easier to put in place
>>watchdogs and observers within the UN -- one that can network and
>>co-ordinate with one another -- than any intergovernmental organisation.
>>
>>Has something like this been proposed before? Is it possible? Saying
>>that ICANN should be in the hands of users is fine, but as it has been
>>pointed out the question of user membership is a problem. It's not
>>simply a question of on-line identities; I have half a dozen different
>>e-mail accounts, and can easily maintain a virtual identity, an alias.
>>And this lies at the heart of the concept of a netizen, in the same way
>>as that of citizen; membership in a community. The community provides us
>>with an identity, and we are granted with rights and responsibilities
>>toward the community.
>>
>>And so how should we assume our identities, in conjunction or parallel
>>with our existing identities as citizens? This question is not a trivial
>>one, especially when considering the establishing the possibility of a
>>governing organisation outside the realms of national government.
>>
>>I would argue that finding an answer to this, that is, how to establish
>>a netizen identity -- not in just word, but deed -- will enable us to
>>better resolve the ICANN enigma and give us a clearer understanding of
>>how to apply the idea of Internet governance by users at large.
>>
>>Any thoughts on this?
>>
>>John
>>
v
y~h
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:45:23 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
JH> How does one police voting by these collectives? Can one of the
JH> people belong to more than one collective? What are the criteria for
JH> membership in collectives -- what if a collective throws me out?
Certainly as no state can deny citizenship to any citizen within this
country, this principle should apply also to this system.
>>Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by
>>themselves effectively when they are united in a common cause.
I don't think it has been proven. I doubt any democracy without some
central organ of government endured. Of course Internet changes
everything. This could mean that online democracy can change this
fact, too. But since it's not proved I am for some central office that
should rule within the rules and requirements majority of citizens
(online members) voted for.
Since almost nobody answered my question I am throwing it in
discussion: Who should finance this all?
UN is not really functional and it is very slow and thus not flexible.
OECD does make sense for me...
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- little brother says: "minimal state!" -*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:47:38 -0400
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
Hello: Once the people make up their minds that it is important enough to
unite in one common effort which is keep the corporations and their allies
in government from privatizing the internet, any "policing" becomes
unnecessary. As an individual of the collective you know what you are
suppossed to do and do it for the benefit of all.
It doesn't make any sense to belong to several collectives, you belong to
your regional collective, which works in harmony with the other collectives
in a federation. The leaders are many and yet there is no command, everyone
has the same rank and everything is done together.
During the Spanish Civil War the libertarian collectives of Catalonia and
Aragon were successful, not to mention the industries throughout Catalonia
and Barcelona itself. So it is a proven fact that the people can govern
themselves effectively.
Lou D.
>From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:48:20 -0400 (EDT)
>
>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
>
> >Hello: ICANN can be replaced by a federation of collectives run by the
>people.
>
>How does one police voting by these collectives? Can one of the
>people belong to more than one collective? What are the criteria for
>membership in collectives -- what if a collective throws me out?
>
> > Decisions will be made by and for the people and without
> >interference from the government who favors control by the
> >corporations.
> >Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by
> >themselves effectively when they are united in a common cause.
>
>Examples of proof (i.e., of pure popular democracy in a
>technologically advanced state)?
>
> >Lou D.
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:06:38 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
>Hello: Once the people make up their minds that it is important
>enough to unite in one common effort which is keep the corporations
>and their allies in government from privatizing the internet, any
>"policing" becomes unnecessary.
Real-world problem as of right now: the Internet's routing system,
which directs traffic among sites, is running out of capability with
current growth rates. We estimate there are 4 to 7 years of life left
in the current paradigm.
Internet routing was originally designed to be highly hierarchical,
as is the worldwide telephone network. The trend is that users want
to be non-hierarchical and have totally free choice in selecting
providers, not having to renumber their IP addresses, etc.
The routing system is staggering under the increasing burden of /24
prefixes. The larger the /number, the smaller the number of
computers in a given prefix. Presumably, I am a member of the people.
My network is a /29. Shouldn't I have the right to advertise it?
Our current technology is quite limited in its capability to add
prefixes, and interconnections of prefixes, indefinitely. I am
actively involved in the technical research community to find
alternatives, and I assure you that such an alternative remains a
research problem.
By limiting the size of prefixes, we can make the system last longer.
Is that policing? Do the people, as a whole, even know why prefix
growth and greater meshing of prefixes is a problem, much less how to
fix it?
>As an individual of the collective you know what you are suppossed
>to do and do it for the benefit of all.
Have you repealed the tragedy of the commons?
>It doesn't make any sense to belong to several collectives, you
>belong to your regional collective, which works in harmony with the
>other collectives in a federation.
A large number of people do not have a native region, but would
belong to several. They range from migrant farmworkers to consultants
in private jets. Given the focus of this list, it's essential to
recognize that the Internet itself IS NOT REGIONAL BUT GLOBAL.
One can argue quite reasonably that the Internet runs because of the
informal collaboration of a few thousand routing engineers. Of
course, many of these are paid by corporations and their government
allies, so this is evil, right?
>The leaders are many and yet there is no command, everyone has the
>same rank and everything is done together.
Many leaders of the people...where have I heard that before? Perhaps
the Eighth Route Army on the Long March? Where the collective
leaders, such as Mao and Chou, formed a peoples' corporate-free
paradise?
>During the Spanish Civil War the libertarian collectives of
>Catalonia and Aragon were successful, not to mention the industries
>throughout Catalonia and Barcelona itself. So it is a proven fact
>that the people can govern themselves effectively.
It's a proven fact, given your data, that collectives were able to
operate for a short period of time. What? They were overthrown by
military action? I suppose that's one of the problems if not everyone
collectivizes at once.
If you are looking for historical examples, I suggest you examine the
Israeli kibbutzim and moshavim, which can demonstrate operation close
to a century. But they are limited to agricultural and small industry
scope.
Now, as to ICANN. Ignore for the moment the much more complex DNS
problem. There is a finite IP address space, even with IPv6. I hope
you will agree that the international telephone system won't work
unless phone numbers are unique. The same problem exists in the
Internet. ICANN, replacing IANA, delegates blocks of address space
to continental-level registries, which further delegate to local
registries or to using organizations. Stewardship of a finite
resource is inherently centralized at the root, although it can
decentralize from a common root. How do independent collectives deal
with that?
>Lou D.
>
>>From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
>>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>>Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule?
>>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:48:20 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
>>
>>>Hello: ICANN can be replaced by a federation of collectives run by
>>>the people.
>>
>>How does one police voting by these collectives? Can one of the
>>people belong to more than one collective? What are the criteria for
>>membership in collectives -- what if a collective throws me out?
>>
>>> Decisions will be made by and for the people and without
>>>interference from the government who favors control by the
>>>corporations.
>>>Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by
>>>themselves effectively when they are united in a common cause.
>>
>>Examples of proof (i.e., of pure popular democracy in a
>>technologically advanced state)?
>>
>> >Lou D.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:17:12 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] linguistic part of it
This all sound to me too much communist-like and since I spent short
while living in communist dictatorship I hate it as much as it is
needed and required.
So, let's talk about community and not commune, about people freely
living in groups they founded using their free will and not
collectives. "Commune" and "collectives" sounds too much red or
extreme leftist to be precise.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- if you save the world too often, it begins to expect it -*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] Vint Cerf: The Internet is for Everyone
Hi,
This is a reposting from the nettime mailing list. It is a response to RFC
3271 which can be seen online at http://rfc3271.x42.com. It is a response,
the second to Vint Cerf, the author of the RFC. I think readers of the
netizens list will find this of interest.
Take care.
Jay
>From bbs.thing.net!owner-nettime-l Sun Apr 28 19:58:09 2002
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:35:12 +0200
From: Franz Schaefer <schaefer@mond.at>
To: nettime-l <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Vinc Cerf: The Internet is for Everyone
Sender: nettime-l-request@bbs.thing.net
Reply-To: Franz Schaefer <schaefer@mond.at>
> > (Can anyone help to decipher this document? The Internet is for
> > everyone. According to Vinc Cerf this is going to be the new ideology of
> > the Internet Society. One really wonders what the previous ideology then
> > was. The document then goes on and talks about staggering growth,
> > Internet access on other planets, the tremendous rise of e-commerce (as
> > if the dotcom crash did not happen). Cerf continues the old line of
> > accusing only governments while remaining silent over the rise of
> > corporate control over the Internet. Completely uncritically of what's
> > going on inside ICANN he calls for unconditional support of ICANN, etc.
> > Geert)
the document is written as an RFC (request for comments). as most people
here probably know, all technical aspects are defined in this form. RFC
are the "standards" of the internet. (after they have been discussed and
accepted).
i assume that cerf wrote his memo in the form of an RFC in order to
appeal to techies like me. what he forgets is that techies usually are not
that stupid and most of us are not very happy with the load of neo-liberal
bullshit expressed in this RFC. anyway. here is my C.
let us dissect the dialectic of the RFC3271 document first:
cerf repeats his the title of the document "the internet is for
everyone" over and over again. a noble goal but what he fails is to define
what he means with "the internet". he pictures an internet that growth
exponentially. but into what kind of internet? does he mean a big shopping
mall?
indirectly, from where he thinks that the freedom of the internet is
threatened and from where he thinks that the internet should grow we can
deduce what kind of internet (and what kind of world) he envisions:
to quote from the document:
"Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if legislation around
the world creates a thicket of incompatible laws that hinder the
growth of electronic commerce, stymie the protection of intellectual
property, and stifle freedom of expression and the development of
market economies."
obviously this guy does not understand that "protection of intellectual
property" is one of the biggest threats to the freedom of the internet
today.
what about "market economies"? while cerf seems to know that today
2/3 of the world live in poverty and he knows that the internet is not there
yet. to quote from the RFC:
" ...it is sobering to realize that only half of the Earth's population
has ever made a telephone call."
it is the "market economy" of today that is responsible for that
sobering fact. a market economy is not interested in bringing internet to
places where there is no money to make. a market economy is interested to
bring the internet to people who have money. and that are the people who
*already* have internet today.
interestingly this kind of neo-liberal ideology does not hesitate to brake
it's own "laws" and sanction freedom in order to destroy competing
ideologies. think about the trade restriction the USA imposes on cuba. in
the same way this market economy will be the first to limit growth and
freedom of the internet as soon as it threatens to limit their profits.
actually this is what it already does: see the DMCA. and it is done under
the premise of "protection of intellectual property".
it seems cerf does not want to look like an asshole that only wants to
spread capitalism so he tries to point out some other uses of the internet.
e.g: democracy. quote from the RFC again:
"The Internet can facilitate democratic practices in unexpected
ways. Did you know that proxy voting for stock shareholders is now
commonly supported on the Internet? Perhaps we can find additional
ways in which to simplify and expand the voting franchise in other
domains, including the political, as access to Internet increases."
mister cerf's understanding of democracy is certainly limited. besides the
fact that he does not understand how capitalism is fundamentally opposed to
democracy, all he can associate with democracy is the word "voting". while
voting on the internet could be convenient the new quality that the internet
could bring into democracy is that it could solve the problem that only the
rich can afford to raise their voice in the media and in election campaigns.
with an internet where it does not cost you an arm and a leg to publish your
ideas the chances for the poor to have an equal voice are at least a little
bit better. again here the question of "intellectual property" is critical,
since it is the intellectual property laws that are used by conventional media
to have a stranglehold on information.
all in all the piece from mister cerf is extremely poor. it is sad to know
that this man is the chief at such an important internet institution like
ICANN. maybe he just go back to working on technical details and stay out of
politics.
greetings from vienna, austria.
mond <fs@mond.at>
- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. Franz Schaefer NEW Fingerprint:
.. +43/699/172 01 007 +43/676/319 52 31 GPG: 57C2 C0CC
... schaefer@mond.at 6F0A 54C7 0D88 D37E
... http://www.mond.at/ C17C CB16 CFA2 F632
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
- --------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #398
******************************
