Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 507
Netizens-Digest Friday, April 18 2003 Volume 01 : Number 507
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:28:22 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
>
>
>> [JH] The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and
>> electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc.
>
> [HCB]Why not throw in the birds in the sky and the fish in the ocean
> as well?
Whoa, whoa. I took this as a somewhat poetic acknowledgement that when
we consider whether "the Internet" has been "privatized," we need to
consider several different aspects. Unfortunately, because Jay doesn't
directly address most of what we've said so far, the discussion remains
muddled.
> I do note that you have infrequently answered any specifics I have
> posted, but have responded with general and political statements.
I think this is an absolutely legitimate gripe. I can't judge how wide
the ideological divide actually is between Jay and others because Jay
keeps dropping threads and starting new ones in his own language. I'm
not sure what time constraints or other considerations impel Jay to do
this, but I certainly find it confusing and frustrating.
>> [JH] The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US
>> government
>> shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science
>> Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the
>> Internet
>> via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final
>> responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US Department of
>> Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is for one
>> year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its obligations.
>
>
> [HCB] The US Government doesn't have oversight over the Internet,
> contracted out or not. It hasn't in years. Deal with it. There are a
> huge number of Internet governance issues that ICANN doesn't attempt
> to deal with.
OK, lessee.... The DOC and ICANN have an agreement that explains that
the US government wants the Domain Name System to be privatized, but
needs to be assured that the private sector can handle it. As I take
it, Howard, your point is that by Jay's own definition(?) of the
Internet, the DOC's role with ICANN can't be construed as "oversight of
the Internet," since "There are a huge number of Internet governance
issues that ICANN doesn't attempt to deal with."
Which seems to beg the question, who if anyone _does_ attempt to deal
with those issues?
It also seems worth noting that if ICANN _were_ cut loose from the DOC
altogether -- if the DNS were completely privatized(?) -- by Jay's
definition of the Internet it would still not make sense to say that the
Internet had been privatized. (See below; most info would still be in
the public domain, etc., etc.)
> [HCB] Ironically, the Interet operates not principally from oversight,
> but by cooperation. Yes, cooperation, often between Evil Corporations
> that see that cooperation producing profits -- and, incidentally, a
> great deal of social benefit.
The point about cooperation is pretty crucial. And the fact that big
corporations do play a big role in the day-to-day operation of the Net
is also important.
>> [JH] So the Internet has not yet been privatized and much of the
>> Internet is
>> still in the public domain. Many government departments have government
>> owned routers, many public educational institutions particiapte
>> intimately
>> in the Internet using public property and publicly employed people. Must
>> of the information on the Internet is in the public domain or is put on
>> the Internet without restriction by citizens and netizens who are
>> contributing to the content of the Internet without any profit or
>> personal
>> gain expected.
>
OK, but it seems that Jay opposes certain things that Howard supports or
does not oppose, as "privatization," even though they don't seem to
affect any of these points, at least not directly.
>> [JH] The private sector is not the people in general but that subset
>> of the
>> people who are motivated by private gain and profit.
>
> [HCB] Thus, they are evil, I guess.
Yeah, the idea that people can be neatly segmented into profit-seekers
and the pure of heart isn't likely to get us very far. But if this is
Jay's way of articulating suspicion about private-sector control of the
Net, OK. We might get farther by trying to, well, make some
distinctions. If corporations make profit off the hardware that makes
the Internet possible, well, they always have. If corporations decide
what I can say and do on the Internet, that stinks. That distinction
almost goes without saying, but we've tried to make other useful
distinctions.
Jay and I may agree in that I'm not interested in defending the economic
interests of corporations as "stakeholders." I'm confident that the
corporations can defend their interests without my help; I'm interested
in making the Net work for Netizens. I have very few preconceptions
about government and corporate roles in doing that.
>> [JH] ...This is the reality that someone seeing things form a
>> property ownership
>> point of view can not see but there are other points of view and from
>> these the reality looks and is different."
>
I don't think we get to choose between a "property ownership point of
view" and a social network/Netizen point of view (or whatever Jay would
care to call it). It's for the sake of the social network that I'm
trying to understand the ownership and control issues; this requires
attention to detail.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:44:22 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Luis De Quesada wrote:
> Hello Larry: I think this is a democratic forum. Pro- and
> anti-capitalistic speech I think is welcome here I think as long as it
> is ethical and respectful. For instance I can post that I want to keep
> the internet or make the internet a collective rather than a
> subsidiary for a corporation or corporations.
Heck, that's not even an anti-capitalist statement. (Sure, you might
make anti-capitalist statements when you explain your reasons.) But I
think Larry put the emphasis in the right place:
> Let us research and articulate where present Internet governance
> policy fails. Then let us discuss how we can influence to ameliorate
> policy.
>
> After all our theories and or expectations of the Internetwork have
> been expressed, should not we _constructively_ present practical
> solutions that allow Netizens to _realize_ those expectations?
I don't care how anti-capitalist anyone is; I just want to understand
the practical implications of their views.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:27:34 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Hello Mark: You have a point, however we are divided into two philosophies,
here on this list. One that sponsors corporate or capitalist thinking and
the other one who sponsors public domain, collectives, communes, etc. I
think Jay in his last posting did make practical implications, although he
also posted anti-corporate/capitalist views and naturally because he does
not favor privatization. Larry replied, "couldn't we avoid the
anti-capitalist political speak", which I think was already established (by
Ronda ) that since it is a democratic forum, Jay or anyone else can do.
Therefore I think my assertion is correct. If you or anyone asks a question
about a posting and you feel, that question has not been answered correctly
then you can always reply that you disagree with the answer and would the
person be more specific.
Luis
Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Luis De Quesada wrote:
>
> > Hello Larry: I think this is a democratic forum. Pro- and
> > anti-capitalistic speech I think is welcome here I think as long as it
> > is ethical and respectful. For instance I can post that I want to keep
> > the internet or make the internet a collective rather than a
> > subsidiary for a corporation or corporations.
>
> Heck, that's not even an anti-capitalist statement. (Sure, you might
> make anti-capitalist statements when you explain your reasons.) But I
> think Larry put the emphasis in the right place:
>
> > Let us research and articulate where present Internet governance
> > policy fails. Then let us discuss how we can influence to ameliorate
> > policy.
> >
> > After all our theories and or expectations of the Internetwork have
> > been expressed, should not we _constructively_ present practical
> > solutions that allow Netizens to _realize_ those expectations?
>
> I don't care how anti-capitalist anyone is; I just want to understand
> the practical implications of their views.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:21:50 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Luis,
>Hello Mark: You have a point, however we are divided into two philosophies,
>here on this list. One that sponsors corporate or capitalist thinking and
>the other one who sponsors public domain, collectives, communes, etc.
>
Actually, I'm not at all sure what philosophies most of the folks on the
list espouse, but there certainly are some differences, yes.
Of course Jay can post whatever he wants. If we want to understand each
other, much less to work together, we would be well-served to search
together for language that makes sense across whatever philosophical
differences we may have.
However anti-capitalist Jay may or may not be, he has not yet proposed
to smash all the capitalist hardware! So at least to some extent we all
seem to be willing to look for ways forward within a partially
capitalist world.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:49:54 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
>Hello Howard: You are asked for someone "wiser" to suggest effective ways in
>which you and Jay can communicate better. Well if I may be of help I'll gladly
>do so, although I do not consider myself "wiser" than anyone else on
>this list,
>in fact I am an apprentice, your apprentice, in matters of computers, the
>internet, etc.
>I think where you are going wrong is that you seem to react in an
>angry fashion
>at Jay's postings. Remarks like you just posted "I'm beginning to despair of
>it", "bah!" etc. If I may suggest, to let Jay post whatever he wants
>and if you
>feel that he has not answered your question in an accurate fashion, then post
>your reply and say, "Jay, I don't think my question has been
>answered correctly
>and then state your reasons", without getting angry. After all this is just a
>forum on issues pertaining the internet.
The Internet Engineering Task Force is the main technical "oversight"
body of the Internet, if any such body exists. Contrary to what seems
to be suggested as an authoritarian model of non-privatization, the
general motto of the IETF is:
"We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting
We believe in rough consensus and running code,"
And it is those last two words, and the issues surrounding them, that
are my concern. I want to deal with the policy implications of
things that actually exist, or can be implemented in a reasonable
time frame (18-36 months). Political and representational statements
aren't going affect that.
>ITs not CNN Crossfire (although at
>times it seemed so). And even in Crossfire you see everybody shaking hands and
>smiling at each other at the end, that's why I enjoy watching it whenever I
>can.
>Jay & Ronda stand for keeping the internet infrastructure or
>whatever's left of
>it not privatized
And I do not yet have any definition from them of "infrastructure"
that makes any sense to me. I have a very specific idea of what
infrastructure I work with every day.
>, as a collective or public domain like I do. You seem to
>stand for the opposite.
If you think that, again look at what I said about the way the IETF
and IRTF operate, and then I'd invite you to look at the NANOG or
other mailing list/meetins involving extensive cooperation -- mostly
among employees of corporation.
> So we have different points of view, which is fine in a
>democratic forum such as this one.
But if you move to implementing things, at some point, you have to
agree either to have parallel implementation projects, or pick one
and try it.
>
>I don't know if this is helpful to you. I sincerely hope it is. Today is good
>Friday, the day of my lord and I feel that I must do some good today as I try
>to do every day, but unfortunately some times I fail, but I think that's human
>nature.
Luis, let's put it this way. What makes me tick, as a human being, is
to find problems and actually solve them. There's a point where
conceptual discussion becomes a self-fulfilling activity that
accomplishes nothing.
As you may have noticed in many of my posts, the digital divide is a
real concern of mine. Because I understand that environment, I've
been bringing up technical and economic solutions to minimizing that
divide. Many of the economic resources to do that are profit-making.
That's where the resources are--the "collective"--and I don't
understand what that is--doesn't have them.
I would much rather talk about making the Internet accessible to all
(which is clearly not a pure technical problem), identifying
collaborative tools, considering privacy tradeoffs, and other parts
of real world networking. I don't want to talk about the evils of
economic models or social injustice -- I want to build tools that let
people independently address those evils however they wish.
Yes, I am frustrated. I'm actively involved in things I think the
society needs, like reducing network cost, like using network
technology to bring healthcare to underserved areas. There are very
real problems to be solved without going to some grand scheme of
abstraction where nothing can get defined at a level where some
engineer like me can actually build it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:55:17 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
>Hello Larry: I think this is a democratic forum. Pro- and
>anti-capitalistic speech I think is welcome here I think as long as
>it is ethical and respectful. For instance I can post that I want to
>keep the internet or make the internet a collective rather than a
>subsidiary for a corporation or corporations.
Let me try.
Luis, the physical facilities of the Internet (I am avoiding the word
"infrastructure") cost a lot of money to install and operate. You may
or may not know of the personally charming bank robber of the 1920's,
Willie Sutton. Someone asked him (he actually gave press
conferences) "Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks?"
In an infinitely patient tone, he answered
"Because...that's...where...the...money...is."
And corporations and large government bodies have money. If by giving
them a (possibly regulated) return on investment, I can get medical
services and Internet connectivity into rural Tennessee, I'll do that
- -- and am doing that right now. I can't stop and hunt for a
not-yet-existing collective that can buy the millions of dollars
worth of equipment, and hire the skilled people to do that.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:06:49 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Hello Howard: You've raised valid points and you raise them from an engineering
point of view and I understand that. I am trying to be helpful in making the
discussion more amicable and less acrimonius.
I hope Jay and Ronda will answer your questions and concerns.
Take care and Happy Easter to you and everyone on the list and netizens.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Howard: You are asked for someone "wiser" to suggest effective ways in
> >which you and Jay can communicate better. Well if I may be of help I'll gladly
> >do so, although I do not consider myself "wiser" than anyone else on
> >this list,
> >in fact I am an apprentice, your apprentice, in matters of computers, the
> >internet, etc.
> >I think where you are going wrong is that you seem to react in an
> >angry fashion
> >at Jay's postings. Remarks like you just posted "I'm beginning to despair of
> >it", "bah!" etc. If I may suggest, to let Jay post whatever he wants
> >and if you
> >feel that he has not answered your question in an accurate fashion, then post
> >your reply and say, "Jay, I don't think my question has been
> >answered correctly
> >and then state your reasons", without getting angry. After all this is just a
> >forum on issues pertaining the internet.
>
> The Internet Engineering Task Force is the main technical "oversight"
> body of the Internet, if any such body exists. Contrary to what seems
> to be suggested as an authoritarian model of non-privatization, the
> general motto of the IETF is:
>
> "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting
> We believe in rough consensus and running code,"
>
> And it is those last two words, and the issues surrounding them, that
> are my concern. I want to deal with the policy implications of
> things that actually exist, or can be implemented in a reasonable
> time frame (18-36 months). Political and representational statements
> aren't going affect that.
>
> >ITs not CNN Crossfire (although at
> >times it seemed so). And even in Crossfire you see everybody shaking hands and
> >smiling at each other at the end, that's why I enjoy watching it whenever I
> >can.
> >Jay & Ronda stand for keeping the internet infrastructure or
> >whatever's left of
> >it not privatized
>
> And I do not yet have any definition from them of "infrastructure"
> that makes any sense to me. I have a very specific idea of what
> infrastructure I work with every day.
>
> >, as a collective or public domain like I do. You seem to
> >stand for the opposite.
>
> If you think that, again look at what I said about the way the IETF
> and IRTF operate, and then I'd invite you to look at the NANOG or
> other mailing list/meetins involving extensive cooperation -- mostly
> among employees of corporation.
>
> > So we have different points of view, which is fine in a
> >democratic forum such as this one.
>
> But if you move to implementing things, at some point, you have to
> agree either to have parallel implementation projects, or pick one
> and try it.
>
> >
> >I don't know if this is helpful to you. I sincerely hope it is. Today is good
> >Friday, the day of my lord and I feel that I must do some good today as I try
> >to do every day, but unfortunately some times I fail, but I think that's human
> >nature.
>
> Luis, let's put it this way. What makes me tick, as a human being, is
> to find problems and actually solve them. There's a point where
> conceptual discussion becomes a self-fulfilling activity that
> accomplishes nothing.
>
> As you may have noticed in many of my posts, the digital divide is a
> real concern of mine. Because I understand that environment, I've
> been bringing up technical and economic solutions to minimizing that
> divide. Many of the economic resources to do that are profit-making.
> That's where the resources are--the "collective"--and I don't
> understand what that is--doesn't have them.
>
> I would much rather talk about making the Internet accessible to all
> (which is clearly not a pure technical problem), identifying
> collaborative tools, considering privacy tradeoffs, and other parts
> of real world networking. I don't want to talk about the evils of
> economic models or social injustice -- I want to build tools that let
> people independently address those evils however they wish.
>
> Yes, I am frustrated. I'm actively involved in things I think the
> society needs, like reducing network cost, like using network
> technology to bring healthcare to underserved areas. There are very
> real problems to be solved without going to some grand scheme of
> abstraction where nothing can get defined at a level where some
> engineer like me can actually build it.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #507
******************************
