Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 514
Netizens-Digest Saturday, April 26 2003 Volume 01 : Number 514
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems? Now solving...
Re[2]: [netz] problems?
Re: Re[2]: [netz] problems?
[netz] Basic Service for Netizens
Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens (correction on telephony)
Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:29:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:50:55 -0400 Howard C. Berkowitz
<hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote responding to Ronda ronda@panix.com
>
>>How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list
>>given the clear differences among the people posting at the current
>>time?
>Perhaps we can stop "talking past one another" by recognizing there
>are different yet complementary areas of interest and expertise. For
>example, Jay posted on the rights of Netizens. I felt I was being
>responsive to that issue by asking how some of those rights could be
>implemented [1] and also by posting a suggested code of conduct for
>information providers.
(...)
>This was intended to extend the discussion and find solutions, but I
>felt it was ignored. In my opinion, just stating rights isn't enough
>until we find a specific way to pay for them. I'm not objecting to
>the rights, but I want to see how they can be implemented.
Some of what my research is and has been is to investigate how
the Internet has been built and the experience of developing it.
This is a new world.
If we take it and bring to it the criteria of the old world, we
will impose models on it that are inappropriate.
It turns out that packet switching is a technology that makes the
transmission of data very inexpensive. However, the contributed
content online is what is and has been something that if one
had to pay for it, it would be very expensive.
In looking at a human-computer networking system of networks
one can't leave out the human part of the system.
Unfortunately, that is all I have time to say now.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:50:03 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:50:55 -0400 Howard C. Berkowitz
><hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote responding to Ronda ronda@panix.com
>
>>
>>>How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list
>>>given the clear differences among the people posting at the current
>>>time?
>
>>Perhaps we can stop "talking past one another" by recognizing there
>>are different yet complementary areas of interest and expertise. For
>>example, Jay posted on the rights of Netizens. I felt I was being
>>responsive to that issue by asking how some of those rights could be
>>implemented [1] and also by posting a suggested code of conduct for
>>information providers.
>
>(...)
>
> >This was intended to extend the discussion and find solutions, but I
> >felt it was ignored. In my opinion, just stating rights isn't enough
> >until we find a specific way to pay for them. I'm not objecting to
> >the rights, but I want to see how they can be implemented.
>
>Some of what my research is and has been is to investigate how
>the Internet has been built and the experience of developing it.
>
>This is a new world.
>
>If we take it and bring to it the criteria of the old world, we
>will impose models on it that are inappropriate.
I have to say I don't follow what you are saying, and I've been
intimately familiar with the Internet and its predecessors for about
30 years. Frankly, I'm puzzled about some of your criticisms,
especially of the IETF. I've been an active participant there for a
number of years, and indeed have published and continue to publish
RFCs. During that time, I sometimes worked for a large company,
sometimes for a small company, and sometimes paid my own way as an
individual consultant.
My corporate status never was an impediment, but you may be correct
about models -- I am able to work within the cultural model of the
IETF, which may not be what you want it to be. Probably, at least
part of what you consider the "human part" is not within the
perceived scope of the IETF.
But where I see an opportunity for progress is to take human parts,
in a forum such as this, and spend the hard work seeing what the
technical requirements (not necessarily solution) would be to meet
those human needs. Those requirements, in turn, could be passed to
the IETF.
I do see a variety of specific commercial threats, variously in
deregulation and in copyright protection. I've brought up these
issues on the list, and again tried to get some consensus on steps to
take beyond saying they are bad and shouldn't be that way.
>
>It turns out that packet switching is a technology that makes the
>transmission of data very inexpensive. However, the contributed
>content online is what is and has been something that if one
>had to pay for it, it would be very expensive.
Ronda, _someone_ has to pay for the physical resources, but I'm not
suggesting that has to be the end user. What I've been trying to
discuss here are ways to make that as low-cost as possible.
There is a great deal of free content online, and I don't see direct
threats to it. There is a significant trend toward commercializing
things that have always been somewhat commercial, such as television
broadcasting and pay-per-view.
>
>In looking at a human-computer networking system of networks
>one can't leave out the human part of the system.
>
>Unfortunately, that is all I have time to say now.
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:27:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
hcb> I do agree that very little useful communication is taking place.
ronda> We all seem to agree about something at last. Perhaps this is a
ronda> helpful starting point.
ronda> How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list
ronda> given the clear differences among the people posting at the
ronda> current time?
Perhaps there should be two lists, one to discuss broad-based topics,
and another that focuses on technical and logistical issues? People
could subscribe to either or both, but would not crosspost unless
making some kind of general announcement.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:42:33 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
>hcb> I do agree that very little useful communication is taking place.
>
>ronda> We all seem to agree about something at last. Perhaps this is a
>ronda> helpful starting point.
>
>ronda> How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list
>ronda> given the clear differences among the people posting at the
>ronda> current time?
>
>Perhaps there should be two lists, one to discuss broad-based topics,
>and another that focuses on technical and logistical issues? People
>could subscribe to either or both, but would not crosspost unless
>making some kind of general announcement.
>
>--gregbo
Certainly worth considering. What I would hope is that the
broad-based topic list could sometimes produce a list of requirements
for what they would like the net to do for them, and then the second
list could see if those are implementable.
Do you see the second list as dealing deal with
political/economic/regulatory barriers to net entry and use (e.g.,
how to make it affordable and break the digital divide)? The second
list should not replace existing engineering lists, because it is on
a policy level. When I first met Ronda, the mutual interest was DNS
and Internet governance. I _think_ this would fall into the purview
of the second list.
Now, on the first list, I would hope there is room for both
discussion of alternate political paradigms, as well as using the net
to empower people who choose in the existing system. I would also
hope that those different sides would offer mutual respect, rather
than saying that people of one viewpoint are blind to that of the
other. To the contrary, they may see that view but disagree with it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:56:05 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] problems? Now solving...
- --part1_1eb.75c5241.2bdb1705_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/25/03 4:43:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com
writes:
> Do you see the second list as dealing deal with
> political/economic/regulatory barriers to net entry and use (e.g.,
> how to make it affordable and break the digital divide)? The second
> list should not replace existing engineering lists, because it is on
> a policy level. When I first met Ronda, the mutual interest was DNS
> and Internet governance. I _think_ this would fall into the purview
> of the second list.
>
Put me on the second list. Take me off the first.
Larry
- --part1_1eb.75c5241.2bdb1705_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/25/03 4:43:35 PM Eastern Daylight=
Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Do you see the second list as d=
ealing deal with <BR>
political/economic/regulatory barriers to net entry and use (e.g., <BR>
how to make it affordable and break the digital divide)? The second <B=
R>
list should not replace existing engineering lists, because it is on <BR>
a policy level. When I first met Ronda, the mutual interest was DNS <BR>
and Internet governance. I _think_ this would fall into the purview <BR>
of the second list.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Put me on the second list. Take me off the first.<BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_1eb.75c5241.2bdb1705_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:41:30 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] problems?
RH> Also you can read the ones you choose to read.
Yes,
but I have to run through all to find what are they about...
This takes some time, too, Ronda.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- "choose your future, choose to sysadmin." gary barnes, adminspotting -*
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:15:03 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] problems?
- --part1_12c.28c8f4af.2bdbc437_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/26/03 6:05:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dusoft@staznosti.sk writes:
> RH> Also you can read the ones you choose to read.
> D>Yes,
> D>
> D>but I have to run through all to find what are they about...
> D>This takes some time, too, Ronda.
> D>
> D>dan
>
True. The reality of the matter is that all messages have to be sampled.
Let's pursue Greg's idea and move on. No more soap opera.
G>Perhaps there should be two lists, one to discuss broad-based topics,
G>and another that focuses on technical and logistical issues? People
G>could subscribe to either or both, but would not crosspost unless
G>making some kind of general announcement.
G>
G>--gregbo
Larry
- --part1_12c.28c8f4af.2bdbc437_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/26/03 6:05:25 AM Eastern Daylight=
Time, dusoft@staznosti.sk writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">RH> Also you can read the on=
es you choose to read.<BR>
D>Yes,<BR>
D><BR>
D>but I have to run through all to find what are they about...<BR>
D>This takes some time, too, Ronda.<BR>
D><BR>
D>dan<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
True. The reality of the matter is that all messages have to be sample=
d. Let's pursue Greg's idea and move on. No more soap opera.<BR>
<BR>
G>Perhaps there should be two lists, one to discuss broad-based topics,<B=
R>
G>and another that focuses on technical and logistical issues? People<BR>
G>could subscribe to either or both, but would not crosspost unless<BR>
G>making some kind of general announcement.<BR>
G><BR>
G>--gregbo<BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_12c.28c8f4af.2bdbc437_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:58:53 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens
While there have been concerns about different grades of service on
the Internet, it's impossible to plan network resources without
knowing what the requirements would be. Without being able to plan
the network, there's no way to build a network on which Netizens can
assert their rights.
Perhaps some of the controversy about First Class versus other grades
of service is to make sure that the actual implementation of a wide
range of digital services is an "overlay model". For economies of
scale, the same high-capacity transmission facilities handle:
1. Public Internet
1.1 Person-to-person (or to mailing list)
1.2 Business-to-consumer
1.3 Business-to-business
2. Virtual private networks for enterprises (note: "enterprise"
implies a non-individual consumer of network services, without
distinction among government, academic, or commercial services)
These are not reachable from the public Internet, although they
may share facilities. They are separate for reasons that can
include security/privacy, contracted backup facilities, or
guaranteed delay & other quality of service.
3. Traditional digital telephony
4. Traditional digital television
5. Converged voice/video/data
So, video communications do not directly compete for resources with
the public Internet.
So let's examine possible services for basic Netizen participation.
1. Email
Unquestionably a fundamental service. Non-spam email is not particularly
bandwidth intensive, but the limiting factor tends to be disk storage
for the user mailboxes and intermediate "post office" storage.
Modern email models download the mail to a personal computer,
conserving ISP disk space.
The ISP, however, has to know how much mailbox space to allocate
to the average user, so they can buy the necessary amount of disk
storage.
I believe it is also reasonable for ISPs to impose anti-spamming
and anti-hacking features on user connections. Anti-spamming does
not mean that a user can't use large mailing lists (see below).
2. Mailing list servers
A manageable way to handle large mailing lists is to have an ISP
user register the list on a majordomo or other mail server, which
will then send mail into the Internet at a rate that does not cause
congestion. By preregistering the mailing lists, one takes anonymity
away from spammers.
3. USENET
I consider this a basic service, although it is less popular than
it once was. As with email, a major concern is disk storage. This is
a particularly severe problem with USENET, because the largest volume
is in binary newsgroups. These newsgroups are heavily populated with
both erotica and pirated software ("warez"), and indeed can create
legal liability for ISPs. Please don't misunderstand -- I have no
problem with erotica for consenting adults, as long as the resources
to provide it aren't heavily subsidized by other users, and that it
doesn't contain child pornography or copyrighted material. The
latter two areas can put the ISP at risk.
4. Web Access
Again a basic service. Bandwidth is the issue here. Does the
basic user need fast response and downloads of whatever multimedia
presentations, of whatever size, an information provider creates?
5. Telephony
While this is usually seen as separate, voice over IP is vastly
more resource-intensive than traditional telephony. It does require
dedicated bandwidth, but this can be done within an overlay context.
6. Television
I'm _not_ going to comment much.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:18:03 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens (correction on telephony)
>
>
>5. Telephony
>
> While this is usually seen as separate, voice over IP is vastly more
^^^
less
>resource-intensive than traditional telephony. It does require
>dedicated bandwidth, but this can be done within an overlay context.
OOPS! Voice over IP is somewhere between 8 and 32 times more
bandwidth efficient than traditional digital telephony.
Incidentally, in the telephone industry, business customers generally
subsidize residential service. Having more business customers does
not reduce residential service.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:56:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens
Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
> While there have been concerns about different grades of service on
> the Internet, it's impossible to plan network resources without
> knowing what the requirements would be. Without being able to plan
> the network, there's no way to build a network on which Netizens can
> assert their rights.
True. Please excuse a brief excursion to explain a few of the assumptions and
attributes that I personally bring to the discussion. I'm presently a
professor in political studies, but I've been a software designer too, and I
learned a few things about the process of specifying system requirements. It's
what academics would call multidisciplinary work: it brings together people
with different interests and areas of expertise, and it requires a lot of
mutual explanation.
With respect to network design, I am very close to clueless, and pretty happy
that way. "Merely technical" details of the Internet hold no fascination for
me. But a lot of my work depends on the Internet. (If that sounds mercenary,
bear in mind that I'm a poli sci professor, so there's no clear boundary
between "my work" and the rest of my life -- but it seemed scary to say that my
life depends on the Internet!) So I place a high value on the continued
development of the Internet as a social, political, intellectual resource.
So, my main concern is to identify any circumstances in which that value (which
I think is a core Netizen value, although I'm sure we could find some
interesting tensions within it) conflicts with other values in ways significant
for Internet design -- i.e., the intersection of political and technical
issues -- and then figure out how to deal with the conflicts. The archetypal
case would be if basic e-mail required one kind of network while the profit
motives of corporations required another kind of network -- basically a neat
clash of "public" and "private" interests. I know that the line between public
and private interests is not always so clear, and the conflicts between
interests (or values) can play out in many ways. For instance:
> [...]So, video communications do not directly compete for resources with
> the public Internet.
That _might_ mean that we can harness corporate interests in video
communications in order to underwrite costs of the public Internet. But this
thread is about requirements, not implementation, so I don't need to sort out
the role of corporations right now.
> So let's examine possible services for basic Netizen participation.
Time out! I think we need to consider a big process issue: we have no
cumulation mechanism.
International negotiations center around (often very complex) working drafts of
possible treaty language. I think these are analogous to "Internet Drafts" in
the IETF process (although I don't know whether Internet Drafts ever contain
alternative 'branches' as treaty drafts do). We've never had anything like
that. So when Jay(?) puts out a list of Netizen rights, or you put out a list
of basic services, we have no way of tracking our points of agreement or
disagreement.
This is very unfortunate, because we tend to operate by a Gresham's Law whereby
our disagreements drive out our agreements. Even if list participants
substantially agreed on every single point of a particular topic, we would
_still_ end up spending disproportionate time pondering our actual or possible
differences as to the fundamental nature of capitalism (or whatever), and we
would still not have any readily accessible record of our common ground.
Tedious.
Can we set up a site to house some working documents? No telling how far we'll
get on them, but if we never begin them, then the outcome is preordained. It
seems reasonable for these files to be on the AIS server alongside the Netizens
archives. But if Jay understandably is reluctant to volunteer himself to be
keeper of our nascent pseudo-RFCs, maybe we can work out another interim
arrangement. (For instance, I could host it on one of my personal web spaces.
Hypothetically, you might be the keeper of the working draft on basic services;
you'd make revisions, send me the revised document, I'd stick the new version
on my site; messages pertinent to the document would contain the URL so that
people could easily access the context, while avoiding the problem of multiple
quotation levels. --Or, of course, there's no reason why you shouldn't host
your "own" working draft, at least for now.) Obviously if other folks on the
list fundamentally dislike a working draft, we won't get very far in this
manner, but at least in some cases it may be helpful.
I'm gonna postpone my comments on your list of basic services for now.
Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #514
******************************
