Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 534
Netizens-Digest Sunday, December 14 2003 Volume 01 : Number 534
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd)
Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd)
[netz] Article on Verisign and Site Finder on Telepolis
[netz] [CPI-UA] Ontario Democratic Renewal (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:35:44 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd)
>
>OK, too much fun. Do we have a task? Let me ask you this (but you can
>ignore the question): do you suppose that the Internet offers some
>underexploited potential contributions to democratic process that haven't
>emerged in the 'debate' between Hauben and Horvath, or in our
>subsequent rambles? I'll try to ask myself the same question, when I'm not
>grading midterms.
>
Perhaps we have the task of providing a set of criteria for
classifying and examining proposals.
The first task asks if the "ABC" test (abortion, budget, and
something starting with C) a reasonable screening criterion for
viability of any proposal? I am not suggesting that it can solve such
polarizing issues, but my test would be whether a model meets a
criterion of finiteness when considering these issues. In other
words, borrowing a bit from computability theory (obscure computer
science stuff), can we demonstrate that the process will "terminate"
with, perhaps, a less than optimal solution, or can we show evidence
that it will never terminate and never be able to move to other
issues?
The second task: I'm not sure if Ronda is saying, as more than a
conceptual ideal, that free Internet-enabled discussion can and
should operate without structure. I'm afraid that the existence of
spam and flame wars suggests that a completely open forum will suffer
from the tragedy of the commons. What I would suggest as a task is
defining the minimum, necessary but sufficient, amount of
structure/moderation/process/etc. that can keep a discussion moving.
The third task would identify how a "concluded" discussion translates
into implementation. This might be controversial because I assume a
government is necessary to do this. Yes, there have been proposals
for netizens to do this of free will, but I don't see enough
universal unselfishness for this to be useful operationally.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:52:05 -0400
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd)
Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
> Perhaps we have the task of providing a set of criteria for
> classifying and examining proposals.
>
> The first task asks if the "ABC" test (abortion, budget, and
> something starting with C) a reasonable screening criterion for
> viability of any proposal? I am not suggesting that it can solve such
> polarizing issues, but my test would be whether a model meets a
> criterion of finiteness when considering these issues. In other
> words, borrowing a bit from computability theory (obscure computer
> science stuff), can we demonstrate that the process will "terminate"
> with, perhaps, a less than optimal solution, or can we show evidence
> that it will never terminate and never be able to move to other
> issues?
So, a hypothetical proposal to have open discussion until "the solution emerges"
would apparently fail the criterion of finiteness (except in the unhelpful sense that
any discussion is necessarily finite).
> The second task: I'm not sure if Ronda is saying, as more than a
> conceptual ideal, that free Internet-enabled discussion can and
> should operate without structure. I'm afraid that the existence of
> spam and flame wars suggests that a completely open forum will suffer
> from the tragedy of the commons. What I would suggest as a task is
> defining the minimum, necessary but sufficient, amount of
> structure/moderation/process/etc. that can keep a discussion moving.
(Wait? is that a "tragedy of the commons"? oh, never mind.) OK, sure, some
rules of the road.
> The third task would identify how a "concluded" discussion translates
> into implementation. This might be controversial because I assume a
> government is necessary to do this. Yes, there have been proposals
> for netizens to do this of free will, but I don't see enough
> universal unselfishness for this to be useful operationally.
One possibility here is that the outcome of the discussion serves primarily as
guidance to policymakers and other interested folks about the "considered
judgments" that emerge from a rich dialogical process. As James Fishkin says
about his deliberative polls, the results would have "recommending force," although
the force would be almost purely persuasive rather than coercive.
I'm not advocating for this outcome, just noting that one possible interpretation of
the "translation" is pretty loose. Former senator Warren Rudman once told a
political scientist that he would be delighted to consider his constituents'
preferences on various issues he votes on, but he has no way of knowing what
they are. Conceivably the Internet could distill constituent preferences on some
range of policy issues, even though the constituents probably wouldn't arrive at
consensus. Would this affect politics? Heck if I know.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Article on Verisign and Site Finder on Telepolis
The following is a version of the article that has recently
appeared on Telepolis in English and German.
http://www.heise.de/tp
Ronda
I welcome comments. I may not have time to respond much in the
next few days but I will try to respond when I can.
- ---------------
WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE INTERNET?
Verisign's Unilateral Actions versus an Internet model
How to Manage the Internet's Infrastructure?
by Ronda Hauben
It has been a common perception that nobody is in charge of the Internet,
that there is no controlling entity, nor should there be. The recent
controversy over Verisign's Site Finder(1), however, shows that it is indeed
a misperception that no one controls the Internet. Instead, there is currently
a contest over who does and who should exercise this control. This contest
is being played out over the question of what management structure is needed
for the Internet's infrastructure.(2)
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, Verisign, announced that they will
reintroduce their Site Finder advertising site.(3) They believe that there
is a vacuum and that they can usurp the power and wealth that will accrue
to any company that can seize control of aspects of the Internet's
infrastructure. Verisign has a contract with the U.S. government
to control the DNS directory (called a registry) for .com and .net domain
names. The recent crisis erupted in September, when Verisign directed
packets for any unassigned .net or .com domain name to their Site Finder site.
In response, there were various soundings of alarm on the Internet. Verisign,
on its part, claimed that it was introducing an "innovation" for the
Internet's infrastructure. The crisis was abated temporarily when Verisign
agreed to halt the use of Site Finder, in response to a threat that they would
lose their contract for the .com and .net registry. In some of the many pages
of press articles that appeared on the controversy, the question was raised,
"Who is in charge of the Internet?"(4)
Recently, on the Netizens mailing list, Alexandru Petrescu raised several
questions. He wrote(5):
"Say, what would a netizen do in this entire context?
"Is a netizen hurt by a potentially helpful service?
"Is a US netizen hurt by a potentially helpful service?
"Is a netizen outraged by the side-effects of the commercialization
of the Internet in that private interests (and not public interests)
lead to destabilizing the overall working of the Internet? A netizen
would need to provide a palpable counter-argument of how this
endangers, and make it as visible as the advantage. This can be
done, instead of crying 'wolf'."
Such questions focus attention on the users of the Internet, particularly
the netizens, the active participants working for the Internet's
continuing development as a collaborative and ever more inclusive
global electronic commons.(6)
Verisign's unilateral action was greeted by many netizens with comments and
online discussions, appearing on mailing lists, web sites and in Usenet
newsgroups. Among the many reasons given to condemn Verisign's actions, was a
post in a Usenet newsgroup. The post analyzes how directing Internet packets
to Site Finder is a violation of the public nature of the Internet's
infrastructure. The Usenet post explains(7):
"Whether or not it has any impact, socially or technically, is
beside the point. What gives VeriSign defacto ownership of all
domain names not registered by someone else? Why is it entitled
to use, for its own lucrative commercial purposes, the virtually
infinite domain of domains, shutting out all others?
Why has no one addressed this?"
John Higdon
Anytown, USA
A subsequent post sarcastically describes some of the implications of
Verisign's action to assume private ownership of all unregistered .net
and .com domain names:
"Can you imagine registering a new domain and getting some angry
emails to your postmaster account that blast you for hijacking this
'nifty search engine' that used to come up at your URL? They would
accuse YOU of hijacking the domain!
"Obviously, VeriSign believes that in return for providing root
servers for the two top-level domains that they are entitled to
exploit for their own use ANY conceivable second-level domain name
that is not, in fact, registered to someone. In other words, when
you register a domain name (through any registrar), you are in fact
transferring that name from VeriSign's stewardship to yours. The
difference is that you have to pay in perpetuity to continue using
it; VeriSign gets it at no charge."
John Higdon
Anytown, USA
This post helps to highlight that the nature of the Internet's infrastructure
is public. It is like other public utilities, such as the water system and
the electricity system. Such systems are vital to people's existence. They
need to be administered in a way that recognizes public service obligations.
The components of a public infrastructure require protection that government
traditionally has been expected to provide. With no reliable management
structure dedicated to preserving the public nature of the Internet's
infrastructure, there will be a perpetual contest.
A second aspect of the infrastructure of the Internet, is that it is
international in scope. Hence no single government can fulfill the need
to provide the protection for the public nature of the Internet's
infrastructure. An international collaboration made it possible to
create the Internet and an international collaboration will have
the broad and global reach to support the continued development
of the Internet.
A third aspect of the infrastructure of the Internet is that it has been
built by a participatory process. This process welcomed the participation
and contribution of all those who had a broad social perspective. There
is one Internet. The architecture requires a common agreement among the
participating networks to make communication possible across the boundaries
of the different forms of technology, of ownership, or of political control
of these networks. The common agreement has been reflected in the development
and adoption of the TCP/IP protocol. In turn, the TCP/IP protocol respects
the diversity of the networks that are part of the Internet.
Unilateral actions, like Verisign's, violate such basic aspects of the
Internet. In the midst of the furor created by Site Finder, Verisign
claims it has the right to introduce what it calls "innovations"
into the Internet's infrastructure. If some entity introduces an
"innovation" that harms others who are part of the Internet, what are those
who are hurt by such actions to do? Not only does Verisign's claim
violate the public and international nature of the Internet's infrastructure,
it also violates that principle that the networks and their users
themselves retain the ability to determine what is in their own interest.
Verisign is usurping this right, the very right that has made it possible
to create and spread the Internet.
No single company, nor multiple companies, were able to create the Internet.
Many private companies created the kinds of networks they felt would
be the networks wanted by everyone else. These were proprietary networks,
which served the companies who created them. The Internet, however, was
created by a collaboration of scientific researchers from different countries,
who were able to do the research to create the international infrastructure
of the Internet.(9) By the broad nature of the objectives of the researchers,
they were able to create an Internet which could be open to education,
business, government, and citizen networks. When one business starts to
try to turn the Internet into its own private network, it is threatening the
nature of the Internet as a metasystem of diverse and different networks.
By welcoming the participation of researchers from different countries in
the development of the protocol TCP/IP, the process of welcoming feedback
to guide the continuing development was integrated into the development
process. That process, therefore, had the advantage of input from a broad
set of experiences and views. The international nature of the collaboration
that built the Internet, made it possible for the Internet to be
international. Unilateral decisions to change the Internet's infrastructure,
can only threaten the international nature of the Internet.
The Verisign problem once again brings to the fore the need for a public,
participatory process of international collaboration to support and develop
the Internet's infrastructure. Fortunately, there is a model for this,
the model of how the Internet was developed.(10)
This year, 2003, is the 30th anniversary of the creation of the draft paper
outlining the philosophy and architecture of the TCP/IP protocol. The paper
was presented in Brighton, England, at the University of Suffolk in September,
1973. It was presented to a meeting of researchers from many different
countries of the world. Spreading an understanding of the model of
how the Internet developed can be helpful in the efforts to create
an appropriate management structure for the Internet. The model of the
Internet's development is a model of a system that learns from, and
builds on the development of the Internet itself. Until an appropriate
management structure for the Internet's infrastructure is developed, netizens
can continue to utilize the collaborative, participatory, public
and international process of Internet development to effectively challenge
inappropriate and ineffective management proposals like Verisign's Site Finder.
URL's
1) John Leyden, "VeriSign's Site Finder is undead",
16/10/2003 at 13:02 GMT, The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33432.html
2) See for example "The Culture Divide and the Internet's Future"
Charles Cooper, October 16, 2003, CNET.
http://news.com.com/2008-7347_3-5092590.html
3) ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee Meeting
Agenda October 15, 2003, Site Finder Review
http://secsac.icann.org/agenda-15oct03.htm
4) Anick Jesdanun, "Who is in charge of the Internet?" Katu News,
September 25, 2003,
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=61010
5) Netizens Digest, Fri, 03 Oct 2003 22:14:17 +0200,
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/netizens/digest/Digest_1-525.txt
6) Michael Hauben, Preface, "Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet", N.Y., Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997
(http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.xpr)
7)Usenet post: John Higdon <absolutely-no-spam@verislimesucks.com>
Newsgroups: ba.internet
Subject: Re: Verisign "sitefinder" traffic and MS IE's "url redirection" hack
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:28:49 -0700
8)Usenet post: From: John Higdon <absolutely-no-spam@verislimesucks.com>
Newsgroups: ba.internet
Subject: Re: Verisign "sitefinder" traffic and MS IE's "url redirection" hack
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:19:32 -0700
9)Ronda Hauben, "The Internet: On its International Origins and
Collaborative Vision"
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/misc/haubenpap1.rtf
10) Ronda Hauben, "What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace ICANN?",
Telepolis, 16.08.1999
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5183/1.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:08:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] [CPI-UA] Ontario Democratic Renewal (fwd)
Hi,
I hope with the WSIS conference in Geneva, readers of this list will find
a new source for hope. In Geneva, despite all the differences and discord,
the public nature of the Internet has found new support. The realization
that universal access is needed so as to prevent the disenfrancising of
many people throughout the world and to allow the Internet to serve as a
democratizer are premises that this list has championed many times.
I also want to call your attention to the following comment on his own
country Canada by Mike Gurstein and the comparison with parts of
Australia. I am impressed that the net continues to invite democratization
and that some governments appear to be taking the invitation. Mike is
providing pressure for Ontario to do better than just think about voting.
I hope the holiday season goes well for you and that we all find ways of
contributing to the develoment of the net despite these hard times.
Take care.
Jay
Below are Mike's comments. He included reports of democratiztion plans in
Ontario that didn't enough stress facilitating citizen participation. I
have left these out but will send them to any one interested
Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:00:41 +1000
From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@vcn.bc.ca>
To: Universal Access Canada <cpi-ua@vancouvercommunity.net>,
INROADS-L@post.queensu.ca
Subject: [CPI-UA] Ontario Democratic Renewal
I'm currently in Australia and have had a chance to take a look at some
of the experiences here. I'm particularly impressed by what I've seen
in Queensland with the use of ICTs as part of a very strong program of
"e-participation" to support a broad range of strategies for enhancing
citizen participation in political and democratic processes.
http://www.qld.gov.au/get_involved_with/get_involved_with_the_qld_govern
ment.html
It is, I think, a measure of how things have eroded in Canada in the
last ten years, that the Ontario Government should see "democratic
renewal" only in terms of voting (Internet based or however) and elected
representation.
If efforts such as those currently being initiated in Queensland or the
Moveon.org/Dean phenomenon in the US tell us anything it is that there
are new forms and opportunities for citizenship and democratic
participation emerging as a consequence of Information and
Communications Technologies and that those who are truly concerned about
the future of democracy need to respond to these opportunities with a
zeal equal to those devoted to campaigns to increase voting
participation.
Canada was once a world leader in citizen participation, pioneering in
such areas as citizen participation in social and environmental impact
assessment and broad based local and regional planning processes. An
absence of support and imagination on the part of the governments who
are the ultimate sponsors and designers of such processes has meant that
the new means for engaging citizens in these and other parallel
processes and the more complex but more meaningful processes of policy
review by means of the Internet have not been actively explored, with
only limited but revealing exceptions (the Romanow--Health Policy
Review).
MG
MCGUINTY GOVERNMENT TO STRENGTHEN OUR DEMOCRACY AND IMPROVE THE WAY
GOVERNMENT SERVES PEOPLE
and
Globe & Mail Dec. 9, 2003
Renewing democracy begins at home By MURRAY CAMPBELL
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #534
******************************
