Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 530
Netizens-Digest Saturday, October 11 2003 Volume 01 : Number 530
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Internet and epistemic communities
Re: [netz] Internet and epistemic communities
[netz] Interesting social commentary from the NANOG list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:42:13 -0400
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet and epistemic communities
> There's also Godwin's
> Law of USENET, which could be stated as any reference to Nazis, other
> than a specific historical reference, means the discussion has
> degenerated to a point of uselessness. References to the Seinfeld
> Soup Nazi generally get a pass.
Didn't I also read somewhere that deliberate efforts to end a thread by
invoking Nazis don't count? Oh, never mind.<grin>
> >Note that Haas defines epistemic communities as networks of
> >_professionals_ not to be elitist, but on the premise that their
> >professional standing is the source of their authority in
> >policymaking. Many Internet communities function as 'knowledge
> >communities' [1] without striving for policy-relevance. It may well
> >be that some Internet communities develop policy-relevant expertise
> >as they go.
>
> And I realize this has been one the basis for some of my conflicts on
> this list. Call it my engineering background, but you can only
> discuss a desirable social policy so far before it needs to be
> reality-tested for pure technical feasibility, then the cost of the
> technical solution, and then the funding model for that solution.
> Other personal conflicts I've had is when I see that a particular
> suggestion for funding, regardless of how desirable the policy, would
> be dead on arrival.
Just to make sure that my meaning was clear, what I had in mind as a
knowledge community that doesn't strive for policy relevance is something
like a list dedicated to the care and feeding of cockatiels. (Naturally, this
example is not hypothetical.) In that context, the lack of policy relevance
isn't necessarily a failing. But if one is discussing a desirable social policy,
then yes, policy relevance would seem to be important -- and of course that
entails attention to your dimensions of feasibility.
> >It doesn't really matter what the True Definition of "epistemic
> >community" is, but I'm interested because of the distinctive role
> >that Internet engineers seem to play in protecting the terrain on
> >which we function as Netizens. Are we troubled by the thought that
> >we depend on the contributions of technocrats? (I had written, "are
> >at the mercy of technocrats," but that seemed both hyperbolic and
> >rude!) Across a wide range of issues, citizens must hope that
> >experts will 'use their knowledge only for good'.
>
> You touch on what was one of the basic Internet governance problems
> between, for example, the IETF and ICANN. I'll be the first to say
> that there are problems in the IETF process, but after many years of
> involvement, I am convinced there is a desire of the participants to
> Do The Right Thing. This is also true of the operational forums like
> NANOG. Even though many of the people in an operational forum
> meeting work for (but usually are not "representing") large
> telecommunications firms and equipment vendors, any presentation that
> seems a marketing/power play for a specific interest can get booed
> off the stage.
Of course, a desire to do the right thing isn' t necessarily enough.
Presumably one crucial fact is that after the presentation is booed off the
stage, it doesn't get implemented anyway -- no narrow interest has the
power to run roughshod over the rest.
> ICANN _may_ be adjusting to some extent. I've noticed that the
> latest board of directors has a much higher technocrat context than
> the original "stakeholder" model, and even the lawyers and such seem
> to have relevant backgrounds. ICANN also seems to rely much more,
> for advisory or board nominations, on professional organizations such
> as the IETF.
When you say that ICANN is adjusting, what do you think they are adjusting
to -- and, more important, why? (I think the "what" is something like the
norms of the engineering community.)
> >[...] The Internet is
> >intensely "democratic," but certainly in nothing approaching the
> >strong sense that we all can participate meaningfully in ICANN
> >committee meetings.
>
> And that is key. Feel free to polish the political science
> terminology, but it's a meritocratic democracy, which also has an
> intuitive sense of what it does and does not want to look at. In
> general, social implications is just not of interest outside, say, an
> occasional ceremonial speech at an officer's appointment or
> retirement. In my experience with medical communities, there's a bit
> more tolerance to raising social issues, but when one gets into the
> scientific sessions, they aren't welcome.
>
> Were primarily social-policy oriented individuals to at least prepare
> a draft technical proposal, considering compatibility with existing
> software, it would get a much better reception.
[I'm not sure there is a polished phrase for "meritocratic democracy" in your
sense here, by the way.]
The general picture of "scientists being hostile to talk of social implications"
is not a pretty one, but in context it is more attractive. For instance, if a
working group is making technical decisions about how the Internet
functions, "social issues" can only be germane if they are translated into
technical proposals about how the Internet should function. Of course,
depending on the social issue, it might be more appropriate to go to some
other forum.
> Literally anyone can join an IETF working group, most of the work of
> which is done by email. There are procedures, very rarely invoked, to
> bar a disruptive individual.
>
> I certainly had no problem participating in yesterday's ICANN
> meeting. While I'm not a committee member, was it critical I knew
> and was known by a fair number of committee members? At least one
> public interest person did get up and speak, but was closely focused
> on the issue rather than raising broad social issues. I don't know
> him or his group: Alan Davidson (sp?) of the Center for Democracy and
> Technology (unless it was the Center for Technology and Democracy).
Yes, must be Alan Davidson from CDT, htttp://www.cdt.org . Here's a snip
from their principles at http://www.cdt.org/mission/principles.shtml :
- --begin excerpt--
The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) is a 501 (c) (3) non-
profit public policy organization dedicated to promoting the democratic
potential of today's open, decentralized global Internet. Our mission is to
conceptualize, develop, and implement public policies to preserve and
enhance free expression, privacy, open access, and other democratic
values in the new and increasingly integrated communications medium.
CDT pursues its mission through research and public policy development in
a consensus-building process based on convening and operating broad-
based working groups composed of public interest and commercial
representatives of divergent views to explore solutions to critical policy
issues. [...]
- --end excerpt--
They have an interesting funding mix. What I know about them is only from
a few minutes on the web site.
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:38:26 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet and epistemic communities
At 8:42 PM -0400 10/8/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>
>
>Just to make sure that my meaning was clear, what I had in mind as a
>knowledge community that doesn't strive for policy relevance is something
>like a list dedicated to the care and feeding of cockatiels. (Naturally, this
>example is not hypothetical.) In that context, the lack of policy relevance
>isn't necessarily a failing. But if one is discussing a desirable
>social policy,
>then yes, policy relevance would seem to be important -- and of course that
>entails attention to your dimensions of feasibility.
I cannot speak to cockatiels, but my feline staff tells me that the
care, feeding, and general support of cats is the core of all human
society.
My cat Rhonda (as opposed to Ronda) just _might_ be showing signs of
becoming a netizen, although Ding and Mr. Clark don't have the same
interest. Oh, all of them type poorly on the computer keyboard, but
only Rhonda has managed to get the fax machine to transmit.
Her most recent accomplishment came about a week ago, when I got what
hopefully is my last cold-calling investment opportunity salesman. I
interrupted, and said that he should talk to "Rhonda, the financial
decisionmaker in the house." I put him on speakerphone. He said
"Hello, Rhonda."
She recognizes her name on the phone, and responded "eeee." (This,
incidentally, means "pet me, you fool."
He went on in his spiel, periodically mentioning her name and getting
emphatically louder "eeEEE", "Eeeee" and "EEEEE!" After about 3-4
minutes, he hung up. I wonder why?
>
>> >It doesn't really matter what the True Definition of "epistemic
>> >community" is, but I'm interested because of the distinctive role
>> >that Internet engineers seem to play in protecting the terrain on
>> >which we function as Netizens. Are we troubled by the thought that
>> >we depend on the contributions of technocrats? (I had written, "are
>> >at the mercy of technocrats," but that seemed both hyperbolic and
>> >rude!) Across a wide range of issues, citizens must hope that
>> >experts will 'use their knowledge only for good'.
>>
>> You touch on what was one of the basic Internet governance problems
>> between, for example, the IETF and ICANN. I'll be the first to say
>> that there are problems in the IETF process, but after many years of
>> involvement, I am convinced there is a desire of the participants to
>> Do The Right Thing. This is also true of the operational forums like
>> NANOG. Even though many of the people in an operational forum
>> meeting work for (but usually are not "representing") large
>> telecommunications firms and equipment vendors, any presentation that
>> seems a marketing/power play for a specific interest can get booed
>> off the stage.
>
>Of course, a desire to do the right thing isn' t necessarily enough.
>Presumably one crucial fact is that after the presentation is booed off the
>stage, it doesn't get implemented anyway -- no narrow interest has the
>power to run roughshod over the rest.
>
>> ICANN _may_ be adjusting to some extent. I've noticed that the
>> latest board of directors has a much higher technocrat context than
>> the original "stakeholder" model, and even the lawyers and such seem
>> to have relevant backgrounds. ICANN also seems to rely much more,
>> for advisory or board nominations, on professional organizations such
>> as the IETF.
>
>When you say that ICANN is adjusting, what do you think they are adjusting
>to -- and, more important, why? (I think the "what" is something like the
>norms of the engineering community.)
I think you state it fairly well as far as what. The board and
various committee seem to have far fewer lawyers, representatives of
governmental and quasi-governmental bodies, venture capitalists, etc.
The remaining specimens of those disciplines seem generally to know
something about engineering.
"Why" is a very good question to which I don't have a very good
answer. There's no question that there's been significant criticism.
I don't understand well enough what the dynamics of the board and
staff are to know how they perceive it.
The emergency committee to respond to Verisign/Sitefinder is unprecedented.
>
>> >[...] The Internet is
>> >intensely "democratic," but certainly in nothing approaching the
>> >strong sense that we all can participate meaningfully in ICANN
>> >committee meetings.
>>
>> And that is key. Feel free to polish the political science
>> terminology, but it's a meritocratic democracy, which also has an
>> intuitive sense of what it does and does not want to look at. In
>> general, social implications is just not of interest outside, say, an
>> occasional ceremonial speech at an officer's appointment or
>> retirement. In my experience with medical communities, there's a bit
>> more tolerance to raising social issues, but when one gets into the
>> scientific sessions, they aren't welcome.
>>
>> Were primarily social-policy oriented individuals to at least prepare
>> a draft technical proposal, considering compatibility with existing
>> software, it would get a much better reception.
>
>[I'm not sure there is a polished phrase for "meritocratic democracy" in your
>sense here, by the way.]
>
>The general picture of "scientists being hostile to talk of social
>implications"
>is not a pretty one, but in context it is more attractive. For instance, if a
>working group is making technical decisions about how the Internet
>functions, "social issues" can only be germane if they are translated into
>technical proposals about how the Internet should function. Of course,
>depending on the social issue, it might be more appropriate to go to some
>other forum.
Some months back, I suspect I was falling into an IETF/NANOG
culturally condition role, when I kept asking for minimum support
requirements for Netizen participation. I looked at that as the
beginning of an iterative process, in which we could examine
feasibility and cost, explore funding mechanisms, and adjust both
capabilities and revenue sources so we could have something that
could be implemented in the near term.
Such a process, however, did not seem to start. Some of the
objections that I remember is that the commitment to the social
policy should be made before any engineering or budgetary analysis.
There were also "commercialization" arguments when I mentioned
economies of scale from bringing in all services on a single fiber
that might, for example, be operated by a firm that principally is a
video entertainment provider.
I can only say that the outraged industry response to Verisign
involves "commercial" people on all sides. The "engineering
community" response was so intense that ICANN _had_ to respond if it
were to remain remotely relevant. Looking at the people I know on
the board, however, I think there were enough people who understood
the technical threat to have supported the emergency action.
It is becoming clear that the ICANN contracts were written very,
very, very badly. Some of this, I suspect, is due to the time
pressure exerted when the US government decided, at White House
level, that it wanted to get out of Internet governance.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:58:07 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Interesting social commentary from the NANOG list
>
>From: "Christopher Bird" <seabird@msn.com>
>To: "'Petri Helenius'" <pete@he.iki.fi>, <nanog@merit.edu>
>Subject: RE: Block all servers?
>Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:17:40 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>
>
>NAT at the end of OC12 sounds hideous indeed. That's why I would prefer
>to see it as part of the modem in the house/business. I am sure (by
>guesswork and not by statistics) that a very large number of users would
>need relatively simple and secure systems. I guess this because of the
>way I see a lot of equipment being used in the groups I talk to. Does
>that mean that "one size fits all?" No of course not. Just in the same
>way that one car type fits all. If it did, wouldn't Skodas be looking
>great right about now?!
>
>Of course from an ISP or other provider's point of view,
>uniformity/standardization allows costs to be driven downwards. So in
>order to keep costs handled, a non-customizable service is the order of
>the day.
>
>By making the NAT router a part of the cable modem at least there is a
>lesser chance that a large number of people who want a simple network
>connection will have any trouble at all.
>
>Perhaps posting a security bond would be an interesting way of
>overcoming some behaviors. General society appears to have strong
>financial motivations ("look what I can get for free (theft) by
>downloading music", etc.) Well make the standard service cheap, and add
>the premium features by control of the NAT router inside the modem from
>the support center. Remember that access is a privilege not a right. Of
>course as soon as you attempt to control a box from outside, that is
>throwing down the gauntlet to the malcommunity. So the NATRouter/Modem
>combo would have to be a bit clever. That of course may drive cost
>up......
>
>As people who inhabit the network space, I think we do have some
>responsibilities to encourage the directions that service provider
>choose. If this isn't a good idea, what is? If we assume the following
>then we are forced to think broadly:
>
>Most PCs that people buy are configured too broadly with too many
>services open and are thus vulnerable.
>Most people do not want to mess with keeping their systems safe (for a
>variety of reasons).
>Most people have become accustomed to relatively inexpensive access
>Most people have "brothers-in-law" who know a bit about computers and
>can royally screw things up!
>Most people know a "really bright 12 year old" who can do "very clever
>things with the computer that I can't understand"
>Many people assume facility with some terminology and fast typing to be
>indicators of knowledge and responsibility.
>Many people do the computing equivalent of throwing trash out of the car
>window - i.e. not taking any responsibility for polluting the
>environment.
>
>These sociological phenomena demand that those who provide the services
>provide them responsibly or face the consequences. Sadly the
>consequences are societal in impact and don't just affect the providers.
>
>How much benefit would we get if we were to reduce the number of
>computers that could possibly be infected with something by 50%, 75%?
>How much benefit could we get by knowing which networks were potentially
>vulnerable - because they chose to open things up.
>
>I realize that we have a long way to go to get security. It is a bit
>like when cars first came out - we could/would drive anywhere.
>Eventually we agreed that we, in a given country, would drive on a
>particular side of the road. There is no obviously good reason why it
>should be one side or the other (as successful drivers in the UK and the
>US would agree!), but pick one. Once that happened, then some of the
>chaos disappeared.
>
>There is a (possibly true) story that when telephone adoption rates were
>analyzed in the 1930s, predictions were that every person in the US
>would have to be a telephone operator to keep up with the manual
>connecting of calls through plug-switchboards. The expected cross-over
>was sometime in the 1950s. Well, with the advent of Subscriber Trunk
>Dialing we are all telephone operators today! I see the same things
>happening in the computing world, we are all going to have to be network
>operators and sesames at some point! Sadly those interfaces are not as
>easy and standard as the familiar phone keypad!
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Petri Helenius
>> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 1:47 AM
>> To: nanog@merit.edu
>> Subject: Re: Block all servers?
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam Selene wrote:
>>
>> >IMHO, all consumer network access should be behind NAT.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> First of all, this would block way too many uses that
>> currently actually
>> sell
>> the consumer network connections. "I recommend my competition
>> to do this"
>>
>> Secondly, it´s very hard, if impossible to come up with a NAT
>> device which could translate a significant amount of
>> bandwidth. Coming up with one to put just a single large
>> DSLAM behind is tricky. (OC-12 level of bandwidth)
>>
>> NAT devices which do OC12 or near don´t come cheap either. This is
>> (fortunately) not a cost you can sink to the customer as
>> added value. "Because we lack clue and technology, we just
>> block you for anything and make you pay for it".
>>
>> >However, the real solutions is (and unfortunately to the
>> detriment of
>> >many 3rd party software companies) for operating system
>> companies such
>> >as Microsoft to realize a system level firewall is no longer
>> something
>> >to be "added on" or configured later. Systems need to be shipped
>> >completely locked down (incoming
>> >*and* outgoing IP ports), and there should be an API for
>> >applications to request permission to access a particular port or
>> >listen on a particular port (invoking a user dialog).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Don´t underestimate the painfully slow rate of change in
>> widely deployed
>> systems.
>> There is a lot of software out there which dates back 15
>> years or more.
>> Can you
>> afford to wait even five?
>>
>> Hardly any of the issues we see today would go away if such
>> an API would
>> be enforced
>> on the applications because the issues are due to the legitimate
>> applications legitimately
>> talking to the network with permission.
>>
>> >As for plug-in "workgroup" networking (the main reason why
>> everything
>> >is open by default), when you create a Workgroup, it should
>> require a
>> >key for that workgroup and enable shared-key IPSEC.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> This is not a bad idea at all. Make sure to save a copy of
>> this message
>> in case
>> somebody tried to patent this.
>>
>> >Currently Windows 2000 can be configured to be extremely secure
>> >without any additional software. Unfortunately you must have a
>> >*lot* of clue to configure the Machine and IP security policies it
>> >provides.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> The box should have a sticker "needs a resident computer mechanic" :)
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #530
******************************
