💾 Archived View for gemini.theuse.net › texts › zines › The_Amateur_Computerist › Supplicament-1.txt captured on 2021-12-17 at 13:26:06.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| TTTTT H H EEEE |
| T H H E |
| T HHHH EEE |
| T H H E |
| T H H EEEE |
| |
| A M M A TTTTTTT EEEEE U U RRRR |
| A A M M M M A A T E U U R R |
| A A M M M M A A T EEE U U RRRR |
| AAAAA M MM M AAAAA T E U U R R |
| A A M M A A T EEEEE UUU R R |
| |
| CCCC OO MM MM PPP U U TTTTT EEEE RRRR III SSS TTTTT |
| C O O M M M P P U U T E R R I S T |
| C O O M M M PPPP U U T EEE RRRR I S T |
| C O O M M P U U T E R R I S T |
| CCCC OO M M P UU T EEEE R R III SSS T |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Supplement Controversy Over the Internet July 1998 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
[1] Stakeholders in the DNS Controversy
[2] Netizens List DNS Discussion
[3] Study of the ARPANET TCP/IP Digest
[4] An Introduction to TCP/IP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Who Are the Stakeholders in the
DNS Controversy Over the Future
of the Internet?
On June 5, 1998 the U.S. government issued a White Paper
elaborating its plans and position to fundamentally change the
control and ownership over the Domain Name System (DNS) that is
the nerve center of the Internet. The basic premise of the White
Paper is that the DNS must be put into private hands.
Such changes are very important issues for the public of the
U.S. and around the world to consider and discuss as the Internet,
in the words of Judge Dalzell of the U.S. Federal District Court,
is: "a far more speech enhancing medium than print, the village
green or the mails"
In the court case of ACLU vs. Reno over the Communications
Decency Act, the Federal Court Judges wrote that "The Internet
is...a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide communication."
In his opinion in that case, Judge Dalzell goes on to direct
the U.S. government saying, "We should also protect the autonomy
that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media
magnates.
Does the White Paper issued by the U.S. government
undertake to protect the autonomy that the Internet confers to
ordinary people? Will placing the DNS into private hands (most
likely dominated by powerful corporate entities) be a way that
the U.S. government can fulfill on its obligation to ordinary
people?
This special issue of the Amateur Computerist provides some
of the kinds of discussion and research that is important in
considering the plans of the U.S. government. First we include a
discussion that occurred on the Netizens mailing list over what
would be a position toward the plans of the U.S. government that
would reflect the interests of Netizens, i.e. of those who
contribute to the Net to help it grow and flourish as a means of
global communication. This online discussion raises issues about
the Framework that U.S. government advisors have created to make
the Internet into a Commercenet, rather than creating a "Framework
for the Net as a New Means of International Communication," that
a government would be creating if it were to uphold its obligation
to protect the autonomy of the ordinary people, as the U.S.
Federal District Court mandated.
Also in this issue is an article describing the cutover from
NCP to TCP/IP on the ARPANET in 1983 and the following split
between the ARPANET and MILNET into two separate but
interconnected Nets as the earliest version of an Internet. This
article demonstrates the vision for the development of the
Internet as a network of diverse nets with no one net dominating
the others. This helps to clarify the model presented by Vint
Cerf for the development of an Internet in 1978. In that document
he explains:
"The basic objective of this project is to establish a
model and a set of rules which will allow data networks of
varying internal operation to be interconnected, permitting
users to access remote re sources and to permit inter-computer
communication across the connected networks."
The rush to give the nerve center of the Internet, the DNS
functions which include the root server over to some private
interests, in a to be created organization which doesn't even
have a public proposal for its founding 4 months before it is to
get control of key Internet functions, is a very serious change
of direction from the obligations that a government has to its
citizens.
Also in this issue is an article about the nature of TCP and
IP and how they provide for communication among diverse
networks.
Given that the originating conception of the Internet was to
be a Net of Networks and that no one network was to dominate
others, it is imperative that these origins be discussed and
understood and actions like that proposed by the U.S. government
Green and White papers be widely discussed and challenged. Can
any private sector organization even begin to protect the
"autonomy of ordinary people" to have the ability to communicate
globally? Isn't that is an obligation for governments who have
a social obligation to their peoples?
We hope this special issue will serve to raise some of the
important questions surrounding the plans by various groups and
interests for the future of the Net. We don't want to be going
backward to a single Net, to an ARPANET, but this time one that
is devoted to buying and selling and to commercial activities.
Instead we want to go forward to the further development and
flourishing of the Internet as "a unique and new means of
worldwide communication." We hope this special issue will help
to encourage the discussion and activities that will make this
vision more and more a reality.