💾 Archived View for gemini.theuse.net › texts › zines › The_Amateur_Computerist › Supplicament-2.txt captured on 2021-12-17 at 13:26:06.
View Raw
More Information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[2] Netizens List DNS Discussion
From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
Subject: [netz] Internet as Communications Medium - Need for
Discussion
Date: 20 Mar 1998 11:07:07 -0500
I welcome comments and discussion on the following draft and on
the issues it is raising.
Internet as a Communication Medium
and How That is not Reflected in the
Proposal to Restructure the DNS
There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to change the
way that Internet domain (site) names are given out, and thus to
affect in an important way the future of the Internet.
The proposal is at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm
March 23 is the end of the time that one can submit comments
on it to the NTIA and comments up till then can be submitted
electronically.
It is interesting to look at the Framework that Ira
Magaziner, the advisor to the President, has created looking at
the future of the Internet.
In the document called Framework, he fails to mention or
consider that the Internet is an important new *communication*
medium. Instead he substitutes the word *commerce* for
- communication* and sets out a framework for making the Internet
into an important new means of commerce.
In two sentences at the beginning of his document he says
that "the Internet empowers citizens and democratizes societies"
and then he goes on and spends the next 24 pages describing
changes that have to come about to make the Internet into an
electronic marketplace for business.
Nowhere in the "Framework" does he discuss the fact that
Netizens are those who come on line to contribute to the growth
and the development of the Net. Instead Magaziner sees the
Internet as "being driven ... by the private sector."
If the "Framework" has *no* understanding of the ways that
the Internet and Usenet contribute to and make possible new forms
of *communication* between people, then there is no way that the
proposal he has made for changing the DNS (domain name system),
that assigns address and maintains the lookup tables, can help to
facilitate the communication that is so important as the essence
of the Internet. The Proposal "Improvement of Technical
Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Proposed Rule" is
listed in the February 20, 1988 Federal Register. (And one can
make comments on it till March 23. It is also online at the NTIA
web site.)
Instead of examining how this *communication* has been
developed and why it is so important, Magaziner is rushing to
replace the current system (which was also developed without any
analysis of the importance of the communication aspects of the
Internet) with a "privatized" new form.
In this "privatized" new form, he has proposed creating a
"membership association" that will represent Internet users. So
Internet users are not to represent themselves, but the U.S.
government is proposing creating a rubber stamp organization to
promote its attempt to change the Internet from a medium for
human-to-human communication into something that only conceives
of users as "customers" of unregulated advertisers and other
forms of business.
This is hostile to the whole nature and development of the
Internet. Magaziner claims that the "marketplace, not governments
should determine technical standards." What he seems to have no
knowledge of is how government support for a standards process
that wouldn't be dominated by the most powerful corporations, is
some of how helpful standards have been developed. Instead
Magaziner is trying to recast the standards development process
to mirror the unhealthy situation that develops when the supposed
"marketplace" is allowed to set standards.
Magaziner is proposing creating a supposed "not for profit"
corporation to take over the domain name system functions
currently being administered by IANA (the root system and the
appropriate data bases). This new corporation he proposes will
have a board of directors which will be made up of 5 members who
are commercial users. There are pro posed two directors from "a
membership association of regional number registries", two
members designated by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and
two members from an association he is proposing be created
representing domain name registries and registrars, and 7 members
from the membership organization he is creating. (Of which he
says at least one of those board seats could be designated for an
individual or entity engaged in non-commercial, not-for-profit
use of the Internet, and one for individual end users. The
remaining seats could be filled by commercial users, including
trademark holders.) Thus he is basing his proposal on
to-be-created associations that will not be based on the
Internet, but created to provide for commercial control of the
domain naming system.
The proposal is an effort to change the nature and character
of the Internet from a means of communication to a means of
"commerce." It is almost like claiming that the advertisers in a
newspaper should have an organization that will assure their
control of the newspaper, and ignoring the fact that the
newspaper exists to present the news, editorials, etc.
The Internet has been developed and continues to be for most
of its users, a place where one can communicate with others,
whether by email, posting to Usenet newsgroups, putting up a WWW
site, etc. As such it is the nature of this communication that
has to be understood and protected in any proposals to change key
aspects of how the Internet is administered.
Also the Internet makes possible communication with people
around the world. Thus creating a board where commercial
businesses are the main controlling interests is hostile to
facilitating this communication. While Magaziner's proposal is
being distributed electronically, it gives no indication of
where it came from, and why it fails to be based on the most
essential aspects of the Internet. Why doesn't the advisor
making up such a proposal ask for discussion on line and
participate in the discussion so as to be able to create a
proposal that will reflect the needs and interests of those who
are online rather than a narrow group of commercial interests.
The Judges in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia hearing
the CDA case (the Communications Decency Act) and the Supreme
Court Judges affirming their decision recognized that the
Internet is an important new means of mass communication. The
Judges in the Federal District Court case wrote: "The Internet
is...a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide communication."
Judge Dalzell, in his opinion, wrote explaining how "The
Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the
village green, or the mails....We should also protect the
autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as
media magnates....There is also a compelling need for public
education about the benefits and dangers of this new medium and
Government can fill that role as well."
However, there is no indication in either of Magaziner's
proposals, the longer "Framework" proposal, or the specific
proposal to restructure the DNS, that he is interested in or has
considered the benefits of the Internet for the public of the
U.S. or elsewhere around the world. Instead he is only putting
forward the wishes of certain commercial entities who want to
grab hold of the Internet for their own narrow purposes. By
restructuring the domain naming system in a way that can put it
up for control by a few commercial interests, Magaziner's
proposal is failing to protect the autonomy that the medium
confers to ordinary people, as the court decision in the CDA case
directed U.S. government officials.
The ARPANET and Internet (up till 1995) developed because
of an Acceptable Use Policy encouraging and supporting
communication and limiting and restricting what commercial
interests were allowed to do. As such it developed as an
important means of people being able to utilize the regenerative
power of communication to create something very new and important
for our times.
Pioneers with a vision of the future of the Internet called
for it to be made available to all as a powerful education
medium, not for it to be turned into something that would mimic
the worst features of a so called "democratic nation" which
reduces the rights and abilities of its citizens to those of so
called "customers" of unregulated and unaccountable commercial
entities.
The Internet and the Netizens who populate the Internet have
created something much more important than the so called
commercial online "market place" that the Framework is trying to
create. Netizens have created an online international marketplace
of ideas and discussion which is needed to solve the complex
problems of our times. The process of "privatizing" what is a
public trust will only result in more problems and fights among
the commercial entities that are vying for their own self
interest, rather than having any regard for the important
communications that the Internet makes possible.
Both the government processes and purposes in proposing the
DNS restructuring do not ground themselves on the important and
unique nature of the Internet. Proposals and practices to serve
the future of the Internet and the Netizens who contribute to
that future, can only be crafted through a much more democratic
process than that which led to the current proposal. There is a
need to examine the processes that have actually given birth to
and helped the Net to grow and flourish, and to build on those
processes in creating the ways to solve the problems of the
further development of the Net. Sadly Magaziner's proposal has
ignored that process, and thus we are left with a proposal that
doesn't reflect the democratic and communicative nature of the
Internet and so can only do harm to its further development and
cause ever more problems.
Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
Comments and Discussion needed!
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6
From: markus.kruggel@uni-duisburg.de (Markus Kruggel)
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet as Communications
Medium - Need for Discussion
Date: 20 Mar 1998 16:28:50 -0500
Hello Ronda,
On 20-Mar-98 17:05:11, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to
> change the way that Internet domain (site) names
> are given out, and thus to affect in an important
> way the future of the Internet.
Thanks for pointing it out to me. After reading this
document and your draft, I think this document is a good starting
point to discuss two crucial matters of the future of the
Internet: who will control and set standards and in which way
will the Netizens be represented.
> This is hostile to the whole nature and
> development of the Internet. Magaziner claims
> that the "marketplace, not governments should
> determine technical standards." What he seems to
> have no knowledge of is how the government
> support for a standards process that wouldn't be
> dominated by the most powerful corporations, is
> some of how helpful standards have been
> developed. Instead Magaziner is trying to recast
> the standards development process to mirror the
> unhealthy situation that develops when the
> supposed "marketplace" is allowed to set
> standards.
As setting the standards of something is a powerful means
to determine its future development, setting the Internet
standards can't be done by markets as long there's still an
agreement that the net has more than the commercial function, and
especially when the social implications of the net are stressed.
Social interests can't be managed through a market mechanism as
social interests always need a reconciliation of the strong and
the weak that the market simply cannot accomplish: the means of
communication on a market is money and so the strong ("rich") can
gladly ignore any opposition of the weak ("poor") as those don't
have the means of getting through to the arena of the market. In
our case that means that any standards set by "markets" will not
promote any social interests that are opposing the commercial
interests.
That brings me to the second point: the social interests as
well as the commercial interests regarding the net have to be
identified as well as their possible connections to Internet
standards. To explain what I mean: in the early 80s a
communication system called BTX was introduced in Germany (quite
similar to Minitel in France and other systems) that used the
phone line and the TV to give electronic information to the user.
This system had a channel bias, that means the channel from the
net work to the user was much bigger than the channel from the
user to the network (I think it was 1200 bps vs. 75 bps).
Possible net standards nowadays could go into a similar
direction, converting it into a one way street that serves the
needs of commercial interests while those pedestrians can still
find their way on the sidewalk.
To actually fight against such a threat, it is IMO vital
that both interests are identified and translated into "standard
matters", to prevent that we discover afterwards that a change of
a standard led to a advantage of the commercial interests on
cost of the social interests.
> Magaziner is proposing creating a supposed "not
> for profit" corporation to take over the domain
> name system functions currently being
> administered by IANA (the root system and the
> appropriate databases). This new corporation he
> proposes will have a board of directors which (...)
> 7 members from the membership organization he
> is creating. (Of which he says at least one of those
> board seats could be designated for an individual
> or entity engaged in non-commercial, not-for-
> profit use of the Internet, and one for individual
> end users. The remaining seats could be filled by
> commercial users, including trademark holders."
Here's the other point why I think the proposal could have
very negative effects on the net's future: representation is
mainly built on who is paying. In such a board the
"non-commercial, not-for-profit" voice would only be heard - if
at all - but would not be able to influence any of the decision
made. Such a model of representation would be another means of
ensuring a domination of commercial interest in crucial matters
of net administration.
And if it is applied in the case of the DNS administration,
why shouldn't this be the model for other areas: a few
technicians, many commercial users and one "non-commercial,
not-for-profit" voice.
> The proposal is an effort to change the nature and
> character of the Internet from a means of
> communication to a means of "commerce."
I agree wholeheartedly to this comment.
> While Magaziner's proposal is being distributed
> electronically, it gives no indication of where it
> came from, and why it fails to be based on the
> most essential aspects of the Internet. Why doesn't
> the advisor making up such a proposal ask for
> discussion on line and participate in the
> discussion so as to be able to create a proposal
> that will reflect the needs and interests of those
> who are online rather than a narrow group of
> commercial interests.
Indeed. A more open and democratic way of discussing these
matters is needed. Somehow our interests have to find their way
into the discussion but I'm quite unsure how this could be
solved. Hopefully, as Ronda pointed this document out to us, we
are able to discuss the implications of this proposal and make
them more public on the net (that is, if this isn't the case
already).
Bye,
- Markus Kruggel, 40217 Duesseldorf, Germany*
markus.kruggel@unidui.uni-duisburg.de
http://online-club.de/members1/rp10930/
From: astingsh@ksu.edu (kerry)
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet as Communications
Medium - Need for Discussion Date: 21 Mar 1998
18:48:58 -0500
The Proposal seems to contradict itself several times. In
itemizing the reasons for change, it's clear that the concept of
"government" as exactly the stabilizing force required in society
has lost out to "Government" as merely an entrenched bureaucracy.
The initial premise that the Net *should* be completely
commercialized is maintained, despite the fact that it is
"increasing commercial value" of do main names which leads to
trademark conflicts, while the "widespread dissatisfaction"
exists only among those who see a *commercial* opportunity in DN
registration. Again, "Certain technical management functions
require coordination. In these cases, responsible, private-sector
action is preferable to government control." - but, "we divide
the name and number functions into two groups, those that can be
moved to a competitive system and those that should be
coordinated." How private-sector coordination is to differ from
private-sector competition is not explained., or, if "objective
criteria" are found, what the means are of bringing them into
wide accept ability if the first guess proves faulty. One is
reminded of the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment,
which would give corporations the power of nations, with all the
benefits of government with none of the disadvantages, like equal
representation or free speech. Perhaps that's all one should
expect of a concoction of the OECD and the cohorts of
international business, but it's a bit alarming to see the USG,
the bastion of democracy, ignoring - indeed actively dismantling
- its own fundamental principles.
kerry
========
www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm
From: ronda@panix.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet as Communications Medium
Hello Markus and others on the Netizens Mailing list.
I wrote an answer to this on March 23, but somehow it got
lost, and then things got very hectic and I haven't had a chance
till now to respond. But I did want to respond so please excuse
how late the response is.
> From: markus.kruggel@uni-duisburg.de (Markus Kruggel)
> Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
> Subject: Re: [netz] Internet as Communications Medium
> - Need for Discussion
> Date: 20 Mar 1998 16:28:50 -0500
> Hello Ronda,
> On 20-Mar-98 17:05:11, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>> There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to
>> change the way that Internet domain (site) names
>> are given out, and thus to affect in an important
>> way the future of the Internet.
> Thanks for pointing it out to me. After reading this
> document and your draft, I think this document is
> a good starting point to discuss two crucial
> matters of the future of the Internet: who will
> control and set standards and in which way will
> the Netizens be represented.
I agree that there is a need to discuss the two topics you
mention:
1) who will control and set standards
2) in which way will the Netizens be represented.
There is one other topic I think very important, which is
3) what is the nature of the Net as a new medium of international
communication and how to nourish and continue to develop it.
> As setting the standards of something is a
> powerful means to determine its future
> development, setting the Internet standards can't
> be done by markets as long there's still an
> agreement that the net has more than the
> commercial function, and especially when the
> social implications of the net are stressed. Social
> interests can't be managed through a market
> mechanism as social interests always need a
> reconciliation of the strong and the weak that the
> market simply cannot accomplish: the means of
Yes the social implications and importance of the Net need
to be considered. This is more important than any commercial
function. There is only market dysfunction in reality. What the
market means in the U.S. is the development of unregulated, govt
support for monopolies like Microsoft.
> communication on a market is money and so the
> strong ("rich") can gladly ignore any opposition of
> the weak ("poor") as those don't have the means...
Interesting. But why do you say "the means of communication
on a market is money" ?
I agree that money (or some other form of power) is what
functions to determine who wins and who loses, but I am
interested in why you say this is communication.
> of getting through to the arena of the market. In
> our case that means that any standards set by
> "markets" will not promote any social interests
> that are opposing the commercial interests.
Yes this is helpful. "Standards" cannot be set by a "market"
mechanism as it only makes what the most powerful wants the
"standard".
> That brings me to the second point: the social
> interests as well as the commercial interests re-
> garding the net have to be identified as well as
> their possible connections to Internet standards. To
> explain what I mean:
This is helpful- I agree that the social interests have to
be identified.
How do we work to have that happen?
In the U.S. at least, the government is *only* interested in
what the commercial interests want, and not at all interested in
what the people or Netizens want.
Somehow we need to find a way to not just react to the
government support for the commercial sector, but we need to find
a way to define what are the social interests and how to work to
have them developed.
I was thinking perhaps to try to develop a "Framework for
the Net as a New Means of International Communication" as
opposed to the Magaziner Framework of the Net for Commerce.
But I don't know if that is the way forward.
However, I do think it is important to try to identify the
communication aspects of the Net and then how to continue to
support and spread the advantage this makes possible more
broadly.
> in the early 80s a communication system called
> BTX was introduced in Germany (quite similar to
> Minitel in France and other systems) that used
> the phone line and the TV to give electronic
> information to the user. This system had a channel
> bias, that means the channel from the network to
> the user was much bigger than the channel from
> the user to the network (I think it was 1200 bps
> vs. 75 bps). Possible net standards nowadays
> could go into a similar direction, converting it into
> a one way street that serves the needs of
> commercial interests while those pedestrians can
> still find their way on the sidewalk.
This is a very helpful example.
I am interested in what you think is the way we should try
to go forward to have the broader social interests with regard to
the Net discussed and brought onto the public agenda.
> To actually fight against such a threat, it is IMO
> vital that both interests are identified and
> translated into "standard matters", to prevent that
> we discover afterwards that a change of a standard
> led to a advantage of the commercial interests on
> cost of the social interests.
I am trying to understand how we do this.
>> Magaziner is proposing creating a supposed "not
>> for profit" corporation to take over the domain
>> name system functions currently being
>> administered by IANA (the root system and the
>> appropriate databases). This new corporation he
>> proposes will have a board of directors which
>> (...) 7 members from the membership
>> organization he is creating. (Of which he says at
>> least one of those board seats could be
>> designated for an individual or entity engaged in
>> non-commercial, not-for-profit use of the
>> Internet, and one for individual end users. The
>> remaining seats could be filled by commercial
>> users, including trademark holders."
> Here's the other point why I think the proposal
> could have very negative effects on the net's
> future: representation is mainly built on who is
> paying. In such a board thee "non-commercial,
> not-for-profit" voice would only be heard - if at all
> - but would not be able to influence any of the
> decision made. Such a model of representation
> would be another mean of ensuring a domination
> of commercial interest in crucial matters of net
> administration.
Yes - Magaziner's proposal was only to take a crucial aspect
of the Internet -- the DNS (Domain Name System) and give it over
to the commercial sector. This will create a real problem as the
commercial interests have a very different agenda with regard to
Internet development than the Netizen or user agenda.
It seems important to find some way to work to challenge
such a power grab and also the whole backhanded way this is all
being done. Magaziner didn't come online and ask for comments
and discussion on what should be done regarding the DNS -- and
there are U.S. govt newsgroups where he could have done so.
Instead he seems to have responded to the proposals by the
commercial interests to give them this important aspect of the
Internet. There does seem to be a lot of opposition to what
Magaziner is doing -- it is a problem for many so it would be
good to see if there could be a common battle, or some alliance
of all those who will be harmed by this proposal.
> And if it is applied in the case of the DNS
> administration, why shouldn't this be the model
> for other areas: a few technicians, many
> commercial users and one "non-commercial,
> not-for-profit" voice.
Yes - and in fact the Net then to made into mainly a vehicle
for commerce. I noticed recently that some of the search engines
mainly list commercial listings when you search for something,
rather than the broad view of what they used to list.
>> The proposal is an effort to change the nature and
>> character of the Internet from a means of
>> communication to a means of "commerce."
> I agree wholeheartedly to this comment.
I wonder if it would be worth trying to write a framework
for the Internet as a means of communication.
>> While Magaziner's proposal is being distributed
>> electronically, it gives no indication of where it
>> came from, and why it fails to be based on the
>> most essential aspects of the Internet. Why
>> doesn't the advisor making up such a proposal
>> ask for discussion on line and participate in the
>> discussion so as to be able to create a proposal
>> that will reflect the needs and interests of those
>> who are online rather than a narrow group of
>> commercial interests.
> Indeed. A more open and democratic way of
> discussing these matters is needed. Somehow our
> interests have to find their way into the discussion
> but I'm quite unsure how this could be solved.
> Hopefully, as Ronda....
I wonder if there are mailing lists where govt officials are
discussing these issues with the commercial interests - in the
past the com-priv (commercialization - privatization) functioned
to provide for such discussion (but it doesn't seem to do so much
lately) But if one tried to bring up social interests, one was
attacked.
But there seems to be a need for a Netizen framework for the
future of the Net - and then to apply this in responding to the
commercial frame work.
> pointed this document out to us, we are able to
> discuss the implications of this proposal and make
> them more public on the net (that is, if this isn't
> the case already).
I didn't see much discussion of the DNS on Usenet - actually
I don't know what newsgroups would be discussing it.
I wonder if anyone on the Netizens list knows of where such
discussion has taken place online.
But in any case, it hasn't been open and obvious .
>*Markus Kruggel, 40217 Duesseldorf, Germany*
>markus.kruggel@unidui.uni-duisburg.de
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 18:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: markus.kruggel@uni-duisburg.de
Subject: [netz] Internet as a Means of Communication
- Need for Discussion
Hi all,
sorry for this late reply, but my workload here was tremendous,
and I wanted to write a decent answer as I find the topic quite
important.
On 08-Apr-98 03:35:08, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>> There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to
>>> change the way that Internet domain (site) names
>>> are given out, and thus to affect in an important
>>> way the future of the Internet.
>> Thanks for pointing it out to me. After reading this
>> document and your draft, I think this document is
>> a good starting point to discuss two crucial matters
>> of the future of the Internet: who will control and
>> set standards and in which way will the Netizens
>> be represented.
> I agree that there is a need to discuss the two topics
> you mention:
>
> 1) who will control and set standards
> 2) in which way will the Netizens be represented.
>
> There is one other topic I think very important,
> which is:
>
> 3) what is the nature of the Net as a new medium of
> international communication and how to nourish
> and continue to develop it.
I agree. But IMO 3. comes before 1. and 2. as the answer(s)
to this question will determine possible answers to 1. and 2.
>> As setting the standards of something is a powerful
>> means to determine its future development, setting
>> the Internet standards can't be done by markets as
>> long there's still an agreement that the net has
>> more than the commercial function, and especially
>> when the social implications of the net are
>> stressed. Social interests can't be managed through
>> a market mechanism as social interests always
>> need a reconciliation of the strong and the weak
>> that the market simply cannot accomplish: the
>> means of communication on a market is money
>> and so the strong ("rich") can gladly ignore any
>> opposition of the weak ("poor") as those don't have
>> the means
> Interesting. But why do you say "the means of
> communication on a market is money" ? I agree that
> money (or some other form of power) is what
> functions to determine who wins and who loses, but
> I am interested in why you say this is communica-
> tion.
I was a bit unclear here, I suppose. What I meant was that
communication on a market is realized by setting (seller) and
offering (buyer) prices. What's communicated on market are plans:
plans to sell or to buy at a certain price. So, it's probably
better to say that all market communication *refers* to money
instead of saying the money is the *means* of communication on a
market. However, both lead to same result: whatever can't be
formulated in terms of quantities and prices can't be
communicated on market.
>> That brings me to the second point: the social
>> interests as well as the commercial interests
>> regarding the net have to be identified as well as
>> their possible connections to Internet standards. To
>> explain what I mean:
> This is helpful- I agree that the social interests have
> to be identified.
>
>How do we work to have that happen?
I think those who have the interests have to formulate them.
I see that this bears another problem, because the broad majority
of people around the world who have *no* access to the Internet
would be excluded from this process. If this happens, chances
are that interests that those people have would be excluded,
too.
> In the U.S. at least, the government is *only* inter-
> ested in what the commercial interests want, and not
> at all interested in what the people or Netizens want
> which is what is in the best interest of the society.
Same here in Germany, I'm afraid.
> Somehow we need to find a way to not just react to
> the government support for the commercial sector,
> but we need to find a way to define what are the
> social interests and how to work to have them
> developed.
I think this mainly goes via influencing the public agenda.
My idea concerning this are described a little bit further down.
> I was thinking perhaps to try to develop a "Frame-
> work for the Net as a New Means of International
> Communication" as opposed to the Magaziner
> Framework of the Net for Commerce.
>
> We need to try to figure out what is a way forward.
I don't think that such an extensive framework should
- oppose* the framework for commerce. IMO commerce has to get it's
place on the Internet, too, but it shouldn't rule. So it seems to
me that the best approach is to incorporate social and commercial
interests in some way and to find a compromise between both. But
I probably misunderstood you and what you had in mind was a not a
comprehensive framework but one that concentrates on social inter
ests. It's probably best for us to develop the latter as I'm sure
that Magaziner is not alone and others are happily developing
concept with a commercial bias right now.
>> in the early 80s a communication system called
>> BTX was introduced in Germany (quite similar to
>> Minitel in France and other systems) that used
>> the phone line and the TV to give electronic infor-
>> mation to the user. This system had a channel bias,
>> that means the channel from the network to the
>> user was much bigger than the channel from the
>> user to the network (I think it was 1200 bps vs. 75
>> bps). Possible net standards nowadays could go
>> into a similar direction, converting it into a one
>> way street that serves the needs of commercial
>> interests while those pedestrians can still find their
>> way on the sidewalk.
> This is a very helpful example.
>
> I am interested in what you think is the way we
> should try to go forward to have the broader social
> interests with regard to the Net discussed and
> brought onto the public agenda.
One way to do this seems to make use of the conventional
mass media. The problem that I see here is, that Netizens are a
minority within the society and as long as this state remains, it
will be quite hard to interest a broader public for this topic,
simply because it won't make a story on conventional mass media.
Another way I could think of would be to sensibilize more or
less prominent and public figures to realize what power over
standards can mean for the future of communication. Sayings of
those public figures would be perceived more probably than any
statement that is made by us - on this list, for example.
A third way, and probably the most promising one, is to
point out the importance of the topic to non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) of different kinds and not only the EFF and
the like. I think the NGOs could be helpful because they are
benefitting a lot from the Internet (in fact, already the fax
machine was a powerful tool for them) and hence they would be
harmed from processes that exclude social interests. NGOs could
probably advocate Netizens' interests best and they could start
immediately and they could do it on world scale as they already
work together. IMO the last is a really huge advantage.
>> Here's the other point why I think the proposal
>> could have very negative effects on the net's
>> future: representation is mainly built on who is
>> paying. In such a board thee "non-commercial,
>> not-for-profit" voice would only be heard - if at
>> all - but would not be able to influence any of
>> the decision made. Such a model of
>> representation would be another mean of
>> ensuring a domination of commercial interest in
>> crucial matters of net administration.
> Yes - Magaziner's proposal was only to take a
> crucial aspect of the Internet -- the DNS
> (Domain Name System) and give it over to the
> commercial sector. This will create a real problem
> as the commercial interests have a very different
> agenda with regard to Internet development than
> the Netizen or user agenda.
>
> It seems important to find some way to work to
> challenge such a power grab and also the whole
> backhanded way this is all being done.
The only way I see is to make such developments public. If the
regarding persons and institutions don't do this themselves it
has to be done by those who take note of it. One tool we have to
accomplish this is the net itself. Obviously, a simple web site
wouldn't do the trick, instead the discussion has to be spread to
inform as many people as possible - carried into newsgroups and
mailing lists for example.
> There does seem to be a lot of opposition to what
> Magaziner is doing -- it is a problem for many so
> it would be good to see if there could be a
> common battle, or some alliance of all those who
> will be harmed by this proposal.
Where is this opposition forming up at the moment? Is there any
news?
>> And if it is applied in the case of the DNS
>> administration, why shouldn't this be the model
>> for other areas: a few technicians, many
>> commercial users and one "non-commercial,
>> not-for-profit" voice.
> Yes - and in fact the Net then to made into mainly
> a vehicle for commerce. I noticed recently that
> some of the search engines mainly list commercial
> listings when you search for something, rather
> than the broad view of what they used to list.
That's an interesting observation. Do you have any further info
on this?
(...)
> Perhaps what is needed is a Netizen framework for
> the future of the Net - and then to apply this in
> responding to the commercial framework.
Yes, I really think that developing this framework should be the
next step. The first things that I'm aware of now and which
should be included in this frame work are:
- - the Net's nature from the Netizens' point of view
- - a plan for the future development of the Net
- - other possible plans (commercial ones, for example)
- - which development ideas exclude each other
- - the levers to influence the Net's development
(standards, ...)
- - how these levers can be used to realize the above future
plan
- - in which ways the levers can be used to the Netizens'
disadvantage
Of course this list is far from being complete or detailed.
But IMO it should be completed before the framework is worked
out.
Bye,
- --
*Markus Kruggel, 40217 Duesseldorf, Germany*
markus.kruggel@unidui.uni-duisburg.de
http://online-club.de/members1/rp10930/
(To Be Continued)