[15] ARPANET Mailing List and Usenet Newsgroups Creating an Open and Scientific Process for Technology Development and Diffusion by Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com [Editor's Note: Following is the first installment of a longer article about the importance of MsgGroup mailing list and the kinds of lessons it can provide toward determining how to solve the problems of scaling the Internet.] Introduction In an article in the journal "The Information Society", Luciano Floridi from Wolfson College at Oxford, notes the importance of the Internet and how it has generated an excitement and promise for the future. Floridi writes: [L]ast year the Internet finally appeared to the general public as the most revolutionary phenomenon since the invention of telephones, though in this case Time missed the opportunity to elect the Internet 'Man of the Year.'(1) Floridi, contrasts the significance of the new development represented by the Internet with the relative lack of scholarly study and knowledge about its development: A whole population of several million people interacts by means of the global network. It is the most educated intellectual community that ever appeared on earth, global academy that, like a unique Leibnizian mind, thinks always. The Internet is a completely new world, about which we seem to know very little . . . [I]ts appearance has found most of us, and especially the intellectual community, thoroughly unprepared. However, to "know" something it is helpful to look at its early development, as that is when its form and principles are most clearly articulated. The foundation for the Internet was set by the development of the ARPANET (b. 1969) and Usenet (b. 1979), which were connected to each other in the early 1980s. This paper will examine some of the early computer conferencing research work to link those on different computers or using different operating systems on the ARPANET and then on Usenet. It will explore how the foundation was set to promote computer facilitated communication, which was some of the scientific and collaborative work which made the Internet possible. There will be an effort to quote early pioneers when possible to give an indication of the process as well as the result of their work. Part I Support for a Scientific Methodology Writing in the 1960s, the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas described a scientific methodology developed by the U.S. Air Force to solve difficult technological problems. He outlines the process of communication established between those contractors who would work on a problem and the Air Force personnel involved. They placed importance on communication to identify the precise nature of the problem, and then the combining of practice and theory to develop a methodology to solve the problem.(2) A similar kind of collaborative communication process was developed via the early mailing list MsgGroup on the ARPANET and this process helped to make it possible to develop and expand the ARPANET into the Internet. ARPA and the ARPANET When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the world's first artificial satellite on October 4, 1957, it took the world by surprise. In the U.S., President Eisenhower summoned scientists to provide advice to the White House on how to advance U.S. science and technical developments. Believing that the competition within the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) was a problem that had to be solved if the U.S. was to advance in its ability to do forefront scientific and technological development, Secretary of Defense Neil McElroy created a new agency, apart from the three existing branches of the services. This new agency, the Advanced Research and Projects Agency (ARPA) was to provide support for advanced space research. By the early 1960's, ARPA recognized the need to expand its scope, and J.C.R. Licklider was brought in to head a new office that would take on research in computer science. Licklider served as the first head of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at ARPA from 1962 to 1964. The earliest work of the IPTO was to fund research in the time-sharing of computers, to make interactive computing available in a way not possible with the batch operated computers common at the time.(3) By the late 1960s however, time sharing of computers had developed and there were different computer time sharing systems around the U.S. Those at ARPA began to envision a linking up of these different systems so that the resources could be shared and so those using different computer hardware and software would be able to communicate with each other.(4) Also, the work of pioneers like Paul Baran at RAND in the U.S. and Donald W. Davies working in the United Kingdom, indicated that a more economical form of data transmission, i.e. packet switching, would provide an appropriate technology for data transmission. Recognizing the need to do research in creating a computer data network that would make it possible to share resources among researchers doing work on different hardware and software platforms, a contract was awarded to BBN to begin the construction of a sub-network that would connect various ARPA contractors at universities and other sites with ARPA contracts. The new network became known as the ARPANET. Those connected to the ARPANET grew rapidly and by the mid 1970s there was the recognition that a new form of communication had developed on the ARPANET called electronic mail or more commonly, e-mail. MsgGroup Begins In a message submitted to the MsgGroup mailing list dated June 7 1975, Steve Walker, of ARPA (IPTO) and Net Manager of the ARPANET(5) describes a proposal for communication research on the early ARPANET. He writes that he is "seeking to establish a group of people concerned with message processing" in order to "develop a sense of what is mandatory, what is nice, and what is not desirable." He notes, "We have a lot of experience with lots of services and should be able to collect our thoughts on the matter." The methodology he proposes, however, is of particular importance. He is encouraging the creation of a new form of computer conferencing to be developed on the early ARPANET. "My goal," he writes, "at present is not to establish 'another committee' but to see if dialogue can develop over the net." He notes that there is probably something less formal already occurring, but he wants to broaden it to be able to include more of those who could make a contribution. Participation will be encouraged, but it is voluntary. "I do not wish to force anyone to participate," he explains, "but I strongly urge anyone with comments (positive or negative) to toss them in." Also, the form of participation was to be open ended, rather than requiring particular kinds of contribution. "While supporting philosophical discussions," he writes, "I like very much the specifics of evaluation. Can we try to do this," he asks, promising that "the results may surprise many of us." He requests that the participants "encourage a FORUM-type set up if it's not too difficult to set up, realizing that many (myself included) will have little time to contribute." Though he recognizes that such sporadic participation may be thought to fragment the group, he proposed they should be made and will prove to be a contribution. "I've asked Dave Farber to maintain a list of Message Group participants," he continues, noting that Dave Farber, then on the faculty at the University of California Irvine, a participant on the ARPANET, would help facilitate participation in the online forum Walker was proposing. Extending his invitation to newcomers to be full participants without feeling they have to gather any particular background, he explains, "those who don't wish to have their message files filled with possible 'junk mail' should feel free to withdraw." But he expresses the hope that it will be possible "from all this to develop a long term strategy for where message services should go on the ARPANET and indeed in the DOD." And Walker ends his message by encouraging participation, "Let's have at it." The mid 1970s was a period of change in developing the usefulness of computer mail on the ARPANET. Previous to 1975, the creation of programs making e-mail possible on the ARPANET was more of an informal undertaking, according to a study of ARPANET e-mail posted to MsgGroup by Raymond R. Panko(6). Panko notes the earliest work in developing e-mail capabilities grew up on the earliest time sharing systems funded by ARPA in the early 1960s. "But the value of computer mail had become obvious to ARPA by the beginning of 1975." He writes how ARPA, like a number of other organizations, had begun to use computer mail for its bread and butter communication and had become aware that a relatively mature communication medium was becoming available. It was against this background of increasing interest by ARPA in e-mail that Steve Walker issued the invitation to take part in an online conference to develop a computer conferencing system. Farber responded to Walker's invitation, "I too second the motion of Steve to Let's have at it."(7) Farber promised to maintain a file of correspondence for those who participate in case they miss any of the messages or do "not feel like making like a file clerk." Those involved agreed to accept the challenge of exploring how to create a network conferencing system using ARPANET communication. In considering the difficulties of using such technology during this period in the mid 1970s, David Crocker, at the University of Southern California presented his evaluation of three possible programs that those on MsgGroup could use to form their online conference. One of the programs was FORUM, a conferencing system developed under DOD funding. Crocker explains that this conferencing system "has a long start-up curve and requires that all participants have access to the same machine."(7) Another proposed conferencing program TCTalk, Crocker notes, "requires that all have operating access to the operating system Tenex," which was one of the operating systems used by some of those on the ARPANET.(8) Since those on the ARPANET were using a variety of different computers and several different operating systems, Crocker believed that neither a program dependent upon a single type of computer nor one requiring a particular operating system would be appropriate. Instead he explained that there was a program being used to send e-mail on the ARPANET (i.e. Net Mail) that was already being used by those on the ARPANET and it made communication between users with diverse computer systems and operating systems possible. Crocker also noted some of the other advantages of Net Mail. He wrote(9): Use of Net Mail a) is extremely convenient for most, if not all, of us, since we already exercise it for other activities; b) allows passive observation of the dialogue, rather than forcing everyone to explicitly catch up on recent comments . . . .; c) mail is easily deleted and so "junk" mail is not really a serious problem. Most, if not all of us, have mail reading systems which allow a "menu" review of mail, prior to reading the contents. Proposing that Net Mail will best satisfy the aims of the research, he writes: "I have spent the better part of this spring looking at our teleconferencing capabilities (as part of a seminar ) and as a result, suggest we continue to use Network mail as our communication tool, rather than using TCTALK or FORUM." Listing the participants in MsgGroup at this early period and the sites where they have their computer accounts(10), Farber identifies Burchfield, Myer and Gilbert from Bolt Beranek and Newman, the Cambridge, MA contractor who created the IMP subnetwork for the ARPANET. He lists Tasker, McLinden, Walker, Farber, Stefferud, Ellis, Kirstein, Iseli, Dave Crocker, and Paul Baran at ISI at the University of Southern California. At OFFICE 1, he lists Uhlig and Watson, at MIT-DMS, Vezza, and at Harvard-10, Mealy. In a message noting the promising potential of this new form of computer networking communication, another early MsgGroup participant(11), Tasker writes, "Sitting here in the offices of a potential military user I am extremely gratified and excited to see the msg group interacting and that those interactions appear to be converging around real capabilities that I think can be sold to the operational military guy. A scant three or four months ago I never would have even hoped for the current state of affairs and the direction it indicates." In a similar vein, Ron Uhlig at OFFICE 1 expressed his enthusiastic support for MsgGroup. Describing the informal project he was working on for the Army Materiel Command (AMC), he wrote(12): For those of you unfamiliar with our "experiment" in Army Materiel Command, we have been using OFFICE 1 for communication among seven of the key managers in data processing in Army Materiel Command (AMC)... In general, we have had the same kind of experience in improved communication that ARPA had when they began using a message system on the network. Continuing major cuts in the Army Materiel Command work force plus some fairly major reorganizations which are now being planned are leading us to give serious consideration to adopting an on-line computer based message system for key managers throughout the command. We are in the early stages of trying to define what such a system needs to look like.... Since we are aiming more at the informal communications we are not terribly concerned with the DOD traditions... Our primary concern is that the message system be easily usable by non-computer science people, some of whom are actively hostile to computers in general. The demonstrations that we have given to various non-computer science, nontechnical personnel around AMC have generally been well received. But one must know far too much 'computerese' to use any of the existing systems." Elaborating on the need for online conferencing, he writes: We have a strong need for teleconferencing because our key managers are greatly dispersed geographically. The message system that we eventually adopt needs a teleconference capability. We don't want message handling and teleconferencing to be in two separate systems. Because of this we also want to make it easy in the middle of a message based teleconference to link to a databank somewhere in AMC to pick up information which is needed at that point in time. An FTP type capability, simple to use for the novice, would meet the need very nicely. Concluding his comments, he promises continued feedback: As we get better definition on our requirements during the next few months I will put additional messages into the network to keep you all current on our thinking. This message is only intended to be introductory.(10) A subsequent message by Crocker suggested they ignore authentication issues, which like other security issues, were considered secondary and were avoided for the time being.(13). Given the current state of network/system/mail security, I suggest we ignore authentication issues. Summarizing the progress made in the first month since the beginning of the new form of network communication, Steve Walker writes(14): The MsgGroup was formed by a group of interested people commenting on how message services should appear to users (as opposed to how they should function internally.) I'm pleased with the progress of this 'conference'. I am trying to arrange for Stefferud to serve as a 'paid' organizer so that the group's ramblings can come out in a coherent form. I would encourage your continued participation here and in groups such as Dave Farber's Compcom get together. Part II Vision of New Form of Computer Communication Documenting the success of the work done by those on MsgGroup and subsequent ARPANET mailing lists, a report prepared for a technical conference in 1979 by several MsgGroup participants, observed that there had been important advances in e-mail and conferencing capabilities.(15) The report explained how these achievements are not only a natural out growth of technological advances, but also the result of the convergence of communication and computers. "In various current networks of computers," they write, "large numbers (thousands) of individuals and agencies are able to communicate among themselves via message exchange using many different computers and terminals in the process." This was not an easy feat to achieve. Their report notes the value to people who have access to these computer message services (CMS). They write(16): Those who have access will be able to communicate through the CMS facilities with others who have access as the number of connected individuals and agencies grows, the value of being connected will grow. The key source of value lies in the range of easily addressable potential communication. In the development of MsgGroup conferencing efforts, several describe the unique capabilities that a mailing list like MsgGroup has made available to those participating. For example, in a post, Pickers(17) describes how a mailing list creates a participatory process that is superior to what traditional meetings could make possible. He writes: Unlike normal conferences, where there are limited microphones, a chairperson and where audience energy tends to wear down, MsgGroup style conferencing never resolves issues much less adjourns. This effect follows naturally from the observation that every participant reenters the discussion by choice, perhaps following a recuperative and regenerative period of rest. Others on MsgGroup consider the problem of emotional messages (also known as flaming). However, Gaines, in a post(18), proposes that such problems are secondary and should be recognized as "the price we have to pay for an open discussion group where people are free to voice their ideas. We must expect that this whole process produces a fair amount of nonsense." Most importantly, however, he points out: We are feeling our way in a murky area, and have to expect to make mistakes. Let us judge the MsgGroup by the good ideas that surface which by the nature of the area have to be expected to be few and far between but worth the overhead of the other traffic when they arrive. Emphasizing the unique nature of the contributions to MsgGroup, Charles Frankston with a login at MIT, warned that analogies between electronic mail and telephone and paper communications must be made very carefully. Electronic mail, he writes(19), "is a new medium and it may not necessarily make sense to use it in the same fashion as existing medium, any more than it would have made sense to use telephones in precisely the same fashion as telegraphs that preceded them." Observing that "electronic mail is currently used extensively for communications which today does go to many recipients," he cites interoffice memos as an example. "As a new medium I also claim electronic mail has generated new uses not heretofore possible. For example, most of my use of the medium consists of back and forth technical discussions, often among persons widely dispersed geographically. In fact, the great advantage of electronic mail for this sort of use, is that it is easy to simply cc anyone I think might be interested or have information to provide on the current topic." Another report, titled "The Convergence of Computing and Telecommunications System," by Dave Farber and packet switching pioneer Paul Baran, was posted to MsgGroup(20). Farber and Baran were able to collaborate to write the report via the ARPANET despite the fact they lived in geographically different regions of the U.S. In the report, they wrote that "A major change in computer communication is taking place. Tomorrow, computer communication systems will be the rule for remote collaboration." Problems and Benefits In their report, Farber and Baran observed that the falling costs of computing would lead to a situation where certain industries and institutions would feel threatened by the "prospect of obsolescence of their present justification." One such industry they predicted would be publishing. In his study of e-mail, Panko, too, noted a similar barrier to technological development of e-mail and e-mail conferencing. He observed the inability of commercial users to recognize the advantage of e-mail and of the increased communication that e-mail and online conferencing made possible. However, both Panko's study and the report by Farber and Baran emphasized that many others would welcome the new forms of communication that this convergence of computers and communication technology would make possible. Panko pointed to the promising development represented by the 15 million people involved with CB radio in the U.S., out of a possible 70 million households. This promised that a warm welcome would greet the increased ability for communication to be made available via e-mail and e-mail conferencing. Social Issues Become Important Panko documented how government funding of computer science researchers to solve the problem of computer conferencing communication across different computers and different operating systems had yielded great social and technical benefits. He wrote (21): "Historically, computer media were first extensively developed on the ARPANET. Anyone familiar with the Advanced Research Projects Agency (after whom the ARPANET is named) realizes that ARPA was the dominant funder of leading-edge computing during the 1960's. Essentially, ARPA was funding the community of hobby computerists par excellence. Funding was fat and creativity was given free reign during business hours. Moreover, ARPA contractors found their staffs working long overtime, developing space war games, stock market information services, and as noted above, computer mail systems. In other words, hobby computing at a grand scale was the original source of many advanced mail systems today. Computer mail had a strong hobbyist flavor in its use as well as in its origins. Colleagues in artificial intelligence, database design, and other exotic fields used computer mail to build and maintain their community." "Furthermore," he added, "in applications where computer teleconferencing has been successful, discussion has often been free-wheeling and chatty. The longest conferences tend to be breezy and rambling, yet very successful in exchanging ideas and viewpoints." Thus he noted the great stimulus given to these e-mail developments by the support of government financed programs. In their report, Farber and Baran recognize that social questions would arise as a result of these important new communications developments. And they realized that too little emphasis would be given to examining the social consequences that had to be considered to determine what the future should be for these social developments. For example, the issue of how decisions over the new medium would be made wasn't being given adequate consideration.(22) "Little attention," they wrote, "is paid to the 'public interest.' In part, the term defies definition. Is the public interest the interest of the cross-subsidized residential telephone user? Is it the interest of a business which faces a reduced communications bill? Is the public interest to be viewed primarily in the short term irrespective of long term damage to existing institutions in achieving immediate savings." Summarizing the promise for the future that enhanced communication would hold, Lauren Weinstein wrote(23): The whole point of MsgGroup to me is that we are free to communicate without undue worry about costs, and to borrow a line from the closing episode of the 'Connections' program from PBS, "the easier it is to communicate, the faster change occurs." It is this very change that is creating the systems, concepts and most importantly, the EXPECTATIONS of people for message systems of the future. TO BE CONTINUED ----- Note: The notes corresponding to the numbers in the above article are available from the author via e-mail. _________________________________________________________________ Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 9 No 1 Winter 1998-1999. The whole issue or a subscription are available for free via email. Send a request to jrh@ais.org or see http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------