Netizens-Digest Wednesday, September 22 1999 Volume 01 : Number 340 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: [netz] Is CPSR Program Promoting Privatization of the Internet? [netz] No national borders on the Internet? No way! (China PRC) [netz] (Fwd) Nanoose Bay and the rights of citizens ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:11:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: [netz] Is CPSR Program Promoting Privatization of the Internet? James Love wrote: > CPSR is holding a workshop on the future of global internet > administration in Alexandria, Virginia, on September 24-5. > They have an impressive and interesting cast of speakers, > including, in no particular order, Esther Dyson, Ralph Nader, > Tony Rutkowski, Milton Mueller, Michael Froomkin, Coralee Whitcomb, > Don Telage, David Post, Jamie Love, David Farber (invited), > Paul Scolese (invited), Theresa Amato, Jean Camp, Hans Klein, > Mike Vita, Paul Garrin, Chris Ambler, Scott Bradner, Karl Auerbach, > Peter Deutsch and some others not yet named. > Here is the CPSR announcement: > * * * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) * * * Has this organization now become Computer Professionals for the Privatization of the Internet? CPSR has a proud origin and it is a challenge to it to see if it will respect its roots in this important battle over the soul of the Internet. >Ralph Nader will give the keynote speech at CPSR's conference on global >Internet administration. The conference, to be held in Alexandria, Ralph Nader has been a consumer advocate, but the issues involved here are those of net.citizens or Netizens, not of consumers. The is a new paradigm and not one that it is clear Nader recognizes as something new. URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.xpr The issue involved is the privatization of the administrative functions of the Internet. The Office of Inspector General of the National Science Foundation (OIG of the NSF) in February 1997 issued a report opposing the privatization of these functions. http://www.columbia.edu/~jrh29/geneva/NSF.inspector.general.txt There was a proposal submitted to the NTIA in summer of 1998 opposing the privatization of these functions. See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt >Virginia, on September 24 and 25, will examine the issues surrounding the >creation of a new Internet corporation, ICANN, to manage core technical >functions of cyberspace. A full conference announcement is below. This leaves out that the issue is *not* the management, but the privatization of public functions, and public property in a new way with some of a new cast of advocates. In the past the CPSR has promoted the privatization, rather than the protection of the public property of these functions. Is that what this conference is to do as well? There is no indication that the real question will be explored by the CPSR program. The real question is why these public functions should *not* be privatized. Why the public administration of the Domain Name System, and other essential functions of the Internet, such as the root server system, the IP system, the protocols, etc. need to be in public hands and *under* public protection. And that users are *not* customers, nor are users consumers. That the whole structure of the ICANN is to create a privatized, and illegitimate entity under the control of private interests (ask who is currently funding ICANN), to change the fundamental nature of the Internet by grabbing control of its essential functions in the greatest givaway ever by the U.S. government. Instead of the U.S. government protecting the Internet, and its naming and addressing functions and its protocols development and agreement processes, these processes are being put under the control of those who can grab power in a big power play. The whole concept of ICANN is flawed. The Internet was created by computer scientists in a computer science supported community. The continued scaling of the Internet requires that such public and scientific processes and institutional forms continue to be the forms overseeing and protecting the Internet. See for example: What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace ICANN? ICANN was created on the wrong model. URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5183/1.html URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/5239/1.html The CPSR conference has invited advocates of ICANN and advocates of consumer affairs. But users of the Internet are *not* consumers. The Internet is a participatory medium and users have been part of those creating the content and form. The user as Netizen or net.citizen is the social form that has emerged with the development of the Internet. The Netizen is being disenfranchisized by the creation of ICANN. And temporary structural forms such as the Domain Name System are being made permanent, when they need to be changed as the scaling of the Internet continues. But the creation of ICANN shows that the whole model of privatizing the Internet is a serious paradigm change in the nature of the Internet. The Internet is the creation of a research entity, and continued computer science research is needed to continued the growth and spread of the Internet, not privatizing of the public processes and property. The role of government in the development of the Internet needs to be examined and the role of government in support of computer science needs to be better understood. See for example: URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/5106/1.html or http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/arpa_ipto.txt Is the CPSR conference raising such questions? Or is it only trying to find a more palatable means to carry out the privatization of the public processes and property? Ronda ronda@panix.com See also http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/dns_supplement.txt and http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACN9-1.txt Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:45:37 From: John Walker Subject: [netz] No national borders on the Internet? No way! (China PRC) The CSS Internet News (tm) is a daily e-mail publication that has been providing up to date information to Netizens since 1996. Subscription information is available at: http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/inews.htm or send an e-mail to jwalker@bestnet.org with SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the SUBJECT line. The following is an excerpt from the CSS Internet News. If you are going to pass this along to other Netizens please ensure that the complete message is forwarded with all attributes intact. NOTE: Registrations for the On-line Learning Series of Courses for October are now being accepted. Information is available at: http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm - ------------ No national borders on the Internet? No way! (China PRC) China Youth Daily, 9/13/99 http://www.sinopolis.com/ Some believe that national borders do not exist on the Internet. Absolutely not! Borders on the Internet are Internet security! Some believe that the threats on the Web are only from "viruses" and "hackers." Absolutely not! There are also threats from information hegemony and cultural infiltration! Today when we are entering a Web age, Web security has become an important indicator of a new and necessary concept of security for the state. The key to Web security is in grasping "web domination." Without "web domination" there is no Web and information security. In today¡¯s society, politics, economy, military, and social activities are gradually depending on networking. As a major infrastructure component of the state, networking will certainly become a main target of information warfare of the 21st century. With the development of computer networks, network society formed gradually. Online territory became another dimension besides land, ocean, sky, and space, and became part of the territory under sovereign jurisdiction. However, different from the territory of the conventional sense and though online territory belongs to the field of national sovereignty and security, it does not have clearly definable borders, and any web user can enter this dimension and conduct activities. This creates conflicts occurring in this "soft border" more secretive and dangerous. Conflicts on the web have neither smoke nor bloodshed; it is very likely that the opponent has already launched an attack or already won a decisive victory while you are still unaware. The attacks by computer "viruses" and "hackers," the infiltration of web culture, and the unfair invasion of the people who horde web information will politically deceive the people, cause economic losses, leak out classified military intelligence (and hence lose the power to command), and cause ideological chaos and social disturbances. In this respect, attacks and infiltration in the online territory can be deadly for national politics, economy, military, and society. Because of this, we can say that "web domination = territorial domination," and we must firmly establish the awareness for the security of national defense online. We must develop an independent national Internet industry so that our online territory and sovereignty is not violated. But how is the current situation? In terms of establishing an awareness for online territory and web security, most people¡¯s understanding of web security remains on the level of protecting the information online, mainly by means of building firewalls. Among the 3,700 websites in China now, 91% of them use WindowsNT as the server operating system, and its stability and security cannot satisfy the need to protect the online territory. Web security products are being imported and used without independent rights and control. This will inevitably harbor dangers such as imbedded viruses, hidden passageways, and decodable passwords. Looking at the rule of the online game, the power to register Internet domain names, and the TCP/IP protocol commonly used on the Internet, we see these are in the hands of the US as well. Where is independence and self-control on the web? The security of a country cannot be built upon a completely imported foundation, just like a country¡¯s Customs, military, and police cannot be in the hands of a different country. In order to actually grasp "web domination" and strengthen our online national defense power, we must take a road of self-development and self-perfection. We must start from the following aspects: First, we must strengthen citizens¡¯ awareness of online territory and national security. Through propaganda and introduction, we must make each citizen understand the importance and function of online territory, understand the danger and urgency of online invasion. Second, we must develop an independent network information industry. We must independently develop hardware chips and operating systems, as well as core technologies including security coding standards. We must construct an information security system which we can control ourselves, and hence be in the offensive in the web information industry. Third, we must strengthen management of web security and legislation. We should establish a web security infrastructure. For instance, a web national defense research center, a web international port monitoring center (information customs), virus monitoring and prevention center; system attack and counter-attack system, web security education center, security products evaluation center, and key web system disaster recovering centers. We should also establish and perfect a whole set of laws and regulations to prevent "digital crimes." For important government, military, and technical fields, we must strengthen the management of Internet ports. It is best is to construct relatively closed and independent networks, and form a so-called "one country two networks," or "one country multiple networks" system and speed the building of supporting systems, thereby reaching the goal of improving our network¡¯s ability to destroy enemies. - -------------- Also in this issue: - - No national borders on the Internet? No way! (China PRC) Some believe that national borders do not exist on the Internet. Absolutely not! Borders on the Internet are Internet security! - - Quake disrupts Net traffic (Asia) SINGAPORE (Bloomberg) - An underwater cable providing Internet connections from Asian countries to the U.S. was damaged in the aftershocks of Taiwan's earthquake, disrupting Internet services. - - India awaits wisdom from exported Internet gurus (India) NEW DELHI, Sept 21 (Reuters) - Some big names in the Internet business will descend on New Delhi for a three-day show and conference to address aspiring entrepreneurs -- and many of those big names are Indian. - - Tracking Users Across The Web by Cliff Allen (US) New opportunities for web partnerships enable us to provide more options and better service to customers, but these same opportunities also bring new challenges in tracking web behavior. - - Guide To Search Positioning! (US) I've been asked to sum up what everyone should know about search engine positioning. - - Sub-continent in Web war (India/Pakistan) ANOTHER bloody chapter was written in history of the sub-continent earlier in the year, when more than 1000 solders from Pakistan and India died fighting an undeclared war in the mountains of Kashmir. - - Inquiry is to aid disabled Net access (Australia) AN INQUIRY into whether e-commerce and e-government are alienating older and disabled people should look to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for guidance, local advocates say. - - Corel Ships Linux Beta (Canada) Corel will release a beta version of its Linux operating system to beta testers on Tuesday, said company CEO Michael Cowpland. Corel, in Ottawa, will also unveil technology partnerships with other software companies, Cowpland said. - - China Net policy worries U.S. companies (US) LOS ANGELES (AP) - U.S. companies and investors are moving ahead with projects to tap China's potentially vast Internet market, but that could change quickly if the Chinese government makes good on a threat to enforce its longstanding ban on foreign investment in Web-based ventures. - - China Reports First Crash From '9999' Bug (China PRC) BEIJING, Sep 21, 1999 -- (Reuters) A pharmaceutical factory in China suffered a computer crash on September 9, 1999, when the system read the date as a command to stop, the China Youth Daily reported on Tuesday. - - New Lists and Journals * NEW: Violence in the US * ADD: LLAMAS * NEW: Jewish World On-line Learning Series of Courses http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm Member: Association for International Business - ------------------------------- Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____ For subscription details email / | ' \ jwalker@hwcn.org with ( ) 0 SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----' subject line. ==== // / \-'~; /~~~(O) "On the Internet no one / __/~| / | knows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________| http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:55:16 +0000 From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) Subject: [netz] (Fwd) Nanoose Bay and the rights of citizens There might be tips here for anyone contemplating a suit against USG in re ICANN and the devolution of authority. - ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:56:04 -0700 To: cfogal@netcom.ca From: Connie Fogal Subject: Nanoose Decision:NO RE NANOOSE COURT ACTION IN BCSC SEPTEMBER 21,1999 NO: A992161 The Human Rights Institute of Canada, Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of the Ukrainian Orthodox Archdiocese of Canada, Citizens Concerned About Free Trade, Rose-Marie Larsson, Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee, and Constance Fogal were in B.C. Supreme Court September 21,1999 to hear judgement on their application to set aside the transfer of the Nanoose Bay lands from BC to the federal government. The good news: once again the court held that we , the citizens have standing, i.e. the right to be in court to make the challenge. The bad news: the Court held that it is not possible to get an injunction against the Crown; that to do so is prohibited by the Crown Proceedings Act. The Court referred to 3 cases that followed this principle of law, including the Delgam Uukw case. As a result the judge dismissed our application. The good news: The Court did not order costs against us today. It ordered costs in the cause. The bad news : The final Court could order costs against us for this application. The good news: Our lawyers have already tonight researched the question of this technical reason for dismissing us and have found case law that says such a technicality does NOT apply in constitutional cases where the Crown has acted unlawfully. The judge is wrong in law. English translation of all of this: Mr Justice Bauman dismissed our case on a technicality saying there is law that says you cannot get an injunction against the government. Our lawyers have found other case law that says , yes we can in cases based on the Canadian constitution where the government has acted unlawfully; i.e., contrary to our constitution. Our fundamental case is that the federal government acted unlawfully in this expropriation; it did what our Constitution says it cannot do. This means we have grounds to appeal this interim decision of Bauman, J. Where does this leave us? Still in the trenches. Before we even get to court on the fundamental issue, the core of the case, we can take another step to appeal this decision of Bauman. Why should we appeal? Why not give up and go away? Because no one else is going to stand up for us. Because what the federal government is doing is wrong. Because the direction the world has taken is harmful. Because the ease with which the federal government is throwing away our rights should not go unchallenged. Because no one else is going to do the fight for us. We are taking on the whole apparatus of the state in this kind of a case, just like we are doing in our lawsuit against the MAI. (We await a hearing date on our appeal in our MAI case). Indeed we are taking on the whole apparatus of the real government , the unelected government that dictates to our elected government. It is not going to be easy. It has not been easy. It will not get easier. Why not give up the judicial arm of this struggle and go back to the political arm? There is no political party currently elected that is supporting our Nanoose lawsuit. We have been in two courts to try to get an injunction: The federal court on August 30th 1999, the BCSC on September 17,1999. Not one Member of Parliament nor Member of the Legislative assembly showed up in court to stand beside us. Not one has even sent a message of support. NOT FROM ANY PARTY. The BC provincial government only issued the first starting papers, (the writ), which means nothing without the second set of papers, (the statement of claim). The province has one whole year to sit on their first papers and do nothing. The fed lawyers tried to use the fact the BC government writ exists to throw us out of court. They did not succeed on that point. We have not been thrown out of court, i.e., our basic case is still before the court and will continue through the various steps. (These applications were interim applications, i.e applications to get an order to tide us over until the full case can be heard. We were not able to get interim injunctions, but that does not affect the hearing of the full case finally. And we have filed our appeal in the federal court over the federal court refusal of an injunction there. We can appeal this BCSC interim order for rejecting an injunction there.) Why bother? Because it matters. We can be cynical, discouraged, angry. We can give up and retire to the cabbage patch and await the cabbage moths. Or we can hunker down, put our heads into the wind, and keep going. We still have lots of room to manoeuvre. La lutte continue. Riria! Riria! Onward! Connie Fogal DEFENCE of CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE/LE COMITÉ de la LIBERTÉ CANADIENNE C/0 CONSTANCE FOGAL LAW OFFICE, #401 -207 West Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B1H7 Tel: (604)687-0588; fax: (604) 872 -1504 or (604) 688-0550;cellular(604) 202 7334; E-MAIL cfogal@netcom.ca; www.canadianliberty.bc.ca “The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled” Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R. 1951 pp 32 - ------- End of forwarded message ------- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #340 ******************************