Netizens-Digest Friday, October 1 1999 Volume 01 : Number 341 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: [netz] Internet privatization history [netz] Fwd: LEO email survey [netz] (Fwd) Nader/CPT: A framework for ICANN and DNS Management [netz] Recent NSI/ICANN agreement solves none of problems with ICANN [netz] Re: New Legislation For Telcos? (fwd) Re: [netz] Recent NSI/ICANN agreement solves none of problems with ICANN [netz] Sad News ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:10:16 -0700 (PDT) From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: [netz] Internet privatization history If you are interested in what some people on the IETF mailing list thought about the impending Internet privatization, you might be interested in looking at ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ietf/1990-all Of particular interest (imho) are the threads on "reasonable use" and some comments by Dave Farber. Note that these comments predate the creation of the com-priv mailing list; in fact, these threads spawned the creation of com-priv. - --gregbo gds at best.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:22:44 -04 From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) Subject: [netz] Fwd: LEO email survey I presume responses go to Gary. ===================== Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:18:52 -0400 From: Gary Garriott Subject: Responses requested To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU COMMUNICATIONS SURVEY Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA), together with its collaborators, is gathering information on the use of communications by non-governmental organizations in development. A store-and-forward email system using existing low earth orbting satellites to serve humanitarian and development purposes will soon be a reality. Information from this survey will help ensure that the system is designed to meet real needs. It will be very helpful if a response to the survey question could be prepared and the form returned by October 1st. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Henry Norman, President, VITA. 1. Does your organization have projects in developing countries? Yes____ No____ 2. Do you have offices in rural areas of these countries? Yes_____ No ______ 3. Are communications between your home office and country offices or between country offices available? Yes_____ No______ If available, are communications reliable? Yes______ No______ Are they reasonably priced? Yes_____ No______ 4. Is email available? Yes_____ No______ 5. If the answer to question 4 is yes, is it reasonably priced? Yes_____ No_____ 6. Would a reliable store-and-forward email system in which messages would reach their destination in 90 minutes or less be of interest to you? Yes_____ No_____ 7. Would a cost of $1,500 or less for a ground terminal be regarded as reasonable? Yes______ No______ 8. If such a system is of interest to your organization, would you be willing to become a member of an NGO associat on and pay annual dues that permit you to use the system without further cost or, if possible, would you prefer to pay a fee for each use to support the system (which will be on a not for profit basis)? Pay annual dues __________ Pay a user fee__________ 9. If you prefer annual dues, what level would you regard as reasonable? $100 _______ $500________ $1,000 _________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:41:50 -04 From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) Subject: [netz] (Fwd) Nader/CPT: A framework for ICANN and DNS Management - ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:10:52 -0500 (CDT) From: James Love Subject: Nader/CPT: A framework for ICANN and DNS Management, Initial Proposals INFO-POLICY-NOTES List management at http://www.cptech.org/lists.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following are proposals presented by Ralph Nader to "Governing the Commons: The Future of Global Internet Administration," a conference organized by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, September 24-25, 1999, in Alexandria, Virginia. A framework for ICANN and DNS Management Initial Proposals (comments welcome) version 1.02 September 25, 1999* 1. ICANN's authority should be based upon a multilateral government charter. That Charter should define and limit ICANN's authority. 2. The charter should be based upon a limited purpose sui generis agreement among countries that express interest in working together, and that agree that ICANN's role should be limited to tasks essential to maintaining an efficient and reliable DNS management, and that ICANN will not be used as an instrument to promote policies relating to conduct or content on the Internet. (Additional multilateral institutions may be desired to address electronic commerce issues, but ICANN itself should not become the foundation for a vast Internet governance institution. See http://www.cptech.org/ecom/cpt-wcpo.html) 3. ICANN should not use its power over domain registration policy to exclude persons from the use of a domain on issues that are not germane to managing the DNS system of mapping IP addresses into domain names. The right to have a domain on the Internet should be considered the same as the right to have a street address, a telephone number or a person's name. 4. ICANN should identify a membership and elect its board of directors from its membership before it makes additional policy decisions (in those areas appropriate for action by ICANN). 5. Membership should be open to anyone who uses the Internet. There should be no fee associated with membership or voting rights. 6. The records of ICANN should be open to the public. The public should have rights to documents as, similiar to rights provided in the US Freedom of Information Act. 7. The meetings of ICANN should be open to the public. 8. The public should be given an annual opportunity to review and comment on the ICANN budget. 9. The Budget of ICANN should be subject to review by the countries that provide the ICANN charter. Fees associated with domain registration should only be spent on activities essential to the management of the DNS system. 10. National governments should be permitted to exercise discretion over policies relating to the use of country top level domains (.fr, .uk, .us, etc). 11. For generic top level domains (.com, .org, .net, and new gTLDs), the domain space should be declared a public resource. The registrar or registries perform services on behalf of the users of the domains, and will not own the domain space. It should be possible to replace firms engaged in registration services and DNS management, without risking the stability of the Internet. 12. On matters of public interest (in the narrow areas where ICANN will operate), such as policies regarding the use of trademarks or the privacy of domain registration information, ICANN should make recommendations to the sui generis multinational body created to manage ICANN, and the multinational body should accept, reject or modify the recommendations, after giving the public a fully adequate opportunity to review and comment on the proposals. 13. On the issue of trademarks, the Charter should explicitly protect the public's rights to parody, criticism and free speech. For example, domain names like GM-sucks.com, which would not be confused with GM.com, should be permitted. *Corrected Comments to James Love, love@cptech.org or Ralph Nader, ralph@essential.org. - -- James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology I can be reached at love@cptech.org, by telephone 202.387.8030, by fax at 202.234.5176. CPT web page is http://www.cptech.org - ------- End of forwarded message ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:09:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: [netz] Recent NSI/ICANN agreement solves none of problems with ICANN In a recent post about the ICANN/NSI announcement someone on a mailing list I am on tried to assure others on that mailing list and commented that the agreement would "supposedly will put to rest all that inconvenient squabbling". However, the problem with ICANN is *not* inconvenient squabbling. And though the U.S. media has tried to present the problem with ICANN as only a factional fight between ICANN and NSI, that is *not* the reality. The ICANN structure and conception are the result of serious misconceptons about the nature of the Internet and how far certain business interests can go to seize control of essential Internet functions, and still have the Internet function in a way that will make it possible to continue as an Internet, rather being split apart. The Internet requires scientific and accountable administration. The U.S. government activity creating ICANN as a way to throw its support to certain corporate entities to vie for control of essential functions of the Internet is the opposite of what was needed. The essential functions of the Internet require protection from governments and to be put in the hands of scientific administration and developers. That is the process that made it possible for the Internet to develop. That is the process that needs to be understood for the Internet to continue. So called "private sector" control via a so called "nonprofit U.S. corporation" is *not* an entity that can be held accountable to protect the essential functions of the Internet from being the continual target of the fight of vested interests. ICANN is under the control of whom? Accountable to whom? And Ralph Nader's so called proposal to CPSR shows that he has no understanding of the nature of the Internet nor the problem with ICANN. His proposal is intended to prettify what has been exposed to the world as a power grab by the U.S. government to give certain U.S. corporate entities control over essential Internet functions. Having a multilateral agreement of nations wouldn't change that as they have no way to have scientific leadership and oversight over the essential Internet functions. This multilateral agreement would only be a rubber stamp for ICANN's dirty deeds. There is *no* basis to give the essential functions of the Internet to a private entity. These essential functions have been in public hands and their administration has functioned in a way that has had an obligation for public accountability. This system needed to be strengthened, *not* destroyed, as it has been by the creation of ICANN. > The proper form for the administration and ownership and control of the functions essential for the Internet, of the root server system, the protocols creation and decision process, the IP number allocation, etc. is *not* a private form. There is a need to understand what the form was that made it possible for these functions to be protected from "vested" interests and how to strengthen that form. That is *not* what ICANN represents. Those who care about the continued development of the Internet will recognize the need to protect its essential functions from vested interests. How that is to be done needs to be explored based on understanding how that has been done in the development of the Internet. My proposal to the U.S. Dept of Commerce last year before they set up ICANN gave a means for cooperative effort of computer scientists from those countries interested in trying to be part of understand the problem and then proposing a solution. My proposal gave a means for creating a prototype to make it possible for those nations interested in providing the needed protection to work together. My proposal gave a means for creating an online form to help in the process. My proposal is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt ICANN does none of these. It hasn't identified what problem really needs to be solved, and so is only setting a basis for vested interests to make their power grabs for control of the Internet and all its users. So the ICANN/NSI agreement is only the basis for a much more serious squabbling and a basis for ever greater instability for the Internet and its users. Ronda ronda@ais.org 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, 29 Sep 1999 10:46:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Greg Skinner Subject: [netz] Re: New Legislation For Telcos? (fwd) (In general, I recommend that all netizens try to follow comp.dcom.telecom.) - ------- start of forwarded message ------- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:55:42 GMT From: Barry Margolin Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: New Legislation For Telcos? Message-ID: Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org Approved: [comp.dcom.telecom/c7597b52bab04f8f133b4a2930133629] X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/ X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 19, Issue 441, Message 12 of 14 In article , Bill Ranck wrote: > US senator seen in a TV advertisement asking everyone to talk to their > congressmen about local telephone monopolies. He claims there is some > sort of "loophole" being proposed by rural phone companies that will > prevent local competition for Internet connectivity. But, it's all > very vague and doesn't reference a specific bill before congress. > Does anyone know what that's about, and who is paying for the air > time? A notice was sent around our company about this, since it could impact our ability to provide Internet service if the GTE/Bell Atlantic merger is consummated. Apparently the FCC is applying provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which were intended to regulate the entry of local phone companies into the long distance market, to local phone companies trying to offer advanced services over the Internet. The notice doesn't go into detail about what the FCC is doing. The bills that they want us to have our legislators vote for are: H.R. 2420, the "Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 1999" H.R. 1685, the "Internet Growth and Development Act" H.R. 1686, the "Internet Freedom Act" S. 1043, the "Internet Regulatory Freedom Act" Our company has even implemented an intranet server we can use to automatically send faxes to our legislators (it's kind of strange that it sends a fax -- don't all the federal legislators have email addresses these days?). Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. - ------- end of forwarded message ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:42:21 -04 From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) Subject: Re: [netz] Recent NSI/ICANN agreement solves none of problems with ICANN > Ralph Nader's so called proposal to CPSR shows that he > has no understanding of the nature of the Internet nor the > problem with ICANN. His proposal is intended to prettify what > has been exposed to the world as a power grab... I have no idea what his propsal is intended to do, but in > 3. ICANN should not use its power over domain registration > policy to exclude persons from the use of a domain on issues > that are not germane to managing the DNS system of mapping > IP addresses into domain names. The right to have a domain > on the Internet should be considered the same as the right > to have a street *address*, a telephone *number* or a person's > name. he fell into the same trap as everyone else: 'a name is just a specially coded number.' (Its hard to imagine any nonliterate person being this confused!) Are the folks who read _meaning into domain names going to just disappear? Whether one stands on the technical side and _defines the entire DNS as meaningless, or on the political side and accepts that distinguishing between meaning and meaninglessness is an act of governance, one cannot expect ICANN to do both. It may be that, 'like a person's name,' the wiser course is to *let someone else name you*. Take the 'freedom' to name your own domain away, and the picture changes entirely. kerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:08:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] Sad News Hi, When I logged on to Cleveland Free-Net I got the following screen: - ----------------------------------------------------------------- /\ WELCOME TO THE... _! !_ _!__ __!_ __ ! ! _! !_ ! ! ! ! ! ! /\ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !___ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !_!_ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! _! ! !_!_ ! ! !_ ! ! !_! ! ! ! ! ! CLEVELAND FREE-NET ! ! COMMUNITY COMPUTER SYSTEM ! !____________________________________! brought to you by Case Western Reserve University Office of Information Services The Cleveland Freenet has discontinued operation. The project has concluded. Thank you for your participation. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Official academic and political support was ended. I do not know the details but would like to share what was written what seems now to be a long time ago. Jay - --------------------- A Brief History of Cleveland Free-Net [Editor's Note: The following article is taken from a talk presented at the Mid-Manhattan Branch of the New York Public Library, July 10, 1995.] The Cleveland Free-Net computer networking system is often cited as the grandfather of the worldwide community computer networking movement. This movement takes as its goal the provision by community networks of free or at-cost dialup and public terminal access to community and world wide communication. Cleveland Free-Net and other community networks are made possible by volunteers from all sectors of the community. In 1992, Cleveland Free-Net had well over 40,000 registered users making more than 10,000 accesses per day. Over 250 volunteer system operators maintained and upgraded the system and kept the information fresh or got answers to questions posted by users. This model is proving attractive to citizens around the world. It is worth looking at how the first Free-Net got started in Cleveland. Cleveland Free-Net traces its origin to 1984 when an education professor, Tom Grundner, was involved in monitoring the quality of education offered to medical students and interns who were spread over five Cleveland hospitals and clinics. He devised a system that used an Apple II+ computer and a 300 baud modem to receive questions over phone lines from the medical students and interns who had access to a microcomputer or a computer terminal with a modem. The questioners were provided within a reasonable time, with answers from relevant doctors. The system was eventually called Doc-in-the-Box. Within a week of starting up the system, the telephone number to reach the central Apple II+ computer had gotten out and lay people started to leave medical questions with the hope the doctors would answer them also. The doctors answered all questions. What was in many cases quality medical advice was available to some who ordinarily might not have been able to afford the usual fee or find a doctor for such advice. It dawned on those involved that a new medium for dispensing medical information was opening up. In 1985 Grundner expanded this system which was intended especially for medical students and interns to a new system open to all who had a medical question and a computer and modem. He called the new system Saint Silicon's Hospital and Information Dispensary. Saint Silicon operated in some ways like a real hospital. When you used your modem to dial up, the first question on the screen was, "Have you been a patient here before?" If you answered No, the next screen had the title, "Admitting Desk" and required you to provide some information about yourself. Then you could post medically related questions in the message area of the system called the Clinic to be answered by a doctor within 24 hours. A doctor would read the question and post the question and his answer on the system so all who dialed in to Saint Silicon could read them. Within a few weeks of the launch of Saint Silicon, a steady average of more than 300 calls were being received per week, saturating the one line system. Grundner wrote up the Saint Silicon experience in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).* At about the same time, representatives of American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) offered to donate an AT&T 3B2-400 Unix based minicomputer to support the operation and expansion of Grundner's experimental system. Unix is a multitasking, time-sharing computer operating system and the AT&T 3B2-400 was a much more powerful computer then the Apple II+. With the better equipment, Grundner designed a system based on the networking software used to make the news- group system know as Usenet possible. The new system was intended for the posting of questions and answers across the whole spec- trum of areas that make up a community. Grundner envisioned an electronic city with a post office, government house, library, court house for legal questions, etc., in addition to a hospital. Eventually the system would also have hobbyist areas, special interest areas, and kiosks and coffee shops for people to meet at and have discussions. This was Free-Net 1, the first version of Cleveland Free-Net (1985-1989). The sections of Free-Net were staffed by doctors, lawyers, hobbyists, etc., each contributing as part of his or her job or voluntarily. People who dialed into Cleveland Free-Net were never charged to use the system nor did those who provided information or their expertise get paid by the Free-Net. The museums and parks and theaters and clubs of Cleveland voluntarily provided the information about themselves and some staff time and in exchange that information was readily accessible by the users of the Free-Net. Doctors, lawyers, car mechanics, etc. volunteered in large numbers. One incentive being that Free-Net users satisfied with the online answers to relevant questions often became paying clients and customers. Someone I know is no longer on crutches because a doctor who showed a genuine understanding of her condition by his response to her post on Cleveland Free-Net was chosen by her to do an operation. The success of that operation solved a condition doctors in her own state said was permanent. In 1989, Case Western Reserve University became the dominant sponsor of Cleveland Free-Net. It supported development of the software and eventually took over the system, now Free-Net 2, the Cleveland Free-Net that exists today. This Free-Net includes many areas of active discussion, some for senior citizens, some for teenagers, some for any group with a common interest. Also, by giving its users access to Usenet newsgroups, Free-Net makes it possible for people in Cleveland to be communicating and interacting with Usenet users all over the world. Cleveland Free-Net serves as a means of limited free Internet access for its users who each get a sizable electronic mail storage area, limited file handling and transfer capability, and connectivity to other Free-Nets in the U. S. and around the world. For many people, Cleveland Free-Net has served as the starting point for their online activities. And as an example Cleveland Free-Net has given impetus to a global community computer networking movement. By 1995 there were at least 150 similar community networking systems up or soon to be up around the world and many more in some stage of planning. There are organizing committees in at least 40 U.S. States, all across Canada and in 10 or more other countries. Some of the guiding vision behind the community networking movement is that every community will benefit if all the citizens of that community have free access to global communication tech- nology and to information about community resources. If access has to be paid for by the users, some segment of the community will be left out both from use of the resources but also as a resource. For many community networks the name Free-Net conveys their principle that access has to be free of cost to the user. Some communities like Seattle, Washington provide terminals or computers in public libraries to fulfill this requirement. In most communities where community networks are being organized there is however opposition from some who want to charge for access. Also, there are expenses involved for the equipment and especially for leasing phone lines even if all the staffing and administration is done by volunteers. A widely verified assessment is that in North America the line leasing expense amounts to about $8 to $12 per user per year (roughly $1.00 per user per month). The challenge to each organizing or operating committee is to solve these and similar problems. Even Cleveland Free-Net is currently facing the problem that Case Western Reserve University may withdraw some of the $50,000 annual budget that has been its sponsorship contribution in the last few years. There are many active community oriented people and some government bodies throughout the world who see some level of community provided access to community based computer network information and communication as crucial to modern life. There are people in many cities and rural areas who are looking to a community network or Free-Net as a first step into the telecommunications revolution. Cleveland Free-Net has been an inspiration to many such people. *"Interactive Medical Telecomputing: An Alternative Approach to Community Health Education," NEJM, Vol 314 no 15, April 10, 1986, pp. 982-985. - -------------------------------- Note: The sources of information for this article were help from people on Cleveland Free-Net (telnet free-net-in-a.cwru.edu), an e-mail correspondence from Tom Grundner, the NEJM article, and a chapter in The On-Line User's Encyclopedia: Bulletin Boards and Beyond, by Bernard Adoba, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA., 1993. - -------------------------------- [Author's Note: In late 1995 it was reported that Tom Grundner resigned as Director of the National Public Telecommunications Network. Subsequently, it was reported that the Deputy Director also resigned. The NPTN had been formed by Grundner in September 1989 to coordinate the activities of the Free-Nets that formed on the model of Cleveland Free-Net. On the mailing list serving members of the NPTN affiliated Free-Nets, questions were raised as to what was happening. The new leadership responded that it will take a little while to put the finances back in order and would not answer the questions until then. Many subscribers to the list were not satisfied and requested a national meeting to discuss the crisis, assess the situation and propose ways forward. When the new leadership turned down that proposal, there were submissions to the list documenting a long history of top down unhelpful NPTN practices and the lack of democratic forms within NPTN to deal with the crisis. In a similar way, the recently formed NPTN affiliated New York City Free-Net Organizing Committee has held no public meetings nor shared with those interested any of its inner workings or documents.] - --------------------------------------------------------- Reprinted from Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 1. Free from jrh@ais.org ____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #341 ******************************