Netizens-Digest Monday, April 2 2001 Volume 01 : Number 373 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:32:34 -0400 (EDT) From: ronda@panix.com Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: Ronda Hauben wrote: I appreciate the discussion of these issues. I promised to get back to this point. >> >>Steve Crocker's statement in RFC-3 that those with differing views >>are encouraged to speak is some of what I feel is at the foundations >>of Internet governance. >But was the RFC process truly governance? At the time he wrote >RFC-3, the Internet (well, it wasn't called that yet) did not have to >deal with funding issues. I had cited the words of Steve Crocker's RFC 3 about welcoming diverse viewpoints and philosophies and technical solutions to problems as the basis for Internet governance. That wasn't saying the RFC process itself is equated with Internet governance. What I was saying was that welcoming of diverse opinions is at the foundation of the way the Internet has been able to develop and thrive. I wasn't commenting on the RFC process as it is currently maintained by the IETF or on the IETF. In fact, in my experience there is unfortunately an active mechanism of censoring people who just post to the IETF mailing lists. Several times in the past I have posted something to the IETF mailing list that was relevant to the IETF and have gotten emails from certain IETF officials that I shouldn't be posting to the list. (And I have seen where others have posted something relevant and their posts have been less than welcomed.) Some of these were contributions to the IETF mailing list about the process of putting the IETF under the domination of ICANN. This was indeed relevant to the IETF and its future development. But there was an active process to discourage any open discussion on the issues involved. However, I am not commenting about what is the current practice in the IETF. Rather in my research I have found many instances where support for open discussion on difficult or controversial problems facing the development of the Internet helped to make it possible to solve those problems. That was what RFC 3 proposed as the guiding methodology for the networking community (then the networking working group) and which has continued as a vibrant methodology when it has been continued. Ronda ronda@panix.com http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/birth_internet.txt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:09:50 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee At 12:32 PM -0400 4/2/01, ronda@panix.com wrote: > "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > Ronda Hauben wrote: > >I appreciate the discussion of these issues. > >I promised to get back to this point. > >>> >>>Steve Crocker's statement in RFC-3 that those with differing views >>>are encouraged to speak is some of what I feel is at the foundations >>>of Internet governance. > >>But was the RFC process truly governance? At the time he wrote >>RFC-3, the Internet (well, it wasn't called that yet) did not have to >>deal with funding issues. > > >I had cited the words of Steve Crocker's RFC 3 about welcoming diverse >viewpoints and philosophies and technical solutions to problems >as the basis for Internet governance. > >That wasn't saying the RFC process itself is equated with Internet >governance. > >What I was saying was that welcoming of diverse opinions is at >the foundation of the way the Internet has been able to develop >and thrive. > >I wasn't commenting on the RFC process as it is currently maintained >by the IETF or on the IETF. In fact, in my experience there is >unfortunately an active mechanism of censoring people who just post >to the IETF mailing lists. Which lists did you have in mind? I'd certainly not appreciate people posting to the general IETF-ANNOUNCE list, which I regard as exclusively for notices about documents and specific working group, IESG, IAB, etc. activities. I'll freely admit that I don't know of a general Internet policy issue sponsored by the IETF/IAB, and it's quite reasonable to suggest there will be one. In general, I'd support creation of a discussion list, but I would be opposed to co-opting lists that have well-defined administrative policies. There is a difficult question, however, in having completely open lists. Historically, in venues including address policy, lists where often overwhelmed by what I can only call conspiracy theorists that refused to take their medication. I'm sorry -- while I'm all for open discussion, there is a point at which I really don't want to have the discussion diverted to how intergalactic routing and addressing should work (and I am _not_ making this up). There is a point where loud cybervoices screaming for an anarchical model can't coexist with people that are interested in an inclusive Internet -- one that can include general information dissemination, research, and commerce. When the same person posts dozens of accusatory messages daily to the same list, that is the equivalent of drowning out a public meeting with human waves and bullhorns. Practical differences exist between virtual discussions such as mailing list and chatrooms, and in-person meetings. Not everything needs or should run like the classic New England town meeting, where everyone can discuss their point until exhaustion of everyone else. Again, I want to hear opinions -- but I've gotten to the point of having mail filters at the level of: 1. kill any message originated by person xxx 2. kill any message in which person xxx appears as an addressee 3. kill any message in which any reference to person xxx appears in the header or body. I don't insist on living in an anarchy or pure democracy. There is value in having some well-intentioned screening. > >Several times in the past I have posted something to >the IETF mailing list that was relevant to the IETF and have >gotten emails from certain IETF officials that I shouldn't be posting >to the list. (And I have seen where others have posted something >relevant and their posts have been less than welcomed.) > >Some of these were contributions to the IETF mailing list about the >process of putting the IETF under the domination of ICANN. This >was indeed relevant to the IETF and its future development. But >there was an active process to discourage any open discussion on >the issues involved. Not sure what you mean by domination. As I remember the situation, there was a sense that ICANN was going to happen regardless of what the IETF did, a certain level of governmental response was going to go to ICANN, and the IETF could have a controlled advisory role -- certainly not dominance in either direction -- as a PSO to ICANN. The IETF regards itself as self-governing, which was not necessarily a well-received idea in all parts of NSF and the US Department of Commerce. To some extent, ICANN was born in that governmental context, as something that the prior governmental officials felt comfortable handing things off to. > >However, I am not commenting about what is the current practice in the >IETF. > >Rather in my research I have found many instances where support >for open discussion on difficult or controversial problems facing >the development of the Internet helped to make it possible to >solve those problems. > >That was what RFC 3 proposed as the guiding methodology for the networking >community (then the networking working group) and which has continued >as a vibrant methodology when it has been continued. With the caveat that the original RFC/IETF process began in relatively small groups of experts who had a degree of civility and mutual respect. The issues they dealt with were technical. If one accepts the idea that the continuing Internet involves issues that impact wealth distribution, then lawyers, accountants, etc., can't keep from becoming involved. Their model is often zero-sum and adversarial, not the classic IETF "rough consensus and running code." The challenge is to find governance strategies in which these models can coexist, admittedly with conflict. There is no way the lawyers are going to submit to the engineers' models, or vice versa. Howard Berkowitz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:30:38 -0400 (EDT) From: ronda@panix.com Subject: Re: [netz] There is a need for online discussion of new DNS NAS Commmittee "Howard C. Berkowitz" writes: >Something that is urgently needed, and to which this list potentially >could make a contribution, is proposing a generally acceptable >definition, which does need to include research, informal >collaboration, commercial activities both to the public and closed >groups, etc. Unless there are some widely accepted definitions, each >constituency is going to frame their debate with respect to THEIR >Internet. Interesting that you suggest the importance of this. I recently made an application to the National Science Foundation for a study of the Internet as a "mixed system". That is a term that Norbert Wiener used in the early 1960s to describe how there was a need for computer development that would take into account the relationship between the human and the machine. JCR Licklider in a similar, but even more specific way proposed that there was a need for research in the desirable relationship between the human and the computer. He proposed as well, that the relationship that would be most fruitful would be a symbionic relationship, a relationship where the human and the computer were recognized as dissimilar species but were recognized as each being dependent upon the other. Licklider's notion of human-computer symbiosis was the basis for his joining ARPA and setting up a research office to support the development of computer technology to make this human-computer symbiosis a reality. My proposal explains more of the backgound of these developments, but essentially Licklider's vision set the foundations for the development of first time-sharing, and then the creation of the ARPANET packet switching network and eventually the Internet. Licklider was a neuroscientist who had studied the brain and was similarly fascinated with computer technology and its potential. And he saw the analogies and differences between the human and the computer. I will put my proposal online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/nsfprop.txt I didn't get the NSF grant, but I did get a very interesting review of the proposal which I will also put online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/nsfreview.txt The reason I am raising this issue is that one can't just look today at the Internet and understand or describe its nature. To understand the nature of the Internet it is important that its origins and development be considered and the path of its development be taken into account and considered. Otherwise we are in danger of replacing it with something that is more like current tv or radio, or an electronic shopping market, all of which would be a great loss. The kind of research I proposed would have helped in this process but the NSF seems too busy, unfortunately, with funding or encouraging commercial development of the Internet to recognize the need to understand its origins in basic research and the need to maintain a connection with the conceptual framework of that basic research. >>I am not sure of the leaders but I do know that the Corporation for >>National Research Initiatives (CNRI) has been developing a >>directory system called the handle system and that they >>have a RFC with the IETF on it. >>I don't know its strengths or weaknesses, but it is the effort >>to provide a directory system that can help the Internet to >>scale by providing that functionality. >I can't comment on the specific individuals, as I don't know their >current work. But it sounds as if a focused letter to NAS, >questioning the lack of directory expertise, is warranted -- copies >to appropriate political and newsorganizations. >You might take a look at http://www.handle.net/introduction.html I am considering writing a comment on the provisional committee appointments to submit to the NAS. It is hard though to feel it will not just be a waste of effort as any efforts to make input into their process up to now have only been a waste. What I am realizing is that there are two different models for Internet development One of the models is a "feedback model" where feedback is encouraged and welcomed to modify the activity so that there will be a way of reaching the desired goal. This is the model I found operating for example when tcp/ip digest was created to help with the cutover from the NCP to the TCP/IP protocols. This is the model that I have found for the most part operating on Usenet over the years that I have been on it, though there are those who make an effort to squelch opposing viewpoints more recently. However, there is another model for Internet development. That model is the "non-feedback" model. In that model feedback is discouraged and even if it is offered, it will not function to modify the the activity. This "non-feedback" model is what has tried to dominate Internet development since the commercialization, privatization process was encouraged in the mid 1990's. This "non-feedback" model is what ICANN was founded upon. And in my efforts to contribute to the NAS process, I have found that they are also acting on this "non-feedback" model of Internet development. I have tried to make input into their process and only find it has had no affect. Thanks for the further information about Bill Mannings research. It sounds like he would have been a good person to have on the NAS committee if it was trying to solve a real problem about the scaling of the Internet. >What is Bill's quarterly walkthrough? Is it online? >See http:www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-audit.html (wincing a bit at I will take a look as soon as I have the chance. At 10:59 PM -0800 3/5/01, Paul A Vixie quoted from a press release: >New.net (http://www.new.net), a domain >name registry created to meet the market demand for Web addresses with >logical, easy-to-remember extensions that make Internet navigation easier, >today officially released its first 20 new top-level domains. New.net has >developed a novel, proprietary approach, using software technology deployed Is Paul Vixie involved with this "proprietary" web addressing enterprise? I haven't had a chance yet to look at the web site. >New.net acted unilaterally, creating their own set of top-level >domains. It does seem very problemmatic to have a corporate entity acting unilaterally this way. >>I have seen in several places in my research that the original >>Internet was in fact conceived of as a public utility. >I'd have to disagree. Public in the accepted academic and research >community, but certainly not acceptable to the general public. In >the seventies, while doing legitimate commercial research (networking >and/or medicine), I could not get access without explicit sponsorship >from a government or academic organization. This is an example of why the history of the Internet is so important. There was *no* Internet in the 1970's. There was an ARPANET, one big network that one had to get permission to join by contacting BBN or whoever from the DoD was in charge. The Internet, begins with the creation and implementation of the TCP/IP protocol. (originally called TCP). The cutover to the TCP/IP protocol was in January 1983 and in the fall of 1983 the ARPANET was split into an ARPANET (a research network) and MILNET (an operational network for the DOD) These were able to communicate via TCP/IP because the design of the protocol was to make it possible for dissimilar networks to be able to function under different political or administrative authorities and to create their networks based on the constraints of their own situations, yet be able to communicate with other networks. Only after the implementation of TCP/IP could dissimilar networks connect to the Internet and hence communicate with each other. In the 1970's this was impossible. One had to essentially become part of the BBN controlled ARPANET in the 1970's. >I always regarded CIX as parallel to the academic/research structure, >and complementary to it. There's a very key principle here: from a >pure technical standpoint, once we got beyond the basic ARPANET and >NSFNET, there was/is no central Internet core or central Internet >authority. It's a collaboration: "be liberal in what you accept, be >conservative in what you send." The problem with CIX and other commercial networks is that with the privatization of th NSFNet in 1995, the US govenrment stopped any protection for those who weren't commercial, and the ocmmercial networking needs took over and dominated the networking development. >>I do indeed consider as one of the great achievements of the Internet, >>the interactive, particatory process that the Internet encourages >>and rewards. > >>This is something very special. >I can only say that I saw the worldwide free information exchange >take place AFTER there were alternatives to the AUP-based >communications. In my own experience, when the ARPANET was under >AUP,. I couldn't join protocol mailing lists. I disagree. That is because I have found I guess that Usenet, being transported in part on the Internet in 1992 was a place where there was free and open exchange among people from around the world. The research my co-author of "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" did in 1992 via Usenet and the Internet and which he documented in Chapter 1 of Netizens, demonstrates this open and valuable communication. >>And further that this process is the nature of the Internet. >>Efforts to make the Internet into a network where >>the user is passive and someone's "customer" will represent a >>fundamental change in the nature of the network. >But can this be a parallel, coexisting change rather than a >disruptive one? I don't see them as mutually incompatible. No it hasn't worked that way. The commercial and private entities have no regard for the educational or research entities. And they also put pressure on government to support their commercial objectives at the expense of the social objectives. Compuserve was a commercial network. It didn't develop an Internet. The public Internet did develop. There is an important lesson to be learned from this fact with regard to what kind of leadership is needed to have a socially valuable Internet continue to develop and scale. >Exactly. There's a very close correlation between "customer" as >described above, and "for profit." Clearly, there are a substantial >number of people who don't want to participate in the technical >details, and think of the Internet as an alternative to the telephone >or television. There is a legitimate desire to use online buying -- But if the user is to become passive, the Internet will become the next "television" *not* an *alternative* to television. The tv industry ruined the promise that television held for social good. Unless government can be persuaded to act forcefully to prevent a similar disaster for Internet development, there is the danger of it going the way television went. >Amazon as a good example, but I increasingly use the net to track >down source for obscure gardening and cooking supplies. There is a >desire to use the net for entertainment. These desires are not >illegitimate. But all the Amazon.com's in the world don't compensate for losing access to the kind of cooperative activity and technical cooperation that the Internet makes possible. It is important to determine what is most important and what is secondary and to have public policy that supports such development. > >See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ > >Once you were online. Outside government and academia -- and I'm >talking about the seventies and eighties, it was quite difficult to >get online. Even when I worked directly for the Library of Congress, >we either needed to make substantial investment or get a government >sponsor to connect. I got on the Internet in 1988 via the NSFNET in Michigan. It was just being built at the time. So there wasn't an Internet really until the development of the NSFnet which was by the 1990's. (NSF took over networking development from DARPA in 1987 or so) So when I got on Usenet via the Internet and the Cleveland Freenet in 1992 that was actually the early Internet. And the rush was on by then to commercializa and privatize it, even those the Free-Nets had begun to spring up and they were a helpful model to make inexpensive access available to all. By 1995 and the privatization, there was a real effort to shut up those who were challenging that as the road to the development of the Internet. And from that point on the discussion, at least in the US, has been muted as to what is the form that Internet development should take. This is a public question but it is being treated as a private perogative. >Until the mid-80's, these could be accessed only by relatively small >communities. Even then, in 1984-1986 my first access to most of >these mailing lists was via USENET, which was external to the >Internet. But that was because there wasn't yet an Internet. There were ways of supporting Internet development by the late 1980's and the early 1990's that would have encouraged the development of public access. By the mid 1990's you could have had access to the mailing lists via USENET or via Free-Nets. So the problem wasn't that the Internet was *not* commercial in the 1980's. The problem is that this is a public issue but only a very small set of interests are encouraged to be part of the discussion. That is what happened with the privatization in 1995 and then with the creation of ICANN and now with the creation of the NAS committee. >Certainly, some of the newcomers do. Others want the model to evolve >to something that accomodates both commercial and noncommercial >interests. Increasingly, in my publications, I make the distinction >between providing "Internet" service and providing "Internet >Protocol" service. The former has to exist in the public environment, >but, while the latter can coexist within the service provider >environment, is more for intranets and extranets To accomodate both takes a protection for the noncommercial, because the commercial otherwise dominate all. Good you are making an effort to recognize that there is something besides the commercial. This is already quite a long response, so I will leave the rest to comment on in a future response. This is an important discussion and I appreciate you are willing to make it possible. It would be good to see that it was held more broadly and widely. Cheers Ronda ronda@panix.com http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/birth_internet.txt ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #373 ******************************