Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 17 2002 Volume 01 : Number 397 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: [none] [netz] Welcome to the newcomers [netz] A talk on the Emergence of the Netizen, etc [netz] The ICANN Wars: Part 2 [netz] Internet surveillance in Hungary Re: [netz] The ICANN Wars: Part 2 [none] [netz] how can "the people" rule? Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule? Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule? Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule? Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:46:55 -0800 (PST) From: Sophan Thong Subject: [none] Hello, my name is Sophan and I joined this mailing list as part of an assignment in my Internet Technology class. Please excuse my mistakes if I happen to make any, for this is my first time joining a mailing list. I hope to learn more about what this association is all about. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:00:12 -0500 (EST) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: [netz] Welcome to the newcomers I am happy to see newcomers on the netizens list. I hope some old time readers of this list will use this as a chance to contribute to the list so it might again show some spirit and interest in the net. Today in Strasbourg in France Ronda Hauben gave a talk that traced the emergence of netizens. I will post a version of her talk here soon. Again to the new comers I want to say welcome to what I try to help make the wonderful world of the Net. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:52:54 -0500 (EST) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: [netz] A talk on the Emergence of the Netizen, etc Ronda Hauben has posted a talk she gave to students on the International Origins of the Internet, the Emergence of the Netizen and Is the Early Vision Still Viable. The talk is a draft paper and she welcomes any comments on it. It is at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/strasbourg.txt She can be reached at ronda@panix.com Take care. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:57:50 -0400 (EDT) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: [netz] The ICANN Wars: Part 2 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:41:51 +0200 From: John Horvath Hi there all, This list has been rather quiet lately so I thought I'd ask an obvious question to which the answer is not all that obvious. As most of you know (or should know), ICANN is in the headlines again. I'll leave it to someone else to provide the appropriate links to resources, but in a nutshell the controversy is this: ICANN wants to put itself under the control of government authorities. My question is this: is this necessarily a bad thing? When Esther Dyson was running the show, many cautioned against giving over a public resource, funded by the government, over to a private entity which has little or no transparency and is not accountable to the public. Of course, this doesn't mean government control is fully transparent and accountable. You just have to look at the European Commission for that, where unelected officials basically dictate policy. Nevertheless, in theory at least, we are the government. Is it necessary to create a separate governing entity responsive to users? Isn't it better to work with what we have, and make sure the rules are in place, as well as the necessary checks and balances? Isn't the whole issue of Internet governance a little like the "New Economy", a tech savvy concept to say the least, but at the end of the day just as reliant on the old way of doing things, perhaps with the addition of a few novel mechanisms? These are just some of my thoughts. I don't think the idea of ICANN has to be like a Gordian Knot. Rather, it's our own pretensions which are all tangled. And if so, what's all the fuss about? All the best, John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 23:07:12 -0400 (EDT) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: [netz] Internet surveillance in Hungary Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:22:42 +0200 From: John Horvath Hi, I thought the following excerpt might be of casual interest to some of you. The full article can be found (in English and German) on the Netizen site at the following address: . If you have any questions or comments, or have trouble locating the article, let me know through this list (because others may also want to know). Enjoy, John - ----------------------------------------- Internet Backdoors in Hungary by John Horvath Legitimating unwarranted and total data surveillance in Hungary As in many countries, law enforcement authorities in Hungary require a warrant issued by a judge in order to "obtain information from" (that is, to eavesdrop on) various telecommunication systems, such as the telephone, and other sources, including computer databases. However, according to the 1995 National Security Law, Hungarian law enforcement doesn't require a warrant in order to obtain information categorised as "confidential". This means the secret police can spy on an individual without any form of oversight by simply and arbitrarily classifying a certain operation as a state secret. Apparently, this has happened with Internet traffic, raising the prospect of total surveillance via computer mediated communications. According to one report, men in suits approached an ISP a couple of weeks ago and requested a link to their lines. To this they attached a computer which the ISP was forbidden to handle. In another incident where men in suits sought to install a transponder, the ISP tried to refuse by claiming they had no right to do so, to which the men agreed, adding that the company also no longer had the right to be an ISP. The transponder was subsequently installed. Although these and other stories are of the recent past, some claim that this isn't a new development, that it has been going on for years. In fact, in order to obtain a license, all ISPs are forced to sign a contract allowing for full access to all data that passes through their servers, better known as a "backdoor". The National Security Service (NSS) then installs the necessary eavesdropping equipment with which to monitor the traffic. For their part, ISPs have remained mum on the issue. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that part of their "agreement" with the NSS is to maintain strict confidentiality about the existence of backdoors. The other is that the public knowledge of backdoors is bad for business. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:39:45 +0200 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re: [netz] The ICANN Wars: Part 2 I think that private or public governance is much better than any governmental. Since I am supporter of effective solutions I just wanted to ask why isn't ICANN controlled by internet public, that is surfers? I think this kind of control would be the most democratic one and certainly effective too since fast response to problems is available and needed. In todays internet it shouldn't be (and certainly it is not) any problem to create system in which users can log and vote on any solutions proposed, eventually propose some new solutions. Of course this would create the problem of participation whether users would participate or would not. Actually, this question is much deeper than it seems. ICANN should be controlled by users but then do you think that any user could create their account and vote? In my opinion this should be possible but still question is if user who had an account would be willing to participate. It is clear that only some of formerly created accounts would be active and more people would just check in sometimes to see if anything happens. But then again there are still some unanswered questions - who should finance ICANN then? Only the Government of USA or governments of all countries whose citizens created their accounts? Since internet is no borders thing today ICANN shouldn't be subsidized only by US. Could OECD (since users come mostly from developed countries) help with this or...? dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- the bat! is my servant, is yours? http://www.ritlabs.com/the_bat/ -* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:12:29 -0400 From: "Luis G. Dequesada" Subject: [none] Hello: I am responding to this article by fellow netizen late but I think he has established interesting points. I would like to see the net controlled solely by the people not by private enterprise or by government who are allies. Luis de Quesada _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:01:10 -0400 (EDT) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: [netz] how can "the people" rule? >From: John Horvath What Dan and Luis brought up are points that most will agree with and that I also support. However, it still doesn't answer the very hear of the question: what system can you put in place of ICANN? This might sound academic, but I fear it's something which needs to be looked into immediately. Because I have a feeling that people like Esther Dyson are playing for time. Because of the opposition which confronted the Dyson regime, they ended up creating something that could never work in practice. Meanwhile, Dyson has now taken up sides with the opponents of ICANN. However, this is not because of genuine concern for users of the Internet to decide their own fate, but to eventually leave the whole affair in such a mess that the powers that be turn to neo-liberal logic to solve their problem; let the markets decide, the private sector is more efficient, profitable, etc., etc., despite the evidence that the private sector didn't want anything to do with the development of the Internet until after it was more or less built by the research community. Of course, leaving ICANN in the hand of government is the next best thing for the private sector, since they have quite a bit of influence (cf. Enron). However, it's not as good as if it's entirely in the hand of the private sector, for there is still small measure of accountability when in the hands of government (I stress the word small). Yet what's the alternative? Saying that it should be in the hands of "the public" is fine, but what does that mean? If politics were not so overwhelmed by business interests, then this would naturally mean the government, for we put our respective governments in place (or at least some of us try). Of course, since this is clearly not a perfectly world, we have NGOs, watchdog groups, and others which try their best to keep an eye on government activity. The enigma of "Internet governance" is its global character, or at least the need for it to be global in character. There needs to be a public institution which has influence or at least connections, much like a computer network, that spans the globe. And this is what is lacking. Working through government, however, is convenient because it already has structures in place for international collaboration. Perhaps putting ICANN under the research auspices of countries, such as the proposed ERA in Europe (the proposed European Research Area)? That's one solution, but most poorer countries have little or no research infrastructure to speak of. What about the UN? Perhaps it's possible to create a body with that organisation, which is truly international, to handle what has become a truly international resource. And of course, it's easier to put in place watchdogs and observers within the UN -- one that can network and co-ordinate with one another -- than any intergovernmental organisation. Has something like this been proposed before? Is it possible? Saying that ICANN should be in the hands of users is fine, but as it has been pointed out the question of user membership is a problem. It's not simply a question of on-line identities; I have half a dozen different e-mail accounts, and can easily maintain a virtual identity, an alias. And this lies at the heart of the concept of a netizen, in the same way as that of citizen; membership in a community. The community provides us with an identity, and we are granted with rights and responsibilities toward the community. And so how should we assume our identities, in conjunction or parallel with our existing identities as citizens? This question is not a trivial one, especially when considering the establishing the possibility of a governing organisation outside the realms of national government. I would argue that finding an answer to this, that is, how to establish a netizen identity -- not in just word, but deed -- will enable us to better resolve the ICANN enigma and give us a clearer understanding of how to apply the idea of Internet governance by users at large. Any thoughts on this? John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:24:27 -0400 From: "Luis G. Dequesada" Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule? Hello: ICANN can be replaced by a federation of collectives run by the people. Decisions will be made by and for the people and without interference from the government who favors control by the corporations. Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by themselves effectively when they are united in a common cause. Lou D. >From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) >Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu >To: netizens@columbia.edu >Subject: [netz] how can "the people" rule? >Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:01:10 -0400 (EDT) > > >From: John Horvath > >What Dan and Luis brought up are points that most will agree with and >that I also support. However, it still doesn't answer the very hear of >the question: what system can you put in place of ICANN? > >This might sound academic, but I fear it's something which needs to be >looked into immediately. Because I have a feeling that people like >Esther Dyson are playing for time. Because of the opposition which >confronted the Dyson regime, they ended up creating something that could >never work in practice. Meanwhile, Dyson has now taken up sides with the >opponents of ICANN. However, this is not because of genuine concern for >users of the Internet to decide their own fate, but to eventually leave >the whole affair in such a mess that the powers that be turn to >neo-liberal logic to solve their problem; let the markets decide, the >private sector is more efficient, profitable, etc., etc., despite the >evidence that the private sector didn't want anything to do with the >development of the Internet until after it was more or less built by the >research community. > >Of course, leaving ICANN in the hand of government is the next best >thing for the private sector, since they have quite a bit of influence >(cf. Enron). However, it's not as good as if it's entirely in the hand >of the private sector, for there is still small measure of >accountability when in the hands of government (I stress the word >small). > >Yet what's the alternative? Saying that it should be in the hands of >"the public" is fine, but what does that mean? If politics were not so >overwhelmed by business interests, then this would naturally mean the >government, for we put our respective governments in place (or at least >some of us try). Of course, since this is clearly not a perfectly world, >we have NGOs, watchdog groups, and others which try their best to keep >an eye on government activity. > >The enigma of "Internet governance" is its global character, or at least >the need for it to be global in character. There needs to be a public >institution which has influence or at least connections, much like a >computer network, that spans the globe. And this is what is lacking. >Working through government, however, is convenient because it already >has structures in place for international collaboration. Perhaps putting >ICANN under the research auspices of countries, such as the proposed ERA >in Europe (the proposed European Research Area)? That's one solution, >but most poorer countries have little or no research infrastructure to >speak of. > >What about the UN? Perhaps it's possible to create a body with that >organisation, which is truly international, to handle what has become a >truly international resource. And of course, it's easier to put in place >watchdogs and observers within the UN -- one that can network and >co-ordinate with one another -- than any intergovernmental organisation. > >Has something like this been proposed before? Is it possible? Saying >that ICANN should be in the hands of users is fine, but as it has been >pointed out the question of user membership is a problem. It's not >simply a question of on-line identities; I have half a dozen different >e-mail accounts, and can easily maintain a virtual identity, an alias. >And this lies at the heart of the concept of a netizen, in the same way >as that of citizen; membership in a community. The community provides us >with an identity, and we are granted with rights and responsibilities >toward the community. > >And so how should we assume our identities, in conjunction or parallel >with our existing identities as citizens? This question is not a trivial >one, especially when considering the establishing the possibility of a >governing organisation outside the realms of national government. > >I would argue that finding an answer to this, that is, how to establish >a netizen identity -- not in just word, but deed -- will enable us to >better resolve the ICANN enigma and give us a clearer understanding of >how to apply the idea of Internet governance by users at large. > >Any thoughts on this? > > >John > > > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:48:20 -0400 (EDT) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule? From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" >Hello: ICANN can be replaced by a federation of collectives run by the people. How does one police voting by these collectives? Can one of the people belong to more than one collective? What are the criteria for membership in collectives -- what if a collective throws me out? > Decisions will be made by and for the people and without >interference from the government who favors control by the >corporations. >Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by >themselves effectively when they are united in a common cause. Examples of proof (i.e., of pure popular democracy in a technologically advanced state)? >Lou D. > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:50:27 -0400 (EDT) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule? From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" I hate to follow up my own posts, but the discussion of directories below was just posted: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3254.txt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:05:25 -0400 (EDT) From: ronda@panix.com Subject: Re: [netz] how can "the people" rule? "Howard C. Berkowitz" responding to Lou D wrote: >>Hello: ICANN can be replaced by a federation of collectives run by the people. >How does one police voting by these collectives? Can one of the >people belong to more than one collective? What are the criteria for >membership in collectives -- what if a collective throws me out? Also the US government is left alone. And if there are powerful companies like the equivalent of Enron, for example, who want to fill the vacuum created, they pressure the US government to give them the power rather than anyone in any of the collectives. I have proposed the need to learn from the early development of the Internet what made possible the international collaboration. It was the treaty between Norway and the US to create the Norwegian Seimic facility NORSAR that set a foundation for Norwegian and then British participation in the ARPANET. This wasn't some set of collectives. But because the US government was supporting research groups in the US and there was some Norwegian and British support for their research groups, international collaboration was possible. >> Decisions will be made by and for the people and without >>interference from the government who favors control by the >>corporations. >>Its been proven throughout history that the people can rule by >>themselves effectively when they are united in a common cause. But that leaves the government to support certain powerful corporations and such corporations are already powerful enough, as the Enron case shows. >Examples of proof (i.e., of pure popular democracy in a >technologically advanced state)? And on the contrary, the examples of proof of how technological and social collaboration is possible can be found in the researching and understanding the research done in the 1970s and 1980s to create the Internet. >>Lou D. Ronda See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/strasbourg.txt http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #397 ******************************