Netizens-Digest Friday, April 18 2003 Volume 01 : Number 506 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] privatization? Re: [netz] privatization? Re: [netz] privatization? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:14:30 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? Hello Howard: Just to correct myself, at the beginning of my posting I meant to say "you asked" not "you are asked". Sorry about that, Luis Luis De Quesada wrote: > Hello Howard: You are asked for someone "wiser" to suggest effective ways in > which you and Jay can communicate better. Well if I may be of help I'll gladly > do so, although I do not consider myself "wiser" than anyone else on this list, > in fact I am an apprentice, your apprentice, in matters of computers, the > internet, etc. > I think where you are going wrong is that you seem to react in an angry fashion > at Jay's postings. Remarks like you just posted "I'm beginning to despair of > it", "bah!" etc. If I may suggest, to let Jay post whatever he wants and if you > feel that he has not answered your question in an accurate fashion, then post > your reply and say, "Jay, I don't think my question has been answered correctly > and then state your reasons", without getting angry. After all this is just a > forum on issues pertaining the internet. ITs not CNN Crossfire (although at > times it seemed so). And even in Crossfire you see everybody shaking hands and > smiling at each other at the end, that's why I enjoy watching it whenever I > can. > Jay & Ronda stand for keeping the internet infrastructure or whatever's left of > it not privatized, as a collective or public domain like I do. You seem to > stand for the opposite. So we have different points of view, which is fine in a > democratic forum such as this one. > I think at this point neither of you are going to change your minds about the > subject. > So if I may suggest, do not despair of it. Do not get angry of it, its just all > friendly discussion among netizens. I think its like let say in an expo or > market place you have a kiosk or stand where you sell Coke and Jay has another > one across from you where he sells Pepsi. Let's say its you, Mark, Dan and > Larry at the Coke concessionary stand and its Jay, Ronda and me at the Pepsi > stand. What are we going to do, yell and throw bottles at each other, or do we > wave at each other in a friendly manner while selling our product to the public > and every now and then, order some pizza and lets all have some lunch together, > tell jokes, etc. Then let the people there choose freely between Coke and > Pepsi, I think the rivalry between those two is another game of tick-tack toe, > but it goes on. At our age we must avoid anything that's aggravating. I think > calmed discussion is far more productive to our list and a lot healthier. > I don't know if this is helpful to you. I sincerely hope it is. Today is good > Friday, the day of my lord and I feel that I must do some good today as I try > to do every day, but unfortunately some times I fail, but I think that's human > nature. > Let me know what you think, > Luis > > "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > > > >I have not been able to read the list but I did write this to a friend and > > >thought maybe those here will find it a contribution too. > > > > > >Take care. > > > > > >Jay > > >----------------- > > >The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and > > >electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc. > > > > Why not throw in the birds in the sky and the fish in the ocean as > > well? Fundamentally, Jay, I find this piece so ideological in nature > > that, as you put it at the end, I can't see the things you do. I must > > exist in a completely different reality. > > > > I hear so much anger at capitalism and at organization in general > > that I'm not sure there are ground for meaningful communications > > between us. I have been, for some weeks, attempting to start > > discussions of current and specific problems, and try to create > > discussion about solutions. But your response seems to reject > > anything that is, and is so perfused with radical political theory > > that I'm not sure there are any useful grounds for discussion. > > > > I do note that you have infrequently answered any specifics I have > > posted, but have responded with general and political statements. > > Maybe there is someone on the list wiser than I am that can suggest > > ways we can find mutual ground to communicate, but I'm beginning to > > despair of it. > > > > > >The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US government > > >shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science > > >Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the Internet > > >via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final > > >responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US Department of > > >Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is for one > > >year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its obligations. > > > > The US Government doesn't have oversight over the Internet, > > contracted out or not. It hasn't in years. Deal with it. There are a > > huge number of Internet governance issues that ICANN doesn't attempt > > to deal with. > > > > > > > >Such oversight is a common mechanism by which public activity is managed > > >by contractors rather than the government itself. The US government is > > >trying to privatize the oversight of the Internet via ICANN but has so far > > >not agreed to let ICANN be the private entity to over see the Internets > > >operation. > > > > I am utterly mystified how an entity oversees the Internet. > > Ironically, the Interet operates not principally from oversight, but > > by cooperation. Yes, cooperation, often between Evil Corporations > > that see that cooperation producing profits -- and, incidentally, a > > great deal of social benefit. > > > > > > > >So the Internet has not yet been privatized and much of the Internet is > > >still in the public domain. Many government departments have government > > >owned routers, many public educational institutions particiapte intimately > > >in the Internet using public property and publicly employed people. Must > > >of the information on the Internet is in the public domain or is put on > > >the Internet without restriction by citizens and netizens who are > > >contributing to the content of the Internet without any profit or personal > > >gain expected. Many governments for better or for worse throughout the > > >world maintain a hand in Internet operation and even in Internet content. > > > > If other governments are doing this, then how is the US government > > failing in its oversight role, subcontracted or not? Make up your > > mind. > > > > >All the people at home and in libraries and at school who make up the > > >human component of the Internet along with the wonderful technicians and > > >engineers and scientists who spend their time contributing to its > > >operation, its growth and its development are mostly part of the public. > > >The private sector is not the people in general but that subset of the > > >people who are motivated by private gain and profit. > > > > Thus, they are evil, I guess. > > > > >They can make a > > >contribution but not of the magnitude and in the direction that the mass > > >of people can make. > > > > > >This is the reality that someone seeing things form a property ownership > > >point of view can not see but there are other points of view and from > > >these the reality looks and is different." > > > > Well, yes, I guess I can't see what I've been doing for 30 years or > > so. Building networks, enabling people, enabling private enterprise, > > enabling government. > > > > Bah. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:05:37 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? - --part1_172.1954f608.2bd16e41_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/18/03 2:07:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > J>Hi, > J> > J>I have not been able to read the list but I did write this to a friend > and > J>thought maybe those here will find it a contribution too. > J> > J>Take care. > J> > J>Jay > J>----------------- > J>The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and > J>electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc. > > H>Why not throw in the birds in the sky and the fish in the ocean as > H>well? Fundamentally, Jay, I find this piece so ideological in nature > H>that, as you put it at the end, I can't see the things you do. I must > H>exist in a completely different reality. > H> > H>I hear so much anger at capitalism and at organization in general > H>that I'm not sure there are ground for meaningful communications > H>between us. I have been, for some weeks, attempting to start > H>discussions of current and specific problems, and try to create > H>discussion about solutions. But your response seems to reject > H>anything that is, and is so perfused with radical political theory > H>that I'm not sure there are any useful grounds for discussion. > H> > H>I do note that you have infrequently answered any specifics I have > H>posted, but have responded with general and political statements. > H>Maybe there is someone on the list wiser than I am that can suggest > H>ways we can find mutual ground to communicate, but I'm beginning to > H>despair of it. > J> > J>The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US government > J>shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science > J>Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the Internet > J>via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final > J>responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US Department of > J>Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is for one > J>year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its obligations. > > H>The US Government doesn't have oversight over the Internet, > H>contracted out or not. It hasn't in years. Deal with it. There are a > H>huge number of Internet governance issues that ICANN doesn't attempt > H>to deal with. > > J> > J>Such oversight is a common mechanism by which public activity is managed > J>by contractors rather than the government itself. The US government is > J>trying to privatize the oversight of the Internet via ICANN but has so > far > J>not agreed to let ICANN be the private entity to over see the Internets > J>operation. > > H>I am utterly mystified how an entity oversees the Internet. > H>Ironically, the Interet operates not principally from oversight, but > H>by cooperation. Yes, cooperation, often between Evil Corporations > H>that see that cooperation producing profits -- and, incidentally, a > H>great deal of social benefit. > > It makes me sad that we are not all working hard enough to be usefully precise, i.e., "privatization." If I am not being precise enough in my contributions, let me know. Let us enhance our understanding of Internet governance _today_ so that Netizens _today_ might be able to constructively contribute to the _contemporaneous_ polemic. Couldn't we avoid the anti-capitalist political-speak? It is way too convenient to assign culpability where we may have been remiss to provide reasonable competitive options as solutions. Let us research and articulate where present Internet governance policy fails. Then let us discuss how we can influence to ameliorate policy. After all our theories and or expectations of the Internetwork have been expressed, should not we _constructively_ present practical solutions that allow Netizens to _realize_ those expectations? We are wasting great talent here. Let's put this distributed brain trust to use to practically confront and solve today's problems today. I have been away for a couple of days and will respond to entries posted over the past week only if I have anything valuable to add. Larry - --part1_172.1954f608.2bd16e41_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/18/03 2:07:20 AM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

J>Hi,
J>
J>I have not been able to read the list but I did write this to a friend=20= and
J>thought maybe those here will find it a contribution too.
J>
J>Take care.
J>
J>Jay
J>-----------------
J>The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and
J>electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc.

H>Why not throw in the birds in the sky and the fish in the ocean as
H>well? Fundamentally, Jay, I find this piece so ideological in nature H>that, as you put it at the end, I can't see the things you do. I must <= BR> H>exist in a completely different reality.
H>
H>I hear so much anger at capitalism and at organization in general
H>that I'm not sure there are ground for meaningful communications
H>between us. I have been, for some weeks, attempting to start
H>discussions of current and specific problems, and try to create
H>discussion about solutions.  But your response seems to reject H>anything that is, and is so perfused with radical political theory
H>that I'm not sure there are any useful grounds for discussion.
H>
H>I do note that you have infrequently answered any specifics I have
H>posted, but have responded with general and political statements.
H>Maybe there is someone on the list wiser than I am that can suggest H>ways we can find mutual ground to communicate, but I'm beginning to H>despair of it.
J>
J>The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US government J>shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science
J>Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the Intern= et
J>via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final
J>responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US Department of<= BR> J>Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is for one=
J>year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its obligations.
H>The US Government doesn't have oversight over the Internet,
H>contracted out or not. It hasn't in years. Deal with it.  There ar= e a
H>huge number of Internet governance issues that ICANN doesn't attempt H>to deal with.

J>
J>Such oversight is a common mechanism by which public activity is manage= d
J>by contractors rather than the government itself. The US government is<= BR> J>trying to privatize the oversight of the Internet via ICANN but has so=20= far
J>not agreed to let ICANN be the private entity to over see the Internets=
J>operation.

H>I am utterly mystified how an entity oversees the Internet.
H>Ironically, the Interet operates not principally from oversight, but H>by cooperation. Yes, cooperation, often between Evil Corporations
H>that see that cooperation producing profits -- and, incidentally, a H>great deal of social benefit.



It makes me sad that we are not all working hard enough to be usefully preci= se, i.e., "privatization."  If I am not being precise enough in my cont= ributions, let me know.  Let us enhance our understanding of Internet g= overnance _today_ so that Netizens _today_ might be able to constructively c= ontribute to the _contemporaneous_ polemic. 

Couldn't we avoid the anti-capitalist political-speak?  It is way too c= onvenient to assign culpability where we may have been remiss to provide rea= sonable competitive options as solutions.  Let us research and articula= te where present Internet governance policy fails.  Then let us discuss= how we can influence to ameliorate policy.

After all our theories and or expectations of the Internetwork have been exp= ressed, should not we _constructively_ present practical solutions that allo= w Netizens to _realize_ those expectations? 

We are wasting great talent here.  Let's put this distributed brain tru= st to use to practically confront and solve today's problems today.

I have been away for a couple of days and will respond to entries posted ove= r the past week only if I have anything valuable to add.

Larry
 - --part1_172.1954f608.2bd16e41_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:43:04 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? - --------------85658841D37D558C4A282DE5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Larry: I think this is a democratic forum. Pro- and anti-capitalistic speech I think is welcome here I think as long as it is ethical and respectful. For instance I can post that I want to keep the internet or make the internet a collective rather than a subsidiary for a corporation or corporations. When you reply and ask me why, I will give you my reasons. To which you can post in reply: Well Luis I am in disagreement I think corporations are a blessing to mankind. And that's fine. Let the reader of the list freely choose who's right and who's wrong. I don't think its contrary to netizens to post anti-capitalist statement, especially those that pertain to the privatization of the internet, neither is contrary to its spirit to post opposing views. Welcome back! Luis AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/18/03 2:07:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > > >> J>Hi, >> J> >> J>I have not been able to read the list but I did write this to a >> friend and >> J>thought maybe those here will find it a contribution too. >> J> >> J>Take care. >> J> >> J>Jay >> J>----------------- >> J>The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and >> J>electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc. >> >> H>Why not throw in the birds in the sky and the fish in the ocean as >> >> H>well? Fundamentally, Jay, I find this piece so ideological in >> nature >> H>that, as you put it at the end, I can't see the things you do. I >> must >> H>exist in a completely different reality. >> H> >> H>I hear so much anger at capitalism and at organization in general >> H>that I'm not sure there are ground for meaningful communications >> H>between us. I have been, for some weeks, attempting to start >> H>discussions of current and specific problems, and try to create >> H>discussion about solutions. But your response seems to reject >> H>anything that is, and is so perfused with radical political theory >> >> H>that I'm not sure there are any useful grounds for discussion. >> H> >> H>I do note that you have infrequently answered any specifics I have >> >> H>posted, but have responded with general and political statements. >> H>Maybe there is someone on the list wiser than I am that can >> suggest >> H>ways we can find mutual ground to communicate, but I'm beginning >> to >> H>despair of it. >> J> >> J>The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US >> government >> J>shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science >> J>Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the >> Internet >> J>via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final >> J>responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US >> Department of >> J>Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is >> for one >> J>year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its >> obligations. >> >> H>The US Government doesn't have oversight over the Internet, >> H>contracted out or not. It hasn't in years. Deal with it. There >> are a >> H>huge number of Internet governance issues that ICANN doesn't >> attempt >> H>to deal with. >> >> J> >> J>Such oversight is a common mechanism by which public activity is >> managed >> J>by contractors rather than the government itself. The US >> government is >> J>trying to privatize the oversight of the Internet via ICANN but >> has so far >> J>not agreed to let ICANN be the private entity to over see the >> Internets >> J>operation. >> >> H>I am utterly mystified how an entity oversees the Internet. >> H>Ironically, the Interet operates not principally from oversight, >> but >> H>by cooperation. Yes, cooperation, often between Evil Corporations >> H>that see that cooperation producing profits -- and, incidentally, >> a >> H>great deal of social benefit. >> > > It makes me sad that we are not all working hard enough to be usefully > precise, i.e., "privatization." If I am not being precise enough in > my contributions, let me know. Let us enhance our understanding of > Internet governance _today_ so that Netizens _today_ might be able to > constructively contribute to the _contemporaneous_ polemic. > > Couldn't we avoid the anti-capitalist political-speak? It is way too > convenient to assign culpability where we may have been remiss to > provide reasonable competitive options as solutions. Let us research > and articulate where present Internet governance policy fails. Then > let us discuss how we can influence to ameliorate policy. > > After all our theories and or expectations of the Internetwork have > been expressed, should not we _constructively_ present practical > solutions that allow Netizens to _realize_ those expectations? > > We are wasting great talent here. Let's put this distributed brain > trust to use to practically confront and solve today's problems today. > > I have been away for a couple of days and will respond to entries > posted over the past week only if I have anything valuable to add. > > Larry - --------------85658841D37D558C4A282DE5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Larry: I think this is a democratic forum. Pro- and anti-capitalistic speech I think is welcome here I think as long as it is ethical and respectful. For instance I can post that I want to keep the internet or make the internet a collective rather than a subsidiary for a corporation or corporations. When you reply and ask me why, I will give you my reasons. To which you can post in reply: Well Luis I am in disagreement I think corporations are a blessing to mankind. And that's fine. Let the reader of the list freely choose who's right and who's wrong. I don't think its contrary to netizens to post anti-capitalist statement, especially those that pertain to the privatization of the internet, neither is contrary to its spirit to post opposing views.
Welcome back!
Luis

AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/18/03 2:07:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
 
J>Hi,
J>
J>I have not been able to read the list but I did write this to a friend and
J>thought maybe those here will find it a contribution too.
J>
J>Take care.
J>
J>Jay
J>-----------------
J>The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and
J>electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc.

H>Why not throw in the birds in the sky and the fish in the ocean as
H>well? Fundamentally, Jay, I find this piece so ideological in nature
H>that, as you put it at the end, I can't see the things you do. I must
H>exist in a completely different reality.
H>
H>I hear so much anger at capitalism and at organization in general
H>that I'm not sure there are ground for meaningful communications
H>between us. I have been, for some weeks, attempting to start
H>discussions of current and specific problems, and try to create
H>discussion about solutions.  But your response seems to reject
H>anything that is, and is so perfused with radical political theory
H>that I'm not sure there are any useful grounds for discussion.
H>
H>I do note that you have infrequently answered any specifics I have
H>posted, but have responded with general and political statements.
H>Maybe there is someone on the list wiser than I am that can suggest
H>ways we can find mutual ground to communicate, but I'm beginning to
H>despair of it.
J>
J>The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US government
J>shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science
J>Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the Internet
J>via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final
J>responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US Department of
J>Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is for one
J>year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its obligations.

H>The US Government doesn't have oversight over the Internet,
H>contracted out or not. It hasn't in years. Deal with it.  There are a
H>huge number of Internet governance issues that ICANN doesn't attempt
H>to deal with.

J>
J>Such oversight is a common mechanism by which public activity is managed
J>by contractors rather than the government itself. The US government is
J>trying to privatize the oversight of the Internet via ICANN but has so far
J>not agreed to let ICANN be the private entity to over see the Internets
J>operation.

H>I am utterly mystified how an entity oversees the Internet.
H>Ironically, the Interet operates not principally from oversight, but
H>by cooperation. Yes, cooperation, often between Evil Corporations
H>that see that cooperation producing profits -- and, incidentally, a
H>great deal of social benefit.
 

It makes me sad that we are not all working hard enough to be usefully precise, i.e., "privatization."  If I am not being precise enough in my contributions, let me know.  Let us enhance our understanding of Internet governance _today_ so that Netizens _today_ might be able to constructively contribute to the _contemporaneous_ polemic.

Couldn't we avoid the anti-capitalist political-speak?  It is way too convenient to assign culpability where we may have been remiss to provide reasonable competitive options as solutions.  Let us research and articulate where present Internet governance policy fails.  Then let us discuss how we can influence to ameliorate policy.

After all our theories and or expectations of the Internetwork have been expressed, should not we _constructively_ present practical solutions that allow Netizens to _realize_ those expectations?

We are wasting great talent here.  Let's put this distributed brain trust to use to practically confront and solve today's problems today.

I have been away for a couple of days and will respond to entries posted over the past week only if I have anything valuable to add.

Larry

- --------------85658841D37D558C4A282DE5-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #506 ******************************