Netizens-Digest Saturday, April 26 2003 Volume 01 : Number 514 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] problems? Re: [netz] problems? Re: [netz] problems? Re: [netz] problems? Re: [netz] problems? Now solving... Re[2]: [netz] problems? Re: Re[2]: [netz] problems? [netz] Basic Service for Netizens Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens (correction on telephony) Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:29:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] problems? On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:50:55 -0400 Howard C. Berkowitz wrote responding to Ronda ronda@panix.com > >>How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list >>given the clear differences among the people posting at the current >>time? >Perhaps we can stop "talking past one another" by recognizing there >are different yet complementary areas of interest and expertise. For >example, Jay posted on the rights of Netizens. I felt I was being >responsive to that issue by asking how some of those rights could be >implemented [1] and also by posting a suggested code of conduct for >information providers. (...) >This was intended to extend the discussion and find solutions, but I >felt it was ignored. In my opinion, just stating rights isn't enough >until we find a specific way to pay for them. I'm not objecting to >the rights, but I want to see how they can be implemented. Some of what my research is and has been is to investigate how the Internet has been built and the experience of developing it. This is a new world. If we take it and bring to it the criteria of the old world, we will impose models on it that are inappropriate. It turns out that packet switching is a technology that makes the transmission of data very inexpensive. However, the contributed content online is what is and has been something that if one had to pay for it, it would be very expensive. In looking at a human-computer networking system of networks one can't leave out the human part of the system. Unfortunately, that is all I have time to say now. Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:50:03 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] problems? >On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:50:55 -0400 Howard C. Berkowitz > wrote responding to Ronda ronda@panix.com > >> >>>How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list >>>given the clear differences among the people posting at the current >>>time? > >>Perhaps we can stop "talking past one another" by recognizing there >>are different yet complementary areas of interest and expertise. For >>example, Jay posted on the rights of Netizens. I felt I was being >>responsive to that issue by asking how some of those rights could be >>implemented [1] and also by posting a suggested code of conduct for >>information providers. > >(...) > > >This was intended to extend the discussion and find solutions, but I > >felt it was ignored. In my opinion, just stating rights isn't enough > >until we find a specific way to pay for them. I'm not objecting to > >the rights, but I want to see how they can be implemented. > >Some of what my research is and has been is to investigate how >the Internet has been built and the experience of developing it. > >This is a new world. > >If we take it and bring to it the criteria of the old world, we >will impose models on it that are inappropriate. I have to say I don't follow what you are saying, and I've been intimately familiar with the Internet and its predecessors for about 30 years. Frankly, I'm puzzled about some of your criticisms, especially of the IETF. I've been an active participant there for a number of years, and indeed have published and continue to publish RFCs. During that time, I sometimes worked for a large company, sometimes for a small company, and sometimes paid my own way as an individual consultant. My corporate status never was an impediment, but you may be correct about models -- I am able to work within the cultural model of the IETF, which may not be what you want it to be. Probably, at least part of what you consider the "human part" is not within the perceived scope of the IETF. But where I see an opportunity for progress is to take human parts, in a forum such as this, and spend the hard work seeing what the technical requirements (not necessarily solution) would be to meet those human needs. Those requirements, in turn, could be passed to the IETF. I do see a variety of specific commercial threats, variously in deregulation and in copyright protection. I've brought up these issues on the list, and again tried to get some consensus on steps to take beyond saying they are bad and shouldn't be that way. > >It turns out that packet switching is a technology that makes the >transmission of data very inexpensive. However, the contributed >content online is what is and has been something that if one >had to pay for it, it would be very expensive. Ronda, _someone_ has to pay for the physical resources, but I'm not suggesting that has to be the end user. What I've been trying to discuss here are ways to make that as low-cost as possible. There is a great deal of free content online, and I don't see direct threats to it. There is a significant trend toward commercializing things that have always been somewhat commercial, such as television broadcasting and pay-per-view. > >In looking at a human-computer networking system of networks >one can't leave out the human part of the system. > >Unfortunately, that is all I have time to say now. > >Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:27:38 +0000 (GMT) From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: [netz] problems? hcb> I do agree that very little useful communication is taking place. ronda> We all seem to agree about something at last. Perhaps this is a ronda> helpful starting point. ronda> How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list ronda> given the clear differences among the people posting at the ronda> current time? Perhaps there should be two lists, one to discuss broad-based topics, and another that focuses on technical and logistical issues? People could subscribe to either or both, but would not crosspost unless making some kind of general announcement. - --gregbo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:42:33 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] problems? >hcb> I do agree that very little useful communication is taking place. > >ronda> We all seem to agree about something at last. Perhaps this is a >ronda> helpful starting point. > >ronda> How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list >ronda> given the clear differences among the people posting at the >ronda> current time? > >Perhaps there should be two lists, one to discuss broad-based topics, >and another that focuses on technical and logistical issues? People >could subscribe to either or both, but would not crosspost unless >making some kind of general announcement. > >--gregbo Certainly worth considering. What I would hope is that the broad-based topic list could sometimes produce a list of requirements for what they would like the net to do for them, and then the second list could see if those are implementable. Do you see the second list as dealing deal with political/economic/regulatory barriers to net entry and use (e.g., how to make it affordable and break the digital divide)? The second list should not replace existing engineering lists, because it is on a policy level. When I first met Ronda, the mutual interest was DNS and Internet governance. I _think_ this would fall into the purview of the second list. Now, on the first list, I would hope there is room for both discussion of alternate political paradigms, as well as using the net to empower people who choose in the existing system. I would also hope that those different sides would offer mutual respect, rather than saying that people of one viewpoint are blind to that of the other. To the contrary, they may see that view but disagree with it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:56:05 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] problems? Now solving... - --part1_1eb.75c5241.2bdb1705_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/03 4:43:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > Do you see the second list as dealing deal with > political/economic/regulatory barriers to net entry and use (e.g., > how to make it affordable and break the digital divide)? The second > list should not replace existing engineering lists, because it is on > a policy level. When I first met Ronda, the mutual interest was DNS > and Internet governance. I _think_ this would fall into the purview > of the second list. > Put me on the second list. Take me off the first. Larry - --part1_1eb.75c5241.2bdb1705_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/25/03 4:43:35 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

Do you see the second list as d= ealing deal with
political/economic/regulatory barriers to net entry and use (e.g.,
how to make it affordable and break the digital divide)?  The second list should not replace existing engineering lists, because it is on
a policy level. When I first met Ronda, the mutual interest was DNS
and Internet governance. I _think_ this would fall into the purview
of the second list.


Put me on the second list.  Take me off the first.

Larry - --part1_1eb.75c5241.2bdb1705_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:41:30 +0200 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re[2]: [netz] problems? RH> Also you can read the ones you choose to read. Yes, but I have to run through all to find what are they about... This takes some time, too, Ronda. dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- "choose your future, choose to sysadmin." gary barnes, adminspotting -* ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:15:03 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] problems? - --part1_12c.28c8f4af.2bdbc437_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/26/03 6:05:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dusoft@staznosti.sk writes: > RH> Also you can read the ones you choose to read. > D>Yes, > D> > D>but I have to run through all to find what are they about... > D>This takes some time, too, Ronda. > D> > D>dan > True. The reality of the matter is that all messages have to be sampled. Let's pursue Greg's idea and move on. No more soap opera. G>Perhaps there should be two lists, one to discuss broad-based topics, G>and another that focuses on technical and logistical issues? People G>could subscribe to either or both, but would not crosspost unless G>making some kind of general announcement. G> G>--gregbo Larry - --part1_12c.28c8f4af.2bdbc437_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/26/03 6:05:25 AM Eastern Daylight= Time, dusoft@staznosti.sk writes:

RH> Also you can read the on= es you choose to read.
D>Yes,
D>
D>but I have to run through all to find what are they about...
D>This takes some time, too, Ronda.
D>
D>dan


True.  The reality of the matter is that all messages have to be sample= d.  Let's pursue Greg's idea and move on.  No more soap opera.

G>Perhaps there should be two lists, one to discuss broad-based topics, G>and another that focuses on technical and logistical issues? People
G>could subscribe to either or both, but would not crosspost unless
G>making some kind of general announcement.
G>
G>--gregbo

Larry - --part1_12c.28c8f4af.2bdbc437_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:58:53 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens While there have been concerns about different grades of service on the Internet, it's impossible to plan network resources without knowing what the requirements would be. Without being able to plan the network, there's no way to build a network on which Netizens can assert their rights. Perhaps some of the controversy about First Class versus other grades of service is to make sure that the actual implementation of a wide range of digital services is an "overlay model". For economies of scale, the same high-capacity transmission facilities handle: 1. Public Internet 1.1 Person-to-person (or to mailing list) 1.2 Business-to-consumer 1.3 Business-to-business 2. Virtual private networks for enterprises (note: "enterprise" implies a non-individual consumer of network services, without distinction among government, academic, or commercial services) These are not reachable from the public Internet, although they may share facilities. They are separate for reasons that can include security/privacy, contracted backup facilities, or guaranteed delay & other quality of service. 3. Traditional digital telephony 4. Traditional digital television 5. Converged voice/video/data So, video communications do not directly compete for resources with the public Internet. So let's examine possible services for basic Netizen participation. 1. Email Unquestionably a fundamental service. Non-spam email is not particularly bandwidth intensive, but the limiting factor tends to be disk storage for the user mailboxes and intermediate "post office" storage. Modern email models download the mail to a personal computer, conserving ISP disk space. The ISP, however, has to know how much mailbox space to allocate to the average user, so they can buy the necessary amount of disk storage. I believe it is also reasonable for ISPs to impose anti-spamming and anti-hacking features on user connections. Anti-spamming does not mean that a user can't use large mailing lists (see below). 2. Mailing list servers A manageable way to handle large mailing lists is to have an ISP user register the list on a majordomo or other mail server, which will then send mail into the Internet at a rate that does not cause congestion. By preregistering the mailing lists, one takes anonymity away from spammers. 3. USENET I consider this a basic service, although it is less popular than it once was. As with email, a major concern is disk storage. This is a particularly severe problem with USENET, because the largest volume is in binary newsgroups. These newsgroups are heavily populated with both erotica and pirated software ("warez"), and indeed can create legal liability for ISPs. Please don't misunderstand -- I have no problem with erotica for consenting adults, as long as the resources to provide it aren't heavily subsidized by other users, and that it doesn't contain child pornography or copyrighted material. The latter two areas can put the ISP at risk. 4. Web Access Again a basic service. Bandwidth is the issue here. Does the basic user need fast response and downloads of whatever multimedia presentations, of whatever size, an information provider creates? 5. Telephony While this is usually seen as separate, voice over IP is vastly more resource-intensive than traditional telephony. It does require dedicated bandwidth, but this can be done within an overlay context. 6. Television I'm _not_ going to comment much. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:18:03 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens (correction on telephony) > > >5. Telephony > > While this is usually seen as separate, voice over IP is vastly more ^^^ less >resource-intensive than traditional telephony. It does require >dedicated bandwidth, but this can be done within an overlay context. OOPS! Voice over IP is somewhere between 8 and 32 times more bandwidth efficient than traditional digital telephony. Incidentally, in the telephone industry, business customers generally subsidize residential service. Having more business customers does not reduce residential service. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:56:00 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > While there have been concerns about different grades of service on > the Internet, it's impossible to plan network resources without > knowing what the requirements would be. Without being able to plan > the network, there's no way to build a network on which Netizens can > assert their rights. True. Please excuse a brief excursion to explain a few of the assumptions and attributes that I personally bring to the discussion. I'm presently a professor in political studies, but I've been a software designer too, and I learned a few things about the process of specifying system requirements. It's what academics would call multidisciplinary work: it brings together people with different interests and areas of expertise, and it requires a lot of mutual explanation. With respect to network design, I am very close to clueless, and pretty happy that way. "Merely technical" details of the Internet hold no fascination for me. But a lot of my work depends on the Internet. (If that sounds mercenary, bear in mind that I'm a poli sci professor, so there's no clear boundary between "my work" and the rest of my life -- but it seemed scary to say that my life depends on the Internet!) So I place a high value on the continued development of the Internet as a social, political, intellectual resource. So, my main concern is to identify any circumstances in which that value (which I think is a core Netizen value, although I'm sure we could find some interesting tensions within it) conflicts with other values in ways significant for Internet design -- i.e., the intersection of political and technical issues -- and then figure out how to deal with the conflicts. The archetypal case would be if basic e-mail required one kind of network while the profit motives of corporations required another kind of network -- basically a neat clash of "public" and "private" interests. I know that the line between public and private interests is not always so clear, and the conflicts between interests (or values) can play out in many ways. For instance: > [...]So, video communications do not directly compete for resources with > the public Internet. That _might_ mean that we can harness corporate interests in video communications in order to underwrite costs of the public Internet. But this thread is about requirements, not implementation, so I don't need to sort out the role of corporations right now. > So let's examine possible services for basic Netizen participation. Time out! I think we need to consider a big process issue: we have no cumulation mechanism. International negotiations center around (often very complex) working drafts of possible treaty language. I think these are analogous to "Internet Drafts" in the IETF process (although I don't know whether Internet Drafts ever contain alternative 'branches' as treaty drafts do). We've never had anything like that. So when Jay(?) puts out a list of Netizen rights, or you put out a list of basic services, we have no way of tracking our points of agreement or disagreement. This is very unfortunate, because we tend to operate by a Gresham's Law whereby our disagreements drive out our agreements. Even if list participants substantially agreed on every single point of a particular topic, we would _still_ end up spending disproportionate time pondering our actual or possible differences as to the fundamental nature of capitalism (or whatever), and we would still not have any readily accessible record of our common ground. Tedious. Can we set up a site to house some working documents? No telling how far we'll get on them, but if we never begin them, then the outcome is preordained. It seems reasonable for these files to be on the AIS server alongside the Netizens archives. But if Jay understandably is reluctant to volunteer himself to be keeper of our nascent pseudo-RFCs, maybe we can work out another interim arrangement. (For instance, I could host it on one of my personal web spaces. Hypothetically, you might be the keeper of the working draft on basic services; you'd make revisions, send me the revised document, I'd stick the new version on my site; messages pertinent to the document would contain the URL so that people could easily access the context, while avoiding the problem of multiple quotation levels. --Or, of course, there's no reason why you shouldn't host your "own" working draft, at least for now.) Obviously if other folks on the list fundamentally dislike a working draft, we won't get very far in this manner, but at least in some cases it may be helpful. I'm gonna postpone my comments on your list of basic services for now. Mark ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #514 ******************************