"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly what is being crafted is a new species of international
law, but one which bypasses normal checks and balances, and
constitutes a serious undermining of the international legal system.
That it is also autonomous and self-defining in its
From: "Craig McTaggart" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Sondow wrote:
an age of authoritarian acquiescence and regression, NSI V-P Don Telage
Uh, how about an age of unprecedented privatization and dilution of public
authority in favour of unaccountable private force, the antithesis of
Opening up a real discussion over what to do about ICANN
and recognizing that this is *not* confined to a contest between
NSI and ICANN as it is being portrayed in the U.S. media,
See in Telepolis:
What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace ICANN?
URL:
Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Patience wrote:
If they want a comment from me they can cut and paste jay fenellos
first internet civil way item in the comment space, or they can have
the following from an earlier private message this morning. As you
know Nick, this issue is
I'm going camping for a week leaving today. Brian Reid knows the
password to this list, if there are any problems anybody who knows
majordomo can talk to Brian and get it fixed.
How does one get in contact with Brian Reid?
Have a good vacation.
ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello.
Jeff Mason wrote:
The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit
like a mafiosi
less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain
from threatening
comments.
The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't
U.S. Press Censorship of any Criticism of ICANN
Press Censorship of criticism of ICANN is rampant in the U.S.
A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played
an important role in reporting a story about some problems
in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they
Jeff Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print
the op ed. That does happen at the last moment.
Nope Jeff, the op ed Editor told me they decided *not* to
use it.
That was after he had told me they would use it.
I wrote asking
Ellen Rony wrote:
Nick Patience wrote:
Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said:
"Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of
functions from NSF to NTIA,
from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say
IFWP."
Sorry Nick, I
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 2 12:10:58 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F9518C1E
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:10:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Rhonda,
And the Internet isn't "private computer networks".
...
The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is
I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the
constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure,
it is private.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 15:54:10 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BE318C1B
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:54:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 17:13:43 1999
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579DE18C42
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net
Richard Sexton wrote about public computer networks:
Prove it.
Here's the discussion of why Usenet was a public network:
From Chapter 10 "Netizens: On the History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet" http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
-
Usenet as a Public Computer Users Network
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frankly, I don't why this story has not been covered.
All that I know for certain is that 1) it *hasn't* been
covered, and 2) "confusion" is an explanation that simply
doesn't work for me (especially when I have personally
described, in no uncertain
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This and similar controversies have actually been
going on fairly intensively over the past 40 years.
It's the Internet and domain names right now, 15 years
ago it was OSI names and addresses, 20 years ago
satellite allocations, 40 years ago shortwave
I just saw a notice at the House Commerce Committee web site
of a Congressional Hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations on "Domain Name System Privatization: Is
ICANN Out of Control?"
It is listed as being scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 1999 at
10:00 a.m.
The URL is
"Craig McTaggart" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
At 12:53 PM 7/13/99 , Craig McTaggart wrote:
describes as ICANN making itself into an "International government for
the
Internet" is precisely what this whole process has been about: basing
IANA's
functions in an
From: Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICANN is a corporation, it is not a government. It has, or will
have, contractual relationships with other corporations and
organizations. Corporations are bound by the law, like all other
persons, real or fictitious.
There are other international
lp to change this, but instead
it is being grabbed too.
Alejandro Pisanty
Best wishes
Ronda Hauben
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
"vinton g. cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some corrections:
At 11:08 PM 7/5/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
Don Heath has been
ISOC exec director since early 96.
His position is president and CEO.
Vint, co-author of the TCP/IP protocol,
father of the Internet, but senior MCI executive for
to grow and
flourish.
Draft for Comment
Computer Science and Government: ARPA/IPTO (1962-1986)
Creating the Needed Interface
by Ronda Hauben
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mr. McCormack
Jay Fenello wrote:
At 06:07 PM 7/5/99 , Michael Sondow wrote:
Sydney Morning Herald, July 1999
Net dispute: Govt may step in=20
"Governments will end up taking control of the distribution of
Internet addresses if the Internet industry cannot resolve its
differences, according to Dr Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:48:12 -0400 (EDT), Ronda Hauben
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jay Fenello wrote:
At 06:07 PM 7/5/99 , Michael Sondow wrote:
Sydney Morning Herald, July 1999
Net dispute: Govt may step in=3D20
"Governments will end up t
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:10 AM 7/3/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
Insofar as we are talking about the imperial ICANN, the one that wants
to regulate the Internet, the one that is trying to obtain legal authority
over all IP address space and the domain name system, it is of
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would argue that no one should have "the authority to make exclusive
assignment of Internet identifiers." Indeed, there is no such thing.
You can today use any identifier you choose - and many institutions do.
However, unless you have made special
Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Pete Farmer wrote:
I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
That's true. ICANN is taking over as the government entity to give
out
chard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Computer science or the "market", government or
ICANN
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:34:08 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: R
"Richard J. Sexto
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:39:04 -0700, "Cthulhu's Little Helper"
Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29 June 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
Those decisions are what make you a part of the market.
Perhaps, William, perhaps. However, *I* will *choose* to be a market.
From: "Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) there has never been anything in human history as big, diverse or
ungovernable as the Internet.
That's not the point. The point is that the Internet has grown
up from a special environment at ARPA's IPTO (the Information Processing
Techniques
"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ronda Hauben wrote:
ICANN is illegal and the U.S. government's effort to create
ICANN is unconstitutional.
Is the Government Corporate Control Act law online? If so where?
I will take a look at your article
orte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: R
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) writes:
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:02:07 -0400 (EDT), Ro
Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Sondow wrote:
Your editorializing seems at variance with the text. Surely the text
should be read as follows, namely that, at face value, the admission
that the Australian government and others are willing to concede
sovereignty to an
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 10 21:00:50 1999
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id VAA11246
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (13962 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
via
Mikki Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kerry responding to
Ronda,
The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on
March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt
officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and
Libraries Corporation.
Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An Open Letter to Elliot Maxwell, U.S. Dept of Commerce
as part of her open letter to e lliot maxwell who have know Tont rutkowski
quite well since circa 1985 and therefor certainly does not need R honda
hauben to interpret tony's remarks to elliot ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Ronda,
The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on
March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt
officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and
Libraries Corporation.
That this was in
(I sent this to the IFWP list last night, but it doesn't seem to
have appeared yet-r)
Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An Open Letter to Elliot Maxwell, U.S. Dept of Commerce
as part of her open letter to e lliot maxwell who have know Tont rutkowski
quite well since circa 1985 and therefor
(I sent this message earlier this morning and it hasn't appeared on
the IFWP list yet-r)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
Ronda,
The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on
March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt
officials couldn't
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:55 AM 6/5/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
P.S. Tony: the fact that I am an ordinary Internet user and not a hired
gun does not disqualify me from commenting on matters of Internet policy.
You missed my point. I'm speaking favorably
about your
An Open Letter to Elliot Maxwell, U.S. Dept of Commerce
My proposal to the NTIA in Fall '98 provided for an open process
and for computer scientists from the U.S. and other interested
countries to contribute to making that open online process into a
reality. This was the first necessary step
Dear Dave
Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do have an strong opinion of what is going on that I will be soon
sending out to my IP list as a Editors Opinion clearly labeled as such.
It will be good to see what you send out.
To add to ISOC's activities with regard to ICANN I want to
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig McTaggart wrote:
For ICANN to work, it needs to acquire the kind of legitimacy which ANSI and
ISO enjoy. That is, recognition by all (okay, almost all) parties involved,
based on widespread confidence that it can impartially carry out its work
Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:03 AM 5/21/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:57:34PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
After a summer of international meetings in 1998, people believed that the
selection of the interim
James Seng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 1999, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Why are you whining about every post that doesn't fit your narrow
little views?
I think there is something known as the Freedom of Speech. If William
decided that he wish to speak up his mind, even tho it may
Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ronda Hauben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Whole IFWP process was flawed as it didn't start from the
recognition of the Internet as a communications medium, instead it
was intent on turning the whole Internet over to those smaller set
of interests who
From: Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to the press release announcing the White Paper, the U.S.
Government was "looking for a globally and functionally representative
organization, operated on the basis of sound and transparent processes that
protect against capture by
There has been an interesting and important set of emails to the IFWP
mailing list which I don't have time to respond to in length now,
but I briefly want to comment on the more significant assumptions
which seem to have been floating around a while, without being out in
the open until now:
Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ronda Hauben a =E9crit:
It is the illegitimate effort of the U.S. government to privatize
IANA that is the problem with ICANN just as it is the illegitimate
effort of the U.S. government to privatize the domain name
system that was the problem
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:FYI:
:Some of the names have changed,
:but the story remains the same:
I disagree. The story turns out to be different from what Brook
Meeks thought.
==
[Early August, 1997]
The Role of Government in the Development of the Internet
Paper Proposal
by Ronda Hauben
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are many myths about the role that government has
played in the development
Someone sent me this quote from a recent interview that Noam
Chomsky did. So somehow the word is out it seems that there
is a battle on :-)
Chomsky:
"Handing over the digital spectrum, or for that matter the Internet, to
private power -- that's a huge blow against democracy. In the case of
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today, I happened to catch Presidential Candidate
Pat Buchanan on CSPAN. He was giving a talk on US
China Relations to the Commonwealth Club of California.
At one point in the questioning, Pat described how the
world had changed from the 80's, how the
Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronda wrote:
The whole conception of ICANN is fundamentally flawed. It
is embodying conflict of interest as a principle, and will
continue to do so with its membership structure if it adopts
one. The fundamental problem ICANN
Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Possibly, but what happens if either "government" or "science"
encounters problems that may not be technically unsolvable, but are
practically unsolvable because of the high level of politics and
controversy that surrounds them, so much so that it actually
Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone attempts to cut to the heart of the matter ...
- Forwarded message from Ed Gerck -
Reflecting on the presentations and discussions at the .us meeting, it
appeared to me that the most profound problem in all DNS administrative
models and
Bob Allisat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
Wouldn't you describe this as "ad hominem"? What about this discussion
is on-topic - the engineering of the internet, or the politics of the
IETF itself? What of this discussion has technical content?
Bob, what have you achieved in the
Jonathan Zittrain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ronda
I credit the earnestness of your position, and I certainly don't view your
position--as I roughly understand it, that the U.S. government nurtured the
Net, and that the White Paper's framework of turning certain key technical
functions from the
"William X. Walsh" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writing:
12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "William X. Walsh" writes:
She exists. And she makes some very important points.
I don't agree that her points are that important, but nonetheless, lets assume
they are for
Roberto Gaetano [EMAIL PROTECTED] responding to
Jay Fenello who wrote:
Let me point out the couple of points where I don't share your POV.
You wrote:
snip
Things really got interesting the next day at the open
ICANN Board meeting. What started out as a presentation
of the CENTR
"Bret A. Fausett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] responding:
Ronda Hauben wrote:
This gives the sense that these are delegates of the Internet
community. They are *not*. The Internet community is being
disenfranchised by the whole process of the ICANN which is
in itself an unauthoritize
Bob Allisat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.icann.org/contributors.html ...
+
+ The ICANN Board of Directors thanks the following contributors
+ to the ICANN Startup Fund for their generosity:
+
+ Compaq Computer Corporation, $25,000
+ IBM, $25,000
+ MCI Worldcom, $25,000
+ Netscape
On Vannevar's Bush's "Science: The Endless Frontier" and the ICANN/IANA
problem:
Following are some thoughts on trying to put what is happening
into a context about the U.S. government transferring ownership
and control over essential points of control of the Internet
into a private sector
Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have any problems with the idea of a self-governing Internet.
If some people could have been found to campaign for office, I would
have just voted for the ones whose platforms I felt were reasonable.
However, the USG decided not to set things up that
"Jim Fleming" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IRS laws are supposed to prevent non-profits
from being formed that provide the same services
as the for-profit sector. Why is the U.S. Government
encouraging the creation of organizations that do
not appear to conform to IRS regulations ?
Not just
"Jim Fleming" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-----
From: Ronda Hauben [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
The real problem that the DNS wars show is that the U.S.
government doesn't seem to be supporting the needed scientific
research about how to provide for the scaling of th
"Javier A. Maestre" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ronda Alternatives seem to be the next:
You should look at my proposal - as it was in fact the only
proposal that did provide for genuine International collaboration
and participation in solving the problem of putting IANA
on a protected and more
Bill Lovell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 15:48 15/02/99 +, Dr Nii Quaynor wrote:
Can we realistically have an ICANN without corporate sponsorship? Why is
corporate sponsorship considered harmful in this case? How can the perceived
dangers of corporate sponsorship be contained?
Isn't this
Mikki Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
And there are many commercial and consumer interests who have made a huge
investment in the Internet who would also like a "guaranteed venue" who are
not represented. That is why I still advocate a flat membership structure.
Not all
From: Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In respect of Ms Hauben's points below, isn't there a
Governmental Advisory Committee amongst the committees proposed to
ICANN? Has this been cancelled?
But to only have it as an advisory committee, even if it did ever
get constituted and met, is to play
I sent this to the icann-membership list but also felt it should
go to the IFWP list, so am sending there as well.
Ronda
Jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Esther and all,
It is indeed true the the INTERIM BOARD is of international origin,
and with the exception of Mike Roberts, most
Thanks to Gordon Cook for his recent report on what is happening with
the NIST annoucement for giving the IANA contract to ICANN.
However, I want to add some aspects that Gordon left out in this situation.
The problem to me is *not* that the NTIA or NIST is sole sourcing this
contract. The
Jonathan Zittrain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from exercising their rights to participate, is a serious problem. My
question: what do you see as the best online architecture for open
discussion on contentious issues that doesn't have a small minority of the
stakeholders de facto dominating the
Following is the response I sent to the Berkman Institute midnight last night
in answer to the question they have posed about their current study
about representation in cyberspace.
From: Ronda Hauben
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [rcs] Opening Question
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 6
Jonathan Zittrain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good to see this posting as a few people have mentioned they
were planning to go to Cambridge on January 23, but I couldn't
find any explanation of what was happening then or who it
was open to.
Is the meeting open to anyone who comes, or is there a
Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karl Auerbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is still no need to set aside special seats for corporations or
organizations.
Nobody is stopping corporations/organizations from sending people to
participate *as* individuals.
The IETF works on the basis of
Jonathan Zittrain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If IFWP is now a closed list, and involuntarily purged of certain earlier
members, I'll stop posting to it and ask to be de-subscribed myself.
As the graf of my msg you quote below suggests, I certainly don't/didn't
mean to post exclusively to IFWP
"Andy Sernovitz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To all --
My apologies for the ongoing glitches with the IFWP list.
Hi Andy
Is there any way to gate the IFWP list to a Usenet newsgroup?
I find the number of messages a real impediment to my being able
to participate in the mailing list as I don't
Some thoughts for the new year that I welcome comments on.
I have been reading a book of the conference proceedings of AFIPS in
1970 about the Information Utility and Social Choice.
The conference had a keynote by J.C.R. Licklider and talks by a
number of other people including Harold Sackman,
79 matches
Mail list logo
