Whats the saying ? 'The sheer length of this document will prevent anybody from eevr reading it' ? Please trim included material to a minimum. It's the only polite thing to do. At 02:36 AM 1/12/99 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote: > >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 discussion? > >I'm pulling the above out from the bottom of this quoted message, >because it is especially important as a question. > >The Internet makes it possible for people with diverse views from >diverse networks to participate and Usenet newsgroups >provide the forum. Usenet is just one application that makes if possible for poeple to chat. As a (very) long time usenet junky and creator of more newsgroups that I care to mention, I agree with most poeples observation that "usenet is a sewer" these days. It used to be you could find experts in any topic on usenet; these days they've fled to mailing lists almost universally to escape the tragedy of the commons that has occured. Also, useent is an unreliable transport. The nature of it's distribution is such that it will drop messages on the floor. >Thus a Usenet newsgroup that is available easily as part of >Usenet (i.e. not on someone's own private server like the Berkman >Center's cyber.law which is hard to configure some >browsers to point to) is something that makes a broader discussion >possible than on a mailing list like IFWP. 1) With a mailing list, only one server needs to be configured to reflect mail. With usenet, many many servers need to be configured. This is the work that the useres never see, and until you have set up your own news server, Ronda you have no appreciation for what you are asking people to do. 2) I can't for the life of me imagine why a server at Berkman wuld be "hard to configure to". Sounds like pilot error to me but I note you have no problems handling mailing lists. 3) I'm not convinced usenet provides any greater distribution. Either you're going to use an exising newsgroup in which case you have the following problems: a) Anybody that posts to useent will begin getting spam within hours; you can scramble your address, but thennobody canget mail to you. b) The useres of the exisitng group might object if this crowd suddenly shows up there. c) According to dejanews useent is well over a million messages a day and 90% is spam and binaries. d) With a mailing list,only poeple that are really interested and subscribe are involved with the discussion. With usenet anybody that stumbles onto it can, and wil post. Expect to see "Dinette set for sale in New Jersey" almsot immediately. If you use a new newsgroup, you have to go through the group creation process. This is a nightmare. >The paper I have just worked on and have in draft form (which I >hope still to do one further revision at least in the next few >days) takes up just this question. > >The problem with the IFWP listing and similarly would be a problem >with the ORSC list, is not *only* the number of posting, which >as for the IFWP list, I can't handle in the kind of mailbox space >I have available). Users keep complaining about the net, but few sem to go out of their way of setting up their own server ans becoming part of the collection of private networks that is the Internet. If you rely on other peoeples resources such as bandwidth and servers I really don't understand where you get off telling them how it should be run. Even if you paid $30 a minth to an ISP for an account, this doesnt give you any say in how that ISP is run. You are oc course free to set up your own ISP and run it the way you expect it to be run. LEt us know when you're done. >More importantly, the problem is that the issues have been >framed in a way that puts constraints on the exploration of >the problem, rather than removing the constraints for the >needed broad ranging discussion. Can you give a concrete example of some topic that had been constrained? It sounds more to me people do not share your views and you are blamng the forum for that. >>The personalities bouncing around the IFWP and related lists provide a good >>microcosm of some of the issues. A few who have the energy, time, and > > >Actually it doesn't provide a microcosm at all, as it the title >IFWP actually limits the participation of those on the list >to very narrow issues, rather than the real question which is >what is needed in the ownership, control, and administration of >the essential functions of the Internet which include the IP >numbers, the domain names, the root server system, and port numbers, >and protocols, etc. to scale the Internet. Jonothon is right. You keep complaining, but offer no proof. >Instead of this broad question raised and raised in a forum that >is open to and welcoming of discussion by anyone on the Internet >who is interested, the question is framed in a way that is intended >to only attract those who main have a commercial interest in >selling domain names. Riiiiiight. Thats why a large number of poeple have spent nearly 4 years, for free, discussnig ways to expand dns namespce. Figure out what that costs in concultnig dollars at the $100/hr range. If you look at Simon Higgs analysis of what revenues can resonably be expcted from runnign a TLD, you'd be lukcy to break even; there is only a hge amount of money to be made if youown the one single gtld. When there are lots of them, there's no pot of gold; THATS whay some of us have as a motivation. If you want to make a heap of money on the net, run a porn site and make thoudands of dollars a day. The only peple that have made any money on this is the entrenched folk with their expense accounts and frequent flyer miles and fat salaries... Don Heath for example. >Thus only a very narrow set of people are being involved in an >issue that actually affects all Internet users and will have >a significant impact on them, but they are being excluded >from the discussion. Hoe are they being excluded? Can you point to one person that's being excluded? This may come as a utter shock, but some people just don't care. >And this broader set of people are needed to help to figure >out what the important issues are that have to be identified >to solve the more narrow issue of what to do about domain names. There are issues that after 4 years have not been explred ? Really? Like what ? >Recently there was a related discussion on Usenet and one of >comments in the discussion was that the decision to privatize >the Internet naming authority in the U.S. raises the issue of > >"whether or not you can afford to have something as important >and central as that working in commercial conditions." Sure. It's a long wll known fat that if you ask any question on useent you'll get 10 answers, 9 of them wrong. >That is an essential question that has to be raised and then >examined. In whsoe opinion ? >But I don't see how it ever gets raised in the narrow confines >of the IFWP mailing list about how to make money off of the >domain name functions of the Internet. A domain name is about $30 a year. Connectivity is that much a month. Go figure where the money is. >That Bob is someone who has been on Usenet and on this mailing list. > >On Usenet we learn to value all opinions and views and contributions. Not Bobs. He has norepsct for norms and conventions and find it terribly amusing to violate every known convention of usenet. Posting off topic messages. Massive crossposting, 30+ groups at a time. Postnig obscene messages to groups not used to that content. Then there was the time he and a few others cancelled every postnig to usenet. Then there was the time he posted his bizarre poety to *every* group on usenet at once. How do I know? I gave Bob a free acount here for 2 years. Tell you what, YOU set up a server and give bob an account. Then you'll see the net from the other side of the coin. Some users are just not worth the hassle. You cuoldnt pay me enough to have Bob back here. Search the archives. Bob is downright famous; he's been pulling this crap for years. Go into any newsgroup and say "Bob Allisat" and see what kind of reaction you get. Now, make no mistake, I lke Bob, in real life he's a great guy and a kinder gentler man you'd never find and he has a wicked sense of humor. But he just doesn't play well with others. It's Bob's way or the highway and he gets upset when you take the hiway. -- "To find out what your opponent is up to, look at what he says about you" - unknown __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
