--- Sponsor's Message -------------------------------------- News to keep you healthy... DiscoveryHealth.com. For the latest information on everything from allergies to kids’ health, DiscoveryHealth.com is where you’ll find it. http://click.topica.com/aaaazbbz8SnrbAjwjxa/Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________________________________________________________ The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 29 August 2000 Vol. 4, Number 70 (#462) __________________________________________________________________________ Web Sites of Interest: The Institute for the Study of Academic Racism The Internet belongs to everyone! Website of Eric Lee, independent labour candidate Eric Lee, "Who Rules Cyberspace" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB SITE OF INTEREST: The Institute for the Study of Academic Racism <http://about.ferris.edu/isar/homepage.htm> "ISAR monitors academic racism and serves as a resource center for scholars, legislators, civil rights organizations, and journalists." - - - - - The Internet belongs to everyone! Website of Eric Lee, independent labour candidate for a seat on the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <http://www.labourstart.org/icann/> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who rules cyberspace? by Eric Lee 21 Aug 00 If the Internet is something important to us, we should certainly want to know who controls it, and particular, who determines its future. By ownership of the Internet, we can mean many things. Obviously the cables on which the data travel are owned by corporations and governments, and the internetworked server computers are held by governments, corporations, universities, non-profit organizations, trade unions, and even individuals. That all sounds very nice, making it seem like the Internet -- or at least all its physical components -- is owned by a very large and diverse group. But one very important part of this system, the root servers, is entirely in the hands of the US government. That was true when the Internet was created thirty years ago and it is true today. I'll return to this point later. There is another aspect to ownership of the Internet, and that is the part that concerns us here: Who sets the rules that govern this immense global network? Who decides its future direction? The simple answer is that giant corporations, usually US-based, are running the Internet today as they see fit, in accordance with their own interests (making a profit), with almost no input from civil society. New worldwide institutions have been created to manage the Internet which, like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are completely unrepresentative, undemocratic, and unaccountable. And yet they have the power to move the Internet in directions that may not always be the ones the rest of us would like to see. Those institutions include the Internet Society (ISOC - founded in 1992), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C - founded in 1994) and the newest of them all, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN - founded in 1998). The three of them have a lot in common, not least of which the fact that all three have their headquarters in the United States. They are all completely dominated by transnational corporate capital. It sets the policies under which the Internet and World Wide Web are governed. Their agenda differs not one iota from that of the corporate elite: for them, the Internet exists in order to help maximize profit. Their deliberations are rarely reported in the mass media and only by accident do ordinary people discover their very existence. In their own defense, they will point out that they are "technical" bodies and therefore it is not necessary for loads of people to be involved. Really, thanks very much, they might say, but we don't need help from outsiders lacking in specialist technical skills. But their own websites, in appealing for corporations to contribute money, make the opposite point. As ISOC put it bluntly on its site: "What would it be worth to your organization to be able to shape the direction of the Internet and its related technologies? At the Internet Society, our public policy, legal, regulatory, and trade activities put you and your organization at the forefront of the Internet arena. As a member, you also hold a seat on the society's Advisory Council, which meets annually in conjunction with the Board of Trustees meeting and which has a significant voice in shaping the directions and initiatives of the society and thus the Internet itself." "A significant voice in shaping . . . the Internet itself" -- now that's something I'd like to see not only for the corporations which have joined the Internet Society and similar bodies, but also for all of us. And by all of us, I don't just mean the techies, the geeks, the nerds, the wired, the clued-in, and so on. I mean everyone -- even those without Internet access. Especially for them. I think that one could even make the case that it is the people today who don't yet have access to the Internet -- in particular in the developing world -- who most need to have a say in how things develop. They have been excluded from the process since the Internet, in its original form as ARPAnet, was launched back in 1969 under the patronage of the US Department of Defense. They are still excluded today, more than thirty years later. Their exclusion from the net since its early days has been expressed in many ways. Some of the things about the net that notoriously don't work are a function of its character as a network set up to promote the interests first of the US government, and now of transnational corporate capital. For example, anyone who has tried to create (or sometimes, even read) websites in languages other than English may have wondered what kind of standards body set up the net in the first place. I had the experience when living in Israel of being able to work in Hebrew on computers long before I could create web pages easily in that language. And there is still no single standard for reading Hebrew web pages. The reason for this is a simple one: the first version of Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) -- which is the way web pages are retrieved by your computer and then displayed on your screen -- was written in such as way that only a handful of languages could use it properly. There was no problem at all creating a website in English, but if you wanted one in French or German and needed to include letters that are not used in English, you had a problem. This was eventually fixed, sort of, in later versions of HTTP. I'll have more to say about this later. The source of this remarkable bit of information is not some band of wild- eyed radicals, but the Internet Society's own website. ISOC, like the other bodies governing cyberspace, is racing to fix the problem of internationalization of the web. Someone obviously figured out that there were potential consumers out there who wouldn't buy from all those nice new dotcoms because they couldn't read the websites. So what kind of standards body creates a "world wide" web and forgets that not all languages use the same 26 English letters? The kind that isn't listening to the three fourths of humankind that doesn't speak English. If the institutions that launched HTTP had had the input of civil society, probably someone would have mentioned this little problem earlier on. Excluded from the governance of cyberspace have been most institutions of civil society -- women's groups, farmer's organizations, religious bodies and, above all, trade unions. Finding a trade unionist involved in "shaping . . . the Internet itself" is as hard as it gets. They simply don't exist. I don't want to look a the question of the governance of cyberspace in isolation. The last few months have been characterized by an explosion of discontent at the secretive, undemocratic workings of the WTO, IMF and World Bank. Trade unions have played a vital role in expressing this discontent, and it was their involvement in the 1999 Seattle protests that made that event into a turning point. This is not to say that all trade unionists have the same viewpoint on these matters. Some merely wanted a seat at the table, to have some input into the decision making process of the global bodies which regulate the world's economy. Others took a more radical view, seeing the WTO and similar bodies as being unreformable. I think it's time to take a hard look at the secretive and undemocratic bodies which control today's (and more important, tomorrow's) Internet. This is important for all of civil society, but above all for the unions. Why "above all" the unions? I think that trade unions are not only among the largest and most significant elements of civil society -- they are uniquely democratic and accountable to their memberships. I admit that this is not true in every single case. There are unions that are not particularly accountable to their own memberships. There are unions that are controlled by the employers -- company unions. There are unions that are controlled by governments, such as the Chinese unions. There are unions that are controlled by gangsters, as was the case for some time in the Teamsters union in the USA. But those unions have been, by and large, excluded from the mainstream of the international trade union movement. Nearly all the unions which are today affiliated to the national trade union centers which in turn belong to the Brussels-based International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) are basically democratic, accountable to their members and serving their interests. Because of this, the trade unions speak with unparalleled authority. They have the power to give a voice to the voiceless, and to make sure that the Internet will serve the interests of all humankind. In this article, I intend to address a few issues related to the governance of cyberspace and in particular the role of the trade unions. I begin with the simple belief that the Internet belongs to everyone. This is an explosive idea. Do not underestimate it. Even the most radical critics of the way cyberspace is governed today rarely come close to saying what is obvious to anyone who looks at the way things are run today. It is time to say loud and clear that it is unacceptable that something as important as the Internet is regulated and controlled by bodies that are completely unaccountable to civil society. Let's look at those bodies a bit more closely now. The similarities between the bodies that regulate and control cyberspace and those which regulate and control the global economy are striking. They all tend to be US-based, controlled by people who come out of the corporate elite, and far removed from civil society. Like the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF, cyberspace is run by an alphabet soup of bodies three of which I will briefly explore below. These include: ISOC - the Internet Society W3C - the World Wide Web Consortium ICANN - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ISOC Let's begin with a closer look at ISOC, the oldest of the new global institutions that govern cyberspace. ISOC, which was founded in 1992, defines itself as "the international organization for global cooperation and coordination for the Internet and its internetworking technologies and applications". Its goals are lofty, and include the following: development, maintenance, evolution, and dissemination of standards for the Internet and its internetworking technologies and applications; growth and evolution of the Internet architecture; maintenance and evolution of effective administrative processes necessary for operation of the global Internet and internets; education and research related to the Internet and internetworking; harmonization of actions and activities at international levels to facilitate the development and availability of the Internet; collection and dissemination of information related to the Internet and internetworking, including histories and archives; assisting technologically developing countries, areas, and peoples in implementing and evolving their Internet infrastructure and use; liaison with other organizations, governments, and the general public for coordination, collaboration, and education in effecting the above purposes. Ask ISOC how it actually works to achieve these goals, and this is the answer you get: "The Internet Society operates through its international Board of Trustees, its Secretariat, its International Networking Conferences and Network Training Workshops, its regional and local chapters, its various standards and administrative bodies, its committees, and its volunteers. The Board of Trustees is headed by a Chair, and consists of 15 eminent individuals drawn from every region of the world - some of whom were instrumental in creating and evolving different components of the Internet and the technology. The Secretariat is managed by a President/CEO, with the assistance of several officers." This tells us absolutely nothing. How does ISOC really work? Who, for instance, are the people at its very top? Let's look at the six members of the Executive Committee of ISOC's Board of Trustees. At first glance, it's not a bad list. There are representatives from different countries. There are some women. There is Vinton Cerf, the "father of the Internet", who, as we shall also see, sits on the ICANN Board as well. Presumably, these are the six most important people in the organization. But other than Cerf, I didn't recognize any of the names. Fortunately, in the spirit of openness that has characterized the Internet since its inception, all six have web pages so we can learn a bit more about them. Vinton Cerf, the one ISOC leader whose name I recognized, is today senior vice president of Internet Architecture and Technology for MCI WorldCom. Martin Burack is listed as ISOC's Secretary. Before coming to work full time for ISOC, Burack worked in various marketing management positions in strategic and data marketing for MCI over ten years. Donald M. Heath is President/CEO of the Internet Society and according to his online biography is "a seasoned executive in the telecommunications, computer and software industries. He has held executive positions in development, operations, finance, sales, marketing and has worked in firms ranging from start-ups to very large multi-national corporations. He has served on the board of directors of a large-scale software firm for the past 14 years and acts as a business and financial advisor to a company engaged in the creation and development of sophisticated software development technology." He is today a Republican Party activist in Maryland. Earlier in his career, Heath "was Vice President, Data Marketing for MCI and was charged with creating MCI's data communications business". Are we noticing a pattern here? Three Americans, all connected to MCI, one of the largest of the transnational corporations and one with a vital stake in how the Internet is managed make up half of ISOC's Executive Committee. Did someone say "conflict of interest"? The other three are not Americans but all are business people too. Geoff Huston, from Australia, is Chief Scientist for Telstra Internet. Christine Maxwell is President and Publisher of Chiliad and has decades of business experience in the publishing field. Kees Neggers, from the Netherlands, has been Managing Director of SURFnet bv since its establishment in 1988. He is, apparently, the only one connected today to the academic and government bodies which were once at the Internet's core, and the mission of his company is "to develop and operate an advanced networking infrastructure for the research and higher education community in the Netherlands". Anyone can join ISOC, according to the organization's website. But apparently no trade unions have done so. The annual membership fee for a non-profit organization can be as high as $25,000 or as low as $1,250. This has not deterred corporations from joining. ISOC is proud to include among its "gold" members (each one paying upwards of $50,000 a year for the privilege of membership in the club) the following: AT&T Labs Defense Information Systems Agency Deutsche Telekom AG France Telecom Geneva Financial Center Foundation Global Crossing GTE Corporation GTS Hewlett Packard IBM Internet Initiative Japan (IIJ) Japan Network Information Center Library of Congress Lombard Odier & Cie Microsoft Oracle Corporation SmartAge SoftCom Technology Consulting Inc. Telstra WorldCom World Online W3C Another key player in the governance of cyberspace is the World Wide Web Consortium. According to its website "the World Wide Web Consortium was created in October 1994 to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability. W3C has more than 400 Member organizations from around the world and has earned international recognition for its contributions to the growth of the Web." Who are those organizations? According to the W3C itself, "members include vendors of technology products and services, content providers, corporate users, research laboratories, standards bodies, and governments, all of whom work to reach consensus on a direction for the Web. These organizations are typically investing significant resources into the web, in developing software products, in developing information products, or most commonly in its use an enabling medium for their business or activity . . .. W3C Membership is available to all organizations." Do trade unions meet any of these criteria? Certainly unions are content providers. They often invest significant resources into their websites (or they should!) And for many unions, the web is increasingly "an enabling medium for their . . . activity." So how many of the 437 organizations who currently make up the W3C are unions? Apparently, none. Not a single one. If you search their list for the word "union," you'll stumble upon the European Broadcasting Union. No trade union seems to have affiliated to the Consortium. I wonder why. One reason might be the cost. The normal cost of joining is $50,000 a year. (Ouch.) But non-profit organizations are welcome to join at a much reduced rate -- only $5,000 a year, with three years payable in advance. Unions could become W3C members for only $15,000 each. No wonder they don't join. Even joining ISOC is a bargain by comparison. As a result, hundreds of corporations determine policy for the W3C and the unions have no say whatsoever. A more likely reason than the prohibitive cost is that unions have probably never heard of the W3C. The W3C seems to have a much looser structure than ISOC and its "team" consists of 64 people working from locations across the globe. W3C is hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Computer Science [MIT/LCS] in the United States, at the Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique [INRIA] at various locations in France, and at the Keio University Shonan Fujisawa Campus in Japan. Its management team is headed up by people with roots in the academic and research community; the chair is Jean-François Abramatic, who previously served as Director of Development and Industrial Relations at INRIA, which was set up in 1967 at Rocquencourt near Paris. It is a scientific and technological institute operating under the dual authority of the French government's Ministry of Research and the Ministry of Industry. The Director of W3C is Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web. He is also a Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science. Though the W3C responds in its own way and in its own time to the needs of some parts of civil society (such as its recent campaigns to make the web accessible to the disabled and to internationalize a bit more), the mechanism for doing so is anything but democratic. There is certainly no body running the W3C that can be considered accountable in any way to civil society. Basically the "team" does what its corporate sponsors, each one paying $50,000 a year for the privilege, want. ICANN The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, founded in 1998, is the newest of the bodies set up to govern cyberspace. It has attracted a lot of attention lately both for its decision to allow the introduction of new top level domains (in addition to the existing com, org, net, edu, and so on) and also its ostensible "democratization" -- but more on that in a few pages. For now, I'd like to take a look at who actually runs ICANN, its 16 member Board. Keep in mind that the decision to create ICANN in the first place was taken by the US government in order to "free up" the control of the domain name system. But the body they created is neither democratic, nor representative, nor accountable. Like ISOC and the W3C, it consists entirely of academics and businessmen and it does on the net whatever serves the interests of capital. Let's start with ICANN's Chairman, Esther Dyson. Dyson currently also chairs EDventure Holdings, described as a small but diversified company focused on emerging information technology worldwide. She sits on a long list of boards and is linked to, among others, Perot Systems. She began her career as a reporter for Forbes magazine (the one that jokingly calls itself "capitalist tool") and then became a securities analyst. Several members of ICANN's Board also serve on other bodies we've already mentioned. For example, Jean-François Abramatic and Vinton Cerf have already been mentioned for the roles they play in ISOC and the W3C. Other ICANN Board members come directly from the businesses that dominate all the institutions governing cyberspace today. Though we might not recognize the names of the individuals, some of the corporations they come from will surely be household words, such as Dun & Bradstreet, British Telecom, GTE, MCI, Bull, and so on. Among these individuals we find: Géraldine Capdeboscq, Executive Vice President for Strategy, Technology and Partnerships at Bull, the French IT company. George Conrades, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Akamai Technologies, Inc. and venture partner at Polaris Venture Partners, an early stage investment company. Conrades had been Executive Vice President and President, GTE. He previously worked as CEO of a little known company called BBN which played a crucial role in setting up the original Internet for the US military, as well as holding senior posts in IBM. Phil Davidson, Head of BT [British Telecom] Group Standards in the BT Group Engineering and Technology Directorate. Frank Fitzsimmons, Senior Vice President, Global Marketing for Dun & Bradstreet, where he is responsible for the implementation of new global marketing initiatives in the areas of access systems, software and consulting partner marketing, Internet applications, electronic markets, and value-added products. Greg Crew, Chairman of the Australian Communications Industry Forum Ltd., Chairman of the Australian Information Technology Engineering Centre Ltd., and a non-executive director of ERG Ltd. (Perth) and of Silicon Wireless Ltd. (California). He was Chief Executive Officer of Mercury Communications Ltd. (UK) (1993-95) and Chief Operating Officer of Hongkong Telecommunications Ltd. (1991-93). He was also Managing Director of Hongkong Telephone Co. Ltd. (1988-91). Previously, he occupied various positions in engineering and commercial management in Hong Kong, and in Australia with Telecom Australia. Hans Kraaijenbrink, member of the Executive Board of ETNO, the European Telecommunications Network Operators association, located in Brussels. He is also Manager, European Policy and Regulation with Royal KPN N.V., the Netherlands, where he is responsible for European and international regulatory strategic affairs. Another prominent group on the ICANN Board consists of a handful of lawyers and management consultants. These include: Amadeu Abril i Abril teaches European Union Law, Competition Law, and IT Law at ESADE Law School, Ramon Llull University (a private University based in Barcelona). He also is an attorney-at-law specializing in distribution contracts, competition law and IT law. He has been acting as a consultant on Internet and e-commerce affairs to a number of European companies, most notably as Legal & Policy Advisor to Nominalia Internet SL, a domain-name registrar Jonathan Cohen is the Senior, Managing Partner of the Shapiro Cohen Group of Intellectual Property Practices, located in Ottawa, Canada. He has practiced in all areas of intellectual property (IP) law since 1971, and has lectured and written extensively both in Canada and internationally on various aspects of trade-mark law, including, more recently, domain name issues Ken Fockler is the President of Tenac Consulting, a company he founded. Eugenio Triana is an International Management Consultant on telecom policy, space and satellite systems, copyright and intellectual property rights in Madrid. Pindar Wong is the Chairman of the Asia & Pacific Internet Association, Executive Committee Chairman of the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies, advisor to the Asia Pacific Networking Group and member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Cisco Systems' Internet Protocol Journal. He is also the Chairman of VeriFi (Hong Kong) Ltd., which is described on the ICANN website as "a discrete Internet infrastructure consultancy". Finally, five members of ICANN's governing body come from academia and the research community which has been closely associated with the Internet since the days that it was founded as a secret project of the US Department of Defense. Among these are: Michael M. Roberts, who serves as President and CEO of ICANN, is "a policy consultant in the field of Internet technology, services and product development, with a specialization in research and education . . .. He recently retired as Vice President at EDUCOM, a consortium of 600 universities and colleges with interests in information technology, where he was responsible for networking and telecommunications programs, including the development of public policy positions in information technology on behalf of EDUCOM members." He was the first Executive Director of ISOC before coming over to ICANN. Jun Murai, Professor at the Faculty of Environmental Information, Keio University (Japan), who also serves also on the Board of ISOC. Robert Blokzijl, who currently works for the National Institute of Nuclear Physics and High Energy Physics (NIKHEF). Alejandro Pisanty, Director of Computing Academic Services at UNAM, the National Autonomous University of Mexico, in Mexico City, Mexico. Linda S. Wilson is president emerita of Radcliffe College, presently on sabbatical leave after serving as president for a decade. Previously, she was vice president for research at the University of Michigan, and served in the senior administrations of the University of Illinois and Washington University, St. Louis. As we go over the names and the illustrious careers of the members of the bodies that today govern cyberspace -- ISOC, W3C and ICANN -- we find some overlap, but more important is what we don't find. We don't find representatives of civil society, and in particular we don't find trade unionists. Trade unions are the largest organized force in civil society, but they have no say whatsoever in these bodies. The fraudulent character of ICANN's recent "democratization" has been widely noted. For example, Sandra Kegel writing in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has commented: "ICANN wants to legitimize its authority with the election, which was supposed to guarantee that the 'citizens' of the World Wide Web had a say, along with industry representatives. But ICANN has reserved all the best seats for the corporate elite." The US-based Internet Democracy Project is also well aware of the completely undemocratic way in which ICANN proposes to elect the five "at large" members of its Board. ICANN allows anyone to register, but by the 31 July 2000, when the registration period ended, not even one tenth of one percent of the people who use the net have done so. Put another way, more than 99.9% of Internet users aren't registered to vote in ICANN's elections. (ICANN called this -- in all seriousness -- a great success. Furthermore, they declared that "the overwhelming number of registrations produced significant logistical and financial problems for a system that was established and intended to deal with fewer than 10,000 registrations.") But the IDP's solution is hardly a radical one. They write: "Internet users in many developing countries have Email but not web access. ICANN membership should be possible (and easy) with just an Email connection." At first glance this sounds very nice, very inclusive, and of course unions would not oppose anything that allows more people, particularly people in developing countries, to have a say in the process. The problem is that this does not go nearly far enough. The Internet is for everybody; everybody should have a say in how it is run. This is, I think, the ABCs of how progressive people, democrats, trade unionists should look at the issue of how cyberspace is governed. Instead of merely demanding the right for a few people in developing countries who might have email access but not web access -- instead of fighting merely for them, why not demand a much more inclusive approach? I think that the billions of people who are not yet online but who will eventually make up the vast majority of Internet users need to be included in the decision making process even now. A democratically governed Internet would give those people a far greater say than they have today. Is it practical to hold global elections not based on email and the web, open to everyone? Probably not. There are certainly no such elections held for the United Nations, for example, though it would be good if there were. But trade unionists would probably argue for the principle of an inclusive decision making process in which many more voices could be heard. And the best way to do that now is to replace the undemocratic decision making process in which those people who happen to have access to the web or email and who stumble upon groups like ICANN with a process by which the disenfranchised millions get to have a say. One way to do that is to involve representative, accountable, and democratic bodies in the governance of cyberspace. Those bodies would include (but not be limited to): trade unions women's organizations farmers organizations professional bodies student groups religious groups chambers of commerce and business groups This is a far more radical and more democratic approach than merely begging ICANN to allow a few thousand people in developing countries to vote by email. And it expresses the principle which must guide a democratic approach to cyberspace which is that the Internet belongs to everyone. How would we go about securing the participation of these groups in the governance of ICANN -- and ISOC and the W3C for that matter? Fortunately we have one working model in the form of an international body which does recognize the need to ensure participation in the decision making process by ordinary working people and their unions. That model is the International Labour Organization (ILO) and it is probably the only part of the UN system that ensures a voice for workers. The ILO is run on the basis of tripartitism, with government, business and unions all having a voice. It is obviously not an ideal system. But it works. Opponents of any proposal to make bodies like ICANN less like the WTO and more like the ILO will hear that the ILO deals with labour matters, so it's reasonable to include unions. But what stake do unions have in the governance of cyberspace? I'll try to give that question an answer in the next chapter, but for now lets say this: The roles of ICANN and the ILO are different. My proposal is simply this -- if the ILO can guarantee one third of its control to the workers, what can ICANN offer to the trade union movement? A single seat on its Board? Two seats? Or no say at all in the way cyberspace is governed, which is where things stand today. Once we accept in principle that unions need to be represented, as do other components of civil society, the question of how much representation is a matter for bargaining. In any event, an ICANN, ISOC or W3C Board on which there sit representatives of trade unions will be infinitely more democratic and accountable than it is today. * * * * * About the author: Author of The Labour Movement and the Internet: The New Internationalism (Pluto Press, 1996), editor of the LabourStart website (http://www.labourstart.org), and ICT Co-ordinator for Labour and Society International. Also the author of Saigon to Jerusalem: Conversations with Israel's Vietnam Veterans (McFarland, 1992) and the unpublished Mole: Stalin and the Okhrana. Founding editor of The New International Review (1977-1989) and Workers Education (1993-1997). Member of Kibbutz Ein Dor, Israel. Editor of the online newsletter BibiWATCH (1996-98). Currently based in London. * * * * * In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. __________________________________________________________________________ FASCISM: We have no ethical right to forgive, no historical right to forget. (No permission required for noncommercial reproduction) - - - - - back issues archived via: <ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/publish/tinaf/> --- Sponsor's Message -------------------------------------- Get email and like it! Upgrade your brain with informative newsletters from IDG. From hot products to high-speed LANs, Linux to Novell, we’ve got the email you want--FREE at Topica! http://click.topica.com/aaaawabz8SnrbAjwjxc/PCWorld ------------------------------------------------------------ ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
