Date: Tue, 27 Oct 98 22:35:47 CST
From: email@example.com (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: WSJ lies promote privatization of Internet essential functions
Organization: Columbia University
Wall Street Journal lies promote privatization of Internet essential functions
27 October 1998
This is from another posting on Usenet that I thought would be
of interest to folks who read misc.activism.progressive
In the name of supposed "internet governance", the U.S. government
is giving away to a private corporation the public resources
and power over the essential functions of the Internet and
the press in the U.S. has been silent on the issues. Finally
in the name of a eulogy for an Internet pioneer the WSJ published
an article on the subject, but covering up all the issues
and instead propagandizing for the giveaway.
Below I have added to the post that appeared on Usenet critiquing
this WSJ article:
Mentifex (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
Meanwhile, did everybody see the blatant exploitation of the death
of Jonathan Postel (The Wall Street Journal editorial page A22) in
the form of a 22.oct.1998 article by K. N. Cukier, a senior editor
of Communications Week International? Well, George, or should you
be called one of the "new Internet pipsqueaks" as Cukier calls us?
Your Doublethink Duckspeak has lived beyond 1984 in the WSJ, where
Mr. Cukier wrote how lucky Jonathan Postel is to have died and not
have seen how "a handful of small-town Internet entrepreneurs snip-
ing from their e-mail soapboxes have been calling on the U.S. government
to exert control over the new IANA." The still warm body
of Jonathan Postel is exploited: "His vision was of a communications
network beyond the control of government." Please! Mr. 2X
double-talk Cukier, the only avenue of control by ALL Netizens is
demo-(that's Greek for PEOPLE, Mr. Cukier)cratic government. You
end "The Internet Loses Its Head" by mouthing, "It's important to
get the new institution up and running, and make sure governments
stay out." Translated out of Doublespeak: Down with the people!
Good to see your account of this piece foul propaganda in
the name of a eulogy for Jon Postel published in the WSJ on Thursday,
October 22, 1998.
It was full of lots of other falsifications as well.
It was interesting that the WSJ hadn't carried any account of the
DNS giveaway but suddenly puts on its editorial page this piece of
WSJ article falsification:
"Indeed, the Internet was created by privately owned data networks
that voluntarily agreed to interconnect for mutual benefit,
and recognized the need for a central authority to make uncomfortable
yet binding decisions."
The Internet was created as a result of government funded and directed
computer science research and development by the U.S. government and
other governments around the world who supported the linking up of
the government or university developed networks in their countries.
In the process there were cooperative procedures like the Requests
for Comment (RFC's) and the IETF and Usenet newsgroups and
ARPANET and later Internet mailing lists that developed to make
possible collaborative processes to help solve many of the problems
that developed so people could work together and help each other
to use and spread the Internet.
This cooperation was supported by an Acceptible Use Policy where
the networks could be used reciprocally by different those in different
nations around the world as long as certain rules were followed and
the networks were open to the university or education community in
the diverse countries.
This is what has made it possible to have an international network.
One of the first points of the Acceptible Use Policy (the AUP) that
governed the early U.S. backbone to the Internet (the NSFNET) was:
"Communication with foreign reseachers and educators in connection
with research or instruction, as long as any network that the
foreign user employs for such communication provides reciprocal
access to U.S. researchers and educators." (See chapter 12
WSJ article falsification:
"If governments get to plunge their flagpoles into cyberspace,
his (Postel's) vision risks being destroyed. The Internet moves
too fast for governments to control. And since it is a weave of
private international networks, it's not clear what government
institution has legitimacy to determine Internet policies such
as adding new domain domain names--the `.com' or `org' suffixes
of many of today's Internet addresses. Why not a `.med' for
accredited medical institutions, for examle? Such questions are
much better left for industry itself to decide."
Government have been a crucial part of creating the Internet,
or as this WSJ propagandist calls it, cyberspace.
And Jon Postel worked for the U.S. government under a contract
and so to use him as a way to attack governments being involved
in the Internet is a gross misrepresentation.
The U.S. government and other governments played a *good* role,
not a bad role, in the development of the Internet.
The role the U.S. government played, was *not* one of control,
but of support for the networking community, and for cooperative
and collaborative processes that made it possible to develop
and maintain the Internet.
There are Internet processes and procedures for deciding what
should happen such as the IETF and Usenet newsgroups and Internet
mailing lists where problems of deciding whether or not to add
new domain names can be discussed to figure out what it makes
sense to do. However, instead of the U.S. government and
other governments supporting the use of such procedures,
they are being pressured by big corporate entities to turn
over the ownership and control of decisions like these
and of assets like IP numbers and domain names to private
corporations under the guise of privatizing these functions.
Cukier and the WSJ are campaigning for this great giveaway
of Internet assets and policy making power to "industry" by
WSJ article falsification:
"Or so reasons-believe it or not- Ira Magaziner, the failed healthcare
commissar reborn as cyberpunk. Mr. Magaziner spearheaded an
international campaign to forge consensus among governments around
the world to defer to the authority of a new, private-sector-based
IANA. And when key parties in the process of building the new
institution failed to come to terms, he persuaded them to continue
discussions, knowing the consequences would otherwise be an
open door for Congress or Geneva buraucrats to storm through."
Internet recent history:
Where and how this whole privatization process of essential
Internet functions was conceived and begun needs to be unraveled,
but advisors to the U.S. government with interests in big
corporate entities are pressuring for this privatization
similar to how they pressured for the privatization of the
NSFNET backbone to the Internet.
Magaziner has been traveling around the world and encouraging
other nations to go along with the privatization.
He has been offering other nations seats on the board, despite
the fact that this is to be a supposed "private corporation."
Thus we are to have governments represented but under no obligations
to be accountable for this representation.
This is a new model that is being crafted under the advice of
some of the Internet guru's from the Internet society and other
such institutions of how to give away Internet assets and
policy making processes to the private sector.
Congress, according to the WSJ propaganda, should stay out.
But it is good to have Congress intervene and all sectors
of the U.S. govt intervene. The Office of Inspector General
of the NSF (who traditionally functioned under the authority of
Congress) issued a report on this all saying that this
would create a concentration of power that was very dangerous
and probably contrary to U.S. law.
And the report said that government cannot transfer policy making
power to private entities.
The U.S. people and people around the world need to know
what is happening and to have some way to intervene.
There needs to be broad public discussion, *not* silence and
propaganda press releases.
WSJ article falsification:
"All this reached a crescendo when Postel was hospitalized last
week for heart problems. So close to realization, his vision may
become the first casualty of the revolution he helped unleash: A
form of Internet self governance founded on the authority of the
Internet itself--the companies that invest in it and the individuals
who benefit from it. It's imoprtant to get the new institution up
and running, and make sure governments stay out."
Whose Vision of the future?
The Internet and Usenet have been created as a users networks,
where the users have created the content and the software
that has made them possible. (See testimony submitted to
And there has been a good role played by the U.S. government
and governments around the world to support those who have
worked to create and develop the Internet.
Also much taxpayer money of people in the U.S. and elsewhere
around the world has helped to fund the networks that are
now make the Internet a worldwide network of networks.
But this WSJ brand of supposed "Internet self governance"
is to replace the users and the support by government
for the cooperative processes and collaborative practices
with the "companies that invest" (i.e. reap the windfall of
the greatest giveaway in the history of the world), and
where users are reduced to "individuals who benefit from"
i.e. companies making profit off of them, is only the vision
of a very narrow set of interests who have no understanding
of nor concern for the Internet or the global communication
that it makes possible.
When I spoke with Jon Postel in Geneva this past summer,
explaining to him that I was a user, and that users
were left out of this IFWP (International Forum on the
White Paper) process that Magaziner had created, Postel
didn't tell me anything about this so called vision that
the WSJ is promoting. Instead he said to present what
I was saying to the meetings that were to be held about
the IANA privatization.
Thus to be promoting this giveaway in Postel's name,
and even in what is pretended as a eulogy for him,
is a demonstration of how little those promoting the
privatization of the Internet care for the Internet
and the people who have worked to make it possible.
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6