TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:53:52 EST Volume 20 : Issue 2
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Would I Join This Club If It Would Have Me as a Member? (M. Solomon)
Naked Ambition No Excuse for Internet Piracy (Monty Solomon)
F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Monty Solomon)
Re: What Happened With Me (William Hay)
Welcome Back (JRoDOKC@aol.com)
Nice to See You Again (John Hein)
EU-US Privacy Talks Leave Banks In Dispute (Monty Solomon)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:43:07 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Would I Join This Club If It Would Have Me as a Member?
Forwarded to Digest, FYI:
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:24:31 EST
From: Andy Oram <andyo@oreilly.com>
Subject: Article: Would I Join This Club If It Would Have Me as a Member?
http://webreview.com/wr/pub/2000/02/18/platform/index.html
[65]Platform Independent
Would I Join This Club If It Would Have Me as a Member?
by [66]Andy Oram
Feb. 18, 2000
Groucho Marx's well-known quip comes to mind when I consider signing up
for the [67]Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN). Although they initially opposed any membership structure, and
agreed to admit members only after considerable external pressure, the
ICANN Board is now revving up a [68]recruitment effort. They are
[69]supported by $200,000 from a well-respected philanthropic
foundation that promotes public access to communications, the
[70]Markle Foundation.
Readers of this publication may find the invitation to join the General
Assembly enticing. After all, ICANN has made headlines as the first
organization dedicated entirely to setting policy on the Internet. Its
decisions (particularly in domain names) may directly concern you. But
before you join, read the fine print and think carefully about what
you're trying to achieve.
I want to elect the ICANN Board
Hold it right there. The word "elect" appears nowhere in the [71]bylaws
for the General Assembly. Members will not elect the Board directly,
but will "select" an At Large Council, ultimately to consist of six
people, who will then "select" representatives on the Board. A recent
[72]expert roundtable on ICANN membership uniformly condemned this
structure as detrimental to minorities and discouraging to everyone.
(Imagine that a bare majority--that is, half--of members select the At
Large Council and a bare majority--half--of the At Large Council select
Board representatives. In that case, a well-organized one-quarter of
the membership could end up controlling all representatives.) Following
the experts' advice will be a hard change for the current Board because
their choice had nothing to do with organizational structure; later I
will examine why they did it this way.
But at least the General Assembly has indirect control over the Board
Sorry, that's not true either. There are 18 Board members, of which the
General Assembly chooses only nine. The other nine are divided among
the Supporting Organizations, special interest groups that supported
the foundation of ICANN and can be counted on to support the current
Board's policies:
* Three are chosen by the [73]Address Supporting Organization. This
consists of the regional Internet registries (APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE
NCC) that coordinate the distribution of IP addresses and were
involved in forming ICANN from the start.
* Three are chosen by the [74]Protocol Supporting Organization. This
is made up of standard-setting bodies like the IETF, the W3C, and
telecommunications groups. Most of them, like the regional Internet
registries, were consulted before ICANN was formed and are lined up
behind the current Board. The bar for joining one of these
organizations is set pretty high, financially. Even though the IETF
is open and consensus-based, the average Webmaster is not going to
be able to walk into a meeting and start making policy.
* The final three are chosen by the [75]Domain Name Supporting
Organization. Its power lies in its Names Council, which represent
(once again) the special interests or "constituencies" that for the
most part were brought into the ICANN process long ago: registries,
registrars, trademark holders, and large companies. (A modicum of
dissent might be heard from the ISP and Non-Commercial Domain Name
Holder constituencies.)
So nine of the 18 Board members are firmly in the camp of the current
Board. Even if you pulled off the greatest organizing drive the world
has ever seen and managed to get people devoted to change as all nine
of your Board representatives, you'd still lose key Board decisions.
The reason? There's a 19th vote, and it goes to ... the President
of the Board.
Well, I'll get more information as a member
Don't count on it. ICANN is very parsimonious with information. While
they maintain a mailing list, official responses to comments are rare.
They used to post comments on a web page with an incongruously folksy
name ("[76]Community Feedback") but nothing has been added since the
middle of last December.
In my research of Internet policy over the years, I've had the pleasure
of reading numerous court orders, FCC notices, and other official
government documents. These works are impressive historic documents
that exhaustively consider every point raised by all sides, bring in
the background that applies to each point, and carefully lay out the
reasoning that leads to a final decision. Nothing like this appears in
ICANN public documents. They are terse bulletins that list decisions
made and brief technical justifications.
Provisions for member-to-member communication are also vague. (Section
3 requires ICANN to "provide a method for Members to communicate with
other Members in such ways and under such circumstances as the Board
determines are appropriate and desirable.")
Many non-profit organizations let members vote on by-law changes,
examine accounting books, and so forth. If ICANN members were allowed
to elect its Board, they'd have the same rights. But the trick of
setting up an intermediate At Large Council allows ICANN, by the laws
governing non-profit corporations in the state of California where it
is incorporated, to withhold such basic rights of membership. The
ramifications are all laid out in an unofficial [77]analysis on the
ICANN web site. In short, the Board chose indirect voting in order to
withhold common powers from members.
So is there anything I can do as a member?
Not now. The General Assembly doesn't take any action until it has
5,000 members. That means that, even if you accept the advisory role of
the Assembly and sign up today, you'll have to twiddle your thumbs
until another 4,999 er...optimists make the same choice.
When ICANN does formalize the role of the General Assembly, though, you
may find yourself footing the bill for ICANN's complex, multi-leveled
structure and its commitment to hold meetings on every continent around
the world, habits that have driven it to the brink of bankruptcy three
times.
To hell with it, I'll join the Domain Name Supporting Organization instead
Yes, ICANN's by-laws require a General Assembly for the [78]DNSO too.
Perhaps you'll be tempted to focus your attention there, because domain
names lead to more policy disputes than IP addresses or protocols. But
it is an almost foregone conclusion that the DNSO General Assembly will
be dominated by the same interests that control its constituencies, and
who together choose its governing Names Council.
The General Assembly meets only once a year. Its chair is chosen not by
its members, but by the Names Council. Members of the General Assembly
nominate representatives to ICANN's board, but it is the Names Council
that actually decides which nominees become representatives. And only
the Names Council can propose actions to ICANN's Board. The General
Assembly has recently suffered the resignations of several ICANN
challengers who have given up on it as a forum for expressing dissent.
Is there any positive role one can play vis-a-vis ICANN?
In the movie Horse Feathers, Groucho Marx's signature song goes,
"Whatever It Is, I'm Against It." Often ICANN critics are accused of
harboring this attitude, but for my part I reject the characterization.
Despite the lack of transparency, ICANN has been found to bend in
response to criticism. Many policies have been compromises among
various forces. The most prominent example is the [79]Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy, which scouts out a middle ground between the most
trademark-friendly proposals and the laissez-faire policy of activists
defending small domain name holders.
Beneficial results have been reported as much by people acting outside
the organization as by those within it. I myself have written several
position papers regarding ICANN policies and have attended two
meetings, all as an outsider. At one of these meetings, chairperson
Esther Dyson addressed critics directly, saying that ICANN would do the
right thing because "you'll be watching us and keeping us honest." With
so many experts on Internet policy establishing their credentials
outside the purview of ICANN, the Board would hurt only itself by
suddenly instituting a members-only policy when running meetings or
accepting comments.
But working inside might not be so bad either. Even as many
public-interest representatives leave the field in despair, a new crop
jumps in, as shown by the [80]study being conducted by [81]Common Cause
and [82]CDT. These organizations sponsored the expert roundtable
mentioned earlier in this article, and are now requesting comments from
the public.
The ICANN Board would be crazy to exploit the loopholes described in
this article to the limit. The [83]memorandum from the Commerce
Department setting up ICANN in November 1998 explicitly calls for
members, and Dyson promised a U.S. Congressional investigation in
August 1999 that ICANN would have a membership. If they end up treating
members like dirt, they may have to answer to a court or to the U.S.
government--and the next Commerce Department or Congressional committee
could turn out to be tougher than the current ones.
I believe the important thing is not to ensure that the number of
Asians in ICANN (for instance) is proportional to the number of Asians
on the Internet or to the total population of Asia. What's critical is
to draw in Asians (and others from around the world) who care about
their communities, who understand the issues that ICANN is dealing
with, and who have the time and resources to participate. We must make
sure that all have access to information and can reach the public with
their views. In other words, transparency and access are the best
guarantee of fairness, and membership is useful if it fosters those
virtues.
So each reader will end up making his or her own choice. But I can tell
you right now, I'm not going to go through the trouble and frustration
of becoming an ICANN General Assembly member. And neither--you bet your
life--would Groucho.
[84]Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly & Associates and moderator
of the Cyber Rights mailing list for Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility. This article represents his views only. The
article is copyrighted by Web Review but can be reposted for
non-profit use.
References
65. http://webreview.com/pub/at/Platform_Independent
66. http://webreview.com/pub/au/Oram_Andy
67. http://www.icann.org/
68. http://www.icann.org/at-large/call-1dec99.htm
69. http://www.markle.org/news/Release.199911021153.1178.html
70. http://www.markle.org/
71. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#II
72. http://www.commoncause.org/icann
73. http://www.aso.icann.org/
74. http://www.icann.org/pso/psonew.htm
75. http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnso.htm
76. http://www.icann.org/feedback.html
77. http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
78. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B
79. http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm
80. http://www.commoncause.org/icann/background.htm
81. http://www.commoncause.org/
82. http://www.cdt.org/
83. http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
84. mailto:andyo@oreilly.com
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
CPSR Cyber Rights -- http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cyber-rights-unsubscribe@cpsr.org
To reach moderator, e-mail: cyber-rights-owner@cpsr.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cyber-rights-help@cpsr.org
Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:44:48 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Naked Ambition No Excuse for Internet Piracy
By Mike Mckee
The Recorder/Cal Law
February 18, 2000
Ruling in a case involving sexually explicit pictures, a California
appeal court appears to have struck a blow against commercial piracy
by clamping down on the unauthorized use of photos on the Internet.
Specifically, the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles held
Thursday that federal copyright law does not prevent someone -- a
photographer and nude models in this case -- from seeking damages in
state court if their likenesses are appropriated without their
permission.
http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/practice/techlaw/news/A16547-2000Feb17.html
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:38:29 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees
By SETH SCHIESEL
A debate is raging at the Federal Communications Commission about whether
cellular telephone customers must continue to pay to receive calls as
well as to make them.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/biztech/articles/22phon.html
From: William Hay <whay@Siena.Com>
Subject: Re: What Happened With Me
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:54:43 +0800
It's good to see you back! God bless..
Will Hay
From: JRoDOKC@aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 12:16:04 EST
Subject: Welcome Back
I am very glad to see you back after all you have been through.
Although I have not always agreed with you on some topics, I have come
to respect your insights into the telecommunications world. I
sincerely wish you many more days ...
Jrod Cunningham
subscriber since 1994...
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:48:10 GMT
From: johndunedin@drink.demon.co.uk (John Hein)
Reply-To: johndunedin@drink.demon.co.uk
Subject: Nice to Have You Back
Nice to have you back!
[ johndunedin@drink.demon.co.uk | Sine Pretio Loquimini Omnibus ]
[ johndunedin@cix.compulink.co.uk| ]
[ Telephone: +44 131 558 1279 |http://www.scotsgay.co.uk/people/john.html]
[ TeleFax: +44 131 539 2999 | 42 B5/6 f+ t- w+ d g++ k- s++! r-- p ]
[ Lambda BBS: +44 131 556 6316 | S8/9 b g- l y- z/ n o++ x-- a+ u- v- j++ ]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its nice to see you here again also
John. Although I do miss my therapists (especially David and Sean)
from Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital, both of whom (and the entire
staff at KRH) treated me with much kindness I still have to say that
I prefer being outside the hospital and back with my friends once
again. I've got to get my feeding tube removed in about a week, and
give much consideration to having surgery for the broken blood vessel
which got me in this bind in the first place. I have pretty much given
up smoking as a result (not totally, it is a *tough* habit to break)
and my mother is not making things any better or easier for me. By
comparison, the rehab hospital people were much easier to get along
with. PAT]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:29:09 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: EU-US Privacy Talks Leave Banks In Dispute
http://newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/144359.html
By Robert MacMillan, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.,
23 Feb 2000, 2:42 PM CST
The European Union and US today both said that they have reached an
accord in principle to protect private data in e-commerce trade, but
EU officials claim they won a key victory on how new privacy rules
apply to banks, something a top Commerce Department official disputed.
Following two days of talks in Brussels and two and a half years of
general negotiations, the agreement is the clearest signal yet that the
EU and US may continue to conduct e-commerce while not subscribing to
the stringent principles of the EU Privacy Directive, which allows
European authorities to cut off data transmissions to businesses that
don't subscribe to it.
US companies soon may be able to subscribe to a "Safe Harbor" that
contains a series of agreements allowing the companies to do business
with citizens and companies in EU member states, while subscribing to a
pledge to follow self-regulation privacy principles abiding by US rather
than EU policy.
The US still must win the general approval of private industry, while
the EU must allow the European Commission, Parliament and a special
group of EU member state representatives to review the agreement before
it can be formally adopted. This still may happen by the hoped-for
deadline of March 31.
One key issue still appears to remain unresolved, despite an EU
official's insistence that it is settled.
EU First Secretary for Trade in the Washington Delegation, Gerard de
Graaf, told Newsbytes that the US relented on its insistence that banks
that subscribe to privacy rules under last year's financial services
modernization legislation should be allowed into the Safe Harbor without
prior vetting.
"Banks will now have to do what all other companies do," de Graaf said.
Not so, Commerce Undersecretary David Aaron told Newsbytes. The top US
representative in the privacy debate, Aaron said that the issue in fact
remains unresolved, and that talks will continue.
De Graaf was unavailable for comment following the teleconference with
Aaron.
The financial services bill, called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
prescribes methods for banks and financial institutions to protect
private data, and how to share it with their affiliates and other
business partners. Many privacy advocates, including a number of
Congress members who have proposed alternative data protection bills,
say that the GLB Act does not go far enough in its privacy safeguards.
Initial regulatory language from an interagency taskforce that codifies
the GLB Act's directives has been released in draft form, though neither
the banks - which want to cross-market as much data as possible - and
privacy advocates - who want the ultimate customer say-so in
cross-marketing - are entirely happy with it.
The EU feels that the Act does not provide strong enough privacy
protections, and therefore should not guarantee an automatic passport
for banks to adhere to the Safe Harbor.
Most other issues, while settled, still are being formally drafted into
text for industry and government review.
Aaron said the unofficial agreement constitutes a "durable framework,"
while de Graaf called it a "breakthrough."
Aaron said that the US and EU "agreed to virtually all the terms of the
Safe Harbor," adding, "I think we've reached a good result."
The EU still must seek the general approval of the European Parliament,
but more pragmatically, the ultimate yea or nay from the Article 31
Committee, which comprises members of each of the 15 EU states.
De Graaf said that the European Commission will make a formal proposal
to the Article 31 Committee, and also will seek at least 11 out of 20
members of the EC College of Commissioners to offer their consent.
Aaron noted that in the US election year, if US industry and the various
facets of the EU cannot reach a decision by March 31 when the Article 31
Committee has a meeting planned, the next window to adopt privacy
principles may not come around for another two years. The committee will
receive the agreement at its meetings, to be held March 7 to March 9.
"If we miss this window, I don't know how easy it will be to reach a
conclusion," Aaron said. "...It would be better for us during that
period to have something in place that's a good agreement, and work on
it, and if there's problems, make changes."
The general agreement at this point requires companies to give notice to
customers when they collect personal information, as well as a choice
for how that information will be used. Consumers also must have access
to the data, and be informed when the information is given to third
parties for purposes other than why it originally was collected.
Self-regulating companies, if they did not subscribe to self- regulatory
organization sanctions under the Safe Harbor, would be subject to
deceptive business practice charges from the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), the Justice Department and state attorneys general.
Aaron aide Barbara Wellbery, who has been instrumental in drawing up the
actual text of the agreement, said that sanctions run from, at minimum,
a company being required to publicly disclose its infractions, up to and
including being required to delete the data.
Aaron noted that Congress will not be required to pass legislation for
the agreement to become official in the US, saying that it can be done
"under the authority of the (Commerce Department) to give guidance to
the US business community on how to conduct business abroad."
The Commerce Department Web site is at http://www.doc.gov .
The EU Web site is http://www.eurunion.org .
Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .
14:42 CST
(20000223/Press Contact, Commerce Department: 202-482-3809; Press
Contact, EU: 202-862-9540/WIRES TOP, ONLINE, LEGAL, BUSINESS/EUUS/PHOTO)
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #2
Visit the Crazy Atheist Libertarian
Visit my atheist friends at Arizona Secular Humanists
Some strange but true news about the government
Some strange but real news about religion
Interesting, funny but otherwise useless news!