Re: Every incident is an opportunity (was Re: Hackers hit key Internet traffic computers)
My Mom kicks all you's buttocks. Got a Radio Shack franchise in 1983, we kids got in on the ground floor of personal computing (on Color Computers and TRS-80's). She does tech support for others her age. Or did, in Colorado in a community for older folks, and is now in Costa Rica figuring out how to get online. Seth Johnson Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Feb 12, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: On 2/12/07, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a very smart person said a couple of weeks ago when this same argument was made: are you willing to do tech-support for my mother is she uses linux? Gadi. Name anyone techie who doesn't have to do tech support for their mother on MS Windows.. The ones whose Mom's got Macs, of course. (Well, in my case it's my Mother-in-Law, but the tech support required has dramatically reduced.) Regards Marshall -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
Hello folks, please consider endorsing this legislative proposal on net neutrality. It's a bit different from the others you may have heard of . . . http://www.dpsproject.com This bill focuses on net neutrality in terms of the IP protocol, rather than the equal treatment and nondiscrimination application-layer policy approaches you usually hear about. One of the Intro pages from the site above, and the legislative Language, are pasted below. Coverage on Infoworld: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/20/79453_HNnetneutrality_1.html David Weinberger on Stevens and a Commentary by David Reed: http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/sen_stevens_and_david_reed_on.html Here's a link to a research paper by Dave Clark, et al. that identifies the IP protocol as the spanning layer that assures innovation across hardware and protocols: http://www.isi.edu/newarch/iDOCS/final.finalreport.pdf Seth Johnson --- http://www.dpsproject.com/twotypes.html Two Types of Neutrality So far, much of the argument over net neutrality has been over whether service providers should be allowed to favor one application, destination or Internet service over another. This is Net neutrality at the application layer. But the real issue is the neutrality of the IP layer where routers treat alike bits from every type of application. This neutrality is what makes the Internet flexible -- while it also assures uniform treatment of information flow. If this neutrality is not maintained, the Internet will be changed fundamentally. It will no longer be the flexible, open platform that allows anyone with a good idea to compete on a level ground. IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It is the Internet. The Internet is a set of agreements (protocols) that enable networks to work together. The heart of the Internet protocol is the agreement that all data packets will be passed through without regard to which application created them or what's inside of them. This reliable, uniform treatment of packets is precisely what has made the Internet a marketplace of innovation so critical to our economy. Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet. If they want to participate in the Internet, they need to follow the protocols that have been developed over the course of more than thirty years through consensus standards processes. Nor should they be permitted to single-handedly subvert the authority of the processes that have developed and maintained the Internet. We call on Congress to end the confusion and protect not only the Internet but the tens of millions of American citizens who need to know that when they buy Internet access, they're getting access to the real Internet. Network providers who offer services that depend on violating IP-layer neutrality should be prohibited from labeling those services as Internet, as their doing so will only undermine the weight of consensus authority presently accorded to the existing standards. The term Internet represents specific standards that provide IP-layer neutral connectivity that supports the openness of access and innovation that have been the defining characteristics of the Internet since its origins. To that end, we present the attached draft legislative language and call for concerned citizens and members of Congress to offer their support for passing it into law. --- http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Internet Platform for Innovation Act of 2006. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following: (1) The Internet is the most successful means of communication ever developed, connecting people of all walks of life across the globe and enabling unprecedented flexibility in applications and unfettered exchange of information and ideas. (2) The success of the Internet is built on the establishment of certain commonly observed principles of practice, expressed in Internet protocols, governing the manner in which transmissions are exchanged. Interoperation among competing Internet providers on the basis of these principles assures that the Internet remains a generic, flexible platform that supports innovation and free expression. (3) This flexible platform, commonly referred to as the IP layer of the Internet, enables users to independently develop innovative applications by devising rules and conventions describing how information transmitted between connected users will be interpreted in order to serve diverse purposes. The vast collection of applications that have been freely created in this manner is commonly referred to as the application layer
Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
The proposal is designed to straighten out the current misguided discourse on NN, which actually would end up ending NN either way -- the pro-NN legislative proposals would essentially say similar applications need to be treated the same, thereby authorizing the breaking of the separation of layers. Our point is, as I think you see, that the merits of the Internet's design are for application flexibility as provided by the nature if the transport, and this design needs to be recognized in policy that intends to enforce neutrality, because that design will be lost as a result of the current discussion. Many observe that present practices already block or disfavor certain applications. We want those practices to be the substance of the discussion, and the discussion should be on the right basis. The proposal is designed to accomplish that (and we believe we have already had that effect -- Snowe and Dorgan may have modified their amendment to the Stevens Bill, withdrawing their original proposal and introducing a simple additional principle to the FCC's list, in response to the concerns we expressed that they would unintentionally actually end up ending NN. And, while common carrier is not necessarily the only solution, we think that the consumer groups pursuing NN settled on a position of going back to common carrier a la Internet II as a result of the concerns we raised). A lot of times, we've found many people looking at NN in more deterministic or behavioral terms, as in rules about practices that network providers must obey. The thing to get about this proposal is that if it passed, the result is really to preserve and separate the standards. If everybody proceeded to offer the same services, with little tiny asterisked notices in their advertising that this is not Internet per US Code XXX we'd still achieve the critical outcome. We think it's the right position to present, and it's critical that it be presented now. Of course, we can't exactly fault people who are engaged in the discussion at the level of what existing practices are. NANOG folks would either sign out of simple dedication end-to-end purity, or knowing that starting from this place, other issues will be addressed appropriately. And note, it is designed not to legislate engineering -- only to say that what may be called Internet needs to actually follow the standard, described here in abstract terms in terms of the router behavior. This preserves the standards against their being trumped by incumbents who are asserting they can go ahead and offer priced, tiered services, and against letting local peering policies of certain incumbents (or port blocking practices of consumer internet, etc.) from gaining priority due to their position in the market. Seth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:25:55 EDT, Seth Johnson said: (2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact provide access to the Internet in accord with the above definition, regardless whether additional proprietary content, information or other services are also provided as part of a package of services offered to consumers. So how does all this mumbo-jumbo square up with the common practices of blocking SMTP and the 135-139/445 ports to protect your own infrastructure from the mass of malware that results if you don't block it? And does this mean that my Verizon DSL isn't 'The Internet' because the customer side of the modem hands me a DHCP address in RFC1918 space? For bonus points - is the DSL *still* not the Internet if I bring my own DSL modem or hand-configure the DSL one to mitigate the effects of NAT brain damage? What percentage of cable and DSL access is an unfair or deceptive act per the definition of this? - Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
Based on this link . . . http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2138772 . . . it would appear that we were successful in correcting the language of the amendment that Snowe and Dorgan presented: Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) proposed an amendment to the bill to ensure fair treatment of all Internet content. The amendment incorporated the following non-discriminatory principle: to promote broadband deployment, and presence and promote the open and interconnected nature of the Internet, a broadband service provider shall not discriminate Internet traffic based on source, ownership, or destination of such traffic as part of any publicly available Internet offering. It was defeated in the Committee with a tie vote of 11-to-11. This language is much, much better than what they originally had. When HR 5217 came out of the House Judiciary Committee, we quickly put out word that all the existing NN proposals, both House and Senate side, would actually end net neutrality if they were passed (less conveniently for the broadband providers than what they were saying they wanted to do, but just as certainly) (HR5273[Markey], HR5417[Sensenbrenner], S2360[Wyden] and S2917[Snowe]). They all basically came down to saying applications, content and services were to be either treated equally or non-discriminatorily -- meaning, break the separation of layers by identifying applications that would be treated the same. We recruited support for the legislative proposal at http://www.dpsproject.com and blitzed people both in the movement actively in motion and on the Hill with it, saying they would end net neutrality, that this was the right definition, and using the line: Packets, not Applications, Content and Services. During the markup for the Stevens Bill, Snowe and Dorgan withdrew their original language and introduced a new amendment, the full language of which I haven't yet found anywhere, but the language quoted in the article above is indeed way better than what they had in their original Bill. Nothing about applications, content or services. Just Internet traffic and source, ownership or destination of such traffic. My remaining concern is whether not discriminat[ing] Internet traffic on the given bases is clear enough. The NN movement and its legislative sponsors now seem to be talking the right language. We seem to have been quite successful. We still have to watch to see what language comes out as the Steven Bill progresses. I still haven't seen the actual amendment that was presented during the markup for the Stevens Bill. Seth Seth Johnson wrote: The proposal is designed to straighten out the current misguided discourse on NN, which actually would end up ending NN either way -- the pro-NN legislative proposals would essentially say similar applications need to be treated the same, thereby authorizing the breaking of the separation of layers. Our point is, as I think you see, that the merits of the Internet's design are for application flexibility as provided by the nature if the transport, and this design needs to be recognized in policy that intends to enforce neutrality, because that design will be lost as a result of the current discussion. Many observe that present practices already block or disfavor certain applications. We want those practices to be the substance of the discussion, and the discussion should be on the right basis. The proposal is designed to accomplish that (and we believe we have already had that effect -- Snowe and Dorgan may have modified their amendment to the Stevens Bill, withdrawing their original proposal and introducing a simple additional principle to the FCC's list, in response to the concerns we expressed that they would unintentionally actually end up ending NN. And, while common carrier is not necessarily the only solution, we think that the consumer groups pursuing NN settled on a position of going back to common carrier a la Internet II as a result of the concerns we raised). A lot of times, we've found many people looking at NN in more deterministic or behavioral terms, as in rules about practices that network providers must obey. The thing to get about this proposal is that if it passed, the result is really to preserve and separate the standards. If everybody proceeded to offer the same services, with little tiny asterisked notices in their advertising that this is not Internet per US Code XXX we'd still achieve the critical outcome. We think it's the right position to present, and it's critical that it be presented now. Of course, we can't exactly fault people who are engaged in the discussion at the level of what existing practices are. NANOG folks would either sign out of simple dedication end-to-end purity, or knowing that starting from this place, other issues will be addressed appropriately. And note, it is designed not to legislate engineering
Important Statement to Review for Signing
(Apologies for the political/non-strictly-technical substance of this post; but I think this group is populated by the right people who would understand the issue, sign the statement, and know who all else should be approached. -- Seth Johnson) Hello folks, Please review the important joint statement below, related to the WIPO Broadcaster's Treaty, and consider adding your signature if you are an American citizen. Also make sure those you know who should sign are also given the opportunity. Andy Oram has written a good letter to the US Delegation to WIPO on the subject: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/etel/2006/01/13/the-problem-with-webcasting.html?page=2 CPTech Links on the Treaty: http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html#Coments Electronic Frontier Foundation Links: http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/ IP Justice Links: http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/broadcasters.shtml Union for the Public Domain Links: http://www.public-domain.org/?q=node/47 The Latest Draft of the Treaty: http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/sccr12.2rev2.doc A survey of relevant links: http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/wipo_and_the_war_against_the_i.html If you choose to sign, please send your name along with an affiliation or appropriate short phrase to attach to your name for identification purposes, to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If your organization endorses the statement, please indicate that separately, so your organization will be listed under that header. Thank you for consideration. Seth Johnson Corresponding Secretary New Yorkers for Fair Use Joint Statement to Congress: Dear (Relevant Congressional Committees) (cc the WIPO Delegation): Negotiations are currently underway at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to develop a treaty giving broadcasters power to suppress currently lawful communications. The United States delegation is also advocating similar rights for webcasters through which the authors of new works communicate them to the public. Some provisions of the proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations would merely update and standardize existing legal norms, but several proposals would require Congress to enact sweeping new laws that give private parties control over information, communication, and even copyrighted works of others, whenever they have broadcast or webcast the work. The novel policy areas addressed by this treaty go beyond ordinary treaty-making that seeks worldwide adherence to U.S. policy. Instead, this initiative invades Congress prerogative to develop and establish national policy. Indeed, even as Congress is debating how best to protect network neutrality, treaty negotiators are debating how to eliminate it. The threat to personal liberties presented by this treaty is too grave to allow these new policy initiatives be handed over to an unelected delegation to negotiate with foreign countries, leaving Congress with the sole option whether to acquiesce. When dealing with policies that are related to copyright and communications, Congress's assigned powers and responsibility under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution become particularly important. We urge two important steps. First, the new proposed regulations should be published in the Federal Register, with an invitation to the public to comment. Second, the appropriate House and Senate committees should hold hearings to more fully explore the impact of these novel legal restrictions on commerce, freedom of speech, copyright holders, network neutrality, and communications policy. Americans currently enjoy substantial freedoms with respect to broadcast and webcast communications. Under the proposed treaty, the existing options available to commercial enterprises and entrepreneurs as well as the general public to communicate news, information and entertainment would be limited by a new private gatekeeper who adds nothing of value to the content. Communications policies currently under discussion at the FCC would be impacted. Individuals and small businesses would be limited in their freedom of speech. Copyright owners would find their freedom to license their works limited by whether the work had been broadcast or webcast. The principle of network neutrality, already the subject of congressional hearings, would be all but destroyed. As able as the staff of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Library of Congress may be, it was never intended that they alone should stake out the United States national policy to be promoted before an unelected international body in entirely new areas abridging civil liberties. Congress should be the first to establish Americas national policies in this new area so that our WIPO delegation will have sufficient guidance to achieve legitimate objectives without impairing Constitutional principles such as freedom of speech and assembly, without impairing the value of copyrights, and without granting to private
