what's in a name?

I've stayed out of the debate about list moderation so far, but a recent
post from tmcghan@gill-simpson.com reminds me of something I've been
thinking about.  An interesting way to look at what happened is that John
Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks@toad.com" and has chosen to exercise
that ownership.  Even though those of us who disagree with the way he has
done so are free to leave and set up our own mailing list, it is costly to
do so, and the problem of central name ownership remains.  List
subscribers have made investments that are specific to the name
"cypherpunks@toad.com", and most of the cost of switching to a new list is
in the new investments they would have to (re)make.  The fact is that a
promise of no censorship is not enough incentive for us to do so. 
 
I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet
today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of
truly anarchic virtual communities.  Unless this problem is solved, the
closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of
beneficent dictators.
 
Wei Dai

Wei Dai allegedly said:
> 
> I've stayed out of the debate about list moderation so far, but a recent
> post from tmcghan@gill-simpson.com reminds me of something I've been
> thinking about.  An interesting way to look at what happened is that John
> Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks@toad.com" and has chosen to exercise
> that ownership.  Even though those of us who disagree with the way he has
> done so are free to leave and set up our own mailing list, it is costly to
> do so, and the problem of central name ownership remains.  List
> subscribers have made investments that are specific to the name
> "cypherpunks@toad.com", and most of the cost of switching to a new list is
> in the new investments they would have to (re)make.  The fact is that a
> promise of no censorship is not enough incentive for us to do so. 
>  
> I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet
> today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of
> truly anarchic virtual communities.  Unless this problem is solved, the
> closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of
> beneficent dictators.

While the name hierarchy may have some effect similar to what you 
suggest, I think the real issue is more likely economic hierarchy -- 
toad.com is a name of some value, true, but toad.com is also a T1 
connection and some compute power that many people simply can't afford.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 04:58 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Wei Dai wrote:

>An interesting way to look at what happened is that John
>Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks@toad.com" and has chosen to exercise
>that ownership. [...]
>I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet
>today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of
>truly anarchic virtual communities.  Unless this problem is solved, the
>closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of
>beneficent dictators.

Wei Dai's message raises an important question: what is the relationship
between ownership and list content or quality? 

Much of the pathology of the list in the past few months can be characterized
as a "tragedy of the commons" problem, where several private actors are
seeking to maximize the gain they can extract from a finite and commonly
owned (or unownable) resource. The resource in this case is the "reputation
capital" which has built up in the terms "cypherpunks" and
"cypherpunks@toad.com". Dmitri Vulis' behavior, where he seeks to punish the
list for failing to punish or ostracize Tim May after Tim was disrespectful
to Vulis, is an attempt to achieve private gain (public retribution) at the
expense of public goods (the continuing quality and good name of the list).
Several authors have characterized John Gilmore and Sandy Sandfort's actions
with respect to moderation and the list as an attempt to monopolize or
appropriate the good name of the list for their own private purposes. (I do
not think that the latter characterization is accurate, but it is at least
popular.) I suspect that many people will see at least one "tragedy of the
commons" problem related to the list.

Some free-market economists have suggested that the solution to "tragedy of
the commons" problems is private ownership - that where economic actors are
given ownership over what might have been owned in common, that they will
seek to maximize their long-term gain through careful management and will not
adopt wasteful or harmful short-term strategies which would have otherwise
seemed attractive.

That view (that private ownership is likely to eliminate or at least minimize
wasteful or nonoptimal use of resources) has historically been a popular one
on the list. Yet private ownership of the list (or of the list's most
concrete identity, the label "cypherpunks") seems wrong to many people.

Are mailing lists an example of a situation where "the tragedy of the
commons" is not a useful metaphor? Are mailing lists an example of "public
goods" where private ownership is impossible, or should be avoided? If not,
shouldn't we work towards more private ownership, not less?

Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for good use of
resources? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBMvcZgv37pMWUJFlhAQEf6gf9FAPo+nF/h3ZAZTTzmZZLpj57xDvpcgKW
oXCvalcY20s+ah26SFP5cInGSxgOy+UC5zxAeEz/Oo/M/5n1LVZTFVg7f3PORgJW
VwY7uVhqvekaX/vNYutg7RpwvhdEz5dneipZMaFOWm0M+8ipZ5Ffb6vNLpRd6h2v
Hf+zF6aTvleTxQX1e3C8nrL1hhXd8HX12nK/Kz4/lOyRYvKw//VxtVa3++2M158t
YtBXQKLlYAW/NMUhMMSuqvkWbCW3PrDBhpsZRXXqWyruIeV3TKHlR4N3Rru74wHj
DPNH8sek3Ql8sjA0BbziUqbC15mLH6QSZbxy4MPVwc2s8r4Ff6t1Ew==
=QFGr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |

I would:>

Make regular government guys pass all kinds of laws and stuff to keep
regular people from having what they need to be talking to each other 
in secret where I couldnt listen. (Cause Im the Secret Guy--not them!)

Sic lawyers and persecutors on a guy if he made some secret-keeping
stuff that worked and let everyone have it if they wanted it.

Make my own secret software stuff using guys who want to make a lot
of money and will do what I want if I make it so they will.
Make businesses lose money unless they used my own secret software
stuff cause they couldnt sell it everywhere unless they did what
I said.

Make a secret guy coup on troublemakers and take over their stuff
so I could use it just for other secret guys and business guys
to tell everyone to use just my own secret-keeping software stuff.

I would make a secret guy coup on a mailing list if it was causing
trouble for me. I wouldnt do it until I had my own secret stuff 
ready to give to everyone though. And I would have my other secret
guys already on the list waiting for me to tell them what to do.
I would cause a lot of trouble on the list and use it to get rid of
the troublemaker guys and make everyone think that I am a good guy
saving them from bad guys wearing black hats and shooting at them
with penis-pictures.
I would let another guy be a dumb guy and do all the bad things
for me on the list so everyone would be mad at him and not at me.

I would let my secret smart guys on the list tell everyone that
the dumb guy wasnt doing dumb and bad things. I would make them
say things that sound real smart but dont really mean anything
except in the direction they are pointing their fingers to make
people look.

I would have my secret guys all saying underneath the conscious
stuff together so that everyone would start believing things that
I want them to believe.

{My uncle just got back from his trip so he is going to help me
with the rest (just the spelling and stuff though) and then he is
going to kill me for making his secret machine call him a _lamer_
when he boots it up}

<::>I want everyone to believe<::>

:>I had to save the list cause it was sick.
My secret guys talk about "the PATHOLOGY of the list"

:>Dictatorship will save them from the chaos of anarchy.
My secret guys talk about the "TRAGEDY of the COMMONS"

:>It is not me but other guys who are trying to steal the list.
My secret guys say "PRIVATE ACTORS..EXTRACT..REPUTATION CAPITAL."

:>Its ok to throw doo-doo on the only original list guy who wont
:>kiss secret guy/big business ass by connecting him in peoples
:>heads with the guy everyone knows is a bad guy (because he uses
:>bad words.
My secret guys say "DMITRI VULIS' BEHAVIOR...SEEKS TO PUNISH THE
LIST for failing to PUNISH or OSTRACIZE TIM MAY..TIM MAY WAS
DISRESPECTFUL" <--"PRIVATE GAIN (PUBLIC RETRIBUTION)"-->OSTRACIZE
TIM MAY...TIM MAY WAS DISRESPECTFUL...PUNISH TIM MAY(PUBLIC 
RETRIBUTION)..."ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE PRIVATE GAIN...AT THE EXPENSE 
OF...QUALITY AND GOOD NAME OF THE LIST"...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY...DIMITRI
VULIS' BEHAVIOR...TIM MAY IS DISRESPECTFUL...DIMITRI VULIS..TIM MAY

:>Only a few riff-raff are misrepresenting Dictatorship.
My secret guys say "Several..." (the few that escaped the censors
jackboot) "AUTHORS..." (people who only make stuff up in writing) 
"CHARACTERIZED JOHN GILMORE AND SANDY SANDFORT's..." ('made up' the
bad character of) "with RESPECT to MODERATION"...RESPECT MODERATION
...RESPECT MODERATION...RESPECT MODERATION

:>I am not a Dictator who is stealing the list.
My secret guys use nice polite words to describe what people 
really called dictatorship and stealing. 
"MONOPOLIZE" instead of DICTATORSHIP 
"APPROPRIATE" instead of STEAL.

:>Freedom and gain should be associated with private ownership.
My secret guys would put words in the mouths of "FREE-market"
guys (standing by an American flag with their hands over their
hearts singing the national anthem) and make them say that the
"SOLUTION TO "TRAGEDY...IS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...MAXIMIZE LONG-TERM
GAIN...CAREFUL MANAGEMENT"

:>If there is no list Fuhrer to say how things will always be done
then the email won't run on time.
My secret guys say "WASTEFUL...HARMFUL SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES..."
are what everyone is going to get without a having a Dictator
and "PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...ELIMINATE...WASTEFUL...NONOPTIMAL USE OF
RESOURCES" and "WORK towards...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP"..."ANARCHIC 
COMMUNITY AT ODDS WITH...GOOD USE OF RESOURCES"...WORK-->PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP...ANARCHIC-->WASTEFUL...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP-->SOLUTION TO
TRAGEDY...ANARCHIC-->HARMFUL<->TIM MAY<->DIMITRI VULIS<->HARMFUL
ANARCHIC...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP-->HISTORICAL...OSCTRACIZE TIM MAY
TIM WAS DISRESPECTFUL...ANARCHIC HARMFUL...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY
WORK=PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...WORK=PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
ANARCHIC HARMFUL...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY...ANARCHIC...DISRESPECTFUL
DIMITRI VULIS=TIM MAY...DIMITRI VULIS=TIM MAY=DIMITRI VULIS
OSTRACIZE TIM VULIS...


If I was a secret government guy I would make a cypherpunks home
page and fix it so that anyone who used the "legendary and massive
directory of global Internet resources" (a fancy name for a bunch
of Yahoos) to search for cypherpunks would only find my home page 
and the home pages of two crazy guys.
My home page wouldnt have any links to other peoples cypherpunks
mail list stuff but only the one my secret guys were taking over.
I would hope nobody would notice that almost everyone in the world 
who searches for the cypherpunks would only find the mailing list 
that is censored by my guy and my autobot.
I would hope that nobody would notice that the guy saying hes 
checking to see if secret government guys are messing with the
cypherpunks is one of my guys.


Of course Im just a kid and not a secret government guy so I cant
do all this stuff. Good thing for you guys, huh?
(But you guys should watch out for messages that start with saying,
"You are getting sleepy...you are getting very very sleepy...)

Anyway my uncle is kicking me off of cypherpunks so he can clean up
my mess in my dads email before he gets home. And then hes going
to kill me (but only after I help him find the silver key on the
second level of Duke Nukem3D--hes a gamer-lamer).

You guys might think Im a lamer myself but I got my Sandy flame on
the censored list (on my very first message) using kindegarten 
cryptography and you didnt so maybe you could learn something
from a kid, huh?
My uncle says he doesnt think kids (or anybody else) should have
what they say thrown in the flames-crapper just because someone
doesnt like what they say.
He used to go behind the Iron Curtain so people could hear what
other people didnt want them to hear and now he goes behind the
ElectroMagnetic Curtain instead and he says he wont let any 
lamers shut me up just because their ashamed of what their doing
and dont want anyone to know about it.
He helped me with some of this but only to not sound like a 
real lamer (just a bit of a lamer) but not with what I think
about the cypherpunks. I learned how to read with the Froggie
manual and cypherpunks messages and government stuff and stuff
by my dead uncle who is dead because of what he wrote about
the guys who started the internet in the first place. (Their not
good guys.)

I like you guys. 
Dont bend over for the lamers.
Dont start to cry.
Just keep on being flamers.
   Bitch and shout.
   Dont worry about the schisms.
   And dont let the Fascists take
   Your algorithms.
Lamers come and go
So dont worry bout their junk
Anarchists have <Delete> keys
They're Immortal CypherPunks.

I have to go get killed now.

Human Gus-Peter
grandson of gomez