More on Association for Interactive Media conference

[This is the conference Tim was criticizing yesterday. --Declan]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:49:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: FC: More on Association for Interactive Media conference

Netly articles on AIM:
  http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1155,00.html
  http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1464,00.html

-Declan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 10:24:20 -0800
From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
To: declan@well.com, gnu@toad.com
Subject: Re: FC: Association for Interactive Media conference (DC, 2/98) 

[for forwarding if you like]

Note that AIM, the sponsors of the "WashingtonWeb" conference, are the
folks who appear to be paid stooges for Network Solutions in trying to
keep their ten million dollar per month monopoly on domain names.
AIM's coverage of that issue has been completely false and completely
biased ("The Internet is likely to break apart on October 15, 1997";
"you may lose all rights to use your trademark in your Internet
address forever".  See www.interactivehq.org/oic/).

They've been deliberately making false statements to stir up sentiment
against the evolution of domain names away from the Network Solutions
monopoly.

I wouldn't promote or attend their conference.  There's something going
on there that I don't understand -- but I do recognize slime when I see it.

	John Gilmore



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 11:08 AM -0800 1/7/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>[This is the conference Tim was criticizing yesterday. --Declan]
>

Just to be more accurate, I was criticising the _sheer frequency_ of such
conferences, with this one just being one of many. And not even the latest
such example, as yet another Washington conference on the Internet was
announced later yesterday.

I just can't understand who attends these things, besides the Usual Suspects.

Maybe we could convince them to all have their confabs on the same day, the
same day Abu Nidal explodes his nuke in Crystal City?

(Or invite the Algerians in for a Hackers Conference? Get medeival on their
asses.)

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

In truth, I mistyped. Tim not only was talking about the frequency (and I
gather, the danger) of the conferences, he was responding to the ACM one,
not the WW one. 

Now, who attends these things?

1. Journalists
2. Government bureaucrats happy to have a day off from work, who want to
position themselves as "Net-savvy"
3. Lobbyists who bill it to clients
4. Think tank people who hope someone reads their papers

The Naderite "Appraising Microsoft" conference seemed to be populated
mainly by journalists, at some points.

These conferences can be dangerous. If the best thing for the Net is for
DC to leave it alone, that principle leaves no space for Washington
lobbyists who bill by the hour (and through the nose) for their expertise:
pressuring various portions of the government. This is why lobbyists,
including so-called "Net-lobbyists" are not what the Net, and freedom,
need.

-Declan



On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Tim May wrote:

> At 11:08 AM -0800 1/7/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >[This is the conference Tim was criticizing yesterday. --Declan]
> >
> 
> Just to be more accurate, I was criticising the _sheer frequency_ of such
> conferences, with this one just being one of many. And not even the latest
> such example, as yet another Washington conference on the Internet was
> announced later yesterday.
> 
> I just can't understand who attends these things, besides the Usual Suspects.
> 
> Maybe we could convince them to all have their confabs on the same day, the
> same day Abu Nidal explodes his nuke in Crystal City?
> 
> (Or invite the Algerians in for a Hackers Conference? Get medeival on their
> asses.)
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

At 11:50 AM -0800 1/7/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>In truth, I mistyped. Tim not only was talking about the frequency (and I
>gather, the danger) of the conferences, he was responding to the ACM one,
>not the WW one.

Yeah, I didn't even recall which one I was commenting on. Just too many of
these damned boondoggles.

The only conference recently which as sounded interesting was the one on
"anonymity" down near LA recently...I might have gone, but I don't recall
hearing about it, or being invited. Until it was over, of course.

(I guess it was filled up with journalists, judging from the various
articles which have come out of it. Mostly cheesy articles, Declan's
excepted.)

>Now, who attends these things?
>
>1. Journalists
>2. Government bureaucrats happy to have a day off from work, who want to
>position themselves as "Net-savvy"
>3. Lobbyists who bill it to clients
>4. Think tank people who hope someone reads their papers

Yep. Boondoggles.

But as John G. and Declan and others have noted, these things can do real
damage. By skimming the surface, they are really just platforms for
position advocacy. Whether "conferences" on "ratings," or "Net.porn," or
"anonymity," or whatever, they end up being fora for certain policy wonks
to make their cases. And lazy staffers can then regurgitate the positions
as proposed legislation. (Thus satisfying their quotas, and proving they
are working hard.)

>The Naderite "Appraising Microsoft" conference seemed to be populated
>mainly by journalists, at some points.

Too many fucking journalists. Too many fucking staffers. Too many fucking
bureaucrats, lackeys, satraps, and empire builders.

The whole city, America's imperial city, is corruption on earth. The
Ayotollah had that one right.

--Tim May



The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

YAICIW


January 5, 1998: Information and registration details are now 
available on the Thursday, January 22, 1998 meeting in 
Washington, D.C.: "Internet Domain Name System - gTLD-MoU Information 
Session - An Opportunity to Meet Members of the Policy Oversight 
Committee (POC) and Council of Registrars (CORE) to Discuss Policy, 
Legal and Technical Aspects of the new Top Level Domains". See 
http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/meetings.html#jan22 for information
and registration form.

January 5, 1998: CORE will have a Plenary Meeting on January 21, 23, 
24, 1998 in Washington, D.C.  See 
http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/meetings.html#jan21

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Tim May wrote:

> The only conference recently which as sounded interesting was the one on
> "anonymity" down near LA recently...I might have gone, but I don't recall
> hearing about it, or being invited. Until it was over, of course.
> 
> (I guess it was filled up with journalists, judging from the various
> articles which have come out of it. Mostly cheesy articles, Declan's
> excepted.)

I think I was the only full-time journalist invited to participate. There
were maybe four or so jlists covering it. From the web site:

Attendance at this conference will be by invitation only. About 35
individuals will represent a
variety of backgrounds and perspectives including the computing industry
(such as Internet service
providers, network administrators, and providers of "anonymizing"
services) the legal community,
professional societies, academic institutions, law enforcement agencies,
and other agencies of
government. 

> But as John G. and Declan and others have noted, these things can do real
> damage. By skimming the surface, they are really just platforms for
> position advocacy. Whether "conferences" on "ratings," or "Net.porn," or
> "anonymity," or whatever, they end up being fora for certain policy wonks
> to make their cases. And lazy staffers can then regurgitate the positions
> as proposed legislation. (Thus satisfying their quotas, and proving they
> are working hard.)

Lobbyists need to show they're doing something to justify the money they
grab from corporations (many of which could be doing something better with
this cash, like R&D). Hence they host conferences and attend others.

There are very, very few groups out there that say Washington should take
a "hands off" approach to the Internet. Oh, sure, high tech firms
(including Microsoft) will use it as a good PR line but wait 'til they get
a chance to pass a criminal copyright bill. Even the librarians and
scientists, generally good on issues like content and copyright, spend
much of their time trying to grab more federal dollars. Like the new
federal phone tax the librarians and teachers pushed for: something like
$10-20/year per phone line. 

Then of course there's the religious right and the law enforcement
lobbyists, all of which have their own pet projects and legislation.

There are few groups who are consistently opposed to the government
mucking around with the Internet. Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise
Institute, and maybe American Enterprise Institute and Citizens for Sound
Economy and the Federalist Society.

Very, very few.

-Declan

YAICIW

(well actually a press conference)

January 7

	1:30 p.m. POLITICS ONLINE - PoliticsOnLine publisher Phil Noble
holds a news conference to release a report on how the Internet was used
in politics last year and prospects for usage this year.
	Location: National Press Club.
	Contact: Willie Blacklow, 301-652-3623.

YAICIW

(disclaimer: I am speaking at this one)


                             Cyberjournalism98
    The best and brightest in cyberjournalism will explore the future of
    internet based news and reporting at the Cyberjournalism98 symposium
    on Jan. 8-10, 1998 in Washington, D.C. and jointly sponsored by the
                 National Press Club and the Freedom Forum.
                 
                       For information on exhibiting atCyberjournalism98
contact Yvonne
   Miller at MediaMasters@rocketmail.com For information about attending
        the conference call Euraine Brooks at 703.284.2809 or email
                          ebrooks@freedomforum.org

YAICIW

Look for more taxes to pay for rural phone connections


Connecting All
                                Americans for the 21st
                                       Century:
                                 Telecommunications
                                 Links in Low Income
                                 & Rural Communities
                                  February 24-27, 1998
                                  Washington, D.C.

                                 A Policy Conference & A
                                  Practitioners Workshop



                       sponsored by

           United States Department of Commerce
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

                           &

           The Public Utility Law Project (PULP)
  A Non Profit Public Interest Law Firm Representing Low Income and Rural
                        Consumers

YAISIW

 Washington, D.C.  - January 6, 1998 - Ira Magaziner, President 
     Clinton's domestic policy development advisor, will outline the U.S. 
     Government position on electronic commerce and reform of the Domain 
     Name System at the Internet Executive Summits in London (on January 
     19, 1998, by video conference link) and Washington (on February 4, 
     1998).  Magaziner has spearheaded the Clinton Administration's
efforts 
     on electronic commerce and has taken a leading role in the U.S. 
     Government's work on privatization of the Domain Name System.
     
     Sally Tate, joint managing director of Prince plc, which is 
     facilitating the Summits, said that "Governments around the world
want 
     the private sector to take the lead to reform and manage the
Internet. 
     The Internet Executive Summits will enable business leaders to have 
     direct participation in formulating the private sector initiative to 
     ensure that the solution will fully reflect its requirements."
     
     A U.S. Inter-Agency Taskforce, set up in April 1997, it is expected
to 
     issue policy recommendations based on responses to a request for 
     comments issued in July 1997 and thousands of pages of emailed 
     recommendations received each week.   Magaziner's team has also had 
     consultations with hundreds of major Internet and telecommunications 
     companies in Washington D.C. in December 1997.
     
     The open door global Internet Executive Summits in London (January 
     19-20, 1998) and Washington (February 3-4, 1998) will help to set the 
     agenda for transition of the current Internet Domain Name and 
     governance systems.  All delegates will be eligible to participate in 
     the reform committees / initiatives formed at the Summits. 
     
     Representatives from all Internet stakeholder groups are expected to 
     attend the Summits including: commercial organizations worldwide, 
     national governments and intergovernmental organizations, law firms / 
     corporate legal departments, Internet consumer groups (including the 
     research and education community), technology companies and Internet 
     service providers (ISP's).

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
> 
> Note that AIM, the sponsors of the "WashingtonWeb" conference, are the
> folks who appear to be paid stooges for Network Solutions in trying to
> keep their ten million dollar per month monopoly on domain names.
> AIM's coverage of that issue has been completely false and completely
> biased ("The Internet is likely to break apart on October 15, 1997";
> "you may lose all rights to use your trademark in your Internet
> address forever".  See www.interactivehq.org/oic/).

>From the January 5, 1998 issue of Internet Week, page 14:

 "Network Solutions, Inc., which registers domain names
  under an agreement with the National Science Foundation,
  will have the [DNS] agreement extended six months beyond
  its March 1998 conclusion to ensure the stability of the
  system."

--David Miller