[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed


>Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 14:11:50 -0400
>To: list@ifwp.org
>From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed 
>Cc: com-priv@lists.psi.com
>At 12:53 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote:
>>At 12:37 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print
>>>the op ed.  That does happen at the last moment.
>>>Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you
>>>recieved a definate no on this.
>>>Has anyone else had this sort of problem with the press?
>Yes, Jeff,
>I've been involved in the DNS wars for 
>two and a half years, and I've seen many 
>examples of media bias.
>In fact, I just recently posted several 
>examples of media bias to this list.  
>More below . . .
>>>Jeff Mason
>>Yeah, well this is my problem with these recent press censorship
>>allegations. Mags have deadlines and demands that have to be flexible - eg
>>Tina Brown cramming in an 'essay' about JFK Jr at the last minute to shift
>>a few more copies. 
>>Sure it might be a global conspiracy, it could also just be the regular
>>timing problems associated with publishing magazines, especially physical
>>ones where printers and distributors are involved. As Jeff, says ask them
>>again and see what they say. 
>It's a two and a half year timing
>Sorry Nick, I don't buy it.
>It's amazing how many people believe 
>that the press is not biased.  We have
>a long history which suggests otherwise.
>Yesterday, I posted the story of "Mr.
>Smith Goes to Washington".  It's one of
>my favorite movies, and it highlights 
>the power of the press from way back
>in 1939.
>Even so, many will refuse to believe 
>that this level of coordination can
>exist in a free press.  I guess it is 
>because it challenges everything we 
>believe about the way our world works.
>But, you can't deny the evidence!
>Here's what a reporter from the 
>Spotlight wrote:
>At 01:33 PM 7/29/99 , spotlight special wrote:
>>There is nothing theoretical about a biased press.  Evidence is in
>>mountains that even the blind can "see."
>>As one newsman who covered the Weaver-Harris trial with me said,
>>"Freedom of the press belongs to its owners."
>>I didn't think there was a single individual left on the planet who
>>didn't understand the total bias of the establishment press.
>>There are hundreds of journalists who quit because they became tired of
>>their non-politically correct stories being spiked at the top, more
>>often by the publisher than the editor, even.
>>Get real.
>>Tony Blizzard
>For the un-initiated, the Spotlight is an 
>Alternative Press outlet:
>   http://www.spotlight.org/
>They, along with other Alternative Press 
>outlets, were added to my private distribution 
>list earlier this year, when I suspected that 
>we were going to have another media blackout 
>Obviously, they *are* reading my email.  
>Hopefully, they will do a full expose 

>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.    404-943-0524
>What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com 
>"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
>      -- A.J. Liebling----
>>>Planet Communication & Computing Facility           pccf@bigbird.earth-net.net
>>>Public Access Internet Research Publisher           1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
>>>On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>>>      U.S. Press Censorship of any Criticism of ICANN
>>>> Press Censorship of criticism of ICANN is rampant in the U.S.
>>>> A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played
>>>> an important role in reporting a story about some problems
>>>> in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they
>>>> would be willing to run a story investigating what was happening
>>>> with the creation of ICANN. The editor I wrote to told me
>>>> that I couldn't do that, but that I could do an op -ed as
>>>> long as it was limited to a certain number of words.
>>>> At first I found it difficult to do the op ed as it is hard
>>>> to write something short that is also specific. However, I 
>>>> finally did something and sent it to the editor. He referred
>>>> me to the new op ed editor. The new op ed editor asked me 
>>>> to redo the Op Ed. I did. He said it would be accepted and run.
>>>> Then 2 hours before he would be running it, he told me to
>>>> rewrite it, cut the word count, and answer a number of questions
>>>> he gave me.
>>>> I did so. Got it back to him in the 2 hours. And he wrote me
>>>> back that he wouldn't run it.
>>>> I had thought that op ed's were to be alternative viewpoints.
>>>> It became clear from my experience in accepting an invitation
>>>> to do an op ed that that isn't true, particularly for the
>>>> computer trade magazine that I was working with.
>>>> Following is the op ed I ended up writing, as a result of 
>>>> all the rigid requirements I was given. I thought it should
>>>> circulate despite the censorship by the computer trade magazine.
>>>> Ronda
>>>> ronda@panix.com
>>>> Is ICANN out of Control?
>>>> On Thursday, July 22, 1999 the U.S. Congress held a hearing
>>>> on the subject: Is ICANN out of control? It was held by the 
>>>> Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House 
>>>> Commerce Committee.
>>>> ICANN or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
>>>> was created in Fall '98 as a private sector non profit 
>>>> corporation to take over ownership and control of certain 
>>>> essential functions of the Internet. These functions include 
>>>> among others, the IP numbers, the domain name system and root 
>>>> server system, and the protocols.
>>>> It is good to see the beginnning effort by the U.S. Congress 
>>>> to investigate what has happened with the creation and manipulation 
>>>> behind the scenes of ICANN.
>>>> Such investigation is needed.  But it is only the beginning of the 
>>>> needed government effort to find a solution to the controversy 

>>>> over ICANN. The hearing was a very meager beginning of the kind 
>>>> of study and input needed by Congress to understand the problem 
>>>> that ICANN is creating for the Internet community. Unfortunately, 
>>>> with a very few exceptions, most of the witnesses were supporters 
>>>> of ICANN, or were involved in protecting their own stake in 
>>>> gettting a piece of the wealth from transferring essential 
>>>> functions of the Internet to the private sector. Some Congressmen 
>>>> asked good questions. The absence of witnesses who would be able 
>>>> to help to identify the problem, however, showed the pressure 
>>>> by those who feel they will benefit from the privatizing of what 
>>>> has functioned effectively as a public sector responsibility. 
>>>> ICANN was created in the midst of a controversy over what would be 
>>>> the appropriate institutional form for the ownership and control 
>>>> of these functions of the Internet that are crucial to its 
>>>> operation. 
>>>> At an ICANN meeting in January of 1999, a panelist from the Kennedy 
>>>> School of Government, Elaine Kamarck, explained that the nonprofit 
>>>> corporate form was inappropriate for the administration of 
>>>> functions like those that ICANN will be controlling. Since a an 
>>>> individual's or company's economic life will be dependent on how 
>>>> these functions are administered, there needs to be the kind of 
>>>> safeguards that government has been created to provide. A nonprofit 
>>>> entity, even if it is a membership organization, does not have such 
>>>> safeguards for the kind of economic responsibility that ICANN is being 
>>>> set up to assume.
>>>> The development of ICANN over the past seven months has indeed 
>>>> demonstrated that the nonprofit corporate form, the 
>>>> structural form of ICANN, does not have a means to provide 
>>>> internal safeguards to counteract the tremendous power to control 
>>>> the Internet and its users which is being vested in ICANN. 
>>>> Contrary to popular opinion, the Internet is not a "finished" 
>>>> entity. It is a complex system of humans, computers, and networks 
>>>> which makes communication possible among these diverse entities. 
>>>> Scientific and grassroots science expertise continue to be needed 
>>>> to identify the problems and to help to figure out the solutions 
>>>> for the Internet to continue to grow and flourish.
>>>> A crucial aspect of the governance structure for the first
>>>> 12 years of the life of the Internet had to do with being
>>>> a part of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) of 
>>>> the research agency in the U.S. Department of Defense known an 
>>>> ARPA or the Advanced Projects Research Agency.  ARPA/IPTO was 
>>>> created to make it possible for computer scientists to support 
>>>> computer science research like that which gave birth to and made 
>>>> it possible to develop the Internet. This early institutional
>>>> form made it possible for people of different nations to
>>>> work together to build the Internet. 

>>>> How this was done needs to be understood and the lessons
>>>> learned for designing the institutional form to support
>>>> vital Internet functions today and for the future.
>>>> The U.S. Congress needs to be willing to raise the real questions 
>>>> and to look for the answers wherever they are to be found. 
>>>> ---------------
>>>> *  URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/5106/1.html
>>>> See also: URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html
>>>>              Netizens: On the History and Impact
>>>>                of Usenet and the Internet
>>>>           http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
>>>>             in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 
>>Nick Patience
>>Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc
>>T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463