A few brief thoughts on recent

["P.A. Petricone" <pap@tiac.net>]

  Re what Christopher Pall wrote:
  
  While I'm more worried about the
  infrastructure of the internet being controlled by a few powers, this is just
  part of the alarming trend. I think this document can seek to have computers
  defined as a protected medium of communication. The internet is a powerful
  social change, we need to acknowledge how this must be allowed to continue
  without total corporate control. Corporate presence isn't bad. Corporate
  control is.
  
  I cannot stress how important I think it is and will be for those that now have the charter to maintain the structure of the net, which is just a huge computer buss that is not as quick as some would like,  to continue to promote and approve standards for and host accountable access to this buss. The first emailing should be to the Chair of the NSF, Dr. Richard Zare, or contact Bill Noxon at 703) 306-1070, to see if NSF can reconsider their position to not seek renewal of it's charge, which ceases March 31, 1998! 
  
  Concurrently it is imperative to write the appropriate members of Congress and it's committees that are hearing issues on anti trust, smut, spam, privacy, computer security, consumer issues, you name it, to tell them that if they drop the reins on this one, they will not have a prayer of reeling in the runaways. NSF should not be allowed to leave the post. They should be given adequate resources to do this critical job, a bargain against the inevitable alternatives. NSF and the IETF will over time be best able to maintain and improve the condition of some benign net accountability, which goes to the core of all the concerns in these committees. IP6 or some iteration will be implemented. This nonsense about moving to a higher order of the internet rings hollow - how will those that wish to work on it ever get involved if they have marginalized access to what we now have?
  
  Re what Mark Waugh wrote:
  
  What's more, on a personal note, every company should try it's best to work
  for the benefit of humanity.  If it's working actively for the detriment of
  humanity, then there's something seriously wrong with it's priorities.
  
  And on what Charles Mueller wrote:
  
  I have a small legal question that has troubled me for some years,
  one that I'd like to address to any lawyers in the group:  What happened to
  the right of jury trial in antitrust cases?
  
  In a forum that was spawned out of a well publicized conference on issues affecting the entire computer/software and telcom/cable industries as it may apply to their respective market and client base, why is it that there are just a handful of vocal participants here that represent or are in some way connected to the "Jury of (it's) peers"? Furthermore, who are the other 270 or so recipients? The list will not produce an address list of it's own recipients! Are they just lurking or are they waiting for an opportunity to troll?
  
  Have they no concern for what Mark refers to as humanity? Where are the voices of the other titans of the industry? They are noticeably absent and mute on the whole idea of concern.
  
  It struck me once again, reading what Mark wrote, that this phenomenon that we are appraising has no critics where it counts. Here is a new kid on the block that came along with a great enabling device that it felt should be free to those who can most use it but least afford it, is now having it's legs being ripped out of it's sockets for being so benevolent. 
  
  I suggest that the thoughts of all CEO's, board members, and decision makers that captain this industry be solicited via email to see how much they are concerned. Will it be "there but for the grace of God, go I" or will it be that they do not feel comfortable with a "clean hands" profile, being _practiced at the art of deception_ themselves? How do people that work for MS really feel? Are they free to express a view?
  
  And what Christopher Pall wrote:
  
  Why are we leaving out international leaders? 
  
  By all means, this is not confined to the US. The way we, or whoever controls it, uses technology, regardless of the OS or platform, could make such transitions that no boundaries will insure self determination.
  
  
  Indeed, the jury of peers will somehow prevail as they are want to do in matters that concern economic and political decision making. All the other folks will be able to do is try to repair their cultures.
  
  Perhaps I am being to cynical - so on a more humorous note, you may wish to visit:
  
  <http://www.tiac.net/users/billg40/>
  
  if you have not had the chance. Even in it's somewhat patronizing and sanitized form, I find something funny yet tragic about this lampoon. 
  
  Best,
  
  _P