Poster presented at INET '98 Identifying Principles for Internet Governance Studying the Early Days of MsgGroup Mailing List by Ronda Hauben Amateur Computerist ronda@panix.com (1) Introduction After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, President Eisenhower summoned U.S. scientists to advise the White House on how to advance U.S. science and technical developments. A new agency, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), was created to counter the problem of competition between the three branches of the military services. ARPA was to provide support for advanced space research. In 1962, an MIT researcher J.C.R. Licklider was brought in to create a new office within ARPA that would support research in computer science. This new office was to be called the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO). The earliest work of the IPTO was to fund research in the time- sharing of computers to make interactive computing available in a way not possible with the batch operated computers common at the time. By the late 1960s, time-sharing of computers had been developed and there were different computer time-sharing systems being used at various sites in the U.S. ARPA researchers began to envision hooking up these different sites so that the resources could be shared and so that those researchers using different computer hardware and software would be able to communicate with each other. They conceived of a new form of data network utilizing packet switching technology, building on the work of Paul Baran in the U.S. and Donald W. Davies in the U.K. ARPA awarded a contract to Bolt Beranek and Newman to begin the development of a new form of network. The new network became known as the ARPANET. The number of computers and sites connected to the ARPANET grew rapidly and by the mid 1970s there was the recognition that an unanticipated new form of communication had developed on the ARPANET, called electronic mail, or more commonly, email. The use of email soon gave rise to a many to many form of communication known as mailing lists. (2) Not Another Committee On June 7, 1975, a message was submitted to a newly formed mailing list called MsgGroup, by Steve Walker, IPTO Net manager of the ARPANET. He explains that he is "seeking to establish a group of people concerned with message processing." He wants to develop a sense of 1) What is mandatory? 2) What is nice? and 3) What is not desirable? His methodology is of particular importance. He does not want to establish "another committee" but instead "to see if dialogue can develop over the Net." He wants to broaden participation in discussions on this issue to include more of those who can make a contribution. Participation is to be encouraged, but is voluntary. Those with positive and negative comments are encouraged to toss them in. Participation is to be open-ended. While supporting philosophical discussions, he urges comments on specifics of evaluation as well. "Can we try to do this," he asks, adding "the results may surprise us." Also those with sporatic contributions are urged to contribute as well as those who will participate on a more regular basis. (3) Researching Online Communication Several of the early participants in MsgGroup were employees of contractors working under U.S. Department of Defense DoD funding to determine what conferencing communication should look like. They were interested in the informal communication that an integrated communication system would make possible. One participant noted that a relatively mature communication medium was becoming available. Another expressed his support for the online interactions as they were helping to demonstrate the real capabilities of this form of communication. Those participating recognized that the convergence of computers and communication was an important new development. They recognized that as the number of connected individuals and government agencies grows, the value of being connected grows. Also, that the mailing list form created a participatory process that was superior to what traditional meetings made possible. Another participant noted that though good ideas expressed on the list might be few and far between, they made it worth the effort to participate. This was a new and different medium and it shouldn't be judged by the experience of other and previous mediums. And those on MsgGroup discussed how this new form of online communication would become the rule for remote collaboration. Also, those on MsgGroup discussed problems that would surface. A report by Paul Baran and David Farber was posted to MsgGroup. The report, "The Convergence of Computing and Telecommunication Systems", noted that there were industries that would feel threatened by the emergence of this new communications medium. Also the report explained that too little public attention would be given to examining the social consequences of this new medium. Such study, however, was needed to prepare for its future development. The report also noted that inadequate consideration was being given to determining how decisions would be made about this new medium was not a subject that was being given adequate consideration. There needed to be support for studying and determining the question of what is in the public interest, in general, and with regard to the future of the medium. The important potential of this new medium was demonstrated when a contractor for the U.S. Postal Service asked for comments from those online on a proposal for a new system the Postal Service was considering. There had been no press coverage of an upcoming meeting to provide input and the result was that "the meeting was...attended only by representatives of large corporations that have some economic interest." The contractor felt that comments on the proposal should come from a wider variety of stakeholders. In particular, from personal computer users and others who are not interested in electronic mail from a purely commercial point of view. (4) New Issues Emerge Participants on MsgGroup during this early period recognized that new and important research issues had emerged from the experience of the mailing list itself. For example, Brian Reid wrote: "All of us are still learning about the ways in which people communicate over these marvelous mail systems and about the kinds of discussions that can and cannot be made to work over computer based mail networks." He noted that such online discussion was still in a research stage and he felt it was important to continue the development of a nationwide forum for the computer science community where no sensible topic was off limits. Writing from Rand, Gaines noted that the focus of the research should continue to be computers and messages. He explained: "Men communicate for a large variety of reasons, in a wide variety of circumstances and we should not narrowly constrain ourselves to any one subset of that universe of communication." Many of those participating in MsgGroup recognized the need to continue to try new and exploratory uses of the Net. Also they began to determine which uses had to be prevented. Using the ARPANET for commercial purposes was forbidden as such traffic would violate the mandate of what the ARPANET was created to explore. Instead the early ARPANET was seen as a place where one could critique technology and discuss the problems that developed, including those that commercial vendors wouldn't want raised. Also, there were early problems on MsgGroup with junk mail and chain letters, and these were recognized as abusive uses of the Net to be prevented. A paper by Raymond R. Panko described how the early advanced mail systems had been the result of "hobby computering on a grand scale" which had been supported by ARPANET funding. "Funding was fat and creativity was given free reign during business hours," he writes. Also he emphasizes the free-wheeling and chatty online discussions that were most successful in exchanging viewpoints and ideas that resulted in important technological advances. (5) Principles for Internet Governance A number of principles emerge from a study of early MsgGroup mailing list discussions which can be helpful in answering the research question of how to create a functioning form for future Internet governance. First, the study of the history and impact of the ARPANET, Usenet and the Internet needs to be established as an important and supported area of research. Second, a form of governance for the Internet should be determined by studying and identifying what the unique nature of the Internet is. Third, research toward solving the question of Internet governance should be based mainly on online research. Fourth, participation in online governance of the Internet should include the following criteria drawn from the principles implemented during the early days of MsgGroup. a) Be open to all who are interested. b) Be voluntary. c) Participation should be encouraged among those with both positive and negative comments to contribute. d) Continued efforts made to broaden who participates. e) Participation should be open-ended, supporting both philosophical discussions and specifics of particular issues. f) Those with sporatic contributions should be able to participate as well as those who can make more regular contributions. g) That an important part of the discussion should be to define what a communication system should look like. h) That informal communication is most important, rather than formal. "The results," as Steve Walker predicted for MsgGroup research, " may surprise us." Fifth, that the task of research into the history and unique nature of the Net should be to determine: 1) What is mandatory for Internet governance? 2) What is nice? and 3) What is not desirable? Sixth, that the governance process must take into account that there will be those industries threatened by the continued growth and development of this communication medium, and any online governance process needs to have a way to protect against any efforts to exert a destructive influence by those hostile to the continued development of this new and important worldwide communications medium. Seventh, that there needs to be attention and funding to study the social implications of the development of the Net so as to prepare for its future development. And there needs to be study and discussion to determine what is in the public interest in decisions about the present and future of the Internet. Eighth, and perhaps most important, is that there be broad ranging online discussion and consideration about how decisions will be made about this new medium. Ninth, that computer users and others who aren't corporations with commercial interest, be protected so they can have a large (and vetoing) voice in any decisions about the present and future of the Net to counter the power of large corporate users with a purely commercial point of view. Tenth, that there be funding and research support for the continued study and publication and discussion of research questions raised by the development of this important new medium. Some of the questions that need such continued research support include: 1) What kinds of discussion can and cannot be made to work online? 2) How to continue the development of nationwide and global community forums for computer science and other communities where no topic is off limits. 3) How to protect against abuses. Included in such abuses will be a) Abuses of those online. b) Research into other kinds of messages that are problems for the Internet as a communication medium such as chain letters and junk mail and how to protect netusers against these. c) Protection for those who want to complain about commercial vendors or abuses. 4) Support for the computer users and others who contribute to the Net. In the past there were government funded jobs that gave computer hobbyists the time and financial support to do the research that yielded these important new technological developments. There is a need for continued financial and other support for those who will take on to continue both to create the kinds of software or conceptual frameworks that are needed for the development of the Net and who participate in the free wheeling discussions around the issues that must be solved for this new communication medium to continue to grow and flourish. There is a need for collaboration by governments to fund and support people who carry out these important functions. Twelfth, that there be support for research in how Usenet newsgroups as well as Internet mailing lists can contribute to an online process of Internet governance. (6) Conclusion Describing the Internet, Luciano Floridi at Oxford, wrote: A whole population of several million people interacts by means of the global network. It is the most educated, intellectual community that ever appeared on earth, a global academy that, like a unique Leibnizian mind, thinks always. The Internet is a completely new world, about which we seem to know very little...its appearance has found most of us, and especially the intellectual community thoroughly unprepared. The Information Society, vol 12 no 1 The global community is now confronted by a great treasure and a great challenge. Identifying the treasure that the Internet represents, Judges in the U.S. District Court case ACLU vrs. Reno, wrote that "The Internet is...a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide communication." Since it is, "a far more speech enhancing medium than print, the village green or the mails," the U.S. District Court recommended that it was important to "protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates." There is a need to recognize the great responsiblity the Internet poses to countries, organizations, and citizens of the world. It is difficult but urgent that those who comprehend what a splendid and important development the worldwide communication made possible by the Internet is, to provide the support to do the kind of research that is needed to establish an appropriate form of online governance to protect and support the continued development of this new medium of global communication. Last Updated July 8, 1998