Title: Lessons from the early MsgGroup Mailing list as a foundation
for identifying the principles for Internet governance
 
 
                              Abstract
 
        In looking at questions of Internet governance, it is very
important to review the history of where the Net has come from. 
This talk will look at one of the earliest ARPANET mailing 
lists, MsgGroup, and describe the evolution of this mailing list. 
Important problems concerning the future growth of the Net 
faced the ARPANET community in the early 1980's. The discussion 
on the MsgGroup mailing list during this period helped to 
identify the problems that future growth of the Net required 
be understood so they could be solved.
 
        The talk will then discuss how a similar structure is
needed today to provide for the open discussion and debate of
the problems of Internet growth and development. This is a crucial
component of what is needed for an internationally shared means 
of Internet governance. When trying to understand how the 
Internet should be governed, it is very important that the 
history and evolution of the Internet be studied so that future 
developments will build on the lessons of the past.
 
------------------------
 
     I am delighted to be here in Vienna at the Technical 
University. In my research about the development and spread of 
Usenet and the Internet, I was told that the way the earliest 
form of the Net got to Austria was through a connection to Usenet 
at the Technical University in Vienna. So it is special honor to 
be giving this talk at the University that pioneered computer 
networking in Austria.
 
     In the past several months, the problem of Internet 
governance has become a very living and urgent problem. 
Some recent references to this issue include:
 
"Internet Governance at the crossroads" (Gordon Cook)
 
"The governance issue must take into account the needs and 
desires of others outside the US to participate." (Robert Kahn, 
testimony to U.S. Congress)
 
"The White House backs Self-Governance plan." (L.A. Times)
 
"Internet governance: herding cats and sacred cows."(Robert Shaw, 
ITU, talk at Internet Society Conference) 

 
 
     When I first proposed the topic for this talk, I had in mind 
examining the interesting discussion I had found on the MsgGroup 
mailing list and determining how this might help provide insight 
into how decisions about the future of the Internet can be made. 
The Internet is a network of many diverse networks. As such, 
those very different networks which together form the Internet 
will be composed of computer users from a variety of countries 
around the world. It will be composed of many different kinds of 
users, such as university students, business people, artists, 
writers, medical people, librarians, working people, among 
others. And these component networks will in turn be composed 
of many diverse kinds of networks, such as university networks, 
networks in hospitals, in museums, networks connecting hobbyists, 
networks of scientists, and a wide variety of others. It is quite 
amazing that computer users from so many different backgrounds and 
interests are all connected together and able to communicate with 
each other via the Internet.
 
     This is a special and important achievement. In the book I 
co-authored "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and 
the Internet", the beginning chapter by Michael Hauben, my co-
author, describes the response he got to a set of questions he 
posted online in 1992. He received replies from a vast number of 
people. One employee of a company in Japan described his 
connection where he worked. Another user at a University in 
Poland described how his site was the first connection in Poland 
to the Internet. Thus there were many different types of 
connections and ways that people wrote they were utilizing the 
Internet.
 
     Given this diversity of background and resources, what 
happens when there is a decision that needs to be made that will 
affect all the users of the Internet?  My previous research shows 
how some of the earliest successes of the networking pioneers 
were because they welcomed input from all users, and even 
presented the issues to be decided to the users online. And 
through the online discussion and examination of the problems, a 
way to solve the problems was found.
 
     One important example of this occurred on an early Usenet 
newsgroup. Mark Horton, one of the Usenet pioneers, was preparing 
a new version of the Usenet software. He thought there were 
reasons it would be good to change the name of Usenet. He was highly
respected, but he presented his proposal online saying "I'm not god" 
and asked that those online speak up about whether they considered 
such a change to be a good idea or not. Through such discussion, 
which included people proposing new possible names and also 
considering why the current name had been chosen, a decision was 
made that it would be best not to change the name.
 
     In my research, I have found similar examples occurring at 
other times in the development of Usenet and of the Internet. So 
I felt it would be important to examine such a phenomenon and see 
what lessons it might provide for future problems.
 
     Now the future problem, however, has become the immediate 
problem. Though the Internet is made up of many different 
networks, it also has certain centralized functions which need to 
be administered in a responsible and skillful manner.
 
     Contrary to the popular belief that the Internet is an 
anarchy with no central points of control, there are actually 
certain points of control which can provide those who possess 
power over these functions with great power over the Internet and 
its use.
 
     I'll be glad to talk more about these points of control 
later in this presentation or during questions. But I just wanted 
to mention them briefly now as they make the consideration of the 
topic of this talk not just a question of theory but a practical 
and urgent issue that needs to be considered by all who value the 
Internet.
 
     Those essential functions include the Domain Name system, 
the oversight over the allocation of IP numbers, the root server 
system, the protocols that are involved with these systems and 
port numbers etc.(1) 
 
     Under the slogans of self governance for the Internet, or as 
in news headlines "White House Backs Net Self-Governance" the 
U.S. government has developed a plan to turn ownership, control 
and administration of the essential Internet functions to a 
private corporation being created by the U.S. government. The 
process of creating this corporation is very different from the 
process by which the Internet has been developed and there have 
been concerns expressed by some of those following what is 
happening that this will put an enormous amount of power into 
what has already shown itself to be untrust-worthy and 
inappropriate hands.(2) Others, like the Wall Street Journal, are 
supporting the plan.(3) But whether one is opposed to this new 
private corporation or in support of it, these events show that 
there is a very real problem that has developed as part of the 
great achievement represented by the Internet's growth and 
expansion. That problem is to determine whether there are models 
or lessons from the development of the Internet that can provide 
guidance on how to develop an appropriate form for making 
decisions that affect all the users of the Internet.
 
     Clearly there are already a number of means for making 
decisions regarding the Internet such as the Request for Comment 
(RFC) process, the process on Usenet for creating new groups in 
the main hierarchies or the different process for creating alt 
newsgroups. Also there has been a long history of the U.S. 
government administering contracts and in this way being part of 
the decision making process of the Internet.
 
     However, those privatizing the essential functions of the 
Internet claim that there is a need to find a way to administer 
the essential Internet functions in a way that is different from 
the historical way which has developed. With the U.S. government 
claiming that it must privatize these functions, the problem of 
whether the proposed new forms are an improvement or even 
adequate, becomes a question to be discussed and decided.
 
     I have found myself involved in this debate in a number of 
ways, including being asked to submit a proposal to the U.S. 
government, and then being allowed to submit testimony to 
Congress on the problem. Becky Burr of the U.S. Commerce 
Department spoke with me on the phone for a while. However,
she did not consider my proposal but instead asked me if I 
could suggest something to represent the concerns I had expressed 
that could be included in the privatized new corporation. Though I 
couldn't think of anything to suggest, I hope during the discussion 
we can discuss what your views are about the question.
 
     Also at the end of my presentation I want to briefly outline 
the proposal I submitted to the U.S. government and hear any 
comments on it you may have.
 
     In this context, I found it very interesting to look at the 
MsgGroup mailing list, and to consider what lessons it provides 
towards this current problem of Internet privatization, and decision-
making.

     The MsgGroup mailing list was one of the earliest mailing 
lists on the ARPANET. The ARPANET was a research network 
sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the 
U.S. Department of Defense. ARPA funded an experimental network 
with 2 purposes:
 
     (1) To develop techniques and experiences interconnecting 
computers 
 
     (2) To share computer resources and so increase computer 
productivity
 
     The ARPANET was begun in 1969 and used a hardware subnetwork 
to connect different computers which had different operating 
systems.
 
     By the early 1970s, however, a new problem had become 
evident to the U.S. Department of Defense. The ARPANET succeeded 
in connecting the computers used in different time-sharing 
systems. Now the problem was posed of how to connect the ARPANET 
with other packet switching networks. In the U.S., Robert Kahn 
and others were trying to figure out how to connect the packet 
switching network of the ARPANET with a satellite packet 
switching network and a packet radio packet switching network. 
 
     In France, Louis Pouzin, Paul Zimmerman and others were 
explaining the importance and means of linking together the 
various European networks being developed. This problem led to 
the design of a new protocol and a new architecture to create an 
internet of networks using the newly created protocols IP and 
TCP. The paper "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication"
describing TCP/IP was published by Robert Kahn and Vincent Cerf 
in May 1974.

 
     In 1975 the MsgGroup mailing list was started by the U.S. 
Department of Defense on the ARPANET. A surprising development of 
the ARPANET research was email. People using the ARPANET found 
how convenient and fruitful it was to communicate with each other 
via email. Recognizing this discovery, a decision was made to 
utilize email to try to determine its essential elements and its 
potential for the U.S. Department of Defense. (This was a time 
when email forms were used, but were still very primitive.) There 
were different programs to do email, but the essential features 
still had to be worked out.
 
     On June 7, 1975, a message by Steve Walker, Net Manager of 
the ARPANET appeared on the ARPANET. It described the 
communication research that he hoped would be done by those 
participating in the MsgGroup mailing list. He writes that 
he is seeking to establish a "group of people concerned with 
message processing." He asks that this group develop a sense of 
 
     1. What is mandatory
 
     2. What is nice
 
     3. What is not desirable
 
in email functions. 
 
     He notes that since they already have had experience with 
other computer related services, they should be able to collect 
their thoughts on this matter.
 
     The methodology he proposes is of particular significance. 
 
     "My goal," he writes, "is not to establish another 
committee, but to see if dialogue can develop over the net."
 
     He is proposing that the group being formed utilize the Net 
to explore how the Net can help with the research. 
 
     Walker isn't gathering a committee of people to sit and talk 
about the problem. Instead he is creating a prototype form to 
utilize computer conferencing to determine its capabilities.
 
     He recognizes that people on the ARPANET are already 
exploring the potential of email and discussion utilizing the 
Net. But they are doing so in an informal way. Observing such 
surprising benefits from what the ARPANET makes possible, he is 
proposing that there be serious exploration of the potential of 
computer conferencing and email.
 
     This is an example of how the ARPANET and Internet have been 
built. By setting up a prototype or test situation and then 
observing what it makes possible, new uses become evident as they 
develop from the prototype.
 
 
     "Participation," he explains, is encouraged, but it will be 
voluntary. "I do not wish to force anyone to participate," he 
explains, "but I strongly urge anyone with comments (positive or 
negative) to toss them in."
 
     Walker writes that the form of contribution to be made 
was flexible, but he also expressed his preference for specifics:
 
     "While supporting philosophical discussion," he explained, 
"I like very much the specifics of evaluation."
 
     "Can we try to do this?" he urged, proposing that "the 
results may surprise many of us." [pg 3]
 
     He describes how his preference is "to encourage a FORUM-
type set up if it's not too difficult to set up." However, he also 
noted that many "(myself included,)" he wrote, will have little 
time to contribute."
 
     Though he realizes that infrequent contributions may be a 
problem that can fragment a group, he asks that they be welcome 
and explains that they will make a contribution.
 
     "I've asked Dave Farber," one of the university researchers 
at the University of California Irvine who was probably working 
on a Department of Defense contract, Walker writes, to maintain 
a list of the message group participants. 
 
     He notes that all newcomers are welcome, but anyone who 
feels participation is too burdensome should feel free to 
withdraw.
 
     Through this research Walker hopes to be able "to develop a 
long term strategy for where message services should go on the 
ARPANET and indeed in the Department of Defense. He ends his 
message saying "Let's have at it."
 
     What is the relevance of this research question to the 
question of Internet governance?
 
     Many people mistakenly believe that the U.S. government 
merely funded ARPANET research, but didn't play any active role 
in the research. The work done with MsgGroup Mailing list, however,
demonstrates how ARPANET officials not only provided a supportative 
environment for the research, but also designed parts of the project 
and created the open and encouraging conditions that would facilitate 
a successful research experience for those who participated.  
Instead of just studying the topic, these researchers were 
creating a prototype, an actual functioning model to do what they 
were hoping to develop. Since they would be involved in the 
creation and use of the technology they were developing. they 
could therefore understand the actual problems and the potential 
of the technological form they were developing.
 
     Those taking part in this computer network prototype were 
working under contracts with the DoD or more particularly DARPA. 
Therefore, they could participate in this project as part of 
their job and not worry about harmful consequences to their 
career because of the time or effort they contributed to this 
project.
 
     It is also interesting to recognize that this prototype 
project wasn't something entirely new, but rather an effort to 
learn from the more informal activity ongoing on the ARPANET to 
establish a thoughtful but also encouraging environment that both 
welcomed contributions and also provided a way to develop a long 
term perspective to guide the use of message processing in the U.S. 
Department of Defense.
 
     These are qualities that contributed to and helped to make 
possible the successful development of the ARPANET research, 
which then set the foundation for the creation and development of 
the Internet.
 
     A message sent to the MsgGroup Mailing list by Steve Walker, 
a month later described his satisfaction with the progress of the 
work. He wrote:
 
     "The MsgGroup...was formed by a group of interested people 
     commenting on how message services should appear to users 
     (as opposed to how they should function internally). I'm 
     pleased with the progress of this conference." 
 
     He went on to describe how he was trying to arrange for a 
paid organizer so that the groups "ramblings can come out in a 
coherent form." 
 
     Also he wrote that he wanted to both encourage the continued 
participation of those who contributed to the mailing list, but 
he also encouraged the participants to meet face to face at the 
upcoming Compcom conference get-together for MsgGroup 
participants that had been planned.
 
     So though there aren't frequent contributions to MsgGroup 
mailing list by Walker, there are indications that he read and 
considered the progress of the list and did what he believed 
necessary to help facilitate its progress.
 
     The early messages on the mailing list further show how 
research supported by the U.S. government contributed to the 
achievements of those on the list. For example, Dave Farber 
agreed to maintain a file for the messages on the list, so 
they didn't have to maintain their own archives or worry about 
missing a message. Another participant in this early mailing list, 
Dave Crocker who was at the University of Southern California 
presented his evaluation of three possible software programs that 
could be used for MsgGroup. "I have spent the better part of 
this Spring looking at our telecommunications capabilities as 
part of a seminar,"  he explained, and as a result he was in a 
position to recommend what he believed to be the most appropriate 
program for their purpose, a program called Network Mail.
 
     Those participating in the early ARPANET Mailing List 
utilized several different computers and several different 
operating systems. Therefore, Crocker recommended that they 
utilize the one program that was available that made it possible 
to send mail to different computers or different operating 
systems. (page 4)
 
     Another contributor to this early mailing list, Tasker was 
participating from the office of a potential user of computer 
conferencing. He wrote:
 
     Sitting here in the offices of a potential...user.... I am 
     extremely gratified and excited to see the MsgGroup 
     interacting and those interacting appear to be converging 
     around real capabilities." 
 
He felt that these capabilities would be attractive to the users 
he was concerned with in the department of defense. "A scant 
three or four months ago," he wrote, I never would have even 
hoped for the current state of affairs and the direction it 
indicates." (pg 5)
 
     This message highlights how the design of the prototype was 
to create the conditions that would satisfy the needs of those 
who they intended would utilize the conferencing capability once 
it had been developed. Thus the prototype made it possible to see 
in practice the kinds of capabilities that the prototype made 
possible and to evaluable whether or not these were desired 
capabilities.
 
     Another message was sent to the MsgGroup mailing list by Ron 
Uhlig, who had been experimenting with a messaging conference 
system at the U.S. Army Materiel Command.
 
     He described the favorable experience that he had had 
and explained:
 
     We are in the early stages of trying to define what such a 
     system needs to look like.... Since we are aiming more at 
     the informal communications we are not terribly concerned 
     with the DoD traditions.
 
     He went on to elaborate. What they were looking for was a 
conferencing system that could be used by those who weren't 
skilled in using computers, and would even be usable by those 
hostile to computers.
 
     Identifying the qualities he felt important in such a 
conferencing system. He wrote:
 
     "We have a strong need for teleconferencing because our key 
     managers are greatly dispersed geographically." 
 
     "The message system," he wrote, "that we eventually adopt 
needs a teleconferencing capability. We don't want message 
handling and teleconferencing to be in two separate systems. 
Because of this we also want to make it easy in the middle of a 
message based teleconference to link to a data bank somewhere in 
AMC (the ARMY Materiel Command) to pick up information which is 
needed at that point in time. An FTP (File Transfer Protocol) 
capability, simple to use for the novice, would meet the need 
very nicely." 
 
     Concluding his message, he wrote:
 
     "As we get better definition on our requirements during the next 
  few months I will put additional messages into the network to 
     keep you current on our thinking. This message is only  
     intended to be introductory.
 
     An important aspect of this prototype development is that 
that those working with or familiar with the actual needs of those 
users who the conferencing system was to serve were part of the actual 
project. Therefore they both make input into the process, 
explaining the actual needs and also provide feedback as to 
whether what was being created would prove useful for those it 
was intended to serve.
 
     The early MsgGroup example suggests that those who 
understand the needs of users must be part of the creation of a 
working prototype so they can both introduce the needs of those 
users into the discussion and so that they can consider whether 
the working prototype being developed meets the actual needs of 
the users they know.
 
     Also, however, there was a need to determine the general 
functionality of the kind of message transmission that it was 
desirable to have the ARPANET support. Therefore, those exploring 
the use of the ARPANET for message processing not only 
participated in the process on MsgGroup, but also discussed the 
desirable aspects of the communication MsgGroup mailing list made 
possible. 
 
     Describing the experience that people had had in computer 
conferencing, Panko, a MsgGroup participant who had written a 
paper summarizing the experiences of users developing and 
utilizing email programs and computer conferencing, explained 
that "in applications where computer conferencing has been 
successful, discussion has often been free-wheeling and chatty." 
(p. 9)
 
     "The longest conferences," he wrote, "tend to be breezy and 
rambling, yet very successful in exchanging ideas and 
viewpoints." (pg 9)
 
     However not all the comments and discussion were fruitful. 
Often one had to be willing to ignore the less helpful comments 
to obtain those that proved especially valuable. Another 
participant in MsgGroup, Gaines writes:
 
     We are feeling our way in a murky area, and have to expect 
     to make mistakes. Let us judge the msggroup by the good 
     ideas that surface which by nature of the area have to be 
     expected to be few and far between but worth the overhead of 
     the other traffic when they arrive. (pg 7)
 
     Another participant pointed out that an online mailing list 
creates a "participatory process that is superior to what 
traditional meetings could make possible." He writes:
 
     Unlike normal conferences, where there are limited 
     microphones, a chairperson and where audience energy tends 
     to wear down, MSGGROUP style conferencing never resolves 
     issues much less adjourns. This effect follows naturally from 
     the observation that every participant reenters the 
     discussion by choice, perhaps following a recuperative and 
     regenerative period of rest. (pg. 7)
 
     Thus the crucial aspects of message processing included the 
ability to have free-wheeling and chatty discussions, the ability 
to have important contributions even if that required ignoring 
the less helpful comments, and the ability to maintain online 
discussion in a continuous way, with those participating entering 
the discussion or withdrawing for a period, without the 
limitation that face-to-face meetings encountered. There was no 
need to decide who would be the Chair or to limit those who could 
participate to only the one person at a time who could access a 
microphone. These kinds of observations helped to establish a 
framework to understand the basic functionality that message 
processing would need to serve. The need was identified and 
described through the very technology and process that was being 
developed.    
 
     Those involved in MsgGroup were careful to limit their 
examination by imposing unnecessary restrictions. Dave Crocker 
writes that they should therefore ignore authentication issues 
which like other security issues were considered secondary and to 
be avoided for the time being. 
 
     Others like Charles Franston logging in from the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology warned that it was 
important to be very careful when making analogies between 
electronic mail and telephone and paper communications:
 
     "Electronic mail," he explained, "is a new medium and it may 
     not necessarily make sense to use it in the same fashion as 
     existing medium any more than it would have made sense to 
     use telephones in precisely the same fashion as telegraphs 
     that preceded them." (pg. 7)
 
     He also noted that what was important were the new uses that 
emerged, making it possible to do something not hitherto 
possible.
 
     "For example," he noted, "most of my use of the medium 
consists of back and forth technical discussions often among 
persons widely dispersed geographically." (pg. 7-8)
 
     However, one of the observations Panko made was that 
commercial users didn't often recognize the advantage of the 
increased communication that email and online conferencing made 
possible. Often they weren't capable of understanding how to develop 
this communication or how to even understand its value.
 
     Summarizing the experience they had had with computer 
conferencing, Brian Reid at Carnegie Mellon University explained 
that
 
     "One of the many virtues of computer-based mail systems is 
     their astonishing ability to support conferencing."
 
     All of us, he noted, are still learning a lot about the ways 
in which people communicate over their marvelous mail systems, 
and about the kind of discussions that can and cannot be made to 
work over marvelous mail networks." (p. 12)
 
     Echoing his comments and objecting to efforts to limit the 
discussions on MsgGroup to office automation issues, another 
MsgGroup participant Gaines wrote that:
 
     "The field of office automation is too narrow. Messages are 
     used in other contexts than what people normally associate 
     with the office environment...."
 
"Men communicate for a large variety of reasons," he said in 
summary, "in a wide variety of circumstances and we should not 
narrowly constrain ourselves to any one subset of that universe 
of communications." (pg. 13)
 
     In 1977, Steve Walker announced that he would no longer be 
following MsgGroup discussions but that he found the work done by 
those who contributed very valuable. He announced his upcoming 
change of jobs and departure from ARPA to a position with the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. He wrote:
 
     It has been a long time since I have sent a message to this 
     group but I have certainly enjoyed the dialog which has 
     taken place here for the past two and a half years. (pg 14)
 
     "I am personally proud to have been associated with the 
collection of people on the ARPANET who got this whole message 
handling, electronic mail thing started. Keep up the good work." 
(pg 5) 
 
     Walker promised that he would work in his new job to 
continue to influence the acceptance of interactive message 
systems and general networking capabilities and to remain active 
in the ARPANET (and to remain close contact with groups such as 
MsgGroup.)
 
     Given this kind of fruitful and successful experience with 
developing computer networking systems which relied on 
creating open and cooperative structures and a supportative 
environment for those pioneering a new path forward, one would 
expect that the U.S. government would be able to build on such 
experiences and apply the lessons learned to developing the 
needed structures and forms to enable the Internet to continue to 
grow and develop and become more and more international.
 
     In a report written by David Farber and Paul Baran, they 
recognized the importance of the issue of how decisions over the 
new medium would be made. But this issue wasn't being given 
adequate consideration.
 
     At times the U.S. government has succeeded, as when they 
made the transition to new Internet protocols tcp/ip from the 
earlier protocol NCP. And when they made the split between 
ARPANET into ARPANET and MILNET to form an Internet making it 
possible for the two independent networks to communicate.
 
     Also, during this early period of MsgGroup mailing list 
there were periods when U.S. government officials asked for input 
into government decisions from those on MsgGroup.(4) 
 
     However, in the current discussion and plans for creating 
a form of Internet governance to help the Internet to continue to 
scale, non of these experiences are being utilized. Instead these 
are being considered as the past which must be left behind and 
other models are being created which do not draw on the lessons 
learned from building the Internet.
 
     At such a time it is important to review and clarify what the 
lessons are that have been learned. Some of these lessons 
include:
 
1) First, that the Internet is a communications medium and that 
must be kept foremost in mind when designing a means of decision making
or structures for governance.
 
2) That it has been built via a process of government support, 
involvement and participation. This has been an active and often 
exemplary process. As Steve Walker demonstrated, a problem was 
identified, a prototype form was designed to make it possible to 
try to clarify the problem and to involve people who understood 
the real needs of the users who were to utilize the service. This 
was part of the active role played by the government.
 
3) People involved in the prototype development made the effort 
not only to create a new form but to understand implications and 
possible problems that would arise from this new form.
 
4) The new uses of this new medium were particularly valued and 
there was an understanding that this new medium couldn't be used 
in the same way as previous other communication mediums.
 
5) Researchers were supported financially and also encouraged to 
participate. But participation was voluntary and could be ended 
whenever desired.
 
     How do these observations and lessons relate to forming a 
foundation for Internet governance?
 
     First, it is important to examine the role government has 
played in Internet governance. Just as government has played a 
vital role in the development of the Internet by creating the 
conditions under which researchers could develop working 
prototypes that would make it possible to solve the problems of 
scaling the Internet, so there is a need to determine if this 
requires a continuing role for government or if this role can be 
fulfilled in some other way. As there continues to be a need to 
create the supportative environment and to help design processes 
where the prototypes for governance can be created, it is 
important to determine why government has been able to play this 
role, and to determine how to continue this function.
 
     Second, the real needs of users have to be considered in 
creating the prototypes for governance, with those who understand 
these needs participating in both bringing the needs to the 
attention of those involved in creating the prototypes, and in 
considering whether these needs are being fulfilled by the 
processes and structures created.
 
     Third, those who understand the advantages of the 
communication made possible by email and computer conferencing 
need to be involved in creating the governance forms.
 
     Fourth, the new uses that computer conferencing and 
communication make possible need to be recognized and the new 
medium not expected to do what older or other mediums would be 
used for.
 
     Fifth, the collaboration and communication that this new 
medium makes possible is its special characteristic. Only those 
governance structures or processes that recognize this unique 
quality can help to support the development of this new medium.
 
     Those on MsgGroup also realized that there would be 
industries that would see the developing network as a problem as 
it would threaten to obsolete or replace them. And that they would
oppose the development of the Net.

 
     Thus the growing and ever expanding network of networks has 
special qualities and requirements that it is possible to 
identify from its earliest development from the MsgGroup mailing 
list. These qualities are an asset to its growth and development 
when they are identified and taken appropriately into account. 
But it also has those who will try to eliminate it and the threat 
it poses to obsolete their assets.
 
     As one of the participants in early MsgGroup, Lauren 
Weinstein observed:
 
     The whole point of MsgGroup to me is that we are free to 
     communicate without undue worry about costs, and to borrow a 
     line from the closing episode of the "Connections" program 
     from P.B.S., 'the easier it is to communicate, the faster 
     change occurs.' It is this very change that is creating the 
     systems, the concepts, and most importantly, the 
     EXPECTATIONS of people for message systems of the future. 
     (pg 9)
 
     Writing in 1968, the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas 
outlined a scientific methodology utilized by the U.S. air force 
to solve difficult technological problems. He described how those 
recognizing the problem presented a roughly outlined problem of 
technology or organization to the program or research department 
of a contractor. Starting with a vaguely formulated need, a 
process of communication between those identifying the problem 
and the contracted research director is established. Even after 
the real problem is identified and defined, communication 
continues until the solution is identified and then implemented.
 
     It is this kind of scientific process that those involved in 
early MsgGroup took part in, and it is a similar process that is 
needed for forging the principles and structures that will 
appropriately form an Internet governance for the present and 
future. And these will teach us scientific processes and 
procedures for other forms of governance as well.
 
 
 -------------
Footnotes
 
(1) Briefly they include the domain name system, which involves 
the name in an email address such as rh120@columbia.edu where 
columbia.edu is the domain name, or IP numbers like 
199.173.162.110 or a root server system or related protocols or 
port numbers etc.
 
(2) For example, the Oct. 24, 1998 issue of "The Economist" 
called this organization a "self appointed oligarchy".
 
(3) An article in the WSJ said "Important to get new institution 
up and running." (Oct. 22, 1998, p. 22)
 
(4) For example, when Stephen Lusasek, who had been director of 
ARPA from 1970 to 1975 went to work as Chief Scientist at the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington in Fall of 
1979, he wrote to those on MsgGroup asking for their input and 
questions on topics involving regulations involving computer 
communication. 
 
     Also as early as 1981 the moderator of MsgGroup Mailing list 
posted an FCC Notice of Inquiry (NOI) asking those on MsgGroup to 
comment on an issue that was being decided by the F.C.C.
 
     In a similar way, a consultant working with the United 
States Postal Service asked that an announcement of an upcoming 
meeting to be held by the U.S. Postal Service be announced on 
MsgGroup. The consultant felt that the meeting would only be 
attended by representatives of large corporations that had an 
economic interest in what the Postal Service did with electronic 
mail. 
 
     The meeting would be about a system that would effect the 
future of electronic mail and the consultant felt that comments 
on the proposed system should come from a wider variety of what he 
called "stake-holders." In particular, he wanted to hear from 
personal computer users and others who are not interested in 
electronic mail from a purely commercial viewpoint, the person on 
MsgGroup asking for comments, noted.
 
     The consultant asked that comments be mailed or they could be 
sent to him via email and he would have them passed on to the 
proper person at the postal service to be considered as informal 
comments.
 
Based on invited talk given in Vienna, Austria, November, 5, 1998 
----------------