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 ----------------