Re: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 06:26:16PM -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> Mr. Langston's remarks are intemperate and irresponsible.  They are, 
> sadly, consonant with what WG-C has done (or, just as importantly 
> and just as sadly, failed to do).

[...snip]

> 
> Here's the part that I think it was especially improvident to say in public:
> >
> >One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the
> >stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP Constituency
> >and their deep pockets can do about it.  Keep throwing your muscle
> >around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to
> >operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting
> >mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics,
> >organize, and go on strike.  And unlike a factory floor, your chances
> >of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery
> >for you are significantly smaller.
> >
> 
> Readers should be aware that the FBI pays people (no, I'm _not_ 
> one of them) and runs robots (I'm not one of these, either :-) to look 
> for foolish statements like this.  I believe the Treasury Department 
> has a program along these lines as well.  Inviting people to commit 
> biological impossibilities in a public forum simply brands one as crude, 
> but making statements about interference with the operation of 
> computers connected to the Internet (such interference is a federal 
> crime, in case you were unaware of it) raises questions about one's 
> judgment.  I wouldn't do it, wouldn't be prudent.
> 

Actually, Kevin, this wasn't a threat.  It was a counterpoint to the
IP constituency's demonstrated willingness to use their influence to
indefinitely postpone the rollout of new gTLDs and other similar
destabilizing acts.

If you read it again, perhaps you'd note the not-so-hidden allusions
to organizing a union-like structure around network and systems
administrators.  It's not the first time the topic has come up in
serious discussion in various circles, and it's something that might
arise of necessity if things get too far out-of-hand.

It's also the surest way to lobby and promote the interests of the
technical folks in the trenches, who seem to be expected to remain
quiet and subservient to the whims of the corporations and their cadre
of lawyers.  Sure, they have a voice in technical decisions, but when
it comes to policy (and ICANN has quite clearly stepped out of
technical management is into the arena of policymaking), that voice is
lacking.  What little voice there is gets drowned by those with the
deep pockets and the huge legal staff.

If it's illegal to so much as suggest in public that perhaps a certain
faction should unionize, then I suppose I'm guilty.  I certainly
wouldn't be the first person guilty of such an act.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA