Early Days of Usenet -pt3(draft for comment)

[Ronda Hauben]

Early Usenet(1981-2)
Creating the Broadsides for Our Day
by Ronda Hauben
rh...@columbia.edu

(Part 3 of 3)

V - Creating the Form for Usenet

The earliest days of Usenet demonstrate both the principles
and practices in embryo of new and more democratic forms that
this technology makes possible. The issues developed in
certain key newsgroups during this early period clarify the
problems that a new communications medium bring to the fore. The
model for Usenet that pioneers had early on was of an electronic
newsletter. "Not to belittle any new newsgroup, but it strikes me
that we are developing a real electronic newspaper here," wrote
George Otto in a post in January 1982. "We already have a science
section, an automotive section, a comic section, movie review
column, sports section, travel section, book reviews, even want
ads." (75) Michael Shiloh noted that he enjoyed the network both
"for entertainment and for receiving the latest news on many
subjects," (76) Another user pointed out that he didn't feel the
newswires belonged on Usenet, " Although the newswire is something
I want to see in WorldNet," he explained, " I don't want it on
Usenet, unless it belongs in one of the other newsgroups."(77) J.
C. Winterton explained that he didn't feel that Usenet "should
become an arm of AP, Reuthers, etc." (78) However, in considering
what Usenet should make possible, one user at allegra at Bell
Labs wrote, "Wouldn't it be great to use this electronic medium
to send notes to our government officials. I never seem to write
postal letters or telegrams," he admitted, "but we all seem to
find these electric notes convenient enough to use often. Can you
imagine net.reagan with a few authentic replys?" (79) Another
user added "or what if we could lobby our favorite senator
(net.lobby, net.senator?) (80) In articulating the importance of
Usenet, Mel Haas wrote that the effort had to be to "Try to make
the net a useful exchange of useful information and ideas that
will pay for the service and help people." (81) Another user
explained his view that Usenet "was supposed to represent
electronic mail and bulletins among a group of professionals with
a common interest, thus representing fast communication about
important technological topics."(82) S. McGeady noted, a bit in
dismay, "We are running a networked democracy here."(83)
Observing that, "computer networks, news and mail systems are
much closer to the `broadsides' of yesterday, Alan Watt asked,
"are they therefore protected under the free speech
amendment?" (84)

To make such communication possible, it was important that
rapid replies be possible after the item was posted. "The problem
of disjointed communications is very real," wrote Jerry Schwartz
(at harpo), "Frequently we receive the reply to an item before we
receive the item." To help alleviate the confusion that might
result from this situation, he had a recommendation, "I would
like to suggest that people put a line or two at the beginning of
their submission (like the head of this one) to indicate what
they are replying to." (85)

Such long delays in being able to respond to posts were
problemmatic. "If netnews is to be used for an interactive medium
for discussion," wrote Mark Horton, "a reply could take over a
week to get back, with a 2 week turnaround. Clearly, this is the
worst case, and a delay of a few days is more likely than a week.
But there would be a significant lag, and conversations would be
way out of sync with each other," Horton noted that he was
replying to a message that had been posted 2 weeks before. (86)

The net.news newsgroup was created to discuss Usenet. In this
newsgroup, users discussed changes that they felt could be made
in the software to improve Usenet. For example, Chris (at cincy)
noted that it was then necessary to save the news item one wanted
to respond to, exit netnews to write one's reply, and then send
it and return to Usenet. Instead, he proposed that a means of
automatically replying be built into the netnews software. (87)

Often proposals for how to improve Usenet were submitted
online with requests for comments and discussion. However,
when ARPANET digests were read by those on Usenet, it was
difficult to respond to the individual posts since the email
address of the gateway to Usenet was given as the source of the
digests, rather than the poster's email. Several on Usenet
discussed how this made it difficult to respond to the writer,
and raised possible ways to remedy the problem. In response,
Horton explained that he was beginning to think that a change
should be made and the real sender listed. He asked for
"Comments" on his proposed change. (88)

Steve Bellovin, one of Usenet's creators, noted that he was
one of the people who had created the old form. He welcomed
making a change, and proposed generating a "Reply-to" field for
the email address of the original author so that they would
receive the response if one did "reply" with a lower case "r" but
if one used an upper case R, the reply would be sent to Usenet as
a followup message.

In May 1981, Matt Glickman posting from the University of
California Berkeley, announced that he and Mark Horton were
working on a new version of the netnews software used to
transport Usenet. By July 1981, the software was going into the
testing phase. (89) Horton posted that "Comments on the
conversion process are welcome."(90)

In a similar way, in Nov. 1981, Horton proposed a policy for
Usenet. (91) He asked "If anyone objects to this policy, please
let me know." (92) Also Horton posted that he observed that
people seemed to confuse Usenet with the UUCPnet that was used to
transport Usenet. Therefore, Horton proposed, "I am toying with
the idea of changing the names USENET (the network itself and
netnews (the collection of software that implement netnews) both
to "newsnet". (93)

But he commented, "Since this is a sweeping change, and since
I'm not God, I would like to see discussion on whether this is
a good thing to do. Please reply to net.news." His request drew
immediate responses. One such reply was from Bellovin, one of the
original creators of Usenet. Bellovin wrote, "Mark, we picked
`Usenet' in deliberate imitation of `Usenix', (one of) the UNIX
User's Groups. At the time, we hoped that it might become 'the
official network' of Usenix." (94)

Others suggested a variety of names, including WEB with the
comment "unfortunately, sounds too much like a TV station."(95)

Names like "Arachnet", "Arachne" and "Compuco" "meaning a
computer conferencing" and "info-ex", "i.e. short for information
exchange," were proposed. (96)

Bill Jollitz supported a suggestion by Lauren Weinstein on
the need to be careful of names with existing trademarks. Both
agreed that it was important to raise the issue of "how this net
will grow." Though certain problems like those of a technical or
political nature were "well handled in the forum of the network
itself," they felt other problems should be discussed at
Usenix, as "its the only large forum appropriate at the time."(97)

Other names suggested included "Thinknet" or "Idnet" as
names to represent the need for intelligent discussion that was
represented on the net. (98) "And speaking of Web," another poster
responded, if there were discussion on the subject it could
turn into a "Dragnet." (99)

Weinstein proposed that any renaming proposal be brought up
at the January 1982 Usenix meeting because it was important to
have a "reasoned consideration of any new name." (100)

Another post indicated the user had searched through the
Webster's dictionary using the unix tool grep and listed all the
words he found ending in "net." (101)

In a post dated Nov. 22, Horton listed a set of possible
names and asked for a vote. He wrote, "USENET is the current name
of the logical net of sites running the netnews programs. They
make up an electronic distributed bulletin board." Horton
submitted several policy issues as a proposal to Usenet. There
was online discussion about these proposals. Several, however,
commented that they would be attending the Usenix meeting in
Santa Monica, California in January 1982 and asked that any
policy wait till that meeting.

"I have gotten lots of pressure," Horton writes, "to let the
people at USENIX make the decision (and for the network name,
too) and I want to state for the record that while I fully hope
to postpone all such decisions until at least USENIX, the people
who can't make it to Santa Monica this January have just as much
right to be heard as those who can....I want to hear both groups,
but the real public that counts here is the USERS OF THE NET
(e.g. all you folks that are reading this.)" (102)

Horton, however, proposed that votes wait till the Usenix
meeting and be carried out in person, "since carrying out a
discussion on this medium is very reasonable, but carrying out a
vote is not, I suggest that we all air our opinions here and that
after we talk ourselves out, those who can't make it to USENIX
should find somebody who can and have them cast your vote by
proxy. (Preferably someone you can talk with in person and hand a
piece of paper to with your signature on it.)" (103)

Agreeing that the policies should be discussed at Usenix,
Brian Redman wrote "It's unfortunate indeed that more people
can't be represented at our January meeting....My suggestion that
we wait 'till the meeting is in response to Mark's suggestion
that we set some policies. I can't imagine that an actual vote
by the readers could be carried out fairly," he cautioned,
adding, "I for one would vote on behalf of all the integers in a
vax." (104)

Others objected to having decisions made at Usenix rather
than online. Among the objections were those raised by Greg Ordy
from Case Western University (cwruecmp) wrote, "I submit that if
it takes an across the country meeting to settle the issues at
hand, we are in big trouble....It's the old loudest talker and
prettiest face that sways opinions. I would think that this
neutral medium would be an ideal place to judge only on content,
not on packaging." He also noted that "the amount of non-
technical news is starting to swamp the straight Unix stuff...."
And he asked, "How much time does the average news reader/writer
spend with news each day." (105)

Dave Curry also questioned relying on a USENIX meeting to
make decisions on USENET policy. He wrote, "I must say that
putting the decisions on USENET policy into the hands of those
people attending the USENIX conference (certainly a minority of
those who read news, etc.) is grossly unfair. I myself cannot
afford to attend the conference (I don't know if I would, even if
I could), and am certain numerous others aren't for numerous
reasons. He proposed that, "the decisions should be made over the
net." And he outlined a procedure to have those on the net
involved in determining the decisions. (106)

Horton's policy proposal had included a procedure to set up
new newsgroups. Horton suggested a committee of those who knew
how Usenet functioned to make decisions on the names of new
newsgroups. Others on Usenet commented on the proposed procedure.
Jerry Schwartz at harpo disagreed, "Rather than a committee to
determine the names of groups," he wrote. I propose a group
`net.names'. The official procedure to create a new group would
be to announce a proposed new group in `net.general.' People
interested in the group would reply via mail to the originator,
and any objections to the name would be posted to `net.names'.
After a few days the originator can make a decision on the name
and announce the creation of the group in `net.general'. Any
discussion of the changes to the names of existing groups could
also go in `net.news'." (107)

Another response added, "I find it hard to believe that Mark
is proposing a committee to approve of new newsgroups. Up to that
point, his proposal sounds fine. How about just establishing
rules for new groups." He detailed some proposed rules:

"1 - Send a request for interested parties to net.general

2 - Interested parties reply to the sender.

3 - If there is enough interest, replies are collected and sent
out as the first transmission of the new group."

"This system," he commented, "seems simple and self
policing. If there is enough interest for a group to be started,
then it is no committee's business to say it shouldn't exist.
And he added, "I even get the feeling that if there was a
committee, it would really end up being a rubber stamp since who
has the time to do the work necessary to come to a rational
decision about a group? Or if the committee does turn a group
down, the metadiscussion generated would probably be worse than
any group I can think of. If someone violates the rules, I'm sure
that they could be jumped on and their (illegal) newsgroup
disallowed by the local adminstrator." (108)

Alan Watt outlined the principles he felt were governing the
creation and development of Usenet:

"1) Usenet is a strictly volunteer organization: nobody HAS to
join, and guidelines cannot be enforced."

2) Any local news administrator has the de facto power to impose
any kind of censorship technically feasible.

3) Systems will only participate in USENET if the perceived
benefits exceed the visible costs. Any guidelines proposed ought
to be guided by the principle of 'what is obviously for the
common good that everyone will accept it once stated'."(109)

He believed that "the character of USENET will be the
consensus of the individuals who maintain it at each local site,
in spite of what any central committee requires or
forbids." (110)

From the discussion, he added, it appeared that in many
cases "management" isn't even aware that USENET exists. The real
danger," he continued, "is that if management doesn't know about
USENET, it follows that for most installations no one has an
official responsibility to maintain it. This is certainly true
for us," he continued, "Maintaining the news system on our single
machine takes some measurable portion of my not-too-empty
schedule each day. I squeeze out the necessary time because of
perception (3)" (111)

A post by Mel Haas added, "My personal hope is that the net
will add to our capability to communicate, and do away with the
horrible decisions that are made by committee meetings `in
secret' at some conference or other. I hope that all discussion
of this (of censorship etc) or any other topic relating to the
net is relayed to the net." (112)

Jolitz said that he would report to those on the Net who
couldn't attend the Usenix meeting about what went on. And Brian
Redman responded that USENIX is "NOT a secret organization. BTW,
USENET was introduced at a USENIX meeting." (113)

Another poster acknowledged that "most of the sites here
at Bell Labs Indian Hill are running netnews without benefit of
super-user collaboration or even approval..." (114)

VI - The Online Public Forum and Creating a New Form of Town Hall
Democracy

Those online found themselves creating a new communication
medium and a new communication environment. The discussion on
early Usenet over policy proposals demonstrated an open process
where people were encouraged to contribute. Issues and proposals
were debated to determine the principles to guide the decisions
made and the procedures adopted. In addition, this discussion
raised the question of what parts of the democratic process can
be carried out online versus what areas need face to face
meetings or other means of implementation. And how can these
different forms interrelate? During the discussion of policy
issues in the 1981-82 period, several commented that they didn't
trust votes carried out online, pointing out the ease with which
votes could be tampered with in an online voting process. They
also pointed to the discrepancy between the tentative vote
carried out online about choosing a new name for Usenet and the
vote held at the Usenix meeting where the vote for a new name for
Usenet yielded very different results.

In a similar way, through online discussion and
consideration, the new newsgroup naming and creation process was
examined and a means found to create a working procedure, as
opposed to depending on a proposed appointed committee to carry
out the procedure.

In The Rights of Man, Tom Paine describes the importance
of the discussion among people to determine the underlying
principles upon which new forms can be fashioned. "Forms grow out
of principles and operate to continue the principles they grow
from," Paine observed. "It is impossible to practice a bad form
on anything but a bad principle," he continued. (115) Paine also
proposed that the beginning of a new form is the most important
and most difficult step, "as the probability is always greater
against a thing beginning than of proceeding after it has
begun." (116)

The discussion made possible in NET.news during this
early period on Usenet demonstrates how problems can be examined
to determine the crucial principles so as to set the foundation
for a community or for a social compact. Before there are agreed
upon principles and policies, the interests and desires of those
who are joining together need to be explored and debated. The
principles of any social compact need to be determined before the
forms, so the forms that will serve these needs can be created.

The insistence of various participants on Usenet during
this early period, echoed and articulated in Mark Horton's
statement that "I'm not God" and asking for input into the
decisions about Usenet, demonstrated the commitment that such
decisions had to be determined by Net users. This was a statement
of the fact that soverignty resided in the users, not in any
individual or organization.

This open process created a foundation upon which Usenet
could expand and develop. Much that was only dreamt about or
proposed as wishful thinking in 1981 on Usenet is now assumed
procedure. Thomas Paine explains that if the principles
determining a new form are good principles, the form will reflect
and spread the good principles, and vice versa. The democratic
process developed by those who formed Usenet, established the
foundation for it to grow and flourish. In The Rights of Man,
Thomas Paine describes his observations when he left Great
Britain and came to North America. He found a new form had been
created in the new world of America to guide how governments
could function. In a similar way, the discussion on Usenet during
its early days shows how a new form was created to guide the
development of the online community. Studying these early efforts
of the Usenet pioneers shows how they have given the world a new
communication media and a new form of online town hall democracy.

(Footnotes will be posted separately)