From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 11:45:47 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: This List--Public, Private, or Other?
Message-ID: <199404041846.LAA06510@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I have a few more things to say on the question Hal raised: is this
list privately owned, publically owned, or is it something else?

* It's effectively under the control of the folks mentioned (Huhges,
Gilmore, Daniel, etc.), but....

* anyone with access to the mailing list names (cf. majordomo) could
"invite" subscribers to try another list. Detweiler tried something
like this with his "cypherwonks" group. The point: the "list" could
move around.

* sufficiently bizarre management practices on the List, such as if
Eric decided to really crown himself King, would cause folks to leave.
The point: the "list" is not permanent.

* anyone trying to create their own Cypherpunks-type list would have
to deal with inertia, head starts (by us), and so on. The point:
sometimes inertia wins.

In different words, the list exists as an "emergent phenomenon," like
a popular trend or a fad. It's "official" existence is not crucial, as
that could evaporated, change, etc.

The hundreds of subscribers (can it really be 700?) find this list
presumably more convenient than forming their own list, recruiting
members, and achieving some critical mass.

Call it a "Schelling point" in cyberspace, a meeting place. (A
Schelling point is named after the game theorist, and can best be
quickly described by an example: if Hal Finney and I agree to meet in
Washington, D.C., without making further plans as to place, where
might we meet? The Air and Space Museum? The base of the Washington
Monument, the EFF offices? A limited number of points are likely to be
independently picked by us--these are Schelling points for us.
Prices are often Schelling points.)

If enough of us "moved" to another list, or another machine, then
that's "where" the Cypherpunks list would move to (it didn't happen
with "Cypherwonks," for various and obvious reasons).

The concept of "ownership" is thus tenuous. I would liken it to the
"ownership" by a store of its customer base. Fry's Electronics "owns"
the hacker-technophile customers it attracts in such throngs
throughout the Bay Area, and no one (except the State, of course) can
come in and command them to change their policies. But Fry's must be
careful to not lose its customer base, which could easily happen (and
will eventually, in all likelihood).

To wrap it up: Cyberspace ownership has more similarities to the
voluntary asssociations desscribed here--customer bases, clubs,
subscriptions to magazines, etc.--than to conventional ideas of
"public" and "private" property ownership.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."