ACN Volume 11 No 2 May 2003

                Junior GII Discusses Netizens
               Web-Chat With Michael Hauben

[Editor's Note: In 1995, teenagers from around the world were
invited to participate in a debate and discussion regarding the
potential of the GII (Global Information Infrastructure). 
Michael was asked to attend an online session. Below is the log
from that web-chat.]

January 25, 1996

Michael Hauben: Ohaiyo Gozaimasu.  :-) Sorry for the delay.

Junko: Hi, Michael! Nice to see you again!

Darren: Hi Michael! I'm Darren from Hawaii.

Michael: Hi Junko, how are you? Hello everyone else. Nice to
meet you.

Michael: Hello Darren, I am writing you from New York City.

Richard: I'm here. Sorry I'm late.

Sheila: Hi, Michael. My name's Sheila.

Michael: Hello Sheila and Rich! Nice you could be here today.

Michael: It is interesting to see people are connecting from a
wide variety of places. I am at home on a computer newly
connected via SLIP to my University.

Michael: Someone asked before I connected what a Netizen is. 
That is a good question.

Darren: Okay, we are connected from an Elem. school LAN with
frame relay access.

Michael: wow - I prefer IRC to this. Anyways, I was saying that
I was doing research into how people used the Net, Internet,
Usenet, etc.

Rich: Also, a question from the communications group: What do you
think about "Internet addiction?"

Michael: And people felt they were part of a global cooperative
community. Net.citizen was used in Usenet speak and this really
represented what people were telling me - they were really net
citizen - which Netizen captures.

Sheila: So what did you find in your research, Michael?

Darren: A question from the Communications group--Do you think
that a universal language is necessary for such netizenship?

Michael: To be a 'Netizen' is different from being a 'citizen'. 
This is because to be on the Net is to be part of a global
community. To be a citizen restricts someone to a more local or
geographic orientation.

Michael: About the Q of the need for a "universal" language. I
do not think that a universal language is necessary.

Darren: So the members of the JR. Summit are netizens?  :-)

Michael: This is because the new global community is best made of
the particular contributions that each different language and
culture can contribute to the whole of the net culture.

Richard: Then what do you think is the solution to the language
barrier?

Darren: What do you think about control/censorship of material on
the 'Net' and about the CompuServe deal in Germany?

Michael: An example is a friend of mine who recently was quoted
in a German newspaper because of a Usenet post she made.

Michael: Her post described how she started to try and learn
different languages - German, Italian, Japanese, because of the
connections to people with other languages on Usenet

Junko: Did she learn all of those?

Michael: About the Q about if Jr. Summit Participants are
Netizens? Please tell me. Netizens are people who make a
contribution to the Net and the development of the Net.

Michael: Netizens give to the Net, and receive back through the
contributions of others.

Michael: Junko, she has begun to learn parts of the languages. 
Not a 100% crash course, but a beginning that she will continue.

Michael: About the language question again - language is a
difficult thing, but people on-line try to help each other.

Junko: So to speak, the Net motivated her to start learning
different languages, right?

Junko: If you start living in the Net, you notice that a
different style of life exists.

Michael: In different newsgroups you will see people posting in
languages other than English, and sometimes others translate or
the original poster posts a translation.

Darren: I think we are netizens.

Darren: On our lists we try to solve problems of language,
control, and access

Michael: I am interested in hearing other people's thoughts about
how to deal with the language difficulties too.

Michael: The connection between Netizen and the language question
is that Netizen is global and thus there is not the tie to the
local language and there is consideration of others in other
places.

Rich: Some participants have suggested machine translation. Do
you think that will be an option in the near future?

Junko: Are those translation done on voluntary basis?

Michael: How are you trying to solve these problems or what has
been talked about so far about Language, control and access?

Darren: My sister found some web sites on electronic translators.

Michael: Junko, yes these messages are translated on a voluntary
basis.

Darren: The group was divided half for universal lang. half for
trans.

Michael: Automation of translation is a good thing to explore. 
I do not know how good they are now though. If however they are
like interactive spell-checkers...

Darren: We were also divided on the issues of control
governmental or commercial/free market

Michael: and if the person using these automated translation is
also a student of the language, then it can be an interactive
speller where the user can see about the translation

Michael: The question of commercial vs government access is
important. It is a very live question this moment in the USA. 
It is one of the topics that I try to cover with a co-author in a
book that is online called the Netizens netbook. The URL is

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/

Richard: The European participants seem to favor government
regulation.

Michael: The history of the Net is important to examine to
understand how "Netizenship" or a cooperative community is
possible.

Michael: It is possible to make voluntary contributions to a
larger group, if the person involved does not expect something to
be given to him or her because that person paid for access.

Rich: How do you instill that sense of "selflessness" that's
required to expand the net?
 
Michael: Once access becomes "a service" as provided by the
market, there is little incentive to create original material or
make a contribution. Rather the service model builds expectations
of receiving something from others. This is different then a
Netizen.

Michael: The Net should be like a utility - akin to
postal/telephone/water not a commercial process.

Richard: So it sounds like you favor govt. regulation to a
certain extent.

Darren: Our Think Quest project requires that we create new
information, not just links

Michael: Rich - that is a good question. The "selflessness" grew
out of the fact that technology required cooperation and helping
each other to succeed - for people to develop and further
computing technologies; like UNIX, timesharing, etc.

Darren: I have seen people share URLs, information, advice on the
'Net'

Michael: The public access (in the USA) of the ARPAnet and
Internet came with a public obligation of research and sharing in
science and other aspects. There was the government partnership
with academia.

Rich: Do you think the current trend of net commercialization
will decrease or get "worse?"

Rich: And do you see any benefits to the commercialization of the
net?

Michael: It is not that I necessarily favor regulation. It is
that it is important to have equal access available and provided
by government. The "market" would not make the Internet available
in areas where it could not make a profit. Well the Net would
lose if all potential contributors were not able to participate.
Regulation does not mean censorship, even if it is sometimes
described as such. Rather regulation means putting the public
interest over the commercial or private interest. The Net is a
shared commons, which means it is important to make it available
to the many, and not grabable by the few.

Richard: The Rand Organization just completed a study on
universal E-mail access. I ordered it through their web at
www.rand.org. It's $20. There's a brief overview available for
free.
 
Michael: Sheila, and others - do you have any thoughts about
Netizenship or commercialization or government supported access?

Rich: ...and I just figured out the trick to using web chat is to
write your message in a text editor and paste it into the web
browser instead of trying to play "beat the clock."

Michael: Commercialization - is the old way trying to take the
new way and use it for the old. CompuServe is an example - which
is not the Internet or Usenet. It is important to struggle to
keep this public channel open for the whole public to use. This
would be through non-commercial development.

Richard: I posed the commercialization question to the lists and
no one seemed to think it was a bad thing. The education group
favors companies sponsoring online educational projects in return
for advertising space.

Darren: I think that we will be Netizens

Michael: There have been previous communications channels that
had potential to give a voice to the many - which were taken over
by commercial interests trying to make money - and to some extent
certain governments do or do not allow this. (Examples of TV,
radio, etc)

Darren: And I think the government should provide access

Michael: Rich - that is what I am doing. :) (text editor)

Richard: Do you think it would be possible in any way for
businesses or governments to actually "take over" the Net? (This
is an open question to all you quiet folks too.)

Michael: Advertising will (and is) polluting the online world
Those with money will quickly take over the spaces that those
without would not be able to. And those thinking of money are not
thinking about a global cooperative community - they are thinking
about themselves.

Junko: I'll be really upset if commercial(ization) take(s) over
the Net! It should not happen.

Michael: There is a battle over the soul of the Net. However,
this medium (as opposed to TV, etc) allows people to organize
on-line and to come to grips that there are others who feel the
same way. If you look to Usenet groups, mailing lists, web pages,
etc - you can see people organizing and trying to understand how
to join together to struggle for what they feel is right.

Michael: The question is to figure out how to contribute in this
battle. I am sorry, but I need to sign off now. However, I hope I
was able to contribute to help people to join in these
discussions and trying to figure out what role governments,
people and companies and other organizations should be playing.

Darren: Maybe our peace game can deal with control of the net
instead

Junko: Thanks a lot, Michael.

Richard: Michael, I really appreciate you showing up today. 
Thank you for coming.

Junko: You contributed a lot for us today!

Michael: By the way - my E-mail address if anyone is interested
in talking more is hauben@ columbia.edu

Darren: Bye Michael! Thank you!

Michael: Thank you. It was interesting to hear some of what the
Jr Summit participants are discussing.

Michael: Bye Bye.  :-)

Darren: Bye everyone!

===================================================