Netizens-Digest Monday, April 7 2003 Volume 01 : Number 469 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] censorship Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) [netz] Question about the list [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off) Re: [netz] censorship [netz] reading list? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:47:10 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off - --part1_1cc.6c91810.2bc3058e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 12:08:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 lgd1@columbia.edu writes: > Hello: I would like a clarification on the following in your posting:=20 > "Consider that it is not very constructive to express either overtly or=20 > ambigously that you do not trust the officials you voted for".=20 > Luis de Quesada=20 I had meant 'ambagiously' or 'with indirection' just as written -- not=20 'ambiguously.' =20 It is the manner and language of diplomacy to equivocate with the usage of=20 gesture and words that do not agitate in order to assist the conveyance of=20 objectives. If you do forgo such editing you risk that your 'adversary' wil= l=20 become seduced by ancillary issues that have no relevance to the real=20 objectives. Originally, I had expressed: > Paranoia or the expressed expectation of baneful behavior of your adversar= y=20 > is not the beginning of a good diplomacy. =A0 Consider that it is not very= =20 > constructive to express either overtly or ambagiously that you do not trus= t=20 > the elected officials that you voted for.=20 >=20 Larry - --part1_1cc.6c91810.2bc3058e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 12:08:57 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes:

Hello: I would like a clarifica= tion on the following in your posting: "Consider that it is not very constru= ctive to express either overtly or ambigously that you do not trust the offi= cials you voted for".
Luis de Quesada

I had meant 'ambagiously' or 'with indirection' just as written -- not 'ambi= guously.'

It is the manner and language of diplomacy to equivocate with the usage of g= esture and words that do not agitate in order to assist the conveyance of ob= jectives. If you do forgo such editing you risk that your 'adversary'=20= will become seduced by ancillary issues that have no relevance to the real o= bjectives.

Originally, I had expressed:

Paranoia or the expressed expec= tation of baneful behavior of your adversary is not the beginning of a good=20= diplomacy. =A0 Consider that it is not very constructive to express either o= vertly or ambagiously that you do not trust the elected officials that you v= oted for.

Larry - --part1_1cc.6c91810.2bc3058e_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:05:34 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] censorship Mark: You're absolutely right. Its like potato chips, it doesn't stop. I do not whimper about being censored, I know when I'm being censored and your complaints about "non stopping and potato chips" proves my point. You are a censor the only thing is that in this forum you have no censorship powers and thank God for that. You do not have to accept my arguments and I certainly do not accept yours. I don't have to show you anything regarding an apology to Ronda and Jay. I never mentioned or even dream to force or to ask you to apologize to Ronda and Jay, because I am not dictatorial or a bully, which you sound very much like. What happened earlier on this list, your requests for Howard to step in, "are you with me on this Howard?" implied that there was an association or an alliance to dismiss or shut out Jay's and Ronda's postings. Like I said and I will say it over and over again, the attempt to censor was there, although I realize it was not an enforceable censorship because thank our lucky stars you and your friends do not have that power on this list, if you did Ronda, Jay and I would've been kicked out of it a long time ago. Luis lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > Luis, > > Wow, this is like Lay potato chips, it's hard to stop. > > Quoting Luis De Quesada : > > > I am just defending my right to > > post and to reply, which I felt were threatened on this list and still are. > > Luis, if you have lived under a totalitarian regime, how can you possibly > believe that anything that has happened on this list constitutes a threat to > your right to post and to reply? > > > Now you're trying yet another form of censorship, which is disprove my > > interpretation of the word censorship. > > I have tried to do you the honor of taking your words seriously. But if you > think that "censorship" includes any attempt to refute you.... > > Well, then I guess you're right. If you can show me where I owe Jay or Ronda > an apology, then I will gladly apologize to them. But I will not accept your > arguments(?), however "censorious" I may seem. If you can't defend your > statements on their merits, for heaven's sake don't whimper about being > repressed. > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:31:00 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --------------B08952738F61D3F6726D0FA6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello: We will talk about the privatization of the internet and internet governance here, but not as vehicles to put a stop to postings about the war or any other issues, because that would constitute an infringement of netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list by some. You know that as a netizen you are invited to post whatever about the privatization of the internet its governance, etc. whenever you want to. Luis de Quesada AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/6/03 3:30:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > lindeman@bard.edu writes: > > >> RH>It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as >> RH>I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that >> >> RH>support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and >> the >> RH>war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen >> RH>expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings >> RH>online given the repression that is carried out against others >> RH>by the governments in question. >> RH> >> RH>This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list. >> RH> >> M>If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, >> that >> M>probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if >> some of >> M>us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals. >> It >> M>doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for >> broad >> M>discussion of the war. Is this distinction reasonable to you? > > The fear of reprisals is not unfounded. We have definitely seen our > civil liberties attacked in a very serious way since 9-11 and the > advent of the Patriot Act. I definitely share this fear and had > expressed such feelings with Ronda a few months ago. Nonetheless, I > am more about finding solutions to problems rather than complaining > about them. With regard to solutions and public policy, I find that > it makes sense to work within the framework of an overwhelming trend > than overtly against it. > > More specifically, it is a more practical employment of time and > capital to look constructively at what rights we do have left. > > If we are to looking to find or pursue solutions that enhance the > quality of life of all citizens of the world as Netizens, I am all for > that in this list. > > > RH>At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize > RH>the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael > > RH>opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net. > RH> > RH>There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in > RH>influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in > RH>influencing how government makes policy. > RH> > RH>These are part of the concept that was being developed. > RH> > RH>I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose. > RH> > RH>Do you agree or not? > RH> > M>Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online > > M>forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a > single > M>list." I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is > broader > M>than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal > (if > M>I may call it that). > > M>However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the > Net in > M>influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on > the > M>role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy. It's > not > M>clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, > are > M>too broad for the list. His desire to exclude specific debate about > the > M>merits of the war is clearer to me. But Howard may be arguing, in > M>effect, that the appropriate domain of the netizens list is the Net > M>itself (more specifically, the "Guard" role he described, which does > > M>seem to exclude these discussions) -- which is plausible, although I > > M>find your proposal equally plausible. > > M>(The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it, > does > M>seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather > narrow > M>view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?) > > M>Mark > > In the ways that Michael had specifically articulated, does it seem > that this list should progress. We should be talking about > privatization of the Internet, and Internet governance here. Any > other discussion might provide good flavoring, but let's at least > understand and not forget what this thing is supposed to taste like. > > Larry > > - --------------B08952738F61D3F6726D0FA6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello: We will talk about the privatization of the internet and internet governance here, but not as vehicles to put a stop to postings about the war or any other issues, because that would constitute an infringement of netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list by some. You know that as a netizen you are invited to post whatever about the privatization of the internet its governance, etc. whenever you want to.
Luis de Quesada

AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/6/03 3:30:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:

RH>It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as
RH>I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that
RH>support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and the
RH>war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen
RH>expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings
RH>online given the repression that is carried out against others
RH>by the governments in question.
RH>
RH>This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list.
RH>
M>If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, that
M>probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if some of
M>us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals. It
M>doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for broad
M>discussion of the war. Is this distinction reasonable to you?

The fear of reprisals is not unfounded. We have definitely seen our civil liberties attacked in a very serious way since 9-11 and the advent of the Patriot Act. I definitely share this fear and had expressed such feelings with Ronda a few months ago. Nonetheless, I am more about finding solutions to problems rather than complaining about them. With regard to solutions and public policy, I find that it makes sense to work within the framework of an overwhelming trend than overtly against it.
More specifically, it is a more practical employment of time and capital to look constructively at what rights we do have left.
If we are to looking to find or pursue solutions that enhance the quality of life of all citizens of the world as Netizens, I am all for that in this list.

RH>At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize
RH>the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael
RH>opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net.
RH>
RH>There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in
RH>influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in
RH>influencing how government makes policy.
RH>
RH>These are part of the concept that was being developed.
RH>
RH>I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose.
RH>
RH>Do you agree or not?
RH>
M>Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online
M>forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a single
M>list." I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is broader
M>than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal (if
M>I may call it that).
M>However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the Net in
M>influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on the
M>role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy. It's not
M>clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, are
M>too broad for the list. His desire to exclude specific debate about the
M>merits of the war is clearer to me. But Howard may be arguing, in
M>effect, that the appropriate domain of the netizens list is the Net
M>itself (more specifically, the "Guard" role he described, which does
M>seem to exclude these discussions) - -- which is plausible, although I
M>find your proposal equally plausible.
M>(The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it, does
M>seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow
M>view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?)
M>Mark
In the ways that Michael had specifically articulated, does it seem that this list should progress. We should be talking about privatization of the Internet, and Internet governance here. Any other discussion might provide good flavoring, but let's at least understand and not forget what this thing is supposed to taste like.
Larry

- --------------B08952738F61D3F6726D0FA6-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:28:52 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Question about the list Right now, there seem to be under 10 people involved in active discussion. Could someone tell me how many subscribers the list has? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:37:30 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu Subject: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off) Luis De Quesada wrote: > netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list > by some. Hi Luis. Is there a current thinking on this list about what are the netizens rights (I mean other than the rights to post here). Can you summarize those rights in a short list for me to read? Alex GBU ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:42:41 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] censorship Luis, Conceivably sometime when I am in NYC we could hash this out face to face (and no, I don't mean "step outside"). Ronda is a professional colleague, and I hope that she is blessed in your friendship. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:50:03 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu Subject: [netz] reading list? Hi, I'm aware of the book "Netizens". I read it a while back. Has anybody already suggested here a reading list for this list, something like below, in random order: - -Declaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme. - -Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. - -RFCc 3160 The Tao of IETF and BCP 9 The Internet Standards Process. - -ICANN.org and IANA.org - -The Chicago Manual of Style. - -Netizens. - -...? Alex GBU ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #469 ******************************