Netizens-Digest Monday, April 7 2003 Volume 01 : Number 472 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship Re: [netz] Question about the list Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] The year is 2003 Re: [netz] Question about the list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:49:46 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship At 7:16 PM -0400 4/7/03, Ronda Hauben wrote: First, Ronda, let me thank you for what does seem a relevant response to some of the issues being raised. To follow up on your point about introductions, I first communicated with you regarding DNS issues and how they affected broad social policies such as intellectual property rights, barriers to access, etc. It was my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that the focus of the list was at the level of policy formulation and technical interaction, and finding creative solutions to issues in Internet governance. >On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > > >> > >> > This is not about censorship, but about being OFF TOPIC! Netizens >> > should concern thing around Internet, that includes technical >> > structure, architecture etc., not war on Iraq. Is it so difficult to >> > understand that sending messages about war in Iraq to flowers growers >> > list is totally OFF TOPIC? Same thing happens here. >> > >It's not exactly that netizens concern themselves with the Internet, >only, as Michael learned from the responses to his posts that people >sent him. Just to clarify my reasons for belonging or not belonging to a list, if the primary focus is to hear about individual experiences, even individual empowering, through the Internet, than this isn't the place for me. As a working Internet engineer, I encounter this sort of this constantly, and don't personally need a list to keep me informed of it. Don't misunderstand -- it may be very useful for people who don't work in the same areas I do to have a way of getting this information. That could be valuable to many, I agree. It's just not valuable to me personally, any more than belonging to a list about skydiving (I have no interest in jumping out of a perfectly functioning airplane) or salmon cookery (about the only fish I don't like). > >A number of people who wrote Michael described how the Internet had >helped them to do something off line. > >The whole point is that Michael was looking at and asking his questions >about the social character of the Internet, about how the Internet >helped people with social problems. For example, on person spoke >of how he was able to inform people about price gouging at gas stations >because of the Internet. > >Another spoke of going to a demonstration with lots of other people, >because of the Internet. > >So I don't understand why suddenly there are social topics off limits >and the netizens list is being called on to focus on technical issues. My perception was that the uniqueness of the list was that it dealt with the interaction of politics, social policy and technology. If I'm wrong about that, I will gracefully take my leave and wish everyone well, because I have other forms of information about the social character of the internet. >That was not its focus and isn't its focus. It is a list about the >social impact of the Internet and about the need to spread the Internet >to anyone who wants access. > >Perhaps it would help if people on the list read "The Net and the Netizen: >The Impact the Net Has on People's Lives." > >This year is the 10th anniversary of Michael posting this article online >and the article and the concept of netizen spread as a result of this >article. > >It would seem appropriate for the Netizen list to look at this anniversary >and try to understand the significance of the article and of the concept >of netizen on the world. My concern would be that there are so many interactions that the list would become so busy as to be unreadable. > > >This is more useful than saying something is "off topic". > >To achieve this, however, a broad focus is needed, not denying posts >are useful for this purpose immediately, because they may be like >the editorial in the Times of India "Netizens Unite". I still >propose that that is something useful to understand the nature >of "netizen". There's an old proverb that a generalist learns less and less detail about more and more subjects, while a specialist learns more and more about a lesser number of subjects. Eventually, the generalist knows nothing about everything, while the specialist knows everything about nothing. Drawing too broad a focus leads to diluting ideas until nothing is discussed in productive depth. Drawing too narrow a focus makes the discussion accessible only to specialists. > > >Mark, then what would you hope would be the purpose of the list? > >And others perhaps should answer the same question. I've tried to answer my perception of that purpose. > >When Michael first created the list he asked people who joined to >introduce themselves. I don't remember if he asked people to say >why they joined the list, but I would like to ask that. > >And perhaps we can add, if we have an idea of what to add, what Alex >asked about whether there is something worth reading to help determine >how to focus the list in a constructive direction. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:57:36 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list >On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > >> Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >> > Right now, there seem to be under 10 people involved in active >> > discussion. Could someone tell me how many subscribers the list >> > has? > >Howard, why do you ask? Bluntly, because my purpose of participating in most lists (other than purely recreational) is to work in a venue where the effort will have an impact. If the list is below a certain critical mass and doesn't seem likely to grow, I'm not sure that effort is warranted. > >Netizenship has always meant the democratic form of citizenship on >a broader level or focus, one not narrowed by geography. It doesn't >seem that the discussion lately has been encouraging of people. Agreed. > >There is a strong sentiment around the world that what the U.S. >government does when it makes decisions about other countries >for them, is not in the interests of democracy. And the above sentence is one of the things that discourages me. It contains not one word relating to the Internet or enabling participation in the political process. > >And there is a sentiment in the US that says that people want >more democracy, and means of having a better life, rather than >having a government which has lots of money to do things in the >interests of big corporations and no money for health care for >its own citizens, or for the other social needs of society. > >Is this appropriate to discuss on the netizens list? > >I would say it is. But lately I haven't gotten that view. I certainly don't think so, unless there is a clear understanding of how those issues are affected by networking. Let me put that on a personal basis and point to your reference on health care. I found out today that I lost my health care benefits. On an individual level, I'm using Internet resources to find alternate coverage. On a professional level, I'm working in a number of areas to use networking technology to deliver high-quality health care economically, including in remote areas. One of the projects with which I'm working is developing mobile health centers that have an emergency response capability, including to biological warfare, but would routinely be used to deliver healthcare to underserved rural areas. > >The netizens concept to me is about having a broader means of >influencing government than what representation provides for. Let me say that I'm not convinced that is a good thing, unless the problem to be solved is better communication with representatives. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 20:04:16 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship Howard wrote, > My perception was that the uniqueness of the list was that it dealt > with the interaction of politics, social policy and technology. Thanks. That formulation will do for me as well. Of course, Howard and I may not quite agree on what it means. What do others think? Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 20:33:40 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --part1_17.38121fed.2bc372e4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/6/03 4:26:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > RH>If there is the question on the netizens list of how to look at > RH>this question, that could be constructive. But if there is > RH>the effort to label those who raise the question as a problem, > RH>then there is a serious form of censorship going on on the > RH>netizens list. > I agree. RH>What is too braod a discussion? RH> RH>The whole point of the development of the Net, from my study, is RH>that the broad focus on many early mailing lists, and on later RH>usenet newsgroups etc. was what helped to understand the particulars RH>of the issue that was important to identify. RH> RH>If you limit discussion to a very narrow range, you lose the RH>ability to understand any difficult problem. I agree. But we're all really paranoid that the list will lose focus and scope. My interest is generally about the development and governance of the Internet in terms of infrastructure. I am interested in policy development and the polemics regarding privatization issues. Given the war issue, I thought it appropriate that we also consider how the Internet can be exploited to improve communication between government and the people worldwide. I truly believe the list will ultimately reflect Michael's original intent. I believe in the 'organized' anarchy because I believe in the professionalism of the contributors. Everyone here is high caliber. I am edified by you all. Larry - --part1_17.38121fed.2bc372e4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/6/03 4:26:03 PM Eastern Daylight=20= Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

RH>If there is the question=20= on the netizens list of how to look at
RH>this question, that could be constructive. But if there is
RH>the effort to label those who raise the question as a problem,
RH>then there is a serious form of censorship going on on the
RH>netizens list.


I agree.


RH>What is too braod a discussion?
RH>
RH>The whole point of the development of the Net, from my study, is
RH>that the broad focus on many early mailing lists, and on later
RH>usenet newsgroups etc. was what helped to understand the particulars RH>of the issue that was important to identify.
RH>
RH>If you limit discussion to a very narrow range, you lose the
RH>ability to understand any difficult problem.

I agree.  But we're all really paranoid that the list will lose focus a= nd scope. 

My interest is generally about the development and governance of the Interne= t in terms of infrastructure.  I am interested in policy development an= d the polemics regarding privatization issues. 

Given the war issue, I thought it appropriate that we also consider how the=20= Internet can be exploited to improve communication between government and th= e people worldwide.

I truly believe the list will ultimately reflect Michael's original intent.&= nbsp; I believe in the 'organized' anarchy because I believe in the professi= onalism of the contributors. 

Everyone here is high caliber.  I am edified by you all.

Larry - --part1_17.38121fed.2bc372e4_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:05:48 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] The year is 2003 - --part1_4a.1ae34da0.2bc37a6c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/6/03 10:17:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > H>My perception of the principal goals of the list are: > H> 1. Ensuring the continued operation of the list given political, > social > H> and economic pressures on it. Without an operating network, political > H> communications over it become moot. > H> 2. Discovering and encouraging means of political and issue > communication > H> through network-enabled technology, means which may offer new > paradigms > H> for conveying information to policymakers and for developing > consensus > H> among and proposals from the governed. > H> > H>Does that help? > Thanks Howard for articulating what, at least I believe, this list should be about. H>Premature narrowing is a problem if issues aren't identified. Once H>the issues are identified, however, the detailed discussion of those H>issues may or may not be germane. My rough rule is they are germane H>if they pertain to issue-independent process, but not germane if they H>deal with specific ideological, governmental, etc., concerns. Premature narrowing is a problem if issues aren't identified. This is why, although I do not agree with the reasoning for Ronda's posts about the war, I do believe in her professionalism and have to assume that there is a reason for her persistence. This is still the moment of discovery. Larry - --part1_4a.1ae34da0.2bc37a6c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/6/03 10:17:09 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

H>My perception of the princ= ipal goals of the list are:
H>  1.  Ensuring the continued operation of the list given poli= tical, social
H>    and economic pressures on it. Without an operating n= etwork, political
H>    communications over it become moot.
H>  2.  Discovering and encouraging means of political and issu= e communication
H>    through network-enabled technology, means which may=20= offer new paradigms
H>    for conveying information to policymakers and for de= veloping consensus
H>    among and proposals from the governed.
H>
H>Does that help?


Thanks Howard for articulating what, at least I believe, this list should be= about.

H>Premature narrowing is a problem if issues aren't identified. Once
H>the issues are identified, however, the detailed discussion of those H>issues may or may not be germane. My rough rule is they are germane H>if they pertain to issue-independent process, but not germane if they <= BR> H>deal with specific ideological, governmental, etc., concerns.

Premature narrowing is a problem if issues aren't identified.  This is=20= why, although I do not agree with the reasoning for Ronda's posts about the=20= war, I do believe in her professionalism and have to assume that there is a=20= reason for her persistence. 

This is still the moment of discovery.

Larry - --part1_4a.1ae34da0.2bc37a6c_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:01:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > >Netizenship has always meant the democratic form of citizenship on > >a broader level or focus, one not narrowed by geography. It doesn't > >seem that the discussion lately has been encouraging of people. > > Agreed. > > > > >There is a strong sentiment around the world that what the U.S. > >government does when it makes decisions about other countries > >for them, is not in the interests of democracy. > > And the above sentence is one of the things that discourages me. It > contains not one word relating to the Internet or enabling > participation in the political process. Given this reality, the Net is a means for people to try to solve this problem. This means that there are people and the society and the net as a way of making a more helpful intersection between those two. > > > > >And there is a sentiment in the US that says that people want > >more democracy, and means of having a better life, rather than > >having a government which has lots of money to do things in the > >interests of big corporations and no money for health care for > >its own citizens, or for the other social needs of society. > > > >Is this appropriate to discuss on the netizens list? > > > >I would say it is. But lately I haven't gotten that view. > > I certainly don't think so, unless there is a clear understanding of > how those issues are affected by networking. Let me put that on a > personal basis and point to your reference on health care. I found > out today that I lost my health care benefits. > This is helpful. The early vision that Licklider had for the development of a network of networks, was that it would be a means for people to participate in the development of that network, and in the decisions that government made regarding that development. This was at the time a broad vision, a vision of a participatory interactive medium which would include the human and the computer, a symbosis as he called the relationship. He created an interactive and collaborative process for the scientists who were working on the development of the new computer technology. He had been connected earlier with the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics held over a ten year period, from up till 1953. These conferences were an effort to look at the connection between living and machine systems and whether doing cross disciplinary communication among scientists in these diverse areas was useful to those in the different disciplines. >From this broad experience, Licklider had the foundation to begin and develop the Information Processing Techniques Office. And he hoped the research he was starting would lead to a development of a new science, a science of information processing. The process Licklider used to develop communication technology and science was one where communication was encouraged. This was a development within government and the academic world. What is the impact of this development now on our society? The constructive process of people being able to participate in the decisions related to their lives can be facilitated by the continued development of the Internet. This is similar to the fact that the Internet itself was made possible by the development of this process that Licklider and others pioneered of collaboration among people to solve difficult problems. Our society is at a stage where the problems are very complex. There is the hope that a way will be found to solve them. The Internet and the netizen are part of that hope. > On an individual level, I'm using Internet resources to find > alternate coverage. On a professional level, I'm working in a number > of areas to use networking technology to deliver high-quality health > care economically, including in remote areas. One of the projects > with which I'm working is developing mobile health centers that have > an emergency response capability, including to biological warfare, > but would routinely be used to deliver healthcare to underserved > rural areas. > > > > >The netizens concept to me is about having a broader means of > >influencing government than what representation provides for. > > Let me say that I'm not convinced that is a good thing, unless the > problem to be solved is better communication with representatives. > > But what if the representatives don't want better communication? What if the representatives only feel they are benefitting from their communication with those who are connected to big corporate interests. What then do people do? Do they stop? Or do they explore how to have an impact on their society, whether by creating a press, or by finding a way to have online conferences like the NTIA online conference? What do you propose when representatives decide they only want to communicate with those who can give them large campaign contributions? Ronda ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #472 ******************************