Netizens-Digest         Monday, April 7 2003         Volume 01 : Number 473

Netizens Association Discussion List Digest

In this issue:

       What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
       Re: [netz] Question about the list
       Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:27:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:

> 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.

Yes and as I remember I had posted that those interested in such
areas might join the Netizens list. But that didn't mean that
the netizens list was limited to these areas, but that it included
these isssues.

(...)

> 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).
>

I gave the examples I did as the basis for how Michael developed the
understanding that there were netizens.

Do you feel the concept of netizen is helpful or useful?

For me it has been a goal to strive towards and I have found it helpful.

I have done research with this in mind, research on seeing if there
is any way of having an effect on policy problems like the creating
of an appropriate management structure for the Internet's infrastructure.

But also I am interested in various ways the Internet can help people
have an effect on their society and on the decisions made about issues
that concern them.

Is this where we differ?


> >
> >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
>
It does deal with that. But there seems to be some difference about
how this manifests itself.


> 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.

My difference seems to be that I have a broad focus for that definition,
while you seem to have a narrower focus.

Is it that you feel that those issues are relevant only when the
focus for the social policy is mainly the Internet's development?

I realize you have referred to other issues, but wonder if this
is what you are assuming?

Somehow this is the netizens list, not a technical policy list.

What Michael specified is that he saw the Internet as a global
commons.

And he did have hopes for this global commons in terms of impacting
society.

Is this of interest to you?

I am trying to understand better what you are wanting and this
seems to be a useful process.

It would be helpful if others also stated what they felt about these
issues.

>
> >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."

I wondered if you have looked at Michael's article "The Net and the
Netizen?"

The emergence of the netizen is an important gift from those who
helped to create the Internet.

Would you agree? The netizen is *not* just the user trying to get
something for himself or herself. The netizens are those, at least
that is what Michael specified, who have a social purpose in mind.

It sounds like you, Howard, have a social purpose, but one that
is a bit narrower than what I consider to be the social purpose
that the netizen is a promise of.

> >
> >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.
>

I would find it wonderful it there were many valuable interactions
and then you could choose to read those with the subject lines
that interested you.

The question for me is how to have the list welcome the valuable
interactions?

How to make it possible to communicate across the boundaries of the
differences to be able to promote the social goal that the netizen
has come to embody?

> >
> >
> >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".

I hope to specify later sometime what I feel is the importance of
the Times of India editorial about netizens. I am writing a piece
about that now for the upcoming issue of the Amateur Computerist
where I tried to take the question of "Netizens: Then and Now"
in honor of the 10th anniversary of Michael posting the article
to the Net.

>
> 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.

Yes and then there is the Macy conferences on cybernetics where people
from different specialities made the effort to communicate so they
could build on the work done by others. It was a difficult effort,
but worthwhile.

>
> 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.

Yes, so how to recogize that there is value in each, but also a problem.

And my proposal is to welcome the diversity and try to treat it
constructively and to understand how it relates to the concept of
the netizen and the continuing constructive development of the Net.

>
> >
> >
> >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.

Yes I appreciate that.

It would be good to have others respond or participate in the discussion
as well. Perhaps I have to change the subject line then.


>
> >
> >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.
>
>
Ronda

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:36:12 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
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.

If I might, then, paraphrase and merge two of your quotes, to avoid a 
specific ideological bias and introduce the interaction of technology 
and social systems:

     "Many people around the world dislike the actions of the governments
      of other nations. The Net is a means of enabling those people to have
      their concerns heard on a worldwide level, and potentially to reach
      other people who can exert direct pressures on the decisionmakers
      involved."

One of the things I find unpleasant is that many of your, and other 
examples, seem to focus on the evils of the US.  I certainly hope 
that it is not a requirement of being a Netizen to be opposed to US 
government policy.

Let's put it this way -- if some Austrian follower of their far-right 
policy wanted to communicate with neo-Nazis elsewhere in the world, 
believing that ideology to be good, and that person used the net to 
communicate those ideas, I would consider that individual a Netizen. 
Loathsome, perhaps -- but a Netizen.  Netizenship, as I see it, does 
not require embracing a particular ideology. It does involve using 
networking to reach larger audiences or to reach decisionmakers that 
are not otherwise reachable.

Do you see the difference between my indented quote and your earlier 
statements? I tried to focus on process rather than ideology. I 
didn't attack a specific country or its policies. I tried to make 
observations that would be useful and encouraging to a wide number of 
people with different viewpoints.

>
>  > 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.

What absolutely puzzles me is your emphasis on Licklider, as if there 
is no equivalent current process.  On Friday, I communicated 
electronically with my Congressman's office about a continuing and 
potentially general problem in the Social Security Administration.

To take a personal example, my ex-wife and I have agreed that her 
divorce lawyer caused us both incredible and unneeded pain and 
expense, in large part due to state legislation that encouraged the 
attorney in conflict of interest. My ex-wife, Kathleen, and I are 
communicating by phone and email, to prepare a joint letter to the 
relevant state legislators. This letter, which we believe will have 
impact since you usually don't see a divorced couple explaining how a 
divorce lawyer's misconduct drove them back to friendship, is a 
throroughly collaborative process, being edited through word 
processing and electronic mail. We hope to involve others in the 
letter, and we know how to deliver it to the people that actually 
have some influence -- my state senators and delegate (Kathleen no 
longer lives in Virginia, but was even more politically active than I 
was), as well as the committee chairs with jurisdiction over family 
law.

I'm failing to see what is broken in this process.

>
>
>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.

Do note this was preceded by Wiener's work in cybernetics, which 
specifically dealt with communication and control in biological and 
machine systems. There's also a substantial body of speculative 
writing, much considerably older, dealing with some of these issues 
in fictional dystopias (e.g., EM Forster's "When the Machine Stops") 
or utopias.
>
>  > >
>>  >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?

I simply don't see that as a trend, if for no other reason that the 
representatives are learning about their vulnerability when 
network-enabled research, electronic media, and other 
counterpressures are available.

And those representatives do have to run for reelection. If they keep 
getting reelected, maybe the problem is with their constituencies, 
not the representatives.

While I'm hesitant to use a specific example, one might help. I was 
delighted to learn that Congressman Bob Barr chose not to run for 
reelection. The man wanted to forbid or even criminalize pagan 
worship on military bases, and forced major unfunded mandates on my 
community (Arlington, Virginia) to change the road signs to reflect 
his obsession with renaming National Airport to Ronald Reagan Airport.

As much as I found him reprehensible with regard to civil liberties, 
and to the havoc he played with my county budget, I also have to 
recognize that his actions were generally approved of by his rural 
constituency.

It became even harder to look at him in a simplistic manner when I 
learned that he and his wife devoted just about every spare hour, on 
a very private level, to educate and otherwise serve children in the 
poorer areas of Washington, DC.

>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?

No, they use techniques that work.  There are quite a number of such 
techniques, and I'm sure we will find more and more over time. But do 
distinguish between the situation when the representatives simply 
don't agree with your position -- and it may be for reasons of 
conscience, not bribery -- and there isn't large popular support.

I've been defeated on political issues. Generally, I assumed I didn't 
have the votes, not that some conspiracy was depriving me of rights.

I have a sense, Ronda, that our fundamental difference has nothing to 
do with the Internet. Rather, it is that you believe the US political 
system is broken while I do not.

>
>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?

 From direct experience, make media events of every stupid thing they 
do, organize district opposition, find opposition candidates, work 
with other representatives to block legislation dear to the 
representatives in question, embarrass their contributors, etc.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:36:26 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)

>On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>>  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.
>
>Yes and as I remember I had posted that those interested in such
>areas might join the Netizens list. But that didn't mean that
>the netizens list was limited to these areas, but that it included
>these isssues.
>
>
>
>Do you feel the concept of netizen is helpful or useful?

Now, I'm going to try to phrase something very precisely. For me 
personally, the idea of netizen is not especially useful.  That may 
be because I've had no difficulty in using modern communications in 
affecting the social system for a good 30 years.

Technology is not a requisite for being a good citizen, a citizen at 
many levels of organization.  Robert Heinlein's essay "Take Back your 
Government" deals very much with increasing citizen participation, 
with very practical recommendations drawn from the 1950s.

But I'm perfectly comfortable with the technology. I do believe that 
I have something to give to the larger society by sharing what is and 
is not possible with today's technology, or means of technical 
communication that may not be well known.

>
>For me it has been a goal to strive towards and I have found it helpful.
>
>I have done research with this in mind, research on seeing if there
>is any way of having an effect on policy problems like the creating
>of an appropriate management structure for the Internet's infrastructure.
>
>But also I am interested in various ways the Internet can help people
>have an effect on their society and on the decisions made about issues
>that concern them.
>
>Is this where we differ?

I think our difference is not so much about the ways the Internet can 
have an effect on their society, as my perception that you believe 
there are certain effects that are appropriate, and others that are 
evil. I am neutral about that. I believe in openness as much as 
possible (and it is not always possible). Today, the US Supreme Court 
voted that racists burning crosses, the classic symbol of the 
reprehensible Ku Klux Klan, is unconstitutional. I disagree with that 
decision. I would rather let the Klan do their thing -- as long as 
they can be confronted and exposed.

But when I think of the Net as a means of social communications, I 
believe it has to be as open to Mother Theresa as it is to Adolf 
Hitler.

There have been concerns here about censorship. I've had direct 
experience with the net in the Peoples' Republic of China. Let there 
be no doubt that the PRC actively and visibly exerts significant 
content control on the net. To suggest the US net is censored, with 
examples like that, strikes me as absurd.

>
>
>>  >
>>  >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
>>
>It does deal with that. But there seems to be some difference about
>how this manifests itself.


>
>
>>  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.
>
>My difference seems to be that I have a broad focus for that definition,
>while you seem to have a narrower focus.

Such a range of topics is so broad that I feel I can make no 
meaningful contribution. Of course, I could contribute personal 
anecdotes, but I see no purpose.  I am concerned with means of 
actually affecting and improving the process, rather than seeking 
more and more individual experiences.


>
>Is it that you feel that those issues are relevant only when the
>focus for the social policy is mainly the Internet's development?

Let me rephrase. In the context of a list where I could make a 
contribution, the social policies are relevant when they do one of 
the following:

     make technical demands of the Internet infrastructure, so that either
     the infrastructure must change to meet those needs, or it needs to be
     made clear that the desired Internet service is infeasible.

     need awareness of tools and processes that already exist but may not
     be understood.

>
>I realize you have referred to other issues, but wonder if this
>is what you are assuming?
>
>Somehow this is the netizens list, not a technical policy list.
>
>What Michael specified is that he saw the Internet as a global
>commons.
>
>And he did have hopes for this global commons in terms of impacting
>society.
>
>Is this of interest to you?

What is of interest to me is being the groundskeeper for the village 
green, to be sure it doesn't turn to mud.  I have very real concerns 
of the classic tragedy of the commons applying to the net, because 
people want it to do things that it cannot do, or that people demand 
it to do things that cost real money yet propose no funding 
mechanisms.

I don't see my interest in _this_ list as particularly concerned with 
the social decisions. In contrast, I actively participate in public 
health and emergency services lists, often focusing on the policies 
there, which interest me as much as the networking technology.

>
>I am trying to understand better what you are wanting and this
>seems to be a useful process.
>
>It would be helpful if others also stated what they felt about these
>issues.
>
>>
>>  >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."
>
>I wondered if you have looked at Michael's article "The Net and the
>Netizen?"
>
>The emergence of the netizen is an important gift from those who
>helped to create the Internet.

Ronda, I will admit to something that bothers me. I believe I am not 
that far distant from the core creators of the Internet. I've worked 
closely with people like Vint Cerf.

The idea of resource-sharing, information-sharing networks preceded 
the development of IP. There were several technical alternatives, of 
which IP turned out to be the best.  But I certainly was working on 
non-IP collaborative networks in the seventies. So, when you speak of 
those who helped create the Internet, I feel part of that community.

>
>Would you agree? The netizen is *not* just the user trying to get
>something for himself or herself. The netizens are those, at least
>that is what Michael specified, who have a social purpose in mind.

As long as being a netizen does not dictate what the social purpose 
is. In other words, the test is that one is trying to affect 
something larger than self. The test is not that one conforms to a 
particular ideology.

>
>It sounds like you, Howard, have a social purpose, but one that
>is a bit narrower than what I consider to be the social purpose
>that the netizen is a promise of.

A village is a social system. Somebody has to deal with the roads and 
sewers. If they get blocked, socialization suffers. I want to keep a 
level of congruence between social desire and implementation reality.

>
>>  >
>>  >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.
>>
>
>I would find it wonderful it there were many valuable interactions
>and then you could choose to read those with the subject lines
>that interested you.

Checking the statistics on my email client, I received 12,706 
messages last month. The only way I can cope with these is to use 
software that sorts them by category. There is no possible way I can 
manually scan that many subject lines.

A very practical way for me to manage my input, however, is to know 
that certain lists, newsgroups, etc. will focus on a particular 
topic, so I can go to that particular information venue when I want 
to read about particular kinds of interactions.

>
>
>>
>>  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.
>
>Yes and then there is the Macy conferences on cybernetics where people
>from different specialities made the effort to communicate so they
>could build on the work done by others. It was a difficult effort,
>but worthwhile.

I cannot speak to the Macy conferences, but the normal practice in 
the IETF/IRTF, in the various medical forums in which I participate, 
and even things as mundane as my interests in cooking and herb 
gardening, is to have many focused lists rather than one extremely 
broad one.

And having focused lists does NOT interfere with interdisciplinary 
information exchange. On emergency medicine lists, for example, many 
of the contributions are by paramedics, emergency physicians, and 
trauma surgeons, but there are many valuable contributors whose 
expertise might be in law, mechanical engineering, business 
management, or networking. The point is that everyone understands 
that their expertise, in that venue, is aimed at a common purpose.
>
>And my proposal is to welcome the diversity and try to treat it
>constructively and to understand how it relates to the concept of
>the netizen and the continuing constructive development of the Net.

Some degree of diversity is constructive. Completely unstructured 
diversity leads to chaos in a discussion with a substantial number of 
participants.  Certainly in the Internet engineering area, the means 
of discussion have evolved to cope with the larger number of 
participants. I don't regard that evolution as bad, because it really 
does empower more participation.

Howard

------------------------------

End of Netizens-Digest V1 #473
******************************