Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 10 2003 Volume 01 : Number 486 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] More or less democracy [netz] PARTICIPATORY vs.REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AT LIST Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] More or less democracy Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...) Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:53:51 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Hello Mark: By the way on one of your recent e-mails you mentioned you read and identify with Gandhi's teachings and I don't think I gave you a reply on that one, due to lack of time and I apologize for that. I'm glad you and have similar ideas on that also. What I meant by co-workers is that Jay and I worked together at the Columbia University Health Sciences Library and that's when we became friends, through him I later met his wife Ronda and his son Michael. But I also consider everyone on the list my co-worker or fellow netizen. Since I was a child and thanks to my late father I "fell in love" with representative democracy. I realize it has downfalls, some politicians become corrupt, power hungry if you will, but I want to choose through my vote who is going to represent me. I think there are many ways to improve representative democracy so that elected officials are more responsive and through legislation, close the loopholes that can cause corruption and other administrative ills. Representative democracy is far from being perfect, but I wouldn't have it any other way. I do want to learn more about participatory democracy, learn, but not as a goal to replace elections, which generations of my family fought hard and sacrificed so much for in Cuba. When I met Jay he gave me some material to read and among the literature he gave me was a late 40's quote from Carl Johnson, "only more democracy can cure democracy" and upon reading it I was delighted because that's one of the first things my father used to say to me, but without making reference to Carl Johnson, after so many years Jay identified the source for me! Dad, God rest his soul used to say to me "he was only teaching me about democracy, but he was not forcing me into it because that would be un-democratic on his part, that I would have to make my own choice. Luckily I think I made the right choice, I became an advocate of representative democracy like my dad. Hey! Being "Autentico" I had to be! And about your question netizens are co-workers, what are we working on, I think one of the good things about netizens is we can work on educating each other. For instance Howard posted recently about the economics behind cable-tv which I consider a brilliant analysis. I think right now we have a small but excellent group of educators. Take care, Lou D. Mark Lindeman wrote: > Lou, > > OK, and it's good to have you and I agreeing that we are suspicious of > any process that suspends elections. (Which doesn't necessarily mean > that we're opposed to participatory democracy!) > > We collectively seem recently to be pretty befuddled about abstract > questions such as whether we are a "technical" list or a "social" list. > Meanwhile, the Net faces new challenges and offers new opportunities. > Maybe it would clarify my question to Jay a bit to emphasize your word > "co-workers." It's great to hear Jay's ideas on participatory > democracy, but it would also be great to have more contributions, all > around, on many issues raised by Howard and others that seem to be more > immediate. Netizens are co-workers. What are we working on? > > Mark > > Luis De Quesada wrote: > > >Hello Mark: Jay and I have been co-workers and friends for many years, he knows > >where I stand when it comes to representative democracy as I was a member and fan > >of the Autentico Party in Cuba, which stood and still stands in exile, for > >representative democracy. Him and I differ on that and various other politcal > >issues, yet I am a netizen and we are the best of friends and co-workers and I am > >certain my "netizenship" is not in peril because of my belief in representative > >democracy. I would like though to learn more about participatory democracy. > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:50:04 -0400 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Lou, Well, I pretty much agree with all that. (I can always find something to raise further questions about, since that's what I do for a living! But I don't think our differences matter much.) >And about your question netizens are co-workers, what are we working on, I think one >of the good things about netizens is we can work on educating each other. >For instance Howard posted recently about the economics behind cable-tv which I >consider a brilliant analysis. I think right now we have a small but excellent group >of educators. > Yeah, we have an interesting mix here. I've read through the Gordon Cook essay that Howard just posted, and I'm trying to think more about it before I respond with some questions. I imagine sometimes we get bogged down in philosophical debates because some of the other issues take so much work to think about. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:45:12 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy - --part1_1ec.6408e5f.2bc6eb88_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/9/03 8:32:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes: > One way of putting the question is: does Jay agree that Howard is a netizen > regardless of his beliefs about the net, self representation, and > government? > Or does Jay instead believe, to paraphrase Howard, that "replacing [the?] > republican system with self representation is the essence of netizenship," > so > Howard really isn't a netizen? (Jay may believe that this replacement is > the > ultimate ideal of netizenship, and still believe that Howard is a netizen.) > > Mark > Is this inquiry truly helpful, albeit the case that it is germane -- or should we just solve problems? The parlance will define itself through the crucible of concept development. I would like to see a comprehensive solution that Jay proposes for participatory democracy. Let's argue about that. I want to see solutions! (banging gavel precipitously). Larry - --part1_1ec.6408e5f.2bc6eb88_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/9/03 8:32:13 PM Eastern Daylight=20= Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:

One way of putting the question= is: does Jay agree that Howard is a netizen
regardless of his beliefs about the net, self representation, and government= ? 
Or does Jay instead believe, to paraphrase Howard, that "replacing [the?] republican system with self representation is the essence of netizenship," s= o
Howard really isn't a netizen?  (Jay may believe that this replacement=20= is the
ultimate ideal of netizenship, and still believe that Howard is a netizen.)<= BR>
Mark


Is this inquiry truly helpful, albeit the case that it is germane -- or shou= ld we just solve problems?  The parlance will define itself through the= crucible of concept development.

I would like to see a comprehensive solution that Jay proposes for participa= tory democracy.  Let's argue about that.  I want to see solutions!=   (banging gavel precipitously).

Larry - --part1_1ec.6408e5f.2bc6eb88_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:03:17 -0400 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy > Is this inquiry truly helpful, albeit the case that it is germane -- > or should we just solve problems? The parlance will define itself > through the crucible of concept development. > > I would like to see a comprehensive solution that Jay proposes for > participatory democracy. Let's argue about that. I want to see > solutions! (banging gavel precipitously). Larry, actually, at this moment a comprehensive solution for participatory democracy is the _last_ thing that I personally want to argue about. Not that I'll stop you. But it just seems to me that there are so many other things we'll need to solve first, whether or not we're headed for participatory democracy, that that isn't the direction to look for a useful debate. (And with my "political science" connections, I can find an argument about participatory democracy whenever I want.) If we're using RFCs as a model of our democratic discourse, I don't think an RFC on participatory democracy should be high on the task queue. I could have some fun with it over drinks after work. I don't mean the question about "is Howard a netizen" to come across as touchy-feely. For me it is more or less isomorphic with the question, "Are we here to address immediate problems like the ones Howard and others are raising, or are we here to implement participatory democracy?" This question does seem pretty urgent, because if Jay thinks we're here to implement participatory democracy, then I'm in the wrong room. Not that I even object to the project, it just isn't what I'm doing. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:26:56 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: [netz] PARTICIPATORY vs.REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AT LIST Hello Jay: We would like further postings from you on participatory democracy and representative democracy. Also a clarification from you that it is possible to believe in representative democracy( like you know I do) and still be considered a netizen? Take care, Lou D. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:04:47 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy - --part1_f.ebd1c6d.2bc6f01f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/9/03 8:32:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > I'm still unconvinced self representation, as opposed to self > determination, is a good thing. I'd rather be able to delegate or > consult with experts. Self representation, to me, implies being the > final authority on everything. Even with the net, that hasn't been > possible for over a century, and the exponential rate of knowledge > growth isn't going to make it possible again. > ...my view entirely. Please provide a practical construction for your solution of 'participatory democracy' Jay. A month or so ago, we had attempted to introduce a 'constituency lobbyist' concept in order to provide a recognized expert to our elected representative for the pursuit of intelligent and hopefully persuasive polemic. I truly believe that we can work within the system. We ought to do all we can to try to make the extant representation model work. As I have demonstrated within my grossly unrefined constructions in earlier posts this week and last, honestly we have not. Larry - --part1_f.ebd1c6d.2bc6f01f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/9/03 8:32:35 PM Eastern Daylight=20= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

I'm still unconvinced self repr= esentation, as opposed to self
determination, is a good thing. I'd rather be able to delegate or
consult with experts. Self representation, to me, implies being the
final authority on everything. Even with the net, that hasn't been
possible for over a century, and the exponential rate of knowledge
growth isn't going to make it possible again.


...my view entirely.  Please provide a practical construction for your=20= solution of 'participatory democracy' Jay.  A month or so ago, we had a= ttempted to introduce a 'constituency lobbyist' concept in order to provide=20= a recognized expert to our elected representative for the pursuit of intelli= gent and hopefully persuasive polemic.  I truly believe that we can wor= k within the system.  We ought to do all we can to try to make the exta= nt representation model work.  As I have demonstrated within my grossly= unrefined constructions in earlier posts this week and last, honestly we ha= ve not.

Larry - --part1_f.ebd1c6d.2bc6f01f_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:31:22 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Mark: I think there are many other things you and all of us on the list will raise questions about in our postings. I think that's the beauty of this forum. I wished more netizens would post their contributions and opinions as I recently quoted something said by the great late film actor Charles Coburn, "come in, the water's fine". Lou Mark Lindeman wrote: > Lou, > > Well, I pretty much agree with all that. (I can always find something > to raise further questions about, since that's what I do for a living! > But I don't think our differences matter much.) > > >And about your question netizens are co-workers, what are we working on, I think one > >of the good things about netizens is we can work on educating each other. > >For instance Howard posted recently about the economics behind cable-tv which I > >consider a brilliant analysis. I think right now we have a small but excellent group > >of educators. > > > Yeah, we have an interesting mix here. I've read through the Gordon > Cook essay that Howard just posted, and I'm trying to think more about > it before I respond with some questions. I imagine sometimes we get > bogged down in philosophical debates because some of the other issues > take so much work to think about. > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:32:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...) This was from the Netizens list on April 5, 2003: RH>>I wondered if you have had a chance to look at some of what Michael RH>>had written from his research that led him to the conception of RH>>Netizens. It wasn't that he concocted the concept. He developed RH>>the concept to describe the responses of people online to his RH>>questions. HB>I'd rather have a clear statement from you that the Netizens HB>manuscript forms the ground rules for this list. Howard, I am not sure why you want a clear statement about the Netizens book and this list. Perhaps you can explain. I refer people to the writing Michael did that helped him to recognize and develop the concept of Netizen. I would expect that people on the list would find that helpful. I am not "requiring" anyone to read anything, though it would be good for people to read the call that Michael wrote to start the list. And it would be good for people to explain who they are and why they are interested in the list, if they don't mind doing so. None of this is mandatory. But it is surprising to hear you ask if the Netizens manuscript is mandatory. The netizens manuscript is now published as a book by the IEEE Computer Society. It was published in 1997 and the earlier online version remains online for people to use who are interested in it, but don't have access to the book. Also the book is translated into Japanese and has been available in Japan. One person on the list asked if there are recommended readings. The book is indeed a recommended reading. It is based on research done before and right after the Internet was privatized. Therefore, it provides a helpful perspective of both the earlier online environment and the pressures of the privatization of the US portion of the Internet which was the NSFNet. We are at a similar time now, in that the US govt is trying to privatize the infrastructure of the International Internet. If you only look at the Internet at this moment, it is not possible to understand what is happening. The book provides both the vision and history of the early development, and some of the ways people were beginning to utilize the Internet to create new participatory forms for government and the media. For example the NTIA online conference which both Michael and I wrote about, sponsored by the U.S. government and where there was a serious debate about the privatization process, about its problems and what some were promising it would do. When no one has stated that the netizens netbook (in the published or online form) is mandatory for this list, then I don't know why you are asking. Do you think it should *not* be a recommended reading? I have a paper to do now so I can't spend more time on this for a little while. with best wishes Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:13:07 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...) >This was from the Netizens list on April 5, 2003: > >RH>>I wondered if you have had a chance to look at some of what Michael >RH>>had written from his research that led him to the conception of >RH>>Netizens. It wasn't that he concocted the concept. He developed >RH>>the concept to describe the responses of people online to his >RH>>questions. > >HB>I'd rather have a clear statement from you that the Netizens >HB>manuscript forms the ground rules for this list. > >Howard, I am not sure why you want a clear statement about the >Netizens book and this list. I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I wanted to know if there was a definition of Netizen in the book that defined, in turn, the scope of this list. While Michael's book is certainly a valuable reference, very subjectively, I have a sense that when I've asked a question about a current situation, I often get an answer of "go read Michael's book." The book does not cover all current situations. > >But it is surprising to hear you ask if the Netizens manuscript >is mandatory. No, that wasn't my question. My question was whether the Netizens manuscript had an unambigious definition of "netizen", which in turn would help define the scope of this list. That was all. > >The book is indeed a recommended reading. It is based on research >done before and right after the Internet was privatized. Therefore, >it provides a helpful perspective of both the earlier online >environment and the pressures of the privatization of the US >portion of the Internet which was the NSFNet. > >We are at a similar time now, in that the US govt is trying to >privatize the infrastructure of the International Internet. Ronda -- as far as any physical infrastructure -- it is essentially completely privatized already. It's been for several years. To borrow from Yoda, "is not to try. is to do," except it's already done. If you are talking about Internet governance, then we need a clear definition what is now non-private (either governmental or simply not governed at all). Are regulated utilities, by your definition, non-privatized? Are you talking about government ownership? Privatization assumes capital comes from the market system. In the absence of privatization, what is the source of funding for infrastructure? Yes, local volunteers can do freenets, but multibillion dollar transoceanic fiber systems need extensive capitalization. > >If you only look at the Internet at this moment, it is not >possible to understand what is happening. Ronda, that very much depends on how you define "Internet". I honestly believe that you overemphasize some of the early efforts in the Network Working Group and elsewhere, and underemphasize the current processes in the IETF and elsewhere. There has been significant evolution, driven by perceived needs of the participants. The reality is that the IETF doesn't consider it has a broken model today. Of course, the IETF doesn't deal with privatization, but there is zero chance the IETF will go back to Licklider's or the NWG processes. As some might say, "deal with it." So again I ask, what organizations either exist, or should exist, that will use these models? ICANN is only part of Internet governance. I'm really confused. There is a very real and very widespread collaborative model for network operations (e.g., NANOG/RIPE/APRICOT, ARIN/RIPE-NCC/APNIC/LACNIC/AFRNIC) operating today. Very decentralized, even though there is very real cooperation between competing businesses. UN organizations are now involved in trademark issues. Privacy issues are primarily at a national government level, with some general rules for the European Community. In the US, there certainly is the issue of "any willing provider" access to broadband facilities. While I'm sure that will wind up in the Supreme Court, it's mostly in the FCC and Congress, defining what private companies can do. At a more local level, cable companies are normally franchised at a county or comparable level, and local exchange carriers at the state level. > > >When no one has stated that the netizens netbook (in the >published or online form) is mandatory for this list, >then I don't know why you are asking. Again, purely about the definition of "netizen", which really isn't clear. If I quote Jay correctly, he feels that favoring self-representation to replace republican democracy is necessary to netizenship. It's fair to say that several others, myself included, consider that a basic matter of political philosophy that indeed is a possible use of the net, but is not inherent to the empowerment brought by network-enabled participation ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #486 ******************************