Netizens-Digest Friday, April 11 2003 Volume 01 : Number 488 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...) Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] Review of Netizens from Journal published by Romanian Academy Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship? Re: [netz] More or less democracy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:01:26 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy - --part1_123.20771d00.2bc77bf6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/03 12:04:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes: > 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 > I just assumed that if we were going to talk about participatory democracy in this list than it meant that Jay was going to provide some kind of at least gross construction concerning implementation. I assume that if it is the case that someone is introducing a solution for something -- that it is implementable. I know nothing about 'participatory democracy.' The problem in this case is, I guess, how to develop a government that is more responsive to the people. I guess, I just want to be knocked off my seat with a persuasive solution. I wanna be entertained. Waaa... Waaa... (sniffle, sniffle) Larry - --part1_123.20771d00.2bc77bf6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/10/03 12:04:03 PM Eastern Dayligh= t Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:

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,=20=
"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=20=
I'm doing.

Mark


I just assumed that if we were going to talk about participatory democracy i= n this list than it meant that Jay was going to provide some kind of at leas= t gross construction concerning implementation.  I assume that if it is= the case that someone is introducing a solution for something -- that it is= implementable.  I know nothing about 'participatory democracy.' =20= The problem in this case is, I guess, how to develop a government that is mo= re responsive to the people. 

I guess, I just want to be knocked off my seat with a persuasive solution.&n= bsp; I wanna be entertained.  Waaa...  Waaa... (sniffle, sniffle)<= BR>
Larry - --part1_123.20771d00.2bc77bf6_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:31:16 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...) - --part1_10e.20cea097.2bc782f4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/03 5:34:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > 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. > I believe the "Netizens" work to be mandatory in at least it represents a common frame of reference for people who post here. More than that, this work enlightens those who take the Internet for granted, by informing them of some of the commercial and government regulatory forces that are influencing their access. The Internet is a tool that enhances communication between people. How is it being used to potentially enhance the quality of life for all citizens? This very accessible book illustrates a relevance between the high technology and the ordinary person and suggests an effective means for his or her self-empowerment through both theory and anecdote. There is no doubt that the first book on the suggested reading list must be "Netizens." Larry - --part1_10e.20cea097.2bc782f4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/10/03 5:34:07 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

The book is indeed a recommende= d 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.


I believe the "Netizens" work to be mandatory in at least it represents a co= mmon frame of reference for people who post here. 

More than that, this work enlightens those who take the Internet for granted= , by informing them of some of the commercial and government regulatory forc= es that are influencing their access.

The Internet is a tool that enhances communication between people.  How= is it being used to potentially enhance the quality of life for all citizen= s?  This very accessible book illustrates a relevance between the high=20= technology and the ordinary person and suggests an effective means for his o= r her self-empowerment through both theory and anecdote.

There is no doubt that the first book on the suggested reading list must be=20= "Netizens."

Larry

 - --part1_10e.20cea097.2bc782f4_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:48:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/10/03 12:04:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > lindeman@bard.edu writes: > > I just assumed that if we were going to talk about participatory democracy in > this list than it meant that Jay was going to provide some kind of at least > gross construction concerning implementation. I assume that if it is the > case that someone is introducing a solution for something -- that it is > implementable. I know nothing about 'participatory democracy.' The problem > in this case is, I guess, how to develop a government that is more responsive > to the people. > > I guess, I just want to be knocked off my seat with a persuasive solution. I > wanna be entertained. Waaa... Waaa... (sniffle, sniffle) > > Larry > See the online forum in Netizens, the article Michael wrote about the online U.S. government conference he and I and others participated in. Michael calls the chapter 14 "The Net and the Future of Politics: The Ascendancy of the Commons". I don't have the time now unfortunately to go into this more, but the example Michael wrote about had really happened, and he combined the study of that experience with the understanding of the nature of democracy from some helpful writers. Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:02:56 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy - --part1_15f.1ebdf120.2bc78a60_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/03 8:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in discussing the > creation of participatory democracy as a replacement for the current > system. I don't regard the current system as broken, and I certainly > don't want to replace it with something untried. > The only reason why I am proposing any kind of discussion of this matter is only to express that I am not chauvinistic. Otherwise how can we at least diagnose the source of the disagreement. Perhaps something that has not been previously introduced might be articulated in a construction -- something that might help us all to understand the persistence of view that I believe Jay, Ronda, and Luis share -- that representative government is ineffective. This particular disagreement fundamentally defines our positions on much that has and will be discussed here. Remember that there is a government regulatory component of almost every problem and hopefully solution that we are going to look at -- The Internet was created by government. Look, the way I see it -- we are going to return to this issue anyways. Everyone, how do you want to handle it? Larry - --part1_15f.1ebdf120.2bc78a60_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/10/03 8:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

Speaking only for myself, I'm n= ot interested in discussing the
creation of participatory democracy as a replacement for the current
system. I don't regard the current system as broken, and I certainly
don't want to replace it with something untried.


The only reason why I am proposing any kind of discussion of this matter is=20=
only to express that I am not chauvinistic.  Otherwise how can we at le= ast diagnose the source of the disagreement.  Perhaps something that ha= s not been previously introduced might be articulated in a construction -- s= omething that might help us all to understand the persistence of view that I= believe Jay, Ronda, and Luis share -- that representative government is ine= ffective.

This particular disagreement fundamentally defines our positions on much tha= t has and will be discussed here.

Remember that there is a government regulatory component of almost every pro= blem and hopefully solution that we are going to look at -- The Internet was= created by government.  Look, the way I see it -- we are going to retu= rn to this issue anyways. 

Everyone, how do you want to handle it?

Larry - --part1_15f.1ebdf120.2bc78a60_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:09:28 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Review of Netizens from Journal published by Romanian Academy - --part1_127.26f036c1.2bc78be8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/03 9:57:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > This is a review of Netizens from a technical journal published in > Romania. It is a very interesting review, so I thought those on > the Netizens list would find it of interest. It describes how the > author of the review found the book helpful in understanding and > helping to educate people who wanted to be netizens. I thought this > is relative to our discussion of whether it is appropriate to the > Netizens list to recommend reading "Netizens: On the History and > Impact of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE Computer Society, 1997. > > Ronda Very much so apposite. Larry - --part1_127.26f036c1.2bc78be8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/10/03 9:57:12 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

This is a review of Netizens fr= om a technical journal published in
Romania. It is a very interesting review, so I thought those on
the Netizens list would find it of interest. It describes how the
author of the review found the book helpful in understanding and
helping to educate people who wanted to be netizens. I thought this
is relative to our discussion of whether it is appropriate to the
Netizens list to recommend reading "Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE Computer Society, 1997.

Ronda


Very much so apposite.

Larry  - --part1_127.26f036c1.2bc78be8_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:41:16 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy >In a message dated 4/10/03 8:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > >>Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in discussing the >>creation of participatory democracy as a replacement for the current >>system. I don't regard the current system as broken, and I certainly >>don't want to replace it with something untried. >> > > >The only reason why I am proposing any kind of discussion of this matter is >only to express that I am not chauvinistic. Otherwise how can we at >least diagnose the source of the disagreement. Perhaps something >that has not been previously introduced might be articulated in a >construction -- something that might help us all to understand the >persistence of view that I believe Jay, Ronda, and Luis share -- >that representative government is ineffective. > >This particular disagreement fundamentally defines our positions on >much that has and will be discussed here. > >Remember that there is a government regulatory component of almost >every problem and hopefully solution that we are going to look at -- >The Internet was created by government. Look, the way I see it -- >we are going to return to this issue anyways. > >Everyone, how do you want to handle it? > For myself, I really want to focus my social/professional effort on things that need to be fixed in the short term, possibly can be fixed, and, while relevant to various forms of political empowerment, are independent of them. Of course, I deal with the market, regulatory and technical aspects of the Internet. When I say Internet, incidentally, I cannot see separating the carrier infrastructures that also carry telephony, video content, and private data. Both technology and economics force these things to be considered as one integrated whole, exploiting economies of scale for such social goods as universal access. Hopefully, I can do nothing negative other than ignore messages on the representative vs. participatory model. I do not believe I have anything to contribute to it, nor any real interest in doing so. I am perfectly willing to talk about how one researches and disseminates information on the net. I would hope, however, that some of the political and social consciousness that is focused on these issues of representational paradigms could be redirected to more immediate issues. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:03:22 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship? >In a message dated 4/10/03 12:56:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > >> >For example they would seek to offer international VoIP over their >>>own dedicated network while a new competitor can dispense with the >>>sunk cost of maintaining a physical network by simply renting access >>>to an Internet that others maintain. Since the competition has only >>>to rent access to transport and run voice as an application on that >>>transport, it can offer service that is unencumbered by legacy costs. >>>The business model of control of both applications and customers >>>prevents productive investment >> > > > >Never go against the flow. Regarding commoditization, we should >just acquiesce to the will of the market. The government should > >(1) buy out all of the legacy infrastructure. Bond issue? Special taxation? User fees? How does the budget get passed? I really _am_ open to ideas here. > >(2) partition physical regions nationwide by a consumer density >metric or otherwise 'viability,' whatever that is supposed to mean. >Revenue is derived from 'last mile infrastructure maintenance fees' >or from the provision of value-added services to consumers or the >construction of 'whatever works' in each partitioned domain. To >define these domains, you classify consumer types and come up with a >mix of corporate and non-corporate subscribers that you know must be >in a domain to engender a profit. As you may already know, the classical model for regulated telephone companies was a guaranteed fixed return on investment. This encouraged capital investment, but tended to minimize the introduction and improvement of existing services because customer revenues really weren't incentives for the service providers. > >(3) auction leased access to these partitioned regions to new >companies (probably 'the usual suspects' renamed) who will locally >manage or maintain the local end of the new Stupid networks and the >local gateways to the main trunks. These companies will control the >consumers -- not necessarily run any apps. If you could get these auctions established, through the legislative equivalent of Armageddon, you might indeed be able to solve #1. I suspect some sort of financial instruments and short-term bridge financing bonds might be constructed that could do that, if the vested interests could agree. What the instruments might look like is outside the scope of my expertise. > >Problem solved. Now we can enjoy commoditized services. Next. > >Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:48:50 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Larry, I hope this will serve also as a response to your previous reply to me, but I'm happy to respond privately also if you like. I'm trying to minimize my "meta" posts. > > Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in discussing the > > creation of participatory democracy as a replacement for the current > > system. I don't regard the current system as broken, and I certainly > > don't want to replace it with something untried. > > The only reason why I am proposing any kind of discussion of this matter is > only to express that I am not chauvinistic. Otherwise how can we at least > diagnose the source of the disagreement.[...] > > This particular disagreement fundamentally defines our positions on much > that has and will be discussed here. I agree that some mutual understanding on this issue is helpful. I don't feel bereft in that regard because we've already had some such discussions (and also I have the advantage of having spent a fair amount of time in personal conversation with Ronda). My concern at this point _isn't_ that we disagree on many issues because of a poorly understood root disagreement on government. It's more that Howard, among others, has posted many things that seem worth concerted _discussion_ whatever our views on government, and not much has happened. So I want to see more discussion on those issues -- not necessarily less on participatory democracy, although I personally am ready for a break from overarching issues. (However, there may indeed be a poorly understood root disagreement on netizenship itself -- in the sense of "why is this the netizens list? why are we here?" And so I've tried to focus some attention on resolving that issue, and relatively less on the PD issue.) Pragmatically, since Howard isn't interested in talking about PD right now (although he has in the past), does want to talk about other things, and is apparently still trying to decide whether he has a useful role in the list, my priorities are clear. I'm still looking for time to respond to the Cook Report article. Best, Mark ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #488 ******************************