Netizens-Digest Sunday, April 27 2003 Volume 01 : Number 517 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: [netz] Defining netizenship Re: [netz] Basic Service: Email as a policy issue Re: [netz] Defining netizenship [netz] Basic service: file formats Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users Re[2]: [netz] Defining netizenship Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Basic Services Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Basic Services ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:52:18 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Defining netizenship At 5:31 PM +0000 4/27/03, Greg Skinner wrote: >Ronda Hauben wrote: > > >> I am a netizen. > >> I also work to be able to live. > >> I don't insist that my activity at work is part of my being a >> netizen. In fact it is separate from my being a netizen. > >But would you feel the same way if you had a career that involved >bringing Internet access to the underprivileged? Even if you would >feel the same way, would you expect that they would agree with you? >It strikes me that many would feel offended that their contribution to >the net would be considered distinct from netizenship just because >they received a salary for their efforts. > >I see this as part of the problem on the list. Someone can post >suggestions that are criticized if they do not fit your notion of >netizenship. Thus instead of making progress finding practical ways >to implement these suggestions, there are arguments that polarize >people and impede progress. I agree that this is the crux of one of the polarizing issues. Bear with me if I steal an analogy from Randall Garrett's fiction: "Black magic is a matter of symbolism and intent." I would propose that the acts that define netizenship are also a matter of their symbolism and intent to build a better community, rather than the way in which the actor is compensated or not. It's particularly confusing when the actor performs both volunteer and compensated acts. Working on real technical problems, in the IETF, which impede the growth of the Internet, I believe, cannot be considered a non-Netizen activity. There have been times where I have attended the IETF as an individual, paying all of my own expenses. There have been times that my work was sponsored by my employer, and, indeed, included coordinating the work of several contributors so we could present a technically coherent idea to several groups. I find it difficult to understand why the same activity would be Netizenship if I pay for it but not if the corporation does. In like manner, I believe one of the social requirements to call yourself is to "pay it forward," passing along your knowledge as your mentors did to you. I do this both as a volunteer and a compensated author. Again, to me, it is the issue of improving the profession that is important, not the way I am compensated or not. If Netizenship is limited to the social interactions, again, if I share political lobbying or other knowledge with a community, is that inherently tainted because I earn my living from networking (of which the public Internet is a subset)? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:09:31 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Basic Service: Email as a policy issue At 1:30 PM -0400 4/27/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote: >Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > >> See above. I was going to abbreviate the main thread until I >> considered the possible implications of a BS thread. > >Logical. Eminently logical. (grin) > >> Without getting too technical, it's more than just the storage for >> the individual user. ISPs have to store incoming and outgoing mail >> (for the mixture of all users, and, when they perform a mail relay >> function, for the messages for other than their customers). So the >> same message may occupy space in more than one place. > >Sure, makes sense. OK, we're not trying to "cost out" everything needed to >make the Net work, but one piece is this storage capacity. That isn't just a >function of the number of users* and the allocation per user; it also depends >on network complexity and, umm, I'm not sure what the right technical term >would be. It has to do with the amount of data passing through the entire >system at any given time (and therefore subject to duplication), and how many >duplicates are likely to exist. --If you see a cheap opportunity to enlighten >me, go for it, but otherwise I'm content with my lay understanding for now. I'm probably going too deeply, but there are many legitimate reasons to use things such as "mail exploders." A mail exploder is "downstream" of the originator, and expands a single message to go to a mailing list of users. Picture "allbard@bard.edu", which sends a single message across the net until it hits your campus mail exploder, which knows "allbard" is the entire university population. Some of that population may not be on the local campus, but have their mail forwarded to private ISPs, to colleges they are visiting, etc. If the list includes alumni, mail is going to propagate to many more places. Unfortunately, spammers often exploit unsecured mail relays/exploders. A trivial example is to send a message with hundreds of addressees. > >The distinction between 'throughput' and mailbox storage is >(potentially) worth >making because lots of people like to accumulate mail in their ISP mailboxes >but don't actually send or receive much mail (bytewise), while >others empty out >their ISP mailboxes every few minutes but send and receive virtual reams of >mail. > >*As a matter of policy, we presumably have no inerrant way of distinguishing >netizens from 'mere' users. So while our discussion of network >needs is driven >by netizen needs, we acknowledge that the network supports users, not just >netizens. Excellent point. > >> I do agree that email is not a terribly expensive service to support. >> 20 MB, however, can get fairly small when people are sending graphics >> and other attachments. Just yesterday, I had to sent several >> PowerPoint presentations that ran 4 MB each. >> > > Still, I do see it as a basic service, but with finite resources. My point about the size of the mailbox wasn't to point to a specific number of bytes, but to mention we are seeing the same sort of bloat in email that we are seeing in webpages. > >Not arguing for 20 MB, I don't think we can necessarily reason from your needs >to netizen basic services. Just a caveat. Hypothetically, some of us may >conclude that basic services should be provided at public expense, >while people >like you and me should have to pay more for some of what we want. Oh, no question I'm not a typical end user and expect to pay for my usage. > (That move >could look progressive or regressive, depending on whether the >"basic services" >are generous and robust in support of netizen purposes, or thin as gruel.) > >Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:12:39 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] Defining netizenship Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > I would propose that the > acts that define netizenship are also a matter of their symbolism and > intent to build a better community, rather than the way in which the > actor is compensated or not. It's particularly confusing when the > actor performs both volunteer and compensated acts. Quite so. One of my friends works for an outfit (non-profit) that helps bring Internet access to underfunded schools. He gets a salary for this, but I can assure everyone on the list that plenty of his work is effectively unpaid. (Incidentally, one thing that he, I as a professor, my father as a [retired] minister, and many others have in common is that it is very hard to say when we are "doing our jobs" and when we are just volunteering.) By the way, Ronda raised the issue of whether companies are citizens. That set off my thread creep sirens. Per me, companies are not citizens, companies are not netizens, and corporate employees can be netizens. But trying to figure out _who_ is a netizen is giving us enough fits for the moment, I thought. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:40:27 +0200 From: Dan Duris Subject: [netz] Basic service: file formats HCB> I do agree that email is not a terribly expensive service to support. HCB> 20 MB, however, can get fairly small when people are sending graphics HCB> and other attachments. Just yesterday, I had to sent several HCB> PowerPoint presentations that ran 4 MB each. I would recommend to use packers such as WinZIP or WinRAR. WinRAR gets even better compression rations than ZIP. Both are provided as shareware, but you can use it after 30 days period with almost no fuss. Or buy them afterwards ;-) I hate Microsoft's formats. 80 pages took almost 600 kbs or 150 after packing... plain text is much better for everyone, although i agree it's sometimes necessary to use formatted document. Then maybe RTF is a good alternative. On the broader topic on Basic service: file formats I prefer using plain text in iso codings, or maybe unicode for graphics: jpeg for photos, gif or png for pictures for sound: mp3s (it's easy to further edit them if required) for email: plain text messages instead of html or rich email format dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- if you save the world too often, it begins to expect it -* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:46:20 +0200 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users Ronda, RH> Is it that you do insist that what you do for profit is part of RH> your being a netizen? at first: I don't insist. I was asking about this. I wanted to hear the opinions of other people on this matter. But after all, I think I can consider doing things for profit on the net as a part of my netizenship. If taken in too strict view, I also contribute by creating web pages, online systems etc. to internet. I contribute to internet so other people are able to post easily through forms and don't have to learn HTML etc. (you can check my AE at www.absolutengine.com) So basically I contribute something. I am not schizophrenic, so I can't divide myself to one participating online and other working online for others (and in the end contributing by building a website or engine...). What's your view on this? dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- gouranga! -* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:51:22 +0200 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Defining netizenship lbe> (Incidentally, one thing that he, I as a professor, my father as a [retired] lbe> minister, and many others have in common is that it is very hard to say when we lbe> are "doing our jobs" and when we are just volunteering.) You hit the point here. I also know many people who work for non-profits or even profiting non-profits (because even non-profit has to seek the ways to raise/charge enough money for the work) and the wouldn't be able to say if it's still their job or they are having free time ;-) Sometimes boundaries between being at work and working (anywhere) by doing some activity (contacting people, speaking with them, networking etc.) are very unclear. dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- the way is: libertarianism -* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:01:46 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Basic Services - --part1_36.3ee070f2.2bddc96a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/26/03 6:50:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > Now, there is the real-world constraint that real projects require > real resources, and those resources have to be funded. The funding > mechanisms are a legitimate matter of public policy discussion. > Why do we have to rehash this over and over again about the funding pragmatism issue? Also when we solve problems, can we then implement them immediately? Look! We solved a problem. Greg mentioned creating _two_ lists. Please read the posts over the last couple of days. Problem solved. Now let's move on. Also regarding this Netizen basic services. I don't get it. This discussion is a waste of time. Value in a communications network comes from ubiquity. You achieve value by providing incentives for more users to subscribe to the network. Where is this paranoia coming from? Realistically, people are not going to be barred from what is generally regarded as 'basic service.' Why? Because in order to hook your target audience to services with a higher profit margin you have to 'prime the pump.' If you ask me, it's all win-win for the consumer and the service provider. What is the purpose of a Netizen basic service definition? This will change as the technology does -- and technology is changing damn rapidly. I promise you, we will not be using email, the way we know it today, always. There will be other technologies that we have not even considered that will evince themselves. It is more practical to discuss the means by which we can begin to control or influence the market. Let us discuss the incentives that must be provided to the marketplace to achieve the desired end result for Netizens -- Universal Access. Technology is changing too fast. How are you to accurately qualify the particular demand for services beyond the date of RFP publication? It is fruitless to be more specific about the services or applications that people need. You want proof of this? Then take a look at the heterogeneous service array provided to mobile telephony subscribers. You have phones that play music, video games, take pictures, provide calendaring features, Internet access, etc. What of these features are necessary beyond voice? I do not know. No one knows. Focus on Universal Access in general -- not from a services or application point of view. Create a definition based solely on bandwidth because we do not know what actual services people will need in the future. All we know is that they will need minimally to communicate. Let's work with the legislature to create strategic incentives for the communications market to respond constructively to Netizen need. Take a look at the local, state, and federal law and figure out how to manipulate the forces to control the outcome. It all comes back to the same thing; Netizens need to get politically savvy. Stop balking and just play the game! By the way, I am working on a legacy infrastructure valuation scheme regarding the government buyout issue discussed a few weeks ago. Larry - --part1_36.3ee070f2.2bddc96a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/26/03 6:50:49 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

Now, there is the real-world co= nstraint that real projects require
real resources, and those resources have to be funded.  The funding mechanisms are a legitimate matter of public policy discussion.


Why do we have to rehash this over and over again about the funding pragmati= sm issue? 

Also when we solve problems, can we then implement them immediately?  <= BR>
Look!  We solved a problem.  Greg mentioned creating _two_ lists.&= nbsp; Please read the posts over the last couple of days.  Problem solv= ed.  Now let's move on.

Also regarding this Netizen basic services.  I don't get it.  This= discussion is a waste of time.  Value in a communications network come= s from ubiquity.  You achieve value by providing incentives for more us= ers to subscribe to the network.

Where is this paranoia coming from?  Realistically, people are not goin= g to be barred from what is generally regarded as 'basic service.'  Why= ?  Because in order to hook your target audience to services with a hig= her profit margin you have to 'prime the pump.'  If you ask me, it's al= l win-win for the consumer and the service provider.

What is the purpose of a Netizen basic service definition?  This will c= hange as the technology does -- and technology is changing damn rapidly.&nbs= p; I promise you, we will not be using email, the way we know it today, alwa= ys.  There will be other technologies that we have not even considered=20= that will evince themselves.

It is more practical to discuss the means by which we can begin to control o= r influence the market.  Let us discuss the incentives that must be pro= vided to the marketplace to achieve the desired end result for Netizens -- U= niversal Access.  Technology is changing too fast.  How are you to= accurately qualify the particular demand for services beyond the date of RF= P publication?  It is fruitless to be more specific about the services=20= or applications that people need.

You want proof of this?  Then take a look at the heterogeneous service=20= array provided to mobile telephony subscribers.  You have phones that p= lay music, video games, take pictures, provide calendaring features, Interne= t access, etc.  What of these features are necessary beyond voice? = ; I do not know.  No one knows.

Focus on Universal Access in general -- not from a services or application p= oint of view.  Create a definition based solely on bandwidth because we= do not know what actual services people will need in the future.  All=20= we know is that they will need minimally to communicate. 

Let's work with the legislature to create strategic incentives for the commu= nications market to respond constructively to Netizen need.  Take a loo= k at the local, state, and federal law and figure out how to manipulate the=20= forces to control the outcome.

It all comes back to the same thing; Netizens need to get politically savvy.=   Stop balking and just play the game!

By the way, I am working on a legacy infrastructure valuation scheme regardi= ng the government buyout issue discussed a few weeks ago.

Larry - --part1_36.3ee070f2.2bddc96a_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:27:30 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Basic Services - --part1_15f.1f887737.2bddcf72_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/03 8:02:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com writes: > Focus on Universal Access in general -- not from a services or application > point of view. Create a definition based solely on bandwidth because we do > not know what actual services people will need in the future. All we know > is that they will need minimally to communicate. In terms of Netizen Basic Services, we might wish to be more specific about what bandwidth requirements would be necessary to facilitate: i. development and collaboration regarding applications for communications and general value-adding of Internet infrastructure at generally (TCP/IP analog to the OSI model) the application layer host to host transport layer Internet Layer Network Access layer ii. making these technologies accessible to all, i.e., open source development iii. development and collaboration regarding databases of information that is socially beneficial, i.e. public health iv. making these databases accessible to all Larry - --part1_15f.1f887737.2bddcf72_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/27/03 8:02:52 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com writes:

Focus on Universal Access in ge= neral -- not from a services or application point of view.  Create a de= finition based solely on bandwidth because we do not know what actual servic= es people will need in the future.  All we know is that they will need=20= minimally to communicate. 


In terms of Netizen Basic Services, we might wish to be more specific about=20= what bandwidth requirements would be necessary to facilitate:

i.     development and collaboration regarding applicati= ons for communications and general value-adding of Internet infrastructure a= t generally
(TCP/IP analog to the OSI model) the
             =20= application layer
             =20= host to host transport layer
             =20= Internet Layer
             =20= Network Access layer
ii.     making these technologies accessible to all, i.e= ., open source development
iii.    development and collaboration regarding databases of=20= information that is socially beneficial, i.e. public health
iv.    making these databases accessible to all

Larry - --part1_15f.1f887737.2bddcf72_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #517 ******************************