Netizens-Digest Monday, April 28 2003 Volume 01 : Number 519 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Basic Services Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:52:39 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users > > [Greg] Even if you would > > feel the same way, would you expect that they would agree with you? > > [Ronda] Yes, if people were honestly considering what a citizen means, > or looking at what a netizen means. That doesn't seem to leave much for us to talk about, does it? > > 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. > > People are employees or employers for their efforts. > > The concept of citizenship and netizenship are very different > from being an employee. > > How interesting that this line is being blurred this way. Ronda, I think that if you carefully (I won't say "honestly," since obviously that is offensive) considered what several of us have written in the last 24 hours or so, you would understand why the "line is being blurred," and that it is less hostile to your understanding of netizenship than you seem to assume. > It seems that only those who are creating their own creation of > "netizen" and "netizenship" are encouraged lately on the list. > > When I got online I was criticized by those who had been online > a while because I didn't understand some of what had been developed. > > I welcomed that and learned and the people who informed me of > the obligations were welcoming of me as I was of them.[...] Ronda, no one holds the copyright on citizenship. I'm not sure if anyone holds the copyright on netizenship. I do believe that if you clutch the idea too closely, it will be stunted. Don't assume that we are the only ones with something to learn about netizenship. If you feel that people are insufficiently respectful of the prior art on the concept of netizenship, bear in mind that the way that you define netizenship tends to reflect on whether we belong here. It's a social or political line that includes some and excludes others. So your complaints that you do not feel encouraged or welcomed seem tone-deaf to me. > If they lose their jobs then they lose their employment, not > their citizenship. A very interesting point. However, in my experience most people who lose their Net-related employment remain active contributors to the Net. So I conclude that they were netizens when they were paid, and remain netizens when they are not. If we have to fuss about "who belongs?" (One of my colleagues at Bard has an article by that title, all about conceptions of citizenship.) > If people, regardless of who they work for in their employee, find > a way to contribute to the Net is substantial ways, and to support > the collaborative environment and the spreading of the communication > that the Net makes possible, then they are netizens. Very well said [except for a typo in the first line]. Actually, I thought that's what Howard was saying. If people, _regardless of who they work for_, contribute to the Net in substantial ways, and support Net collaboration, then they are netizens. Can we stand together on that? Or is there some further sectarian requirement? I'm going to cut off the list for a while. Will someone please let me know, privately, if we manage to reach an agreement that we all belong here? Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:55:23 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment I'm the lead author of a document about to go to RFC status in the IEFT. There are five coauthors. When we started this project, all of us were employed, by large and small companies. During the project, three of us were laid off, one of whom was hired by a new firm that did not actively support this research. Yet the collaborative work continued. People continued to have long working conference calls, exchange drafts, and participate in the working group mailing list. One cashed in her frequent flyer miles and stayed with friends so she could attend an IETF meeting involved with it. This, I submit, is commitment to the goals of a collaborative, cooperative network. I believe we all felt a "civic" duty to our research. Some might call that a commitment to professional ethics, and some might call that a commitment to contribute to the growth of the net. Everyone's motivation, I believe, could reasonably be called netizenship. Yet some of us were paid to do the research. If this isn't netizenship, then I'm wondering if the definition relies more on political or ideological activity than collaborative work to improve the net. People didn't stop working whether they were paid or not, so the "job" aspect can't be the defining point. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:34:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > I'm the lead author of a document about to go to RFC status in the > IEFT. There are five coauthors. > > When we started this project, all of us were employed, by large and > small companies. During the project, three of us were laid off, one > of whom was hired by a new firm that did not actively support this > research. > > Yet the collaborative work continued. People continued to have long > working conference calls, exchange drafts, and participate in the > working group mailing list. One cashed in her frequent flyer miles > and stayed with friends so she could attend an IETF meeting involved > with it. I had a job teaching computer programming. I asked my employer to pay the fees for me to go to the conference. They agreed and I went to the conference. I was laid off from that job. I applied to present a paper at the conference. I presented a paper at the conference. This is part of the professional activity that one undertakes in certain professions. My paper was about the history of the development of computers. The original issue that Dan raised was that he had to be able to live so the paid work he did was part of his being a netizen. I disagreed. Now the issue is being changed to whether or not one does something to collaborate as part of work, does that for being a netizen. Would you say Howard that if your work at work were to work for the government in making the parks safe, that your work was part of being a citizen? I would say that was ones job and one would try to do one's job as well as possible. But it was after work hours that one's activity protecting the park was part of being a citizen. For example if after work one is in the park and someone comes to set up a stand to sell things and one says that that isn't what a park is for. > > This, I submit, is commitment to the goals of a collaborative, > cooperative network. I believe we all felt a "civic" duty to our > research. Some might call that a commitment to professional ethics, > and some might call that a commitment to contribute to the growth of > the net. > > Everyone's motivation, I believe, could reasonably be called > netizenship. Yet some of us were paid to do the research. > > If this isn't netizenship, then I'm wondering if the definition > relies more on political or ideological activity than collaborative > work to improve the net. People didn't stop working whether they were > paid or not, so the "job" aspect can't be the defining point. > So then is it you are saying, in my example above, that the person who is paid for working in the park as a park employee is being a citizen? I don't think it is political or ideological to acknowledge that people can be citizens participating in the aspects of the decisions of their life, and that that is different from being employees while at work, as in the person who works in the park. Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:22:39 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Basic Services - --part1_37.37ce2c2c.2bdeaf4f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/03 9:15:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > H>I could live with bandwidth -- that's where I was going with > H>services. But, again, on a worldwide basis, are video games, music > H>and the like necessary for the social and political aspects of the > H>Netizen concept? I'll admit I don't really like the distinction > H>between network user and Netizen, but it actually seems to apply here. > There is definitely a distinction between network user and Netizen and I understand that. What I am simply stating is that it will be difficult to establish what a definition for Netizen Basic Service is with respect to actual services; that is why I was talking about pursuing a lower level definition devoid of particular application relevance, i.e., bandwidth. I avoid value judgment regarding particular services, no matter how frivolous they may appear today, because without a frame of reference it is impossible to assess its benefit to society tomorrow. We had theaters for live performance. What was the purpose of television? We have since found there to exist positives and negatives to each as entertainment and communications vehicles. We have since found each vehicle to satisfy unique needs of both the consumer and the proselytizing producer/sponsor. Practically, you have to be a little more open minded. H>Legislative proposals that aren't identified with education, public H>safety, and political participation, but talk about enabling what are H>now seen as commercial services -- advanced wireless, gaming, etc., H>are probably dead on arrival. Believe me, as someone who earns his H>living through the telecommunications industry and has seen his H>income drop significantly, I'd love to see market stimuli. Please do not patronize me. As I may not be a genius, I am not entirely stupid; I know what the purpose of this list is. Moreover, I know what the word 'germane' means. Look, I am not saying that the public needs video games and that there must be legislated some means for this to be guaranteed. What I am saying is that Netizens must focus on maintaining and facilitating that aspect of the communications network that allows for the beautiful collaboration and development of societally beneficial capital that Michael Hauben had been talking about. We don't know in advance what the future suite of apps will be that will allow this to continue to happen. We are writing this stuff now. Short of clairvoyance, you are going to have a tough time defining a Netizens Basic Services definition based on services. The best we can do is to figure out minimally what is required at the Network Access Layer to maintain the Internet Layer, the host to host Transport Layer and the Application Layer above it. I am also saying, practically and constructively, that Netizens must get involved in the legislation process to ensure that at least their objective - -- Universal Access -- is to be realized. Larry - --part1_37.37ce2c2c.2bdeaf4f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/27/03 9:15:09 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

H>I could live with bandwidt= h -- that's where I was going with
H>services. But, again, on a worldwide basis, are video games, music
H>and the like necessary for the social and political aspects of the
H>Netizen concept? I'll admit I don't really like the distinction
H>between network user and Netizen, but it actually seems to apply here.<= BR>


There is definitely a distinction between network user and Netizen and I und= erstand that.  What I am simply stating is that it will be difficult to= establish what a definition for Netizen Basic Service is with respect to ac= tual services; that is why I was talking about pursuing a lower level defini= tion devoid of particular application relevance, i.e., bandwidth.  I av= oid value judgment regarding particular services, no matter how frivolous th= ey may appear today, because without a frame of reference it is impossible t= o assess its benefit to society tomorrow. 

We had theaters for live performance.  What was the purpose of televisi= on?  We have since found there to exist positives and negatives to each= as entertainment and communications vehicles.  We have since found eac= h vehicle to satisfy unique needs of both the consumer and the proselytizing= producer/sponsor.

Practically, you have to be a little more open minded.

H>Legislative proposals that aren't identified with education, public H>safety, and political participation, but talk about enabling what are <= BR> H>now seen as commercial services -- advanced wireless, gaming, etc., H>are probably dead on arrival. Believe me, as someone who earns his
H>living through the telecommunications industry and has seen his
H>income drop significantly, I'd love to see market stimuli.

Please do not patronize me.  As I may not be a genius, I am not entirel= y stupid; I know what the purpose of this list is.  Moreover, I know wh= at the word 'germane' means.  Look, I am not saying that the public nee= ds video games and that there must be legislated some means for this to be g= uaranteed.

What I am saying is that Netizens must focus on maintaining and facilitating= that aspect of the communications network that allows for the beautiful col= laboration and development of societally beneficial capital that Michael Hau= ben had been talking about. 

We don't know in advance what the future suite of apps will be that will all= ow this to continue to happen.  We are writing this stuff now.

Short of clairvoyance, you are going to have a tough time defining a Netizen= s Basic Services definition based on services.  The best we can do is t= o figure out minimally what is required at the Network Access Layer to maint= ain the Internet Layer, the host to host Transport Layer and the Application= Layer above it.

I am also saying, practically and constructively, that Netizens must get inv= olved in the legislation process to ensure that at least their objective --=20= Universal Access -- is to be realized.

Larry  - --part1_37.37ce2c2c.2bdeaf4f_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:33:44 +0000 (GMT) From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users Due to a lack of time, I can't give a point-by-point rebuttal to your (Ronda's) last email, but I would like to approach the discussion from another angle. Let's say I agree with you that there is a difference between a net user and a netizen. Does that somehow invalidate the points that Howard raised with regards to basic access and rights? What additional information is required (or not required) to describe what access and rights are needed? Also, consider the point he raised that some people may not start out as what you call netizens, but may become netizens as a result of interaction with other netizens. Isn't there some basic level of access and rights that they need? Who were the netizens that Michael identified? What access and rights did they have? Is it possible that they did not have access or rights that they needed (but did not know they needed) that we can now support? When we turn the clock forward to the present, what basic access and rights do today's netizens need? - --gregbo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:50:11 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users - --part1_1a1.13fd3831.2bdeb5c3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/03 10:39:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > Many people are very frustrated with the environment on the Net > in general these days. > > Lots of people still try to contribute, but there is much more > support for "surfing" and looking for "information" than for > contributing something to make the Net a collorative environment. > Ronda, perhaps it is just that there is much more choice and diversity today due to the enhanced applications suite that is available for consumers of the Internet. How does more online options for Internet participants necessarily imply the existence of a program to supplant the activity of Internet contributors? Collaboration and contribution is still happening. How would you describe the Open Source environment? This is beneficial for everyone. Free code running on ubiquitous Intel machines that you can easily resurrect from university dumpsters. You've got a primordial soup going on where tech corporations can scout for the best and brightest. Kids can get jobs. We're talking now about kids from disadvantaged communities who now have the opportunity for self-empowerment. Corporations are unofficially sponsoring and co-opting this energy. What do you think of Darwin based on 4.4BSD? Mac OS X is based on this. Larry - --part1_1a1.13fd3831.2bdeb5c3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/27/03 10:39:12 PM Eastern Dayligh= t Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

Many people are very frustrated= with the environment on the Net
in general these days.

Lots of people still try to contribute, but there is much more
support for "surfing" and looking for "information" than for
contributing something to make the Net a collorative environment.


Ronda, perhaps it is just that there is much more choice and diversity today= due to the enhanced applications suite that is available for consumers of t= he Internet.  How does more online options for Internet participants ne= cessarily imply the existence of a program to supplant the activity of Inter= net contributors? 

Collaboration and contribution is still happening.  How would you descr= ibe the Open Source environment?  This is beneficial for everyone. = ; Free code running on ubiquitous Intel machines that you can easily resurre= ct from university dumpsters.

You've got a primordial soup going on where tech corporations can scout for=20= the best and brightest.  Kids can get jobs.  We're talking now abo= ut kids from disadvantaged communities who now have the opportunity for self= - -empowerment. 

Corporations are unofficially sponsoring and co-opting this energy.  Wh= at do you think of Darwin based on 4.4BSD?  Mac OS X is based on this.<= BR>
Larry - --part1_1a1.13fd3831.2bdeb5c3_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #519 ******************************