Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 169
Netizens-Digest Saturday, July 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 169
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Introduction
[netz] Netizen Stakeholders in DNS Controversy Future of Internet?
[netz] Re: Global Democracy,
[netz] Re: Global Democracy,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:25:14 +0200
From: Charles Agum <coagum@namib.com>
Subject: [netz] Introduction
Hello Everyone,
While surfing the Net, I came across Netizens. After reading the
introduction by Michael Hauben, I realised that this is one forum that is
up my alley.
I really love the exchange of positive ideas. Networking helps just about
everyone who has a definite commitment to success in life.
As I join you, please don't get taken aback by my Christian beliefs. I
respect everyone. My signature message simply highlights what guides me.
Whatever guides a person, as long as it can be for the benefit of our
diverse Global community, should be go news for all.
Apart from being an Academic Accountant, I'm also a Business Consultant. I
subscribe to what Mike envisions. As I get the feel of the Team, count me
in for contributions because I believe in Team work as well as development
for all.
I hope I'm welcome
Best Regards To You All
Charles Agum
The Comprehensive Resource Site:
<http://www.xwisdomku.com>
CHRISTIAN WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING.
Doing The Right Thing!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 09:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Netizen Stakeholders in DNS Controversy Future of Internet?
This is an important issue for the Netizens list.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Editorial from Special Supplement of the Amateur Computerist
on Controvery over the Internet
Who Are the Stakeholders in the
DNS Controversy Over the Future
of the Internet?
On June 5, 1998 the U.S. government issued a White Paper
elaborating its plans and position to fundamentally change the
control and ownership over the Domain Name System (DNS) that is
the nerve center of the Internet. The basic premise of the White
Paper is that the DNS must be put into private hands.
Such changes are very important issues for the public of the
U.S. and around the world to consider and discuss as the Internet,
in the words of Judge Dalzell of the U.S. Federal District Court,
is: "a far more speech enhancing medium than print, the village
green or the mails"
In the court case of ACLU vs. Reno over the Communications
Decency Act, the Federal Court Judges wrote that "The Internet
is...a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide communication."
In his opinion in that case, Judge Dalzell goes on to direct
the U.S. government saying, "We should also protect the autonomy
that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media
magnates.
Does the White Paper issued by the U.S. government
undertake to protect the autonomy that the Internet confers to
ordinary people? Will placing the DNS into private hands (most
likely dominated by powerful corporate entities) be a way that
the U.S. government can fulfill on its obligation to ordinary
people?
This special issue of the Amateur Computerist provides some
of the kinds of discussion and research that is important in
considering the plans of the U.S. government. First we include a
discussion that occurred on the Netizens mailing list over what
would be a position toward the plans of the U.S. government that
would reflect the interests of Netizens, i.e. of those who
contribute to the Net to help it grow and flourish as a means of
global communication. This online discussion raises issues about
the Framework that U.S. government advisors have created to make
the Internet into a Commercenet, rather than creating a "Framework
for the Net as a New Means of International Communication," that
a government would be creating if it were to uphold its obligation
to protect the autonomy of the ordinary people, as the U.S.
Federal District Court mandated.
Also in this issue is an article describing the cutover from
NCP to TCP/IP on the ARPANET in 1983 and the following split
between the ARPANET and MILNET into two separate but
interconnected Nets as the earliest version of an Internet. This
article demonstrates the vision for the development of the
Internet as a network of diverse nets with no one net dominating
the others. This helps to clarify the model presented by Vint
Cerf for the development of an Internet in 1978. In that document
he explains:
"The basic objective of this project is to establish a
model and a set of rules which will allow data networks of
varying internal operation to be interconnected, permitting
users to access remote re sources and to permit inter-computer
communication across the connected networks."
The rush to give the nerve center of the Internet, the DNS
functions which include the root server over to some private
interests, in a to be created organization which doesn't even
have a public proposal for its founding 4 months before it is to
get control of key Internet functions, is a very serious change
of direction from the obligations that a government has to its
citizens.
Also in this issue is an article about the nature of TCP and
IP and how they provide for communication among diverse
networks.
Given that the originating conception of the Internet was to
be a Net of Networks and that no one network was to dominate
others, it is imperative that these origins be discussed and
understood and actions like that proposed by the U.S. government
Green and White papers be widely discussed and challenged. Can
any private sector organization even begin to protect the
"autonomy of ordinary people" to have the ability to communicate
globally? Isn't that is an obligation for governments who have
a social obligation to their peoples?
We hope this special issue will serve to raise some of the
important questions surrounding the plans by various groups and
interests for the future of the Net. We don't want to be going
backward to a single Net, to an ARPANET, but this time one that
is devoted to buying and selling and to commercial activities.
Instead we want to go forward to the further development and
flourishing of the Internet as "a unique and new means of
worldwide communication." We hope this special issue will help
to encourage the discussion and activities that will make this
vision more and more a reality.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the July 1998 Amateur Computerist Supplement:
"The Controversy Over the Internet" available at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/dns-supplement.txt
also available via email from jrh@ais.org
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 16:20:14 +0200
From: Antonio Rossin <rossin@tin.it>
Subject: [netz] Re: Global Democracy,
Bill Ellis wrote:
>
> Antonio:
> (snip)
> Anyway, thanks for you comments
> Attached is the current draft of the piece to be included in my E.F.Schumacher
> Lecture. I'd welcome any addition comments you'd like to make.
Hi Bill,
It is not so easy to me, commenting your attached file! It is imho very
linear and understandable. Anyway, I will try to comment it as a whole, at
a meta-level.
There are two main ways to put a speech (B), eg. your piece, out
Take into account the context (A) which you want to put your B into - looking
of course at the target (C), ie, the audience, to be enriched.
A first way is the {(+A+B)<-C}.
It means, there is no *explicited* difference between B and what has been
already said or written, A, in the same context about the same subject.
The target C, as they are not aware of any (+-) difference but only (++)
agreement, are implicitly invited to join (<-) the (++) bandwagoon.
This way, C have no possibility of choosing, nor to take any conscious
interactive part in the communication context. They are the followers only
of a pure "Top-to-Down" line of culture.
A second way is the {(+A-B)->C}
There the difference between B and A is *explicitated*, so the communication
context has become dialectical with A as the thesis and B as the anthitesis.
This way the target C, as they are given (->) two opposite chances -- provided
only the topic was pertinent to their own needs -- are implicitly, or rather
explicitly, to choose awarely between. Their choice, once democratically
expressed, will give the issuing line of culture a "Bottom-to-Up" feedback.
Well now, Bill, coming to your "B" piece.
I dont know whether the context you go to build is (+A-B) or (+A+B), because
I dont know A. Only you know the A you want to apply your piece to, either
in (+A+B) agreement or (+A-B) dialectic criticism.
[I only know that the target C are usually inclined to disagree with any
(+A-B) context, because they were educated since earliest childhood within
the {(+A+B)<-C}, "No-contradiction Principle" based, family model.]
I can but check whether you made the {(+A-B)->C} communication structure of
the context you are speaking into as much explicit as possible -- provided
only you were aiming at a "Global Democracy" and are aware that the
{(+A-B)->C} context is the fittest one for GD.
> >>>>
>
> *********
> [snip]
> Through the revelations of science, an understanding of our cosmic
heritage is slowly emerging. Perhaps with this new understanding, humanity
can participate in the co-creation a sustainable and lasting civilization
based on citizen participation in global network of local community
organizations -- a Gaian global governance.
(antonio)
I would not look at an understanding of our cosmic heritage, but at a new
reading-key -- just the {(+A-B)->C} one -- of our past as well as the present
and the future.. (/antonio)
>
> The First Phase of Democracy
>
> Like any step in cosmic evolution this would be a unique happening.
But like any step in cosmic evolution it would be subject to natural
evolutionary laws law (discussed above). It was some 250 years ago that
the first phase of modern democratic governance was introduced on the planet.
The times then, like the times now were chaotic. The ruling powers, and the
ruling system, had outlived its usefulness. Masses of people recognized that
they were missing out on many to the benefits that their toil had created.
"It was the best of times, and the worst of times." The French and the
American revolutions happened.
(a)
Indeed, you can pretty see that the course of human evolution goes from
the {(+A+B)<-C} to the {(+A-B)->C} end of a continuum. Of course times were
and are chaotic: because the understanding of the evolutive rule was, is
missing, so the course of Evolution is not facilitated by the {(+A-B)->C}
awareness by the forces of science, culture and govt, but rather hindered
by the latter's {(+A+B)<-C} lack in flexibility. (/a)
> The first phase of democracy was a foolish idea to the leaders of the day.
Monarchs held their power by the "divine right of kings" neither the churches
nor
the governments were friendly to the idea that the people could rule themselves,
nor even participate in government. The ideas of voting, representation,
legislating,
human rights, politics, constitutions, or social contracts were little more
than
hazy academic notions played with by abstruse philosophers. It took the
Voltaires,
the Paines, and the Jeffersonians to bring the ideas to the public. And it
took the
Boston Tea Party, and the Bread Riots, the revolutionary wars, to bring down
the
old regimes and make possible the self-organization of the new.
(a)
Can we say that, centuries ago the effectiveness of communication depended
on the "Up-to Down" {(+A+B)<-C} way of communication, not just democracy..
(/a)
(snip)
> In spite of extending suffrage, the voice of the people has been
steadily eroded as government has grown in size and power. People's control
of corporations was taken away in 1844 in the Supreme Court's decision that
corporations had the same rights as flesh and blood citizens. The rise of
corporate power over the people increased with the opening of Free Trade with
no restrictions on the outflow of capital or jobs, and no global standards for
safety, health, or protecting in environment. The high cost of getting elected
and the free flow of money into politics from the wealthy elite, banks, and
businesses, has made even the first phase of democracy far less a people's
government than was envisioned by America's Founding Fathers.
(a)
I am not so sure that suffrage is extending, rather the voters amount
decreases in time, as far as I can see. Going to vote is no cost for the
voter, less than going to café, whilst the cost of the polls is independent
from the percentage of given votes.
I suspect, those who have vote-right don'want to exercise their right, because
they know their society is {(+A+B)<-C} made, so their vote is not influential
onto a "Top-to-Down" elitarian (++) leadership.
(/a)
>
> (604 words)
> Emergence of the Second Phase of Democracy
>
> The rise of Civil Society, modern technology, and the new scientific
understanding of how evolution works has made possible the emergence of a
second phase for democracy. We-the-people now have a voice in our civil
society, we have the technology to communicate around the globe, and we have
the new understanding of social evolution.
(a)
The new scientific "Top-to-Down" understanding is quite different from a
democratic "bottom-to-Up" understanding and participating awareness.
"You-the-people" ;-) sounds too elitarian, not Global so far. Therefore
social evolution is not yet so quick as it could, and should, be. (/a)
> Complexity theory shows that ordered complexity is the natural state of
the universe. Biological evolution is the most obvious example of the tendency
toward the natural order of more complex systems. Every step of cosmic
evolution
since the Big Bang has been a step toward increasing ordered complexity.
Creation occurs on the borderline between rigid order and random chaos,
"at the edge of chaos." If an entity is too rigidly ordered it can not change
to meet the contingencies of a change in its environment. *** flexibility is
one of the cardinal biological principles of evolution. Without flexibility
a life form is not sustainable, it cannot change to meet new conditions.
Without flexibility progress is impossible.
(a)
Do they (your target, conveniently) know eventually that flexibility, to be
accepted and processed by people, must start and be embodied singe the "Zero
Year" of a child? How could they rely upon people's flexibility, if people
were worldwide formed and trained since their childhood by the traditional
"Top-to-Down" {(+A+B)<-C} authoritarian family model? Globally?
(/a)
> But governments, like corporations, have been organized on the concept
that good management means rigid order directed from the top. In the first
phase of democracy the people elect their governments, but all power resided
in that government. Humans have been locked into the worldview in which rigid
order was highly respected.
(a)
Really, they have locked themselves into a communication model directed from
the top, according vith their minds molding-pot, the current family educative
model...(/a)
It was to goal or organization. Humans are taught to be afraid of chaos, and
to avoid complexity. Yet, the new science/social paradigm show us that the
edge
of chaos is where progress happens with the self-organizing of complexity.
If society is to meet the challenges that face it, it needs to live closer to
the edge of chaos. It must welcome a degree of disorder.
(a)
I wonder, that the "Top-to-Down" scientific, cultural, political, most of all
education policymakers elite didn't tell people that the (+A+B) consent and
bandwagoonism is order, and that the (+A-B) dialectic-based democracy is
disorder!
(/a)
> Democracy since its modern inception has suffered from its self-guilt
of being inefficient. Critics and supporters alike have held that democracy
is too chaotic. They have searched for ways to move democracy toward more
controlled management without surrendering the human rights they saw as the
great strength of this form of government.
(a)
I don't think they have had to work that hardly, in searching for such ways.
They have simply found their work done by the traditional, conservative
"Top-to-Down" family model, so as to build a society inclined to accept
"Top-to-Down" messages and suggestions only, thus keeping the former hierarchy
alive in spite of any claimed democracy.
(/a)
> The Gaian Paradigm sees democracy
in a very different light. The seeming weaknesses of democracy are its strength.
The theories of Gaia, Chaos and Complexity suggest that self-organizing on the
edge of chaos is natural law. It requires the messy flexibility inherent in
democracy, and absent in more efficient forms of government. people are only
beginning to realize that no form of government, except democracy, provides
the freedom and potential of complex ordering to meet the changing demands of
modern times.
(a)
As I have experienced on my small path, today's policy- and opinion-makers put
such theories in words and not in acts, thus they participate in keeping on
the
current social order in structural opposition to the growth of a "Grassroots
Bottom-to-Up" of a Global Democracy. Actually, "they" lower its natural
proceeding by carefully avoiding to deepen the research until the grassroots,
that is, the links between the environmental pressure due to the family model
and the self-building of humans's mindframe and future style of life: either
passively waiting for "Top-to-Down" benevolent suggestions, or actively
sharing
in a real democracy
(/a).
> The rise of civil society, the burgeoning of GROs, the growth of social
innovation, community involvement in meeting their own needs, are all parts of
the progressive agenda provided by nature. We may not see clearly today the
final organization which will emerge if we continue to build the decentralized
autonomous communities linked together worldwide in mutual aid.
(a)
Imho, this is a false problem. We have not to change the buildings, but the
builders, that is, ourselves. How? Look please at the earliest formative
communication patternings where your child is educated by. Educate your
child,
and you will educate yourself.
(/a)
> But, that is
the way of cosmic evolution as it is seen from the new worldview. It purports
the emergence of a second phase of democracy. One in which people in community
at the grassroots have a direct input to all decisions which affect their lives.
A new form of global governance...
>
(a)
Ok, overcoming finally the current form of global democratic ignorance...
starting of course from where the grassroots sprout up first, the family
educative framework.
Hope this help, Bill, and comment please the comments...
cheers,
/antonio
(more at: <http://www.mripermedia.com/Rossin/> )
> <<<<
>
> ***********************
> Bill Ellis
> TRANET
> PO BOX 137
> Rangeley ME 04970-0137 USA
> (207)864-3784
> URL: http://www.nonviolence.org/tranet/
> ***********************
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:03:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Hauben <hauben@columbia.edu>
Subject: [netz] Re: Global Democracy,
--- FWD----
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:14:18 -0400
From: Bill Ellis <tranet@rangeley.org>
To: rossin@tin.it
Subject: Re: Global Democracy,
Cc: netizens@columbia.edu, mboudour@duth.gr, hyplogic@compulink.gr,
"cyberurbanity@demokritos.cc.duth.gr"
<cyberurbanity@demokritos.cc.duth.gr>
Antonio:
Thanks for the input to my "fishing trip" on "The Second Phase of
Democracy."
I agree fully with your comments. SD (The Second Democracy) is not
here yet but it is rapidly developing. Your comment that "the Internet
works by SD is not here." Is to expect too much of a new technology.=20
We can make it work. I'd say the same of your comments on the rapid
rise in the last two decaades of Third World NGOs and of Social
Innovation (LETS, home schooling, ecovillages, co-housing, Grameen
Banks, CSAs, CLTs, co-ops etc etc.) in our EuroAmericn Civil Societies.
It will take some effort and some time to help these innovtions evolve
into a new global governance. Education at all levels is needed. But it
is happening.
Anyway, thanks for you comments
Attached is the current draft of the piece to be included in my
E.F.Schumacher Lecture. I'd welcome any addition comments you'd like
to make.
>>>>
<excerpt>
<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>*********
[snip]
Through the revelations of science, an understanding of our cosmic
heritage is slowly emerging. Perhaps with this new understanding,
humanity can participate in the co-creation a sustainable and lasting
civilization based on citizen participation in global network of local
community organizations -- a Gaian global governance.
The First Phase of Democracy
Like any step in cosmic evolution this would be a unique happening.=20
But like any step in cosmic evolution it would be subject to natural
evolutionary laws law (discussed above). It was some 250 years ago
that the first phase of modern democratic governance was introduced on
the planet. The times then, like the times now were chaotic. The
ruling powers, and the ruling system, had outlived its usefulness.=20
Masses of people recognized that they were missing out on many to the
benefits that their toil had created. "It was the best of times, and
the worst of times." The French and the American revolutions
happened.
The first phase of democracy was a foolish idea to the leaders of the
day. Monarchs held their power by the "divine right of kings" neither
the churches nor the governments were friendly to the idea that the
people could rule themselves, nor even participate in government. The
ideas of voting, representation, legislating, human rights, politics,
constitutions, or social contracts were little more than hazy academic
notions played with by abstruse philosophers. It took the Voltaires,
the Paines, and the Jeffersonians to bring the ideas to the public.=20
And it took the Boston Tea Party, and the Bread Riots, the
revolutionary wars, to bring down the old regimes and make possible the
self-organization of the new.
Self-organization is the right word. The avalanche of change hit an
unprepared society. No one had predicted the rise of national
democracy. There were no plans, no designs, or instruction books for
the first phase of democracy. There were few constitutions, no
concept of checks and balances, no rules for voting, no loyal
opposition, no political parties, no civil society, no GROs (Grassroots
organizations sometimes called NGOs). The American colonies had
assumed a degree of self-control under the British Crown. Direct
democracy was practiced in the forerunners of the New England town
meeting and in some colonies. Voting rights were usually denied women,
blacks, Catholics and Jews. Suffrage was extended to only landholders
of some substance often as much as 50=A3 (a goodly sum in those days).=20
Probably no more than 1/3 of the adult free men could vote. Office
holding was even more restricted. Often to hold elected office a man
had to own at least 500 acres and 10 slaves, or thousands of pounds
sterling in other property. Like todays NGOs ideas and actions were
separate and disparate. No associations were ready to exercise
political control of society. The task was daunting. But it did
happen. In spite of earlier failures in Athens and Rome, and later
failure in France, the first phase of democracy was born to last in
America.^=20
I have used "the first phase of democracy" to describe the political
innovation of 1776 because, as we know today, it was only partially
successful. It was only partially successful for many reasons. =20
Primarily because it arrived on the world stage without preparation.=20
The technology of the times made participatory democracy impossible
beyond the town meeting. Communication was measured in days or weeks,
not as today in nanoseconds. Because of that we-the-people could only
be "represented" in the halls of power. Franklin and Jefferson,
following the Native American model, advocated that all decision be
made at the local level and that representatives be limited to arguing
the case for their communities. Bud Madison and others, following the
concept of British parliamentarian, Edmond Burke, argued that
representatives should be empowered to make decision in the name of the
people. Burkian representation was accepted by most colonies and the
Constitutional Assembly. This has made the government dominant and
limited the voice of the people.
In spite of extending suffrage, the voice of the people has been
steadily eroded as government has grown in size and power. People's
control of corporations was taken away in 1844 in the Supreme Court's
decision that corporations had the same rights as flesh and blood
citizens. The rise of corporate power over the people increased with
the opening of Free Trade with no restrictions on the outflow of
capital or jobs, and no global standards for safety, health, or
protecting in environment. The high cost of getting elected and the
free flow of money into politics from the wealthy elite, banks, and
businesses, has made even the first phase of democracy far less a
people's government than was envisioned by America's Founding Fathers.
(604 words)
Emergence of the Second Phase of Democracy
=09
The rise of Civil Society, modern technology, and the new scientific
understanding of how evolution works has made possible the emergence of
a second phase for democracy. We-the-people now have a voice in our
civil society, we have the technology to communicate around the globe,
and we have the new understanding of social evolution.=20
Complexity theory shows that ordered complexity is the natural state
of the universe. Biological evolution is the most obvious example of
the tendency toward the natural order of more complex systems. Every
step of cosmic evolution since the Big Bang has been a step toward
increasing ordered complexity. Creation occurs on the borderline
between rigid order and random chaos, "at the edge of chaos." If an
entity is too rigidly ordered it can not change to meet the
contingencies of a change in its environment. *** flexibility is one
of the cardinal biological principles of evolution. Without
flexibility a life form is not sustainable, it cannot change to meet
new conditions. Without flexibility progress is impossible.=20
But governments, like corporations, have been organized on the
concept that good management means rigid order directed from the top.=20
In the first phase of democracy the people elect their governments, but
all power resided in that government. Humans have been locked into the
worldview in which rigid order was highly respected. It was to goal or
organization. Humans are taught to be afraid of chaos, and to avoid
complexity. Yet, the new science/social paradigm show us that the edge
of chaos is where progress happens with the self-organizing of
complexity. If society is to meet the challenges that face it, it
needs to live closer to the edge of chaos. It must welcome a degree of
disorder.=09
Democracy since its modern inception has suffered from its self-guilt
of being inefficient. Critics and supporters alike have held that
democracy is too chaotic. They have searched for ways to move
democracy toward more controlled management without surrendering the
human rights they saw as the great strength of this form of government.
The Gaian Paradigm sees democracy in a very different light. The
seeming weaknesses of democracy are its strength. The theories of
Gaia, Chaos and Complexity suggest that self-organizing on the edge of
chaos is natural law. It requires the messy flexibility inherent in
democracy, and absent in more efficient forms of government. people
are only beginning to realize that no form of government, except
democracy, provides the freedom and potential of complex ordering to
meet the changing demands of modern times.
The rise of civil society, the burgeoning of GROs, the growth of
social innovation, community involvement in meeting their own needs,
are all parts of the progressive agenda provided by nature. We may not
see clearly today the final organization which will emerge if we
continue to build the decentralized autonomous communities linked
together worldwide in mutual aid. But, that is the way of cosmic
evolution as it is seen from the new worldview. It purports the
emergence of a second phase of democracy. One in which people in
community at the grassroots have a direct input to all decisions which
affect their lives. A new form of global governance.
</fontfamily></excerpt><<<<<<<<
=20
<bigger><bigger>***********************
Bill Ellis
TRANET
PO BOX 137
Rangeley ME 04970-0137 USA
(207)864-3784
URL: http://www.nonviolence.org/tranet/
***********************</bigger></bigger>
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #169
******************************
