Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 165
Netizens-Digest Sunday, May 31 1998 Volume 01 : Number 165
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Archiving Usenet
[netz] Netizenship as model for citizenship
[netz] Internet as a Means of Communication - Need for Discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Archiving Usenet
Following is a post by Cameron Laird on the
alt.society.netizens newsgroup about the archives of Usenet that
he directories.
Ronda
From: claird@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Cameron Laird)
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens,alt.culture.usenet,alt.culture.internet,news.misc,alt.amateur-comp,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: [netz] Archiving Usenet
Date: 21 May 1998 13:56:57 -0500
Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <6k1tdp$a0b$1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
In article <1d9a6gb.192vakb1jn62stN@jorn.pr.mcs.net>,
Jorn Barger <jorn@mcs.com> wrote:
>Tom Harrington <tph@longhorn.uucp> wrote:
>> I presume that you've heard of DejaNews? Their archive only goes back
>> 2-3 years or so, but that's because they've only existed for that long.
Not true, but nearly so. Maybe I'll return
and explain more.
>> They seem to archive EVERYTHING not specifically marked with a "no
>> archive" header, and it's all available for public searching and
>> browsing.
>
>Kibo recently reported that they're quietly dropping old stuff to make
>room for new. I haven't confirmed this, though.
>
>Comp.infosystems.search is becoming a good resource for related topics.
.
.
.
Everything I know on the subject is at <URL:
http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/news.lists/newsgroup_archives.html>.
Jorn, is there any other place the old alt.*net.culture,
alt.internet.media-coverage,... crowd hangs out? Where are
people discussing <URL:
http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/98/may/0511/otw.htm>, for
example?
- --
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
claird@NeoSoft.com +1 713 996 8546 FAX
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:03:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Netizenship as model for citizenship
I have come across an interesting article by Leszek Jesien
from Poland "The 1996 IGC: European Citizenship Reconsidered".
It was published in March 1997 by the Studien Des Institutes
Fur Den Donauraum Und Mitteleuropa and wonder if anyone could
be helpful locating either the author or finding other similar
work.
I found this paper very interesting as it recognized the importance
of Netizens and Netizenry and suggested that those interested in
issues of citizenship look at what has developed online and learn
from it.
It starts with a quote
"Netizens are Net Citizens who utilise the Net from their
home, workplace, school,. libary,. etc. These peole are
among those who populate the Net.,. and make it a resocure
of human beings. These netizens participate to help make
the Net both an intellectual and a social resource."
(This is a quote from "Further Thoughts about Netizens"
by Michael Hauben)
The article by Jesien then discusses the issue of citizenship,
first civil, then political, then social. He is concerned
with the notion of European citizenship and is looking to
see if there is any model or help from scholars toward
determining what European citizenship can be modeled on.
He agrees with Silvio Fagiolo, who was the first chairman
of the 1996 Intergovermental Conference under the Italian
Prsidency, that the European Union has an important task
of bringing the Union closer to the citizens of Europe.
He asks the question "What does it mean to be a European
citizen? (pg 3) and refers to the work of the Reflection
Group in taking on to determine this issue.
His article then looks at various definitions of citizenship:
"By the political element I mean the right to participate
and exercise of political power,. as a member of a body invested
with political authority..." (quoting "Class,. Citizenship,.
and Social Development,. 1977)
"...the core of the issue of .... citizenship"
"The issue of responsible participation in the political life."
"The defining point of this process will be the *transition*
from the *concept* of the *market* to that of citizenship
by which I mean a greater direct involvement of the citizens
in the running of the Union (European Union)."
"What does it mean to be [a European] citizen?"
"....By fulfilling all possible needs (understood as rights)
of the people we do not create citizenship."
"It may be a necessary condition,. but it certainly is not a
sufficient one."
"...in a democratic polity it is the principle that power can be
held and governance exercised only with the consent of the
governed."
"The implicit condition is the idea of equality,. that all men
are to have an equal voice in this consensus."
"...equality not only in the public sphere"
"...so that a person is able to participate fully,. as a citizen,.
in the society..."
"Althought citizenship is a fundamental condition of legitimacy,.
it is again, not sufficient."
"When men and women distrust the institutions of their state, this
clearly is the signal that delegitimation of the regime a a whole
is in progress."
"...the Europeans are dissatisfied with the European politics"
"In the member states of the Union,. and elsewhere in the democratic
world the citizens are dissatisfied with their political institutions,.
their politicians,. the way things are going in their countries."
"Philippe Schmitter argues that the future is rather for the post
liberal kind of democracy than the 'more liberal'."
"the more liberal with less democracy -- radical privatization
with less of citizens participation resulting in a de-democratisation"
"or the pre-liberal one (a kind of new 'civic republicanism' with
more of direct rule of the people.)
"The post-liberal version is not yet clearly formulated."
"Almost in front of us,. and almost unnoticed the new kind
of citizenship is evolving. The Netizenry -- those who use
the Internet. Without much of attention,. without governments
and power, without financial incentives and social entitlements."
"but using the Internet today is a sign of belonging to the
elite, to those who exchange ideas, who participate in
something important, in a common cause."
"There is no question of governance there, nor the question
of representation, but there is a full, ultimate, and direct
participation."
He has further discussion of the issue of netizenry and then
concludes:
"At the time the European Union struggles to shape the European
citizenship with much effort and little success, the other
citizenship - Netizenship - emerges. The IGC negotiators and
European political leaders should perhaps look at this
phenomenon with sympathy and attention."
I wondered if there is similar work going on elsewhere
studying the work of Netizens and Netizenry.
My research involves looking at early Usenet and the early
Internet and it is important that those who are interested
in these issues or are doing such work communicate and
collaborate.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
I have other work online at http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda
and am currently working on a paper about the change from
NCP to tcp/ip and the role of a mailing list in the transformation.
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 18:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Hauben <hauben@columbia.edu>
Subject: [netz] Internet as a Means of Communication - Need for Discussion
Poster was Markus Kruggel <markus.kruggel@uni-duisburg.de>
Hi all,
sorry for this late reply, but my workload here was tremendous, and I
wanted to write a decent answer as I find the topic quite important.
On 08-Apr-98 03:35:08, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>>There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to change the way
>>>that Internet domain (site) names are given out, and thus to
>>>affect in an important way the future of the Internet.
>>Thanks for pointing it out to me. After reading this document and your
>>draft, I think this document is a good starting point to discuss two
>>crucial matters of the future of the Internet: who will control and set
>>standards and in which way will the netizens be representated.
>I agree that there is a need to discuss the two topics you mention:
>1) who will control and set standards
>2) in which way will the netizens be representated.
>There is one other topic I think very important, which is
>3) what is the nature of the Net as a new medium of international
>communication and how to nourish and continue to develop it.
I agree. But IMO 3. comes before 1. and 2. as the answer(s) to this
question will determine possible answers to 1. and 2.
>>As setting the standards of something is a powerful means to determine
>>its future development, setting the internet standards can't be done by
>>markets as long there's still an agreement that the net has more than the
>>commercial function, and especially when the social implications of the
>>net are stressed. Social interests can't be managed through a market
>>mechanism as social interests always need a reconciliation of the strong
>>and the weak that the market simply cannot accomplish: the means of
>>communication on a market is money and so the strong ("rich") can gladly
>>ignore any opposition of the weak ("poor") as those don't have the means
>Interesting. But why do you say "the means of communication on a market
>is money" ? I agree that money (or some other form of power) is what
>functions to determine who wins and who loses, but I am interested in
>why you say this is communication.
I was a bit unclear here, I suppose. What I meant was that communication on
a market is realized by setting (seller) and offering (buyer) prices.
What's communicated on market are plans: plans to sell or to buy at a
certain price. So, it's probably better to say that all market
communication *refers* to money instead of saying the money is the *means*
of communication on a market. However, both lead to same result: whatever
can't be formulated in terms of quantities and prices can't be
communicated on market.
>>That brings me to the second point: the social interests as well as the
>>commercial interests regarding the net have to be identified as well as
>>their possible connections to internet standards. To explain what I
>>mean:
>This is helpful- I agree that the social interests have to be
>identified.
>How do we work to have that happen?
I think those who have the interests have to formulate them. I see that
this bears another problem, because the broad majority of people around the
world who have *no* access to the Internet would be excluded from this
process. If this happens, chances are that interests that those people have
would be excluded, too.
>In the U.S. at least, the government is *only* interested in what
>the commercial interests want, and not at all interested in what
>the people or Netizens want which is what is in the best interest
>of the society.
Same here in Germany, I'm afraid.
>Somehow we need to find a way to not just react to the government
>support for the commercial sector, but we need to find a way
>to define what are the social interests and how to work to have
>them developed.
I think this mainly goes via influencing the public agenda. My idea
conerning this are described a little bit further down.
>I was thinking perhaps to try to develop a "Framework for the
>Net as a New Means of International Communication" as opposed
>to the Magaziner Framework of the Net for Commerce.
>
>We need to try to figure out what is a way forward.
I don't think that such an extensive framework should *oppose* the
framework for commerce. IMO commerce has to get it's place on the Internet,
too, but it shouldn't rule. So it seems to me that the best approach is to
incorporate social and commercial interests in some way and to find a
compromise between both. But I probably misunderstood you and what you had
in mind was a not a comprehensive framework but one that concentrates on
social interests. It's probably best for us to develop the latter as I'm
sure that Magaziner is not alone and others are happily developing concept
with a commercial bias right now.
>>in the early 80s a communication system called BTX was introduced in
>>Germany (quite similar to Minitel in France and other systems) that used
>>the phone line and the TV to give electronic information to the user.
>>This system had a channel bias, that means the channel from the network
>>to the user was much bigger than the channel from the user to the network
>>(I think it was 1200 bps vs. 75 bps). Possible net standards nowadays
>>could go into a similar direction, converting it into a one way street
>>that serves the needs of commercial interests while those pedestrians
>>can still find their way on the sidewalk.
>This is a very helpful example.
>I am interested in what you think is the way we should try to go
>forward to have the broader social interests with regard to the
>Net discussed and brought onto the public agenda.
One way to do this seems to make use of the conventional mass media. The
problem that I see here is, that Netizens are a minority within the
society and as long as this state remains, it will be quite hard to
interest a broader public for this topic, simply because it won't make
a story on conventional mass media.
Another way I could think of would be to sensibilize more or less
prominent and public figures to realize what power over standards can
mean for the future of communication. Sayings of those public figures
would be perceived more probably than any statement that is made by
us - on this list, for example.
A third way, and probably the most promising one, is to point out the
the importance of the topic to non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
of different kinds and not only the EFF and the like. I think the NGOs
could be helpful because they are benefitting a lot from the Internet
(in fact, already the fax machine was a powerful tool for them) and
hence they would be harmed from processes that exclude social
interests. NGOs could probably advocate Netizens' interests best and
they could start immediately and they could do it on world scale as
they already work together. IMO the last is a really huge advantage.
>>Here's the other point why I think the proposal could have very negative
>>effects on the net's future: representation is mainly built on who is
>>paying. In such a board thee "non-commercial, not-for-profit" voice would
>>only be heard - if at all - but would not be able to influence any of the
>>decision made. Such a model of representation would be another mean of
>>ensuring a domination of commercial interest in crucial matters of net
>>administration.
>Yes - Magaziner's proposal was only to take a crucial aspect of the
>Internet -- the DNS (Domain Name System) and give it over to the
>commercial sector. This will create a real problem as the commercial
>interests have a very different agenda with regard to Internet
>development than the Netizen or user agenda.
>
>It seems important to find some way to work to challenge such a power
>grab and also the whole backhanded way this is all being done.
The only way I see is to make such developments public. If the
regarding persons and institutions don't do this themselves it has to
be done by those who take note of it. One tool we have to accomplish
this is the net itself. Obviously, a simple web site wouldn't do the
trick, instead the discussion has to be spread to inform as many
people as possible - carried into newsgroups and mailing lists for
example.
>There does seem to be a lot of opposition to what Magaziner is doing
>-- it is a problem for many so it would be good to see if there could
>be a common battle, or some alliance of all those who will be harmed
>by this proposal.
Were is this opposition forming up at the moment? Are there any news?
>>And if it is applied in the case of the DNS administration, why
>>shouldn't this be the model for other areas: a few technicians, many
>>commercial users and one "non-commercial, not-for-profit" voice.
>Yes - and in fact the Net then to made into mainly a vehicle for
>commerce. I noticed recently that some of the search engines mainly
>list commercial listings when you search for something, rather than
>the broad view of what they used to list.
That's an interesting observation. Do you have any further info on
this?
(...)
>Perhaps what is needed is a Netizen framework for the future
>of the Net - and then to apply this in responding to the commercial
>framework.
Yes, I really think that developing this framework should be the next step.
The first things that I'm aware now and which should be included in this
framework are
- - the Net's nature from the Netizens' point of view
- - a plan for the future development of the Net
- - other possible plans (commercial ones, for example)
- - which development ideas exclude each other
- - the levers to influence the Net's development (standards, ...)
- - how these levers can be used to realize the above future plan
- - in which ways the levers can be used to the Netizens' disadvantage
Of course this list is far from being complete or detailed. But IMO it
should be completed before the framework is worked out.
Bye,
- --
*Markus Kruggel, 40217 Duesseldorf, Germany*
markus.kruggel@unidui.uni-duisburg.de
http://online-club.de/members1/rp10930/
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #165
******************************
