Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 222
Netizens-Digest Monday, December 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 222
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Electronic constituency
[netz] Expression of Interest in Membership Advisory Committee
[netz] FYI
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Re: [netz] Re: Electronic constituency
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:28:34 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Electronic constituency
Greg Skinner wrote:
> ... there was no practical way to reach the
> millions of Internet users and find out what their feelings were on what
> ICANN is doing.
Finding out is one thing, but as you have said, most would have 'no opinion.'
(Combining your two posts:)
>
> If the goal is to provide for an online forum that interested parties can
> discuss issues relevant to ICANN, this forum is perfectly valid. However,
> for reasons I've given earlier, this forum does not reach a large number
> of people.
*Therefore*, the goal is to create a forum which not only 'reaches' but
*involves* a large number of poeple; not only do I not see any way around this,
I don't see any reason *why* a socalled 'representative' process should pretend
to get along without covering this point.
>
> Basically, what you will find is that the forums where this issue is
> debated will generally be dominated by people who either work for
> ISPs, or have otherwise considerable backgrounds in Internet
> technology.
>
No, that's what I *have found*. That's why I think it's important that
people with 'considerable backgrounds' take notice of the fact that they are
missing the boat: the Internet is a societal mechanism, not just a technical
one. You all are not in Oz anymore: this is Kansas, big as life -- and in
about 2 years 'nerd' *will be a dirty word when people figure out that those
who had *technical authority sold civilization down the river because they
were too busy talking among themselves to learn to listen to anybody else.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:35:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Expression of Interest in Membership Advisory Committee
This was sent on Saturday and confirmation of receipt received.
Ronda
- --------------------------
I am submitting this statement as my expression of interest
in serving on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committee.
The call for the membership advisory, at present, indicates
that corporate models are being considered, rather than examining
if there are models that have developed with the development of
the Internet. My contribution will be to provide a perspective
that has developed from my research about and participation on the
Internet to the questions that the Advisory Committee takes up,
and to also suggest the kinds of questions that I feel would be
helpful to take up.(1)
The Internet is a unique new medium of global communication.
It is important that any effort to create a form for decision
making or a membership structure for a decision making body that
will be involved with the Internet take into account the new
and unique development that the Internet is, and base itself
on the lessons learned from this new development.(2)
The Internet has been built via a scientific process and a
similar process is important in designing any structure that
will be responsible for decision making or determining the
administrative form for how decisions regarding the essential
functions of the Internet will be made. A primary concern I
have is that Internet users who understand the importance of
the communication made possible via the Internet, be able to
participate and have an impact on any decision forms being
created. I will strive to contribute a perspective that is
inclusive rather than exclusive, open rather than things
being done behind closed doors, and that welcomes
communication from the diversity of users that the Internet
makes possible, in a way that supports contributing to the
issues being considered.
In this light it would have seemed a more helpful
decision to encourage all who wanted to be part of this
advisory committee on membership to participate, rather
than limiting total participation to 10 (8 + 2 board members).
For example, the principle of empowering the relevant
grassroots people to make decisions in a cooperative way, with
other levels helping to solve any problems that prevent that
principle from being implemented, would seem to be a principle
that would help to disperse power rather than allow it to fall
into few hands. What impact a principle like this would have
on the conception of members of the Internet being welcomed to
participate versus limiting membership via narrowly defined
criteria is important to determine.
I will try to influence how the processes of the Advisory
Committee on Membership itself are open to contributions of
input by users. The Internet was built as a result of good
processes and contributions of government/s and there needs
to be an understanding of these contributions so that some way
can be found to build on the lessons of the past, rather than
lose them.
Notes:
(1) I am co-author of "Netizens: On the History
and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" published by the
IEEE Computer Society Press in May 1997. Also I have contributed
a proposal to the NTIA which is online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt and I
submitted testimony to congress on this issue which is at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt
(2) See ACLU vrs. Reno, U.S. Federal District Court (Pennsylvania).
Affirmed by U.S. Supreme Court
Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 01:13:49 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] FYI
http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/lists/rre/notes.004
Phil Agre, 8 Nov 1996
[...]
The basic method for promoting an extreme position is to harp on the evils
of the opposite extreme. Authoritarian culture thus lives in a symbiotic
union with its evil twin, libertarian culture, whose sole value is freedom
from constraint. The symbiosis between authoritarian and libertarian
culture has many facets:
* Authoritarian culture holds that people are essentially bad and that
nothing can be done about this; libertarian culture holds that people
are essentially good and that nothing needs to be done to encourage this.
* Authoritarian culture imposes constraint without respect for individual
dignity; libertarian culture holds that individual dignity consists in the
absence of constraint.
* Authoritarian culture holds that people are innately irresponsible;
libertarian culture denounces responsibility as an authoritarian myth.
* Authoritarian culture and libertarian culture both conflate feelings
with action, authoritarian culture to repress them both and libertarian
culture to license them both.
* Authoritarian culture crushes the spirit and eventually gives rise to
an immature impulse toward libertarian culture; libertarian culture stands
indifferent as great industries arise to support an epidemic of addiction,
which then gives rise to a fearful impulse toward authoritarian culture.
What authoritarian and libertarian have in common is their claim to follow
a simple, objective rule that lies beyond human interpretation: the rule
of order or the rule of freedom. The terra incognita that lies beyond
the dysfunctionality of both authoritarian and libertarian culture is
democratic culture: the form of culture within which everyone takes
responsibility for living together constructively. Democratic culture
is not just a matter of voting. It is a set of values, and it is a
set of skills. Some of these skills are organizational: you can't have
democratic culture unless people know, deep down in their bones, how to
hold a productive consensus-based meeting. Other skills are emotional:
you can't have democratic culture unless people can tell the difference
between resisting oppression and acting out resentment, between organizing
and polarizing, between freedom and irresponsibility, between pleasure and
addiction, between discipline and shame, between personal boundaries and
passive aggression.
[...]
We have been inundated in recent years by
rhetoric that seeks to make democracy literally unthinkable by conflating
all types of government, whether democratic or totalitarian, into a
single stereotype of oppression. This stereotype requires its proponents
to construct themselves as powerless victims, and it licenses all sorts
of whining and complaint by the very people who make a big point of
censuring whining and complaint by others. By treating the institutions
of a democratic society as inherently beyond control, it also licenses
an abdication of personal responsibility -- the responsibility to learn,
practice, and teach the values and skills of a democratic society.
[...]
===
You may find his application of these ideas to the Net - container and contents
- - to be of interest.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 08:53:16 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Greg and Ronda,
I am on several lists. Are there a sampling of
URLs I can pass along to increase public awareness.
Just a sentence or two of what the say 5 links
contain.
Descriptions should be free of emotionality but
selected to get at the content intended to pass
to the public for educational purposes.
TIA
> So, I guess what I am trying to say is that my intentions were not
> to statistically sample for opinions, but to use mediums that make it
> more likely that a statiscally valid sample of opinions can be
> collected.
>
> --gregbo
P.A.
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
<a href="mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?subject=etech"Email me</a>
To leave me a message or learn more:
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb222487
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:53:45 -0500
From: Mark Lindeman <mtl4@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
In response to Greg,
The point about different goals is well taken.
>On the other hand, the established media (TV, radio, newspapers) reach
>much larger numbers of people. If it were possible to get a
>comprehensive, yet accessible presentation of the issues surrounding
>ICANN's establishment into the mass media, there is a greater
>likelihood that a larger set of opinions can be obtained[...]
OK, although I'm still not sure how you see these opinions being
"obtained." Anyway, seems to me that the mass media/political system does
a pretty lousy job of getting a comprehensive, yet accessible presentation
of _any_ issue out and then obtaining people's opinions. I'm not trying to
be fatalistic, just realistic. (It's not as if anyone is offering us a
_choice_ between the Internet approach and the quality-media-coverage
approach, and this is why I feel that a prolonged debate over "which is
better" would be contrived.)
>I actually have brought the subject up in a local forum frequently by
>lots of ISP operators and users, ba.internet. Only one person
>responded and thought that the ICANN was of no consequence and that
>nothing it did would affect SF bay area ISPs.
Yes, one characteristic of this issue seems to be that savvy people sharply
disagree on how important it is.
>As large as the potential Internet audience is, it dwarfs in
>comparison to the audience that can be reached by conventional mass
>media.
Yes, but it's the _right_ audience, and the communications medium places
fewer inherent restrictions on the flow of information in all directions.
(Again, we don't have/get to choose between these media; I'm just making an
analytical observation.)
>There is also the problem that a growing number of people have set up
>filters to screen out chain letters and the like. So a mass mailing
>is not necessarily the best approach. Mailings issued from ISPs'
>management are more likely (imho) to make a difference.
I'm certainly not against mailings from ISP management. As for the rest, I
was unclear. I wasn't contemplating The Mother of All Spams (tm), but
something more like what P. A. Gantt seems to have in mind. Everyone I
know belongs to several informal "mailing lists" that serve mostly to pass
along jokes and such, and/or more formal lists -- some moderated, some not
- -- with various issue focuses. These are lists that are virtually
spam-free; they have high message quality (if you allow some leeway for the
jokes!). If I were convinced that there were a clear and present danger to
the survival and integrity of these lists, and if I could convince a few
moderators of the same thing, then thousands of people would get the word
within 24 hours or so. If _they_ were convinced, then via "six degrees of
separation," a whole lot of people would get the message pretty soon.
The ICANN issue certainly doesn't seem to be ripe for that sort of action.
But I think it's important to recognize that the potential is there -- and,
moreover, that we don't have to wait for a crisis before we start educating
people on some of the political realities of the Internet.
What number of Internet users do you suppose got some degree of _on-line_
education about the Communications Decency Act? I'm thinking pretty high.
>Basically, what you will find is that the forums where this issue is
>debated will generally be dominated by people who either work for
>ISPs, or have otherwise considerable backgrounds in Internet
>technology.
I think Kerry is right on about this -- although he may come across as mad
at _you_ for bearing the unhappy tidings. Right now ICANN is defined as a
technical issue. If people decide that ICANN is a political issue, one
that "gets them where they live," then all bets are off. It may not happen
with ICANN, but sooner or later, some "technical" issue will get
politicized just as the CDA was. (My guess -- I'm not a prophet.)
Cheers,
Mark Lindeman
MTL4@columbia.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:31:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Electronic constituency
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>*Therefore*, the goal is to create a forum which not only 'reaches'
>but *involves* a large number of poeple; not only do I not see any
>way around this, I don't see any reason *why* a socalled
>'representative' process should pretend to get along without covering
>this point.
I don't either.
>That's why I think it's important that people with 'considerable
>backgrounds' take notice of the fact that they are missing the boat:
>the Internet is a societal mechanism, not just a technical one. You
>all are not in Oz anymore: this is Kansas, big as life -- and in
>about 2 years 'nerd' *will be a dirty word when people figure out
>that those who had *technical authority sold civilization down the
>river because they were too busy talking among themselves to learn to
>listen to anybody else.
You have to convince the people with the technical backgrounds (who
are in positions of influence over international telecommunications
policy) to recognize the need for societal responsibility. I'd say,
offhand, those individuals include Vint Cerf, Dave Farber, Einar
Stefferud, and a few of the other notables who participate in these
forums. They have worked in the field for a very long time, and have
the trust and respect of the international policy makers (and the
people who develop the technology).
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:56:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
"P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net> wrote:
>I am on several lists. Are there a sampling of
>URLs I can pass along to increase public awareness.
>Just a sentence or two of what the say 5 links
>contain.
Here's a start. Some of these are newsgroups, so they require access
to a news server (or access to a site like Deja News, that may not
carry all news distributions).
inet-access (mailto:list@inet-access.net, news:info.inet.access)
The inet-access mailing list (gatewayed read-only to the
info.inet.access newsgroup). Discussions of issues related to
Internet access. Topics generally revolve around ISP business
operations and management.
ba.internet (news:ba.internet)
Like inet-access, with a SF bay area distribution.
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains (news:comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains)
Mostly technical discussion of DNS. Some discussion of the politics
of domain names.
net.internet.dns.policy (news:net.internet.dns.policy)
More discussion of DNS policy matters.
Overview of the DNS Controversy (http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html)
A general overview of the events that led to where we are today.
Contains many links to other sites.
The Domain Name Handbook (http://www.domainhandbook.com)
Ellen and Peter Rony's site promoting their book of the same name.
Includes a history of the DNS controversy, links to DNS lawsuits, and
other things.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:24:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Electronic constituency
Mark Lindeman <mtl4@columbia.edu> wrote:
>Anyway, seems to me that the mass media/political system does a
>pretty lousy job of getting a comprehensive, yet accessible
>presentation of _any_ issue out and then obtaining people's opinions.
>I'm not trying to be fatalistic, just realistic.
This is true. However, my point is that it is at present, a better
way of reaching large numbers of people.
>>As large as the potential Internet audience is, it dwarfs in
>>comparison to the audience that can be reached by conventional mass
>>media.
>Yes, but it's the _right_ audience, and the communications medium
>places fewer inherent restrictions on the flow of information in all
>directions.
But the offline audience might have opinions about how Internet policy
should be made. Failure to use other established media to reach them
is just as wrong (imho) as failure to acknowledge that societal issues
must be recognized in determining Internet policy.
>If I were convinced that there were a clear and present danger to the
>survival and integrity of these lists, and if I could convince a few
>moderators of the same thing, then thousands of people would get the
>word within 24 hours or so. If _they_ were convinced, then via "six
>degrees of separation," a whole lot of people would get the message
>pretty soon.
There's a lot of "ifs" in there. :)
>The ICANN issue certainly doesn't seem to be ripe for that sort of
>action. But I think it's important to recognize that the potential is
>there -- and, moreover, that we don't have to wait for a crisis
>before we start educating people on some of the political realities of
>the Internet.
I guess we should just try it and see what happens. However, at the
moment, only a tiny handful of people I've mentioned these issues to
have any interest in participating in discussions (online or
otherwise).
>What number of Internet users do you suppose got some degree of
>_on-line_ education about the Communications Decency Act? I'm
>thinking pretty high.
I don't know. The CDA got a lot of online and conventional media
press.
>Right now ICANN is defined as a technical issue. If people decide
>that ICANN is a political issue, one that "gets them where they
>live," then all bets are off. It may not happen with ICANN, but
>sooner or later, some "technical" issue will get politicized just as
>the CDA was. (My guess -- I'm not a prophet.)
This is possible, depending on what policies are adopted by ICANN, the
USG, or whoever is "in charge."
- --gregbo
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #222
******************************
