Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 196
Netizens-Digest Friday, October 30 1998 Volume 01 : Number 196
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: LEGAL EXPERT SLAMS ICANN STRUCTURE
[netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:11:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> on Thu, 29 Oct 1998
07:38:38 +0800 wrote: :
At 02:58 PM 10/28/98 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
RH>>Corporations are *not* representatives of the people. That is
RH>>what governments have been created for. Corporations exist to
DC>Governments "represent" individuals and groups, including corporations.
DC>Governments are by no means the ONLY mechanism for "representing" the needs
DC>and desires of individuals.
I agree, as the people can represent their own needs and desires,
but corporations can't and have no basis to represent people.
Jurgen Habermas, in his book "The Structural Transformation
of the Public Sphere" documents the change from people being
citizens and having governments represent them to
the misrepresentation of people as "consumers" or "customers"
rather than citizens.
He also documents the way this represents the loss of
political rights for people.
DC>The term "represent" needs to be used either carefully or flexibility. If
DC>the former, please give it a precise definition and then explain its use.
That's fair. I agree that it should be used carefully, *not*
flexibly, as flexibly means the word becomes useless.
RH>>Citizens, who are supposed to be soverign have had their political
DC>sovereign citizens? what a quaint use of the term.
I said the people are to be sovereign or that sovereignty resides
in the people.
That means that the political power rests with citizens themselves
*not* with government. Citizens give government the right
to do certain things for them, but *not* the right to
take away the power that resides with the citizenry.
Tom Paine's book "The Rights of Man" documenting the basis
for the creation of the U.S. government is helpful on this.
And I found it helpful as well in understanding how
Usenet was created as a users network, where folks like
Mark Horton would say "I'm not God" and ask for the pro
and con about whether some change he was thinking should be
made.
And through that process the users online on Usenet
(during this 1981-3 period that I have the archives
for) figured out better ways of dealing with the problems
than the original sugggestions.
That is what I mean by sovereignty. On Usenet Mark recognized
that sovereignty resided in the users and it was
up to them to figure out what the change is that would
be best to make.
In a similar way, the early MsgGroup posts I recently
read show that Steve Walker Netmanager of the ARPANET
in 1975 suggested that a mailing list dealing with
Messages be started and that it take up the topic
of messages and conferencing.
But he didn't, as far as I can tell from the Archives
I have read, dictate what should happen and what should
be discussed. He helped make it possible for something
constructive to happen, and was active designing the
process so that could be the result. (I had a disagreement
with someone at INET '98 over the role the U.S. govt
played in the ARPANET. The other person insisted the U.S.
govt did *nothing* but only *gave* money. But my research
shows that there was an active and good role played by
government folks working with the ARPANET, at least in
the documents I have access to.)
Dave, you were involved with early MsgGroup. So I am
interested in hearing what you thought of the role
played by folks like Steve Walker. But I realize
this is a while ago, 1975-7.
DC>>>A long-standing belief behind the idea of competitive capitalism is that
DC>>>pursuing the bottom line well is a very good way of pursuing the interests
DC>>>of customers.
>
RH>>This is the kind of topsy turvy argument that equates political
RH>>rights of citizens with the usurpation of those rights by
RH>>big coporations.
DC>That's not what I said. If you are looking for something that is topsy
DC>turvy, your creative interpretation of my comments will do well.
Is there a difference in what we both understand by the word
"interests"?
To me the interests of someone are not something that a
corporation can pursue.
That a person pursues their interests and they may involve
goverment in pursuing those interests. But that interests
are something like the right to a better life, to happiness,
to having a better world for their kids, etc.
These aren't the kinds of things that corporations pursue.
People buy products or services from corporations. But corporations
have their obligation to their stockholders, *not* to the
interests of the citizens of a country.
RH>>Corporations only sell products.
RH>>They have *no* way of knowing, or being concerned with the
RH>>"interests" of their customers.
DC >>I take it that you do not have much direct experience with the
DC >>processes of developing and delivering product?
I have lots of experience as an employee of a corporation
or as someone buying a product from a corporation.
So I have worked for those who have developed or delivered a product.
It is interesting. I have found in the archives that I have
been reading, as well as in my experience online, that it
is possible to challenge bad decisions of corporations
so as to affect the fact that their own bottom line is
the dominant aspect often rather than the needs of the
people they will sell their product to.
Also, I have seen a process that may be different when
some individual or company works as a government contractor.
Then the company or individual has seemed to have the
ability to try to determine what the need is of the
government entities that he or she is working for.
This reminds me of some of my experiences as a public
school or college teacher. There one has the ability,
if the supervision isn't terrible, of trying to
do what will be helpful for the students to learn
something of value.
This is because there isn't a bottom line dominating
here in the academic or public sector.
I had an experience where I was hired as a public school
teacher under the control of a private corporation.
(It turned out that the situation was judged to
be contrary to the State Constitution.)
There was a big difference between the rights of a public
school teacher, and what the corporation felt should
be happening and what they felt their right was to have
happening.
I was hired as a computer programming teacher in this
situation.
The corporation wanted its workers to learn to use
a keyboard so they could do data entry.
But the public school program I was hired under
was giving the public computer programming classes.
I had been hired to teach the computer programming
classes.
But the company felt it wouldn't help their bottom
line to have their workers learn computer programming.
(The workers were taking the classes on their own
time, and there was state funding for the classes
as well as joint union-benefit funding.)
However, since the classes were given on the companies
property, the company felt they had the right to
control them.
The workers taking the classes felt that their interests
would be best served by learning how to program
computers. (This was the time of the APPLE 2E in
1984-86. And the workers felt they would be better
able to operate computer related machinery if they
understood something about how a computer operated,
i.e. if they knew a little bit of programming.)
So this is the kind of conflict of interest I am
referring to. The corporation had its interest,
which it didn't feel had anything to do with
allowing its workers to learn computer programming.
But it had brought in a public school with public
school funding and public school teachers to
give classes, and those classes were in the kinds
of subjects that the public sector offers to
citizens.
That was an example where the conflict between
the corporate obligation to serve ones stockholders
and the public obligation to serve ones citizens
was starkly illustrated.
The result of this conflict was that the computer
programming classes were ended and workers who
wanted to learn computer programming had to take
classes elsewhere.
And the State Prosecutor ruled that the situation
was a violation of the state constitutional provisions
which required that if public school funds were
used, then the public school, not the corporation
had to be in charge of what programs were offered.
>d/
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:50:47 +0100 (CET)
From: Ingo Luetkebohle <ingo@devconsult.de>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
I couldn't resist to put in my 2 cents...
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Ronda Hauben wrote:
> I agree, as the people can represent their own needs and desires,
> but corporations can't and have no basis to represent people.
Non Governmental Organizations can represent people. Corporations are
NGO's, with the added function of generating money. That is not, in itself,
a hindrance to the function of representation.
To make them represent you, you have to influence them. Whereas
corporations are primarily influenced by money, governments are influenced
by votes. Those are just two different means of reaching the same goal and
they work equally well, if used properly. Its much easier to use money,
though, than to vote. I believe that simple fact is the heart of the free
market theory.
The differences begin when the primary means of influence don't work
anymore. Everyone knows politicians who disregard the voters opinion and
corporations who disregard the buyers opinion.
With corporations, when you can't influence them with money, and they are
not doing anything blatantly illegal, you're out of luck. Of course, in
theory you could always start a competing company, but if the market is
mature (which is the case in 99% of markets), your influence will be
negligible for a long time, if not forever.
Governments, on the other hand, have various other means of influencing
them, should voting fail, because a lot of people knew that it would be
necessary some time or other and they put restrictions in the right places.
This is a direct consequence of the fact that the *sole* reason for
governments is to represent us, whereas corporations have a few other
things to do.
They most important way of influencing governments, when you can't do it
with votes, is to *participate* -- and they have to let you. They can't
just throw you out. Its hard work, but it is possible and its the most
important thing in the world. We should not dismiss it lightly.
oh, well, it became more like 2$, but who cares ;-)
- --
Ingo Luetkebohle / 21st Century Digital Boy
dev/consulting Gesellschaft fuer Netzwerkentwicklung und -beratung mbH
url: http://www.devconsult.de/ - fon: 0521-1365800 - fax: 0521-1365803
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:31:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: LEGAL EXPERT SLAMS ICANN STRUCTURE
From: Bob Allisat <bob@fcn.net>
X-Sender: bob@marietta
To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>
cc: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>, netizens@columbia.edu
Subject: [ifwp] Re: LEGAL EXPERT SLAMS ICANN STRUCTURE
In-Reply-To: <56488-21833@lists.interactivehq.org>
Message-ID: <56511-23774@lists.interactivehq.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.93.981030151314.20005A-100000@marietta>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org?subject=[ronda@panix.com]>
List-Software: Lyris Server version 2.547
List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:owner-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org>
List-Help: <mailto:help@lists.interactivehq.org>
X-URL: <http://www.ifwp.org>
X-List-Host: Assn. for Interactive Media List Server <http://www.interactivehq.org>
Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
Sender: ifwp-admin@lists.interactivehq.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Lyris-To: [ronda@panix.com]
X-Lyris-MemberID: 23774
X-Lyris-MessageID: 56511
Status: R
Bob Allisat <bob@fcn.net> wrote:
>Ronda Hauben wrote:
>> She didn't then, *nor* does she now demonstrate that
>> she bothered to even read the proposal I submitted.
> Your proposal has little
> merit as it was not the
> product of any discussion
> or collective process.
To the contrary. The method of developing things for the Net is
for users to submit their contributions.
The other proposals are by lawyers, not by users.
They aren't based on the lessons and experiences of the Internet,
but on corporate boiler plates and requirements.
The Internet is *not* a corporation.
It is a network of networks.
To be setting up a governing structure to have control of the
essential functions of the Internet, one must base the structure
and the process for creating the structure on the unique
nature of the Internet as a unique worldwide new medium of
communication.
Corporations, schools, etc. have to learn from the Internet to
have more open processes and to base what they do on the
scientific process that made it possible to create and scale
the Internet.
Instead, this process of putting the essential functions of
the Internet under the control of a backward structure, of
a private corporation, is reversing what is the forward direction
for open processes which made the Internet possible.
For the Internet to scale, it needs a governing process and structure
built on its unique nature, *not* on the corporate model of
putting all power and control in whoever grabs the power and control.
> The others are the outcome
> of three years of debate.
I was in Geneva at the IFWP meeting. It was clear there, just
as it is clear from this mailing list, that none of the corporate
creating proposals are the product of any debate or discussion.
Otherwise the fraudulent processes that went on in the meetings
I was in in Geneva, where for example *no* discussion was
allowed, and brainstorming led to listing ideas on a sheet
and then voting on them and declaring consensus. (See
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.tx for
Report from the Front describing the fraudulent process
in the Names Council Meeting that I went to that was called consensus.)
It is clear that the supposed debate has yielded *no* solutions.
It has only been over who will grab the power and assets to
control the essential functions of the Internet.
Is anyone involved in these battles were really interested in
the Internet or in solving the DNS problem, they would look
to the processes for solving problems that have grown up
and developed and function for the Internet. They wouldn't
be trying to hijack the essential functions of the Internet
to put control over them and the financial treasure they
represent into some few (and hidden) hands that any of
these corporate structures will create.
The Internet is *not* a university, or a bank or a charity.
It is a communications network of networks.
It needs to be treated as such, not made into a form that
resembles some other non appropriate shell to encase it
and power over it into.
> I as well have my strongly
> held opinions. There are
> times, however, when one
> must shelve such ideas in
> the interests of the general
> good. This may be one of
> those occaisions.
There is *no* general good to come from creating a private corporate
structure to control the essential functions of the Internet.
The Internet has done well without such for many years, and
it is only the U.S. governments efforts to privatize these
essential functions that has created the mess that has developed
with the domain name cherade of charging for doing nothing
and registering people who want to speculate, who don't give
legitimate addresses or phone numbers etc.
Instead of even identifying what the problems are, a structure
totally hostile to the development and nature of the public
Internet is being created to change its nature fundamentally,
and that is being called the "greater good"?
Greater good maybe for the bankers and the large U.S. telecoms
who feel they can make their killing, and maybe even for someone
like Disney waiting with baited breathe to stop users contributing
the content so that Disney can try to take over the content
that is allowed.
But there is *no* good to come from any of this.
If there were, the whole level of discussion would have been
to identify what the problems are and how to solve them,
*not* to try to hijack the public resources and assets and
give them away to those who have no understanding or concern
for them.
Also the Office of Inspector General of the NSF noted that
these resources can make someone a lot of money, an amount of
money that makes NSI's goldmine look like a tin can. The OIG for the
NSF noted there is a lot of money to be made from the sale
of IP numbers (after all there are already 2 billion allocated)
so that this is far from any charity that is being given
away, in fact it is one of the biggest gold mines ever.
Thus the claim that this was being done to save the U.S. govt
money was a fraudulent claim. It is the U.S. govt giving
this away to someone to make a lot of money.
That seems why there are so many fighting over the take.
Isn't it then that the only good is to stop the fight
and to stop offering out these public assets to any
private entity?
But the main issue is really that any form of Internet governance
must build on the lessons and processes that built the Internet,
*not* break from it.
That is why my proposal is the only serious proposal and it is
the only one submitted in the tradition of the Net, where each
person is invited to contribute, and that is the process of
developing what is best for the Internet. Lawyers can not
be those who can develop what is best for the Internet,
and the fact that that is who can create a corporate proposal
shows the rot that this whole process has come to.
>Bob Allisat
Ronda
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:56:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> To me the interests of someone are not something that a
> corporation can pursue.
> That a person pursues their interests and they may involve
> goverment in pursuing those interests. But that interests
> are something like the right to a better life, to happiness,
> to having a better world for their kids, etc.
> These aren't the kinds of things that corporations pursue.
I disagree. As was said earlier, some corporations do these things,
and some don't. Some corporations provide extensive family health
plans. Some donate their time, money, and/or resources to schools,
churches, and other organizations that need assistance.
Some governments oppress their citizens, imprison or kill them without
a fair trial, or make it impossible for them to leave. Others do
not.
> This reminds me of some of my experiences as a public
> school or college teacher. There one has the ability,
> if the supervision isn't terrible, of trying to
> do what will be helpful for the students to learn
> something of value.
What if the supervision is terrible? What if the government can't do
anything about it? What if the government is responsible for putting
that terrible supervision in authority in the first place?
> This is because there isn't a bottom line dominating
> here in the academic or public sector.
But there might be something else dominating under other governments,
like guns pointed at your head if you oppose the system.
> I had an experience where I was hired as a public school
> teacher under the control of a private corporation.
> (It turned out that the situation was judged to
> be contrary to the State Constitution.)
> There was a big difference between the rights of a public
> school teacher, and what the corporation felt should
> be happening and what they felt their right was to have
> happening.
Just think if you were under some other government, where they could
just fire you if you refused to go along with them, with no hope at
all of due process. But at some corporations, it's considered
important that the employees are properly educated. They offer
company-sponsored educational programs.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #196
******************************
