Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 275
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, February 24 1999 Volume 01 : Number 275
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] kmm025: Why not Invisibility?-IFWP and ICANN vrs MsgGroup
[netz] Fed Comm Law Jrnl 5/98
[netz] kmm026: Differences in CMC
[netz] ICANN Critics Call for Protest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:26:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] kmm025: Why not Invisibility?-IFWP and ICANN vrs MsgGroup
In article <199902180457.XAA05384@panix3.panix.com> Ronda wrote:
>Kerry - maybe you and others on the Netizens list should
>look at my MsgGroup presentation about how early MsgGroup
>mailing list was a constructive communications situation,
>while IFWP and ICANN are *not*.
I think you need to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with
you. Rather than accuse people who disagree with you as trying to
acquire pieces of the Internet pie for their own ends, you should just
recognize that their views are different from yours.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:51:59 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Fed Comm Law Jrnl 5/98
www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v50/no3/v50no3.html
"A Modest Proposal for Restructuring [...]"
By Harry M. Shooshan III
The relative costs of a single administrator and a multi-member
Commission are important considerations. Any proper cost-benefit
analysis identifies beneficial and adverse consequences of a
particular approach to determine the existence and magnitude of
any net benefits, and then compares net benefits with added costs.
Any multimember commission starts out in a hole, so to speak,
since it clearly entails additional costs and, thus, must produce
sufficient net benefits to cover those added costs. The costs
involved are both direct and indirect. Examples of direct costs are
each additional commissioner's salary and benefits (health,
retirement, etc.), office space, personal staff compensation, and
travel expenses. Estimates of these costs in the case of the FCC
amount to about one million dollars annually for each
commissioner's office.
There are also greater indirect costs with the multimember
structure. The costs of simply reaching a decision, let alone
achieving consensus or unanimity, clearly increase as the number
of decision makers increases. Collective decision making entails
interoffice coordination, negotiations, and multiple consultations
with agency staff, as well as the costs of holding official meetings
(e.g., meeting room, sound system, provision for telecast, and
overflow seating). Another considerable indirect cost is the delay
associated with gaining support for a particular outcome.
In addition, costs of private parties and other governmental
authorities with stakes in the regulatory decisions are also greater.
Interested parties will typically lobby multiple offices and incur the
costs of "tailoring" their messages rather than simply filing generic
comments with the agency.
Costs incurred in identifying, screening (FBI background checks,
etc.), and confirming suitable candidates to fill added
commissioner slots are also multiplied. This process often involves
trading political favors with key legislators who will be called upon
to confirm the nominations and, as a result, can produce delays
until acceptable combinations of nominees are proposed.
In the latter regard, while it is a point that bears on the substantive
consequences of having a multimember commission, there are
likely to be considerable differences in the selection and
confirmation process under a multi- versus single administrator
regime. In either case, the process is, by nature, a political
exercise. Candidates tend to be people with political connections,
often having worked directly in political campaigns or in
professional staff positions for politically prominent individuals....
=====================
This may also be useful to anybody interested in what market
deregulators are thinking. (With Vol 51, Dec 98, the FCLJ has gone
to pdf format)
www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v51/no1/v51no1.html
>From International Competitive Carrier to the WTO: A Survey of the
FCCs International Telecommunications Policy Initiatives 1985-
1998 (433 Kb)
By Lawrence J. Spiwak [Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and
Economic Public Policy Studies (www.phoenix-center.org)
lspiwak@phoenix-center.org ]
With the creation and implementation of the February 1996 World
Trade Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications
Services, the international telecommunications community has (at
least on paper) promised ostensibly to move away from markets
characterized by monopolies and toward a world of competition and
deregulation. The big question, however, is whether these efforts
will actually lead to better economic performance in the market for
international telecommunications products and services. This
Article examines one particular, yet extremely significant, portion
of this inquiryhow much have U.S. international
telecommunications policies specifically helped or hindered this
process. This Article, after surveying Federal Communications
Commission (FCC or Commission) precedent from the FCCs first
major international policy decision (International Competitive
Carrier) through the FCCs implementation of the WTO Agreement
(January 1, 1998), concludes that despite a few laudable
| achievements, the FCCs efforts have been marred by both the
| demonstrable rise of neo-mercantilism at the expense of
| consumer welfare, as well as substantial legal and economic
| analytical inconsistencies and outright errors resulting from their
embarrassing attempts to implement and defend this neo-
mercantilist policy. By adopting such legally and economically
flawed policies, the United States has achieved neither trade
policys basic goals of promoting U.S. investment abroad nor the
maximization of consumer welfare under the FCCs public interest
mandate. Tragically, the only tangible achievement apparently has
been the delay of effective WTO implementation and the rise of
international ill-will against the United States and, a fortiori, U.S.
firms.
- ----------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 08:59:13 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] kmm026: Differences in CMC
Gender Differences In Computer-mediated Communication:
Bringing Familiar Baggage To The New Frontier
(presented at the American Library
Association annual convention, Miami, June 27, 1994)
Susan Herring wrote:
>
> My basic claim has two parts: first, that women and
> men have recognizably different styles in posting to the
> Internet... and second, that women and men have
> different communicative ethics...
In ungendered terms, a single basic claim is enough: there are two
recognizably different modes of socialization; in particular, two
*reasons to express oneself. We might call the behavioral styles
type-1 and type-2, or A and B, or call and response.
> [A] conflict arose... in
> which the two major theoretical camps within the field *became
> polarized* around an issue of central interest. My curiosity
> was piqued by the fact that very few women were contributing
> to this *important* professional event; they seemed to be
> sitting on the sidelines while men were airing their opinions
> and getting all the *attention*.
(emphasis added)
Its safe to say very few subscribers contributed at all. 'Few' women
contributed, she says, while 'men aired their opinions'. Is her
language here 'gendered' or just prejudicial? Probably not *all men
spoke; perhaps one woman spoke -- but what were the proportions
in the subscriber list as a whole? If there were 'two camps' to start
with, is it useful to say they 'became polarized' or to use game
imagery ('on the sidelines')? What 'attention' was gotten, and from
where? Did anyone join (or leave) the list because of the 'war'? She
doesnt tell us.
>> What can be done to address the imbalance? I'll
> conclude by mentioning three ways in which I believe women
> can promote their concerns and influence the discourse of the
> net...
> Finally, women *need* to participate in any way they
> can in the process that leads to the encoding of netiquette
> rules. *Instigate* and *participate* persuasively in discussions
> about what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior
> online -- *seek* to define in concrete terms what constitutes
> "flaming", for instance, since women and men will probably
> have different ideas about this. *Take* the initiative and
> write down guidelines for suggested list protocol (or
> modifications to list protocol if guidelines already exist)
> and post them for discussion. *No greater power exists* than
> the power to define values, and the structure of the Internet
> -- especially now, while it is still evolving and seeking its
> ultimate definition -- provides a unique opportunity for
> individual users to participate in the normative process.
> Indeed, it may be *vital* that we do so if women's
> behavior is to be accorded value, and if we are to *insure*
> women the right to settle on the virtual frontier on their
> own -- rather than on male-defined -- terms.
Without going through the entire piece line by line, nevertheless
her language is "recognizably -- even steoretypically" academic,
culminating in, of all things, the same 'normative' style as she has
been calling 'male gendered': on the basis of *her observations and
beliefs, the *reader should do this and that, in order to gain value
and preserve rights.
I agree the conventions of 'hegemonic discourse' do tolerate
haranguing, tho whether this is a *consequence of there being
more men than women in academia, or a matter of type-1
socialized persons 'self-selecting' to go into 'speechifying' careers
is open to question. In the context of CMC, tho is it a *helpful
question?
Expression per se does not intrinsically distance 'subject' from
'object,' although the 'Enlightenment project' and the 'scientific
method' exercise it that way. In this mode its symptoms are, as
Herring says, "adversariality ... assertions, lengthy and/or frequent
postings," or (when caught, for whatever reason, without a 'good'
argument) ad-hominem ripostes: "put-downs, ... self-promotion,
and sarcasm." The assumption of _scientia_ is that there is some
knowledge 'out there' that has nothing to do with who one is or
ones personal circumstances. One 'says ones piece' and then
modifies (or not) ones *view according to the evidence, which of
course includes what others' views are. From the 'pooled' data, a
unified view (and terminology) emerges, which is called 'factual,'
and then all move on to another 'problem.'
> The female-gendered style, in contrast, has two
> aspects which typically co-occur: supportiveness and
> attentuation. 'Supportiveness' is characterized by
> expressions of appreciation, thanking, and community-building
> activities that make other participants feel accepted and
> welcome. 'Attenuation' includes hedging and expressing doubt,
> apologizing, asking questions, and contributing ideas in the
> form of suggestions.
Thomas Kuhn perhaps should be the patron saint of women, for
having shown that science *in practice* doesnt actually work the
way I outlined, and that scientists are people too. 'Distanciation' is
a conceptual tool, but we all use other tools as well -- affinity,
prejudice, comfort, ego, etc etc. -- which may make us reluctant to
'give up' one idea for another, to 'admit' that we didnt know (or
forgot, or ignored) some part of the picture. Where one is along the
spectrum of tool-usage depends not on sex but on ones
experience.
As and Bs are merely extreme (not to say stereotypical)
positions of the (multidimensional, but I like to keep things simple ;-
)) scale; to *call them male and female may have metaphorical
value, but only in the same way as different national economies
were (once) called developed and underdeveloped. That is,
'borrowing' terms from other 'spheres' helps the *speaker* to
visualize and thus to express hymself; hyr fluency in using such
terms may make the argument more persuasive to others and thus
to satisfy hyr "desire ... to feel ratified and liked." The adoption of
such terms by the listener is complementary, figuratively and
literally; it saves one's having to think through the meaning for
oneself, and it 'attenuates' the possibility of personal confrontation
by maintaining a 'one-down' *responsive relation to the speaker's
'one-up' *call or declaration of what is 'vital' in hyr message.
- -------------------
Well I didnt mean to go on at such length, but the idea that
communication serves various purposes seems easily to be lost,
and arguing that one purpose is higher or better than another doesnt
rescue it. To say "Herring *says she's 'addressing the imbalance'"
of course sounds as if I mean "...but she doesnt mean it." Im sure
she does mean it, but CMC 'means' that the old dichotomy of
saying and meaning is not the touchstone it used to be. The
content of her presentation is right on the mark, even if I question
the terms she uses. There is indeed an imbalance, and women *at
this place and time* may be more experienced in expressing
themselves 'unscientifically' and holistically.
Dichotimisation however is as much a tool as any others; maybe
more so, as it is so embedded in the (English) language as to be
unavoidable. What I therefore offer as the 'problem' to be addressed
turns on being able to say "*What she says is one thing; *how she
says it is another." Further (in order to find support for this
disjunction ;-)), I suggest that it does not comprise 'two camps' and
that there is no need to postulate
> different discourse communities in cyberspace -- different
> cultures, if you will -- with differing communicative norms
> and practices
or to posit 'women-only' groups and neighborhoods *unless the
metaphor is helpful* . Arent there only folks who have experience
talking for an *objective purpose, and those who have experience
talking for Goffman's "facial" purpose (and, as Eileen seems to say
a whole bunch of folks who hardly know what theyre doing when
they talk at all)? Isnt the issue then to educate one another to the
*values reflected by these styles; specifically, to what is *helpful to
furthering one value or another?**
> While these styles represent in some sense the extremes
> of gendered behavior, there is evidence that they have symbolic
> significance above and beyond their frequency of use. Thus
> other users regularly infer the gender of message posters on
> the basis of features of these styles.
Again leaving out the gender metaphor, "there is evidence" that
some users prioritize How over What, and some vice versa. My
question is, Why should we prioritize at all? - one should use the
language-tool that achieves one's end. If one is calling for greater
use of supportive language, the call should be framed in supportive
language -- or rather, to exercise my own metaphor, one shouldnt
*call in the first place; one should *respond to calls in *responsive
language.
Goodness knows, there are plenty of people who are calling
themselves hoarse, seeking (so they say) agreement and
consensus on What 'plan of action' to follow. Naturally they dont
get it, because the audience largely consists of other callers; more
significantly, they fail to realize that *their problem to solve is How
to find agreement, regardless of the What. But in the hegemonic
worldview this dichotomy does not exist, and therefore they cannot
recognize that their own style *conflicts with their stated goal. I
think there are lots of problems in cyberspace to be solved, and
that there are many who can solve them, too, if only they knew
what they were doing. If scientists (and engineers and politicians
and *men*) are people, perhaps its time 'the people' responded and
explained the facts of life to them.
What can be done to address the irony? I dont have the answer
(do you?), but it might be interesting to focus less on the baggage
and more on the familiar.
============
** Herring also mentions values:
> The second part of this talk concerns the value
> systems that underlie and are used to rationalize communicative
> behavior on the net.
But I think the point is weakened by her
> focus on the phenomenon of flaming
which falls into didactic Psych 101 explanations instead of moving
to the larger question -- what are the purposes of 'communication'?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:06:24
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] ICANN Critics Call for Protest
Searching the for information on the Internet does not
need to be drudgery. It is actually easy and a lot of
fun...if you know the rules.
How to Search the World Wide Web Level 1
How to Search the World Wide Web Level 2
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
The following is an excerpt from the CSS Internet News. If you are
going to pass this along to other Netizens please ensure that the
complete message is forwarded with all attributes intact.
- --------------------
ICANN Critics Call for Protest
February 23, 1999
By Brian McWilliams
InternetNews.com Correspondent Business News Archives
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_72161,00.html
A protest has been called against the Internet Corp. for Assigned
Names and Numbers, the non-profit corporation that will take over
managing the Internet's domain names and addresses.
Organizers say they want to "bring ICANN out of the shawdows" and to
end its policy of conducting board meetings behind closed doors.
They're hoping to draw public attention to the policy by encouraging
supporters to display a grey ribbon on their websites.
Ellen Rony, Web master of the Domain Name Handbook and author of a
book about domain names, is one of the leaders of the campaign.
Rony believes that the ICANN board has failed to live up to the
guiding principles set up when it was founded by the U.S. Department
of Commerce last year.
"I don't have an agenda. I've just been following these things for
three years and since the White Paper there's been talk of openess
and transparency. And if these people feel that they can't do that,
they shouldn't have become board members," she said.
The grey ribbon protest will carry over into meatspace next month.
Supporters will wear and distribute the ribbons at ICANN's next
meeting in Singapore on March 4th.
Among those who will wear the gray ribbon is David Farber, a
professor at the Univerity of Pennsylvania who's considered one of
the founders of the Internet.
"If you're doing the public's business, you should do it in public,"
Farber said. "If openess fails, you can look people in the eye and
say we tried. But if it turns out to work, everybody's happy."
ICANN's directors could not be reached for immediate comment. But in
the past they have defended their policy of closed meetings by
saying ICANN is more like a corporate than a government board, and
corporations typically hold board meetings in private.
But Farber says the closed policy could have dire consequences for
ICANN.
"I'd like to see ICANN succeed because it's the first organization
that attempts to self-govern the Net, and the alternative is
government control. But whenever you have people who feel
disenfranchised, there's potential for them to create noise, and I
don't think its just a few wild people. There's a real underlying
discomfort.
"Unless people have a warm fuzzy feeling about the organization,
this is going to end up in court, and courts are not a good place to
do networked business--they tend to lead to legislation."
At this point, about 20 supporters have joined the protest,
including the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and
the Domain Name Services Organization.
Links:
http://www.icann.org/
http://www.domainhandbook.com/
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber
- -------------
Also in this issue:
- - Cashing In on Email Lists
The ubiquitous if humble Internet email list has steadfastly
resisted commercialization -- until now.
- - Report: More classrooms wired, but teachers falling behind
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More schools are getting more computers and
Internet access, but too many teachers aren't ready to teach the
burgeoning technology, according to a study released Monday by the CEO
Forum on Education and Technology.
- - Canadians on the Net, Where They Access, What They Do
More than half of the Canadian population has access to the
Internet, and more than one quarter of the population uses the Web at
least once a week, according to Toronto-based research firm ComQUEST.
- - Survey: E-Mail Most Popular Net Tool Among Israelis
A recently published survey revealed that e-mail was the most
popular Internet utility among commercial users in Israel.
- - The Web Page Cloaking Controversy, Getting To The Top
You've put in a lot of hard work to get your site developed. You've
added great content, you've optimized the site with meta tags, and
ALT text, HREF's and all the tips, tactics and strategies you've
managed to accumulate. And then you sent it to the search engines,
only to find out you ended up in the 432nd place in MSN.
- - Nobody does the Net like . . . KFC?
It's common knowledge that the Web is chock full of porn,
bomb-making recipes, Satan-worshipping sociopaths and pro-drug
propaganda. Even the seemingly innocuous act of sending an email to a
newsgroup can lead to a deluge of porn spruiking spam.
- - Personal And Relevant: Targeting With Email
There is a powerful tool available to marketers, and its name is
email.
- - Nuremberg Files anti-abortion site back online -- in Holland
It may be ironic that the Nuremberg Files, a Web site that packaged
its anti-abortion militancy with banners of dripping blood, has been
resurrected by "a liberal, smoking, cursing, bisexual, pro-abortion
writer." But free speech issues, shrugs the writer in question,
Karin Spaink, make for "strange bedfellows."
- - Internet tax panel spinning its wheels due to membership dispute
A commission Congress created to study taxing Internet commerce was
supposed to begin meeting in December but remains in limbo because
of a dispute over who got appointed to the panel.
- - Door slams in face of US cyber-spies
It is a badly kept secret that IT companies often like to check on
rivals' activities through their Web sites.
- - U.S. Group Reports Sharp Rise In Web Hate Sites
ATLANTA (Reuters) - The Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups are
increasingly spreading hate messages via the Internet and shifting
their target audience from street thugs to college-bound teens, the
Southern Poverty Law Center said Tuesday.
- - Gore's virtual government goal unveiled
New multi-agency 'portal' for seniors covers everything from tax to
postage stamps.
- - ICANN Critics Call for Protest February 23, 1999
A protest has been called against the Internet Corp. for Assigned
Names and Numbers, the non-profit corporation that will take over
managing the Internet's domain names and addresses.
- - First-Hand Lesson in Censorship
Michaun Jensen's troubles began innocently enough in a computer lab
at Southern Utah University. She was researching a sociology paper on
censorship of offensive words and images.
- - New Lists and Journals
* NEW: Frugal Mom
* NEW: CENTERPIECE USER'S GROUP MAILING LIST: CPUSER
* NEW: Heroic Ideals
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
- -------------------------------
Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____
For subscription details email / | ' \
jwalker@hwcn.org with ( ) 0
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----'
subject line. ==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
"On the Internet no one / __/~| / |
knows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________|
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
- -------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #275
******************************
