Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 232
Netizens-Digest Saturday, December 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number 232
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] BCBI: Netizen Polls Vary from TV Polls
[netz] Letter to George Conrades, Chairman Membership Advisory Comm
Re: [netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 1998 14:56:07 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] BCBI: Netizen Polls Vary from TV Polls
"P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net> writes:
> > [Polls]
>
> > have given the real URLs, on the Dreamscape site).
>
> Go to dreamscape. Can't read from there?
Maybe your great mind can tell me where to go, then. No mention of a
poll anywhere. Just a user-satisfaction survey on
http://cgi.dreamscape.com/ , which is the customer-support page, BTW.
Here's the list of links from the www.dreamscape.com/ :
References in http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/top.htm
* [1]http://www.dreamscape.com/morrisville/
* [2]Welcome To Dreamscape Online
* [3]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/clientele.htm
* [4]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/users.htm
* [5]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/support.htm
* [6]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/software.htm
* [7]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/search.htm
* [8]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/service.htm
References in http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/main.htm
* [1]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/training/training.htm
* [2]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/employ.htm
* [3]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/access.htm
* [4]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/webhost/host.htm
* [5]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/contact.htm
* [6]http://eshare.dreamscape.com/eshare/server?action=4
* [7]http://www.dreamscape.com/press
* [8]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/statement.htm
* [9]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/statement2.htm
* [10]http://www.dreamscape.com/56k/index.html
* [11]http://www.dreamscape.com/ipass/index.html
* [12]http://www.digitalriver.com/dr/v2/ec_main.entry?sp=10007&cid=0
&sid=9949
* [13]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/multimail.htm
* [14]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/referral.htm
* [15]http://noc.dreamscape.com/NOC/
* [16]http://www.northlandtel.com/
* [17]http://www.northlandtel.com/
* [18]http://www.whcd.com/
* [19]http://cgi.dreamscape.com/classad
* [20]http://dreamscape.planetdirect.com/
* [21]http://www.microsoft.com/ie
* [22]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/contact.htm
* [23]http://www.eff.org/
* [24]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/disc.htm
References in http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/bottom.htm
* [1]http://www.parmore.com/
* [2]http://www.sylvanbeach.com/
* [3]http://www.dreamscape.com/dream98/category/surf.htm
* [4]form field = popup menu
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 20:41:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Letter to George Conrades, Chairman Membership Advisory Comm
I just sent the attached email to George Conrades as I have not
received any response to my expression of interest in being
on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committee.
My application indicated my view that all who applied should be
accepted to the committee.
There has been no public list, as far as I know, of those who
applied and their statements of interest, nor of the criteria
used to choose the people who have been named to the committee.
The closed nature of the process indicates that there is not
currently much interest on the par whoever made the selection
to have a broadly based committee with a broad range of views on what
the membership of this new organization should be.
The U.S. Department of Commerce claims that it has a 50% obligation
to see that ICANN functions to design and test a structure that will
be an appropriate structure to manage essential functions of the Internet.
This beginning of that design process, being carried out in secret,
shows that the design process is already showing signs of failure.
Also, as an applicant for the membership advisory committee, I have
not yet received any response from the committee, even though a
membership list has been publicly announced, and seems weighted
toward people with ties to the Internet Society.
Ronda
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:50:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <rh120@columbia.edu>
Message-Id: <199812182150.QAA03140@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>
To: gconrades@icann.org
Subject: Decision on expression of internet for membership advisory committee?
Cc: msvh@icann.org
Status: R
Dear George
I sent in an expression of interest in the membership advisory
committee which was received by Molly Shaffer Van Houweling before
the deadline date, as she acknowledged receipt.
Yet I haven't yet received any notice from you of my application and
your decision on it. I have enclosed both my expression of interest
and the notice from Molly that it was received.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Ronda
rh120@columbia.edu
>From rh120@columbia.edu Sat Dec 5 22:10:46 1998
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:10:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <rh120@columbia.edu>
To: msvh@icann.org
Subject: Expression of Interest in Advisory Committee on Membership
Cc: rh120@columbia.edu
To Molly Shaffer Van Houweling <msvh@icann.org>
December 5, 1998
Dear Molly
Please confirm receipt of this expression of interest.
Ronda
rh120@columbia.edu
- --------------------------
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
P.O. Box 250101
New York, N.Y. 10025-1531
USA
(212)787-9361
>From shaffer@law.harvard.edu Sun Dec 6 03:04:57 1998
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 00:09:59 -0800
From: Molly Shaffer Van Houweling <shaffer@law.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rh120@columbia.edu
Subject: Re: Expression of Interest in Advisory Committee on Membership
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received! Thanks,
Molly
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 01:03:44 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
Carsten,
{ I didn't mean "quick and dirty". Only, point-by-point arguments often
{ lead far away from the initial topic. I thought we had gone that far.
{ I would have sent that second part to you directly, anyway ;)
{
Its that 'often' that I had in mind. Of course there is no ironclad
association between idea and technique, in writing or any other medium, but it
would be fascinating to tweak some listserv so as to be able to
relate posters' 'turn-around time' and lets say the 'depth' of a thread. When
so many people say they want to join 'communities of like-minded people,' isnt
it likely that this implies finding people who use the medium the same way? -
either replying as fast or as slow as oneself, or as 'point-by-pointly'? My
suspicion is simply that these are *correlated* variables.
{ Yes, the "pure" rationalists saw Reason in a *central* role. However,
{ their targets were religion and science, NOT politics.
You couldnt prove it by me ;-).
{ I must admit that the more I read the less I understand what JRS calls
{ "rational". I also wonder where and when reason got institutionalised.
Re the imbalance of reason over other characteristics:
" The practical effect of such a mesmerizing and prolonged solo has been to
turn the last half millenium into the Age of Reason. We habitually divide this
period up under a multitude of headings: the Enlightenment, Romanticism, Neo-
Classicism, Neo-Realism, Symbolism, Aestheticism, Nihilism and Modernism, to
name just a few. But the differences between these periods, like the difference
betwen the school born of Bacon versus the school born of Descartes, all blend
into one another when we stand back far enough to get a good look. And so
Descartes' deductive, abstract arguments which prove their conclusions
mathematically melt into Locke's empirical, mechanical approach which melts
into Marx's determinism. In other words, since the 1620s, if not the 1530s, we
seem to have merely been fiddling with details or rather, shifting from side to
side to disguise from ourselves the fact that we have taking in that long
period but one clear step -- away, that is, from the divine revelation and
absoulte power of church and state.
... Our ideological bickering... has added extremely little to the central
line.. Instead, a series of grandiose and dark events --- religious bloodbaths
in Europe, Napoleonic dictatorships and unlimited industrial competition, to
name three -- overcame Western society and seemed to do so thanks to rational
methods. The original easy conviction that reason was a moral force was
gradually converted into a desperate, protective assumption....
...And yet... we carefully, in fact rationally, assign blame for our crimes
to the *irrational* impulse. In this way we merely shut our eyes to the central
and fundamental misunderstanding: reason is no more than structure. And
structure is most easily controlled by those who feel themselves to be free of
the cumbersome weight represented by common sense and humanism. Structure suits
best those whose talents lie in manipulation and who have a taste for power in
its purer forms.
" Thus the Age of Reason has turned out to be the Age of Structure; a time
when, in the absence of purpose, the drive for power as a value in itself has
become the principal indicator of social approval. The winning of power has
become the measure of social *merit*" (p15-16, emph added)
{ I think JRS's big mistake is to consider that the structures of
{ 18th-century democracy are a direct consequence of the 17th-century
{ philosophical ideas. Of course, the latter are also used by today's
{ institutions as a *justification* for themselves.
{
Isn't it hard to claim someone else has made a mistake when the possibiltiy
remains that one's own understanding of his argument is open to improvement?
{ I said "based on" and should have said "set up with [...] as
{ their basic inner principle". I never said they were ideas !
{
{ But they certainly work *now* with their inner logic... or rather
{ mechanic.... which rely on no
{ logic, rationality or "reasonableness", because they are even applied
{ when it is clear that they will backfire.
*Clear* to whom? - you and I and ordinary folks, whose powers of reason are
still mixed in with other human characteristics? Again, we are up against the
'observer effect'...
{ JRS himself says that torture and other means of power constituted a
{ *social* form of darkness (above). This does mean that *he* sees
{ instutions as part of society.
I read him as distinguishing social from psychological (specif, religious)
darkness.
{ Although it is certainly possible to
{ define both institutions and society so that the latter doesn't
{ include the former, their interaction (esp. in a democracy) is too
{ strong to separate them on the functional level. Moreover, this is
{ IMHO just a device to blame "the others", i.e. the institutions, for
{ the shortcomings of society in general.
{
As you like, but to say we are unable to separate them, and then to apply a
label like 'the others' seems to me to be a trifle confused. But then, this
confusion is what JRS is on about: we, the public at large, no longer have
sufficient knowledge about our own lives to make sense of them, or even to
understand that this is not a healthy state of affairs.
"Organized and calm on the surface, our lives are lived in ann atmosphere of
nercvous, even frenetic agitation. Hordes of essential answers fly about us and
disappear, abruptly meaningless. Successive absolute solutions are porvided for
major publilc problems and then slip away without our consciously registering
their failure. Neither the public and corporate authorities nor the experts are
held responsible for their own actions in any sensible manner because the
fracturing of memeory and inderstanding has created a profound chaos in the
individual's sense of what responsibility is.
This is part of the deadening of language which the reign of structure and
abstract powwer has wrought. The central concepts upon which we operate were
long ago severed from their roots ad changed into formal rhetoric. They have no
meaning/ They are used wildly or (administratively) as masks. And the more our
language becomes a tool for limiting general discourse, the more our desire for
answers becomes frenzied. (p 17)
The same also applies to the control of political power, and
{ even, now, to political power itself. This means moving away from what
{ we call Western-style democracy, hence it cannot be blamed on the
{ latter (but on society, which admits such things to happen). Ok, seems
{ we're back on topic now :)
{
{ Still, that evolution of the use of "expertise" is a tool of
{ controling knowledge, not a consequence of that control.
Abstractly, of course you're right; here and now, have you looked at the
numbers of students who lay outtheir professional careers entirely by the
'prestige' (read, money) of one 'field' over another? Have you tried to publish
a theory which applies meterology-derived math, say, to the social dynamics of
war and peace? (L F Richardson did, in 1938, and got absolutely nowhere,
according to another book Im working on. Citations on request ;-))
{ > The reality is
{ > that our problems are largely the result of that application. The illusion is
{ > that we have created the most sophisticated society in the history of man. The
{ > reality is that the division of knowledge into feudal fiefdoms of expertise has
{ > made general understanding and coordinated action not simply impossible but
{ > despised and distrusted." (p 8)
{
{ I agree. Still, I don't see the relation with the statement I was
{ commenting on, i.e. that knowledge was useless, since it didn't
{ prevent violence.
{
Useless was your word; JRS was simply pointing out the blithe contradiction
between the espoused principle and the reality. He's not after renouncing
knowledge, but just to keep it in perspective.
"In his last interview, the French historian Fernand Braudel ended by saying
that althoughg knowledge meant mankind had less excuse for his barabarism, he
wwas nevertheless 'profoundly barbaric.' ... We are born with the schizophrenia
of good and evil within us, so that each generation must persevere in self-
recognition and self-control. In ceding to the automatic reassurance of our
logic, we have abandoned once more those powers... Darkness seems scarecely
different from light, with the web of structure and logic woven thick across
both. We must therefore cut away those layers of false protection if we wish to
regain control of our common sense and morality." (p 37)
Another way of putting this (thanks to Wes Jackson, who grows perennial grain
crops) is that we can estimate the proportion of what we know to what we dont
know about the world as about 1:10. Relying on the 10% as the sole basis of
action comes off looking pretty problematic, doesnt it?
Ah, says the rationalist, you mean we should just throw up our hands, forget
the 10% and act out of 90% ignorance? Of course not - but its just this kind of
false dichotomy that Reason makes appear to be the only way to fit idea to
action.
{ As you said yourself, the media would present them as heroes. The
{ media follow in part common understanding and partly form
{ it. Therefore, they're a good tool to see what is generally
{ understood. :-) However, post-Roman history has more "self-made"
{ heroes as those "called by the people".
{
Now "the media" is a great case in point. There once was a time when an
event occurred, and 'the news' *reported* that it occurred. Now we accept that
'coverage' *produces* events - or heroes.
But, to stay on track - a) what I said myself was to excuse your rather snide
remark. (If you dont want it excused, thats fine with me; Im not the pushy
sort. ;-)) b) or the moment can we stay with what you and I understand, and
let the media be a tool for aggregating the understanding that we collectively
reach? c) I'm no historian, but isn't the 'self-made' case falling out of
fashion?
{ He clearly criticizes the system without looking behind the myths of
{ the system.
Again, he is using the disparity between the 'system' and common sense *as an
example* or a symptom that something is wrong - morally, if you like, but the
whole environmental mess is a direct consequence, and its not something that
can be 'fixed' by a 'top-down' administrative, institutional change of
'policy.'
{ Hmmm.... never heard about Quebec ? There are many extremists on both
{ sides (and I'm not meaning "Pro- or anti- <<French>> extremism" but
{ the general positions some take)
Quebec is West of here! In any case, what's so extreme about just another
expression of nationalism?
{ > The point of contention is simply that Reason is only *one*
{ > such characteristic, and deserves to be kept in proportion.
{
{ I agree on that. The points of contention are rather about the place of
{ reason in today's society and in history, as well as its definition,
{ then :-)
By and large, I dont quote just to say 'youre right,' but since this is the
essential point, I thought I might leave it in ;-)
{ Yes. But who does nominate managers ? :-)
Well I nominated myself to the membership committee, but ICANN didnt take up
the option ;-) Otherwise, in my long experience as a shareholder, Im pretty
sure I never heard of any of the candidates I get to vote on.
{ > The *institution* of the law is entirely, 100% on the side of the rational.
{ > There are a few unreconstructed souls who try to apply it still in a humanist
{ > way -- and who get ridiculed for their trouble.
{
{ No. Law is a very complex thing. The proposition of bills and passing
{ of individual laws depends on various factors, which can be of all sorts...
If we cant separate institutions from society, can we at least distinguish
between institutions and their functionaries? (There's hope: you say,
{ The way the law is applied
as if it means something other than 'the way officers of the law practice.')
{ I am not saying that what I'm saying is leading anywhere. I'm just
{ saying that JRS's statement isn't.
It has got us this far, hasnt it?
{ But real questions would be: how come that this swing was that strong
{ ? What are the influences of Eisenhower's and Reagan's policies on it
{ ?
We may have to read Richardson after all!
{ A question on appearances: what do you think of some branches of Rap
{ music, where people make millions while telling others to rebel
{ against the system ?
AFAIK, the rappers arent making so very much. The merchandisers are another
story, but of course the Media dont see that as worth reporting.
{ > 'Plot'? No, just the alienation of the indiv from any *real sense of power.
{
{ The plot would rather be to make them accept to have it taken away
{ from them. But still, I don't follow him there.
{
'Plots' 'making' people do things imputes a plotter or three, but there's no
need to think that way; people (by and large) simply accept the options they
see, and never ask about the options they dont see. There's no need to take
this as something insidious; its just our 'human nature.' 'You cant ask
critical questions if the topic is never discussed.' (Chomsky)
{ But that hasn't got anything to do with the vocabulary !
Of course it does - how come I *need a foot valve if I dont even know its
there? How do I find out what's there? Ive got to ask somebody -- and nowadays,
even if I find a plumbing shop, I shouldnt expect the front storeperson to know
what all is in a well (even if I bring this thingamajig in and show it to hym) -
but they'll have the language down pat, you bet.
{ Even in the
{ middle ages, you had to go to the specialist for some things (e.g. the
{ smith, the miller, ...)
Have you ever tried to *talk over a grist mill? ;-) I bring in my grain, he
knows what I want and we dont say a thing. How fine? I pick up some lying
around and rub it between my fingers. How long? He points to the 6 bushels
ahead of mine...
{ Our society is more based on technology than
{ theirs was, that's got nothing to do with language.
Take a vow of silence for a couple of days, and discover something ;-)
{ > I would do whatever was necessary to make it look reasonably trimmed ;-)
{
{ You were commenting on the action of trimming, not on the result...
But isnt it reasonable to take account of what the bush looks like in the end?
The disjunction between deed and result is a Rational artifact.
{ > anybody looking 'upstream' for causes and explanations is cast
{ > as a philosopher.
{
{ Great, I'm a philosopher ! :)
{ No, be honest: if you keep re-inventing words, there is no way
{ have a conversation.
{
Its your turn: what's a philosopher?
{ > technology *ought to mean the knowledge embodied in (or abstracted from)
{ > technique. ...
{ If you really looked back for the meaning of "technology", it would
{ mean "the study of techniques" :)
{
'Study' is why I added the parenthesis, but perhaps Im reinventing... Can
you explain what you study that doesnt involve the knowledge of the technician?
{ The problem with using "knowledge" for "know-how" is that the first
{ meaning of the word disappears. The same is true for "science" used in
{ place of "technology". The meaning disappears (since the word isn't
{ replaced by another one), followed shortly by the concept itself.
Yes.
{ - The few people who still have the knowledge in the US won't be
{ understood by the vast majority, even of "know-howers". And here comes
{ your rule of the experts. I wouldn't have thought that you would
{ promote that !
{
Did I decree (plot?) the substitution? No, I just reported the fact.
{ First of all, those islanders certainly didn't know about such things
{ a few generations back. They just ate what they could get (which isn't
{ much, in terms of variety, on a small island).
It took the US 50 years to admit that dumping junk on Bikini and Eniwetok wasnt
very smart *from the residnets POV* - that is, that a few measly local
inhabitants were a 'reason' they should have taken into account.
Cheers,
kerry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #232
******************************
