Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 426
Netizens-Digest Saturday, March 8 2003 Volume 01 : Number 426
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Some work on Internet scalability (hit "send" too soon)
Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq
Re: [netz] Representation (was: Thirty Year Itch...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:00:45 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Some work on Internet scalability (hit "send" too soon)
This is a highly technical document, but does pertain to some of the
concerns of Internet scalability. Its role is to characterize how
well the fundamental routing system is working.
We've spent a fair bit of time refining some of the BGP definitions
in this document, and they might help with some confusing points.
They do represent a consensus among Cisco, Juniper, NextHop and
Nortel. One of my coauthors, Sue Hares, is cochair of the main BGP
committee and we are anticipating some of the RFC 1771 cleanup terms
(now in draft 19).
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>directories.
>This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working
>Group of the IETF.
>
> Title : Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device
>Convergence in
> the Control Plane
> Author(s) : H. Berkowitz et al.
> Filename : draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt
> Pages : 42
> Date : 2003-3-7
>
>This draft establishes terminology to standardize the description of
>benchmarking methodology for measuring eBGP convergence in the
>control plane of a single BGP device. Future documents will address
>iBGP convergence, the initiation of forwarding based on converged
>control plane information and multiple interacting BGP devices. This
>terminology is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6. Illustrative
>examples of each version are included where relevant.
>
>
>
>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
>"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
>type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> "get draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt".
>
>A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
>Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
>Send a message to:
> mailserv@ietf.org.
>In the body type:
> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt".
>
>NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers
> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> how to manipulate these messages.
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 07:55:22 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq
- --part1_2d.2becd746.2b9b423a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"LOBBY" TO FACILITATE CONSTITUENT ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT:
>In a message dated 3/5/03 11:07:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>H>Having an online "brokerage" to put together issue coalitions, with
>H>people that have constituent or other ties to the key decisionmakers,
>H>is a good start with respect to the US legislative branch.
>H>
>
>
L>This is interesting.=A0 Now we are talking about solutions.=A0 By=20
L>'people' you are referring to the identification of what might be=20
L>practically called Lobbyists for the constituents so to speak?
>
H>More or less...another way of putting it might be to distribute the=20
H>techniques of lobbying to a much wider base of participants. =A0 One of=20
H>the nice things about lobbying, especially with tools to empower, is=20
H>that it is highly scalable. =A0 Since lobby communication, to be=20
H>effective, is carefully targeted, it's not overloading recipients=20
H>that don't care about the subject. Rather, it's been my experience=20
H>that even targets quite opposed to your position still appreciate=20
H>receiving well-crafted analyses. =A0 They may use it, THIS TIME, to draw=20
H>up rebuttals...
H>
L>
L>The only problem with this issue is that it perpetuates and=20
L>encourages the discontinuity of communication between the people and=20
L>their elected governmental agents. =A0 Why? =A0 Because people will think=20
L>they can consult a database and find the appropriate efficacious=20
L>agent at the last minute.=A0 Look.=A0 You cannot miss class all semester=20
L>and expect an A.=A0 Still, only until time of peril will the people=20
L>seek help.=A0 And then it is too late.=A0 The idea is for the populous=20
L>to intercept the problems as they occur by staying in tune with what=20
L>their local representatives are voting for on a daily basis.=20
L>
H>
H>I think we are in violent agreement. As I trailed off on my previous=20
H>paragraph, I've also observed that people in office remember=20
H>well-reasoned opposition. While it's certainly not universal, you can=20
H>build credibility with information that doesn't help on a specific=20
H>issue.=A0 The next time, or the time after that, the policy staffer may=20
H>remember that you've been coherent on the last couple of issues, and=20
H>read much more carefully what you've written each time. The closer=20
H>your desired goals get to theirs, the chances of favorable action=20
H>increase when you try to influence each successive issue.
H>
This model of 'legitimacy refinement' that you have described above is so=20
realistic.
H>That the issues are not necessarily related isn't a problem, as long=20
H>as you develop a reputation of making sense. I have, for example=20
H>started out with communicating with my representative on some=20
H>more-or-less-local issues of Federal taxation. I've then=20
H>communicated, as a recognized expert [1], in communications policy.=20
H>Now, if I were to communicate on military policy, I believe my=20
H>arguments would be less likely to receive a form-letter response.
H>[Note 1] Creative database use can reveal that your locality may just=20
H>happen to contain a recognized expert, who is willing to have their=20
H>name and/or expertise used for a specific, not broad-front, position.
This 'constituent lobby concept' is quite interesting and needs to be=20
investigated further. Hmm... a Database of local specialists that are=20
authenticated as such by both parties. The employment of such specialists b=
y=20
the local constituency makes for a more persuasive effort in terms of=20
influencing policy.=20
You have solved the problem of intelligent polemic. Now when a case is=20
brought to the attention of the politician it is guaranteed to be prepared b=
y=20
an expert regarding that issue. Then the populous can hopefully expect an=20
intelligent solution, given, in a perfect world, that all relevant=20
information necessary to the debate is 'equiaccessible' to the parties. The=
=20
last qualification is another issue.
Larry
- --part1_2d.2becd746.2b9b423a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">"LOBBY" TO FACILITATE CONSTITUENT ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT=
:<BR>
<BR>
>In a message dated 3/5/03 11:07:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR>
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:<BR>
><BR>
>H>Having an online "brokerage" to put together issue coalitions, with=
<BR>
>H>people that have constituent or other ties to the key decisionmaker=
s,<BR>
>H>is a good start with respect to the US legislative branch.<BR>
>H><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
L>This is interesting.=A0 Now we are talking about solutions.=A0 By <BR>
L>'people' you are referring to the identification of what might be <BR>
L>practically called Lobbyists for the constituents so to speak?<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
H>More or less...another way of putting it might be to distribute the <BR=
>
H>techniques of lobbying to a much wider base of participants. =A0 One of=
<BR>
H>the nice things about lobbying, especially with tools to empower, is <B=
R>
H>that it is highly scalable. =A0 Since lobby communication, to be <BR>
H>effective, is carefully targeted, it's not overloading recipients <BR>
H>that don't care about the subject. Rather, it's been my experience <BR>
H>that even targets quite opposed to your position still appreciate <BR>
H>receiving well-crafted analyses. =A0 They may use it, THIS TIME, to dra=
w <BR>
H>up rebuttals...<BR>
H><BR>
<BR>
L><BR>
L>The only problem with this issue is that it perpetuates and <BR>
L>encourages the discontinuity of communication between the people and <B=
R>
L>their elected governmental agents. =A0 Why? =A0 Because people will thi=
nk <BR>
L>they can consult a database and find the appropriate efficacious <BR>
L>agent at the last minute.=A0 Look.=A0 You cannot miss class all semeste=
r <BR>
L>and expect an A.=A0 Still, only until time of peril will the people <BR=
>
L>seek help.=A0 And then it is too late.=A0 The idea is for the populous=20=
<BR>
L>to intercept the problems as they occur by staying in tune with what <B=
R>
L>their local representatives are voting for on a daily basis. <BR>
L><BR>
<BR>
H><BR>
H>I think we are in violent agreement. As I trailed off on my previous <B=
R>
H>paragraph, I've also observed that people in office remember <BR>
H>well-reasoned opposition. While it's certainly not universal, you can <=
BR>
H>build credibility with information that doesn't help on a specific <BR>
H>issue.=A0 The next time, or the time after that, the policy staffer may=
<BR>
H>remember that you've been coherent on the last couple of issues, and <B=
R>
H>read much more carefully what you've written each time. The closer <BR>
H>your desired goals get to theirs, the chances of favorable action <BR>
H>increase when you try to influence each successive issue.<BR>
H><BR>
<BR>
This model of 'legitimacy refinement' that you have described above is so re=
alistic.<BR>
<BR>
H>That the issues are not necessarily related isn't a problem, as long <B=
R>
H>as you develop a reputation of making sense. I have, for example <BR>
H>started out with communicating with my representative on some <BR>
H>more-or-less-local issues of Federal taxation. I've then <BR>
H>communicated, as a recognized expert [1], in communications policy. <BR=
>
H>Now, if I were to communicate on military policy, I believe my <BR>
H>arguments would be less likely to receive a form-letter response.<BR>
<BR>
H>[Note 1] Creative database use can reveal that your locality may just <=
BR>
H>happen to contain a recognized expert, who is willing to have their <BR=
>
H>name and/or expertise used for a specific, not broad-front, position.<B=
R>
<BR>
This 'constituent lobby concept' is quite interesting and needs to be invest=
igated further. Hmm... a Database of local specialists that are authen=
ticated as such by both parties. The employment of such specialists by=
the local constituency makes for a more persuasive effort in terms of influ=
encing policy. <BR>
<BR>
You have solved the problem of intelligent polemic. Now when a case is=
brought to the attention of the politician it is guaranteed to be prepared=20=
by an expert regarding that issue. Then the populous can hopefully exp=
ect an intelligent solution, given, in a perfect world, that all relevant in=
formation necessary to the debate is 'equiaccessible' to the parties. =20=
The last qualification is another issue.<BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_2d.2becd746.2b9b423a_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:26:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Representation (was: Thirty Year Itch...)
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Mark Lindeman wrote:
>
> Ronda poses a big question:
>
> >> You might find it useful to look at the online version of Netizens
> >> (http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/)
> >>
> >> Some of Michael's insight was that representation was needed when there
> >> weren't the online means of communication. But that now there are
> >> means of communicating that make the old system of representation
> >> outmoded.
> >>
> >> It would be useful to explore this.
> >
> Ronda, if you could narrow the citation somewhat, since alas! my time
> for reading and thinking is so limited these days. What you've written
> here seems to imply that, at least in Michael's view, the only
> justification for representation is that limits on communications made
> it necessary. I would not agree with that. But then I'm not at all
> sure that it is what he or you meant. Do you have a 'new system of
> representation' in mind, or a system of direct democracy, and in either
> case, can you tell us anything about how it would work?
This is not what Michael was saying, Michael was discussing
"democracy" and how to achieve it given the limitations in the
time of Rousseau and then James Mill's time, and comparing that
to what is possible now.
So the issue was "democracy" rather than "representation".
>
I am taking the liberty to quote from Michael's work in chapter
14 in Netizens, to the section of the chapter Mark asked me
to provide the citation forB. The whole chapter is helpful, but this
introduction to the chapter is what I am referring to:
First however, it is in Michael's article in Chapter 18, "The Computer as
Democratizer" where he writes Rousseau's concept of the general
assembly. This was written in 1992. Michael is referring to James
Mill (not John Stuart Mill) when he refers to Mill.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x18
Mill champions freedom of press as a realistic alternative to Rousseau's
general assembly, which is not possible most of the time."
Later, however, in 1994-1995 Michael wrote chapter 14 "The Net and the
Future of Politics: The Ascendency of the Commons"
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x14
Here he refers to James Mill discussing democracy and whether it is
possible and what happens when representation is substituted:
Then Michael compares the period with James Mill was writing to
our current time and the advantage that computer networking provides
toward being able to aim toward a more direct form of democracy
than representative democracy.
(I am taking the liberty to quote this passage from the book,
as I think it is pertinent to what is being discussed here):
I. Introduction
Democracy, or rule by the people, is by definition a popular
form of government. Writers throughout the ages have thought about
democracy, and understood the limitations imposed by various
factors. Today, computer communications networks, such as the
Internet, are technical innovations which make moving towards a true
participatory democracy more feasible.
James Mill, a political theorist from the early nineteenth
century, and the father of philosopher John Stuart Mill, wrote about
democracy in his 1825 essay on "Government" for that year's Supplement
for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Mill argues that democracy is the only
governmental form that is fair to the society as a whole. Although he
does not trust representative government, he ends up advocating it. But
he warns of its dangers,
"Whenever the powers of Government are placed in any hands
other than those of the community, whether those of one man, of a
few, or of several, those principles of human nature which imply
that Government is at all necessary, imply that those persons
will make use of them to defeat the very end for which Government
exists."(1)
Democracy is a desirable form of government, but Mill found it
to be impossible to maintain. Mill lists two practical obstacles in
his essay. First, he finds it impossible for the whole people to
assemble to perform the duties of government. Citizens would have to
leave their normal jobs on a regular basis to help govern the
community. Second, Mill argues that an assembled body of differing
interests would find it impossible to come to any agreements. Mill
speaks to this point in his essay:
"In an assembly, every thing must be done by speaking and
assenting. But where the assembly is numerous, so many persons desire
to speak, and feelings, by mutual inflammation, become so violent,
that calm and effectual deliberation is impossible."(2)
In lieu of participatory democracies, republics have
arisen as the actual form of government. Mill recognizes that an
elected body of representatives serves to facilitate the role of
governing society in the interests of the body politic. However, that
representative body needs to be overseen so as to not abuse its
powers. Mill writes:
"That whether Government is entrusted to one or a few, they have not
only motives opposite to those ends, but motives which will carry
them, if unchecked, to inflict the greatest evils...."(3)
A more recent scholar, the late Professor Christopher Lasch of
the University of Rochester, also had qualms about representative
government. In his essay, "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of
Argument"(4), Lasch argued that any form of democracy requires
discourse and debate to function properly. His article is critical of
modern journalism failing in its role as a public forum to help raise
the needed questions of our society. Lasch recommended the recreation
of direct democracy when he wrote,
"Instead of dismissing direct democracy as irrelevant to
modern conditions, we need to recreate it on a large scale.
And from this point of view, the press serves as the
equivalent of the town meeting." (5)
But even the traditional town meeting had its
limitations. For example, everyone should be allowed to speak, as
long as they share a common interest in the well-being of the
whole community, rather than in any particular part. One scholar
wrote that a "well-known study of a surviving small Vermont town
meeting traces the breaking apart of the deliberative ideal once
developers catering to tourism bought property in a farming
community; the farmers and developers had such opposed interests
about zoning ordnances that debate collapsed into angry shouting
matches." (6)
The development of the Internet and of Usenet is an investment in
a strong force towards making direct democracy a reality. These new
technologies present the chance to overcome the obstacles preventing the
implementation of direct democracy. Online communication forums also
make possible Lasch's desire to see the discussion necessary to identify
today's fundamental questions. Mill could not foresee the successful
assembly of the body politic in person at one time. The Net allows for a
meeting which takes place on each person's own time, rather than all at
one time.(7) Usenet newsgroups are discussion forums where questions are
raised, and people can leave comments when convenient, rather than at a
particular time and at a particular place. As a computer discussion
forum, individuals can connect from their own computers, or from publicly
accessible computers across the nation to participate in a particular
debate. The discussion takes place in one concrete time and place, while
the discussants can be dispersed. Current Usenet newsgroups and mailing
lists prove that citizens can both do their daily jobs and participate in
discussions that interest them within their daily schedules.
Mill's second observation was that people would not be able to
communicate peacefully after assembling. Online discussions do not have
the same characteristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to the
discussion forum when they wish, and when they have time, they can be
thoughtful in their responses to the discussion. Whereas in a traditional
meeting, participants have to think quickly to respond. In addition,
online discussions allow everyone to have a say, whereas finite length
meetings only allow a certain number of people to have their say. Online
meetings allow everyone to contribute their thoughts in a message, which
is then accessible to whomever else is reading and
participating in the discussion.
These new communication technologies hold the potential for the
implementation of direct democracy in a country as long as the necessary
computer and communications infrastructure are installed. Future
advancement towards a more responsible government is possible with these
new technologies. While the future is discussed and planned for, it will
also be possible to use these technologies to assist in the citizen
participation in government. Netizens are watching various government
institutions on various newsgroups and mailing lists throughout the
global computer communications network. People's thoughts about and
criticisms of their respective governments are being aired on the
currently uncensored networks.
These networks can revitalize the concept of a democratic
"Town Meeting" via online communication and discussion. Discussions
involve people interacting with others. Voting involves the isolated
thoughts of an individual on an issue, and then his or her acting on
those thoughts in a private vote. In society where people live
together, it is important for people to communicate with each other
about their situations to best understand the world from the broadest
possible viewpoint.
Public and open discussions and debates are grass-roots,
bottom-up development which enable people to participate in democracy
with enthusiasm and interest more so than the current system of secret
ballots allows. Of course, at some point or other, votes might be
taken, but only after time has been given to air an issue in the
commons.
from Michael Hauben, "The Net and the Future of Politics: The Ascendency
of the Commons", chapter 14, "Netizens: On the History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet", http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
(In the print version of Netizens, this is from pages 241-244)
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #426
******************************
