Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 488
Netizens-Digest Friday, April 11 2003 Volume 01 : Number 488
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...)
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] Review of Netizens from Journal published by Romanian Academy
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:01:26 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
- --part1_123.20771d00.2bc77bf6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/10/03 12:04:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lindeman@bard.edu writes:
> I don't mean the question about "is Howard a netizen" to come across as
> touchy-feely. For me it is more or less isomorphic with the question,
> "Are we here to address immediate problems like the ones Howard and
> others are raising, or are we here to implement participatory
> democracy?" This question does seem pretty urgent, because if Jay
> thinks we're here to implement participatory democracy, then I'm in the
> wrong room. Not that I even object to the project, it just isn't what
> I'm doing.
>
> Mark
>
I just assumed that if we were going to talk about participatory democracy in
this list than it meant that Jay was going to provide some kind of at least
gross construction concerning implementation. I assume that if it is the
case that someone is introducing a solution for something -- that it is
implementable. I know nothing about 'participatory democracy.' The problem
in this case is, I guess, how to develop a government that is more responsive
to the people.
I guess, I just want to be knocked off my seat with a persuasive solution. I
wanna be entertained. Waaa... Waaa... (sniffle, sniffle)
Larry
- --part1_123.20771d00.2bc77bf6_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/10/03 12:04:03 PM Eastern Dayligh=
t Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I don't mean the question about=
"is Howard a netizen" to come across as <BR>
touchy-feely. For me it is more or less isomorphic with the question,=20=
<BR>
"Are we here to address immediate problems like the ones Howard and <BR>
others are raising, or are we here to implement participatory <BR>
democracy?" This question does seem pretty urgent, because if Jay <BR>
thinks we're here to implement participatory democracy, then I'm in the <BR>
wrong room. Not that I even object to the project, it just isn't what=20=
<BR>
I'm doing.<BR>
<BR>
Mark<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I just assumed that if we were going to talk about participatory democracy i=
n this list than it meant that Jay was going to provide some kind of at leas=
t gross construction concerning implementation. I assume that if it is=
the case that someone is introducing a solution for something -- that it is=
implementable. I know nothing about 'participatory democracy.' =20=
The problem in this case is, I guess, how to develop a government that is mo=
re responsive to the people. <BR>
<BR>
I guess, I just want to be knocked off my seat with a persuasive solution.&n=
bsp; I wanna be entertained. Waaa... Waaa... (sniffle, sniffle)<=
BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_123.20771d00.2bc77bf6_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:31:16 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...)
- --part1_10e.20cea097.2bc782f4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/10/03 5:34:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ronda@panix.com
writes:
> The book is indeed a recommended reading. It is based on research
> done before and right after the Internet was privatized. Therefore,
> it provides a helpful perspective of both the earlier online
> environment and the pressures of the privatization of the US
> portion of the Internet which was the NSFNet.
>
I believe the "Netizens" work to be mandatory in at least it represents a
common frame of reference for people who post here.
More than that, this work enlightens those who take the Internet for granted,
by informing them of some of the commercial and government regulatory forces
that are influencing their access.
The Internet is a tool that enhances communication between people. How is it
being used to potentially enhance the quality of life for all citizens? This
very accessible book illustrates a relevance between the high technology and
the ordinary person and suggests an effective means for his or her
self-empowerment through both theory and anecdote.
There is no doubt that the first book on the suggested reading list must be
"Netizens."
Larry
- --part1_10e.20cea097.2bc782f4_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/10/03 5:34:07 PM Eastern Daylight=
Time, ronda@panix.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The book is indeed a recommende=
d reading. It is based on research<BR>
done before and right after the Internet was privatized. Therefore,<BR>
it provides a helpful perspective of both the earlier online<BR>
environment and the pressures of the privatization of the US<BR>
portion of the Internet which was the NSFNet.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I believe the "Netizens" work to be mandatory in at least it represents a co=
mmon frame of reference for people who post here. <BR>
<BR>
More than that, this work enlightens those who take the Internet for granted=
, by informing them of some of the commercial and government regulatory forc=
es that are influencing their access.<BR>
<BR>
The Internet is a tool that enhances communication between people. How=
is it being used to potentially enhance the quality of life for all citizen=
s? This very accessible book illustrates a relevance between the high=20=
technology and the ordinary person and suggests an effective means for his o=
r her self-empowerment through both theory and anecdote.<BR>
<BR>
There is no doubt that the first book on the suggested reading list must be=20=
"Netizens."<BR>
<BR>
Larry<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_10e.20cea097.2bc782f4_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:48:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/10/03 12:04:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> lindeman@bard.edu writes:
>
> I just assumed that if we were going to talk about participatory democracy in
> this list than it meant that Jay was going to provide some kind of at least
> gross construction concerning implementation. I assume that if it is the
> case that someone is introducing a solution for something -- that it is
> implementable. I know nothing about 'participatory democracy.' The problem
> in this case is, I guess, how to develop a government that is more responsive
> to the people.
>
> I guess, I just want to be knocked off my seat with a persuasive solution. I
> wanna be entertained. Waaa... Waaa... (sniffle, sniffle)
>
> Larry
>
See the online forum in Netizens, the article Michael wrote about
the online U.S. government conference he and I and others participated
in. Michael calls the chapter 14 "The Net and the Future of Politics:
The Ascendancy of the Commons".
I don't have the time now unfortunately to go into this more, but
the example Michael wrote about had really happened, and he combined
the study of that experience with the understanding of the nature
of democracy from some helpful writers.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:02:56 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
- --part1_15f.1ebdf120.2bc78a60_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/10/03 8:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com
writes:
> Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in discussing the
> creation of participatory democracy as a replacement for the current
> system. I don't regard the current system as broken, and I certainly
> don't want to replace it with something untried.
>
The only reason why I am proposing any kind of discussion of this matter is
only to express that I am not chauvinistic. Otherwise how can we at least
diagnose the source of the disagreement. Perhaps something that has not been
previously introduced might be articulated in a construction -- something
that might help us all to understand the persistence of view that I believe
Jay, Ronda, and Luis share -- that representative government is ineffective.
This particular disagreement fundamentally defines our positions on much that
has and will be discussed here.
Remember that there is a government regulatory component of almost every
problem and hopefully solution that we are going to look at -- The Internet
was created by government. Look, the way I see it -- we are going to return
to this issue anyways.
Everyone, how do you want to handle it?
Larry
- --part1_15f.1ebdf120.2bc78a60_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/10/03 8:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight=
Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Speaking only for myself, I'm n=
ot interested in discussing the <BR>
creation of participatory democracy as a replacement for the current <BR>
system. I don't regard the current system as broken, and I certainly <BR>
don't want to replace it with something untried.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
The only reason why I am proposing any kind of discussion of this matter is=20=
<BR>
only to express that I am not chauvinistic. Otherwise how can we at le=
ast diagnose the source of the disagreement. Perhaps something that ha=
s not been previously introduced might be articulated in a construction -- s=
omething that might help us all to understand the persistence of view that I=
believe Jay, Ronda, and Luis share -- that representative government is ine=
ffective.<BR>
<BR>
This particular disagreement fundamentally defines our positions on much tha=
t has and will be discussed here. <BR>
<BR>
Remember that there is a government regulatory component of almost every pro=
blem and hopefully solution that we are going to look at -- The Internet was=
created by government. Look, the way I see it -- we are going to retu=
rn to this issue anyways. <BR>
<BR>
Everyone, how do you want to handle it?<BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_15f.1ebdf120.2bc78a60_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:09:28 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Review of Netizens from Journal published by Romanian Academy
- --part1_127.26f036c1.2bc78be8_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/10/03 9:57:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ronda@panix.com
writes:
> This is a review of Netizens from a technical journal published in
> Romania. It is a very interesting review, so I thought those on
> the Netizens list would find it of interest. It describes how the
> author of the review found the book helpful in understanding and
> helping to educate people who wanted to be netizens. I thought this
> is relative to our discussion of whether it is appropriate to the
> Netizens list to recommend reading "Netizens: On the History and
> Impact of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE Computer Society, 1997.
>
> Ronda
Very much so apposite.
Larry
- --part1_127.26f036c1.2bc78be8_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/10/03 9:57:12 PM Eastern Daylight=
Time, ronda@panix.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">This is a review of Netizens fr=
om a technical journal published in <BR>
Romania. It is a very interesting review, so I thought those on<BR>
the Netizens list would find it of interest. It describes how the<BR>
author of the review found the book helpful in understanding and <BR>
helping to educate people who wanted to be netizens. I thought this<BR>
is relative to our discussion of whether it is appropriate to the<BR>
Netizens list to recommend reading "Netizens: On the History and<BR>
Impact of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE Computer Society, 1997.<BR>
<BR>
Ronda</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Very much so apposite.<BR>
<BR>
Larry </FONT></HTML>
- --part1_127.26f036c1.2bc78be8_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:41:16 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
>In a message dated 4/10/03 8:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>>Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in discussing the
>>creation of participatory democracy as a replacement for the current
>>system. I don't regard the current system as broken, and I certainly
>>don't want to replace it with something untried.
>>
>
>
>The only reason why I am proposing any kind of discussion of this matter is
>only to express that I am not chauvinistic. Otherwise how can we at
>least diagnose the source of the disagreement. Perhaps something
>that has not been previously introduced might be articulated in a
>construction -- something that might help us all to understand the
>persistence of view that I believe Jay, Ronda, and Luis share --
>that representative government is ineffective.
>
>This particular disagreement fundamentally defines our positions on
>much that has and will be discussed here.
>
>Remember that there is a government regulatory component of almost
>every problem and hopefully solution that we are going to look at --
>The Internet was created by government. Look, the way I see it --
>we are going to return to this issue anyways.
>
>Everyone, how do you want to handle it?
>
For myself, I really want to focus my social/professional effort on
things that need to be fixed in the short term, possibly can be
fixed, and, while relevant to various forms of political empowerment,
are independent of them. Of course, I deal with the market,
regulatory and technical aspects of the Internet. When I say
Internet, incidentally, I cannot see separating the carrier
infrastructures that also carry telephony, video content, and private
data. Both technology and economics force these things to be
considered as one integrated whole, exploiting economies of scale for
such social goods as universal access.
Hopefully, I can do nothing negative other than ignore messages on
the representative vs. participatory model. I do not believe I have
anything to contribute to it, nor any real interest in doing so. I
am perfectly willing to talk about how one researches and
disseminates information on the net. I would hope, however, that
some of the political and social consciousness that is focused on
these issues of representational paradigms could be redirected to
more immediate issues.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:03:22 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
>In a message dated 4/10/03 12:56:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>> >For example they would seek to offer international VoIP over their
>>>own dedicated network while a new competitor can dispense with the
>>>sunk cost of maintaining a physical network by simply renting access
>>>to an Internet that others maintain. Since the competition has only
>>>to rent access to transport and run voice as an application on that
>>>transport, it can offer service that is unencumbered by legacy costs.
>>>The business model of control of both applications and customers
>>>prevents productive investment
>>
>
>
>
>Never go against the flow. Regarding commoditization, we should
>just acquiesce to the will of the market. The government should
>
>(1) buy out all of the legacy infrastructure.
Bond issue? Special taxation? User fees? How does the budget get passed?
I really _am_ open to ideas here.
>
>(2) partition physical regions nationwide by a consumer density
>metric or otherwise 'viability,' whatever that is supposed to mean.
>Revenue is derived from 'last mile infrastructure maintenance fees'
>or from the provision of value-added services to consumers or the
>construction of 'whatever works' in each partitioned domain. To
>define these domains, you classify consumer types and come up with a
>mix of corporate and non-corporate subscribers that you know must be
>in a domain to engender a profit.
As you may already know, the classical model for regulated telephone
companies was a guaranteed fixed return on investment. This
encouraged capital investment, but tended to minimize the
introduction and improvement of existing services because customer
revenues really weren't incentives for the service providers.
>
>(3) auction leased access to these partitioned regions to new
>companies (probably 'the usual suspects' renamed) who will locally
>manage or maintain the local end of the new Stupid networks and the
>local gateways to the main trunks. These companies will control the
>consumers -- not necessarily run any apps.
If you could get these auctions established, through the legislative
equivalent of Armageddon, you might indeed be able to solve #1. I
suspect some sort of financial instruments and short-term bridge
financing bonds might be constructed that could do that, if the
vested interests could agree. What the instruments might look like is
outside the scope of my expertise.
>
>Problem solved. Now we can enjoy commoditized services. Next.
>
>Larry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:48:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Larry,
I hope this will serve also as a response to your previous reply to me, but I'm
happy to respond privately also if you like. I'm trying to minimize my "meta"
posts.
> > Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in discussing the
> > creation of participatory democracy as a replacement for the current
> > system. I don't regard the current system as broken, and I certainly
> > don't want to replace it with something untried.
>
> The only reason why I am proposing any kind of discussion of this matter is
> only to express that I am not chauvinistic. Otherwise how can we at least
> diagnose the source of the disagreement.[...]
>
> This particular disagreement fundamentally defines our positions on much
> that has and will be discussed here.
I agree that some mutual understanding on this issue is helpful. I don't feel
bereft in that regard because we've already had some such discussions (and also
I have the advantage of having spent a fair amount of time in personal
conversation with Ronda).
My concern at this point _isn't_ that we disagree on many issues because of a
poorly understood root disagreement on government. It's more that Howard,
among others, has posted many things that seem worth concerted _discussion_
whatever our views on government, and not much has happened. So I want to see
more discussion on those issues -- not necessarily less on participatory
democracy, although I personally am ready for a break from overarching issues.
(However, there may indeed be a poorly understood root disagreement on
netizenship itself -- in the sense of "why is this the netizens list? why are
we here?" And so I've tried to focus some attention on resolving that issue,
and relatively less on the PD issue.)
Pragmatically, since Howard isn't interested in talking about PD right now
(although he has in the past), does want to talk about other things, and is
apparently still trying to decide whether he has a useful role in the list, my
priorities are clear. I'm still looking for time to respond to the Cook Report
article.
Best,
Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #488
******************************
