Re: Users need to be able to speak for themselves(Was: Re:Position of SOs)

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 07:46 PM 11/28/98 , Ronda Hauben wrote:
>edyson@edventure.com (Esther Dyson) writes:
>
>>Some  further questions:
>
>>How do "users" count themselves?  Am I a different person with regard to
>>(say) addresses vs. as an At Large member? How are the users who join
>>(whatever that means) an SO different from those who join the AL membership?
>>As a user, how do I want my influence mediated? Would I like my ISP to
>>represent me in the AL membership in some way?  Is membership a burden that
>>I *want* to cede to someone who will go to (boring) meetings on my behalf,
>>study the issues, etc.?  How are my interests similar to an different from
>>those of other users?=20
>
>At the Boston Meeting on Nov. 14 people spoke to this.
>
>And it was interesting that what was said was reflected in the Nov. 14
>NYT story and then removed in the edition that actually went into
>the print edition.
>
>Users speak for themselves on the Internet. The Internet is a far
>superior medium for people to participate and contribute to 
>the clarification and solving of problems.


Hi Ronda,

Actually, you and Esther are not far apart on this one.

Esther Dyson also wrote:

http://www.ibm.com/services/newmark/mature.html

The Net's long-run impact on democracy, I believe, won't be one of
propaganda or information dissemination; CNN and the various national
broadcasters (private and public) do a fine job of that. The real impact,
if it works, will be to encourage citizen participation, to make people
feel that they can influence the discussion. Instead of choosing from
what's on offer, they can actually make suggestions and arguments of their
own. If you think a politician is brain dead, you can say why instead of
just giving your vote to someone slightly more alive. People want to
contribute their ideas as well as their votes. 

++++

Jay.


>What is needed is *not* membership as membership ends up being
>manipulated by those who have the most ability to utilize it 
>for their own purposes. And it is not to have one's ISP speak
>for users. The ICANN, models still seem to be that of user as customer,
>rather than user as citizen of the Net or net.citizen or Netizen.
>
>A citizen is the person who has to speak for his or her self, 
>to clarify what is needed, and to contribute to determine the issues
>that need to be discussed, and how to frame the discussion, etc.
>The Internet makes this possible, and this is necessary for
>the Internet to continue to develop.
>
>What is needed are online forms that function to discuss the problems
>that have to be determined and to figure out the principles toward 
>the needed solutions.
>
>That was part of the essence of my proposal that Magaziner asked
>me to submit and then was ignored by him and the U.S. Dept. of
>Commerce.
>(The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt)
>
>
>This is how the Internet has been built.
>
>The Internet makes possible participatory forms and encourages
>netizen participation, but ICANN is talking about "membership"
>and supporting organizations and "corporations" instead of having a
>ny understanding of the development of the Internet.
>
>I have previously offered to discuss this further with anyone
>interested, and it seems with regard to the U.S. Dept of Commerce,
>Magaziner's office and ICANN that *no* one is interested.
>
>Either one is interested in participatory processes that the 
>Internet makes possible, or in imposing decisions on the Internet
>community. The latter flies in the face of the cooperative and 
>collaborative processes needed for the Internet to function, and 
>to grow and flourish.
>
>
>Ronda
>ronda@panix.com
>
>
>             Netizens: On the History and Impact
>               of Usenet and the Internet
>          http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
>            in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6