Hi Bill,
To clarify, Mikki Barri wrote the piece
you quoted.
More comments below . . .
At 1/30/99, 11:57 PM, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 06:41 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>>
>>Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism. If the non
>>commercial interests hadn't made the Internet such a desired venue for
>>communiciation, and if governments, academic institutions, private, and
>>commercial entities hadn't made committments to the medium, there would BE
>>no e-commerce. Yet that fact is consistantly left out of proposals for
>>constituencies. There is no provision for public interest, universal
>>access interests, schools and universities, freedom of expression, and
>>several other important constituencies that are left out of every proposal
>>(although it has been talked about in the DNSO.org draft, although it is
>>being shot down as "brought up too late" when in fact it has been brought
>>up time and time again over the years).
This really goes to the heart of this
debate. What is a member, and how do
they get represented. If there are to
be constituencies, how will they be
weighted, and how will they change
over time.
We still have a lot of work to do.
Jay.
>Can't speak to the latter point -- uh, maybe I'm a "clueless newbie!" --
>but on the rest of it truer words were never spoken. In the several years
>that I've been on the net, I've seen the amount of scientific research
>available grow geometrically: I can research a topic in an hour now
>that used to take me days. There is endless medical information
>available as well -- diluted with tons of medical garbage such as the
>latest urban legend that aspartame causes Alzheimer's because it
>has formaldehyde in it -- but still useful if one looks carefully at the
>entity that's doing the posting. The net got started for the purpose
>of exchanging research information, and anything done to it that
>would harm that fundamental advantage to a free society in any way
>-- commercial interests be damned -- would represent a distinctly
>counter-evolutionary trend. We all have a responsibility to protect
>the true worth of the net -- and if any of our barely postpubescent
>slam-bammers in this group think I'm being arrogant about that,
>well, stuff it.
>
>Bill Lovell
>>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>___END____________________________________________
>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
