Following is the response I sent to the Berkman Institute midnight last night
in answer to the question they have posed about their current study
about representation in cyberspace.
From: Ronda Hauben
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [rcs] Opening Question
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 6 10:56:14 1999
>Welcome to an important discussion phase in the Berkman
>Center's study of representation in cyberspace. We will be using your
>answers here as the seeds of broader discussions. For our opening
>question, we ask you:
First before we start, there is a problem in that you have framed
the question in a way to preclude getting an answer that can help
to solve the problem that is the genuine problem to be solved.
The first way that the Berkman Center has mistakenly framed the
question is to call the study, a "study of representation in
cyberspace". Why do you feel you can determine that we shuld be
discussing "representation in cyberspace?" First the wonderful achievement
of the Internet is that people can represent themselves, that
people can speak for their own views and interests. And that
people can work together to make an inclusive process that is
cooperative rather than someone usurping our rights to be heard.
To call the study "representation" you preclude the discussion of
the nature of the Internet.
And by talking about "cyberspace" instead of the "Internet"
you are not trying to figure out what the Internet makes
possible that is so important for the present and future
of making more participatory and cooperative processes possible,
but rather you are proposing that we talk aobut fictious entities,
rather than the real technological and human-computer-communication
system that the Internet is in actuality.
>By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
>judged?
This question is also framed in a way that precludes the identification
of the real problem facing us on the Internet.
Many of those who are on the Internet have worked hard over a long
period of time to build a human-computer-communications system that
makes it possible for the voices of the users to be heard, for
the users themselves to determine the content and the architecture
of what is the present and future of the Internet.
ICANN is a move by the U.S. government to change that and to
narrow down the definition of what the Internet is to the wires and
the routers, etc.
And then to protect the interests of a narrow set of commercial interests
to the great detriment of the majority of the users of the Internet.
Instead of the narrow definition, we need the broadest understanding
of the Internet. The Internet was actually created in response to
problem of the centralized structure of the original ARPANET
subnetwork which was an important development in its own right,
but didn't provide the necessary kind of open architecture that
was needed for a global network that would welcome all forms of
packet switching networks to be part of it.
The creation of TCP (now called TCP/IP) in 1973 by Bob Kahn and Vint
Cerf was based on the recognition that there was the need to provide
for the autonomy of the participating networks, and to have
a minimum set of agreed upon conventions, i.e. a protocol, that
would make it possible to communicate.
The goal was to remove constraints to communication among the diverse
networks that would internet.
Instead of the Berkman Center trying to clarify what are the diverse
internet networks and people and how to help there to be the communication
that will make it possible to identify problems about the administration
of the central points of control of the Internet so that these problems
won't lead to abuse of the diverse peoples and networks who make up the
Internet, they are narrowing down the question in a way that
it is even difficult to determine what it is.
So if there is to be any success in the process that is proposed, it
must be judged by whether the narrow constraints get removed,
and if there can be open discussion to determine the real issues
that have to be identified, discussed, and means of resolving
these issues found.
The first issue I feel is crucial is to begin to recognize that
there is a noncommercial Internet and Internet community and
that the communication made possible via the Internet is
dependent on the protection and support of this noncommercial
Internet and Internet community.
And that the whole ICANN process thus far has been to deny that
there is an Internet that is *not* commercial and that promotes
communication which is crucial.
The first step I see as necessary is to recognize and begin to
welcome the discussion and communication among the folks
who are part of the noncommercial Internet and to welcome
their participation in the question of how to protect the
development of the communication the Internet makes possible,
and how to scale the Internet so this communication increases.
I am working on a paper that discusses this issue and am
willing to contribute it into the process.
But also there should be one newsgroup with a mailing list,
not separate mailing lists on this issue.
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
