Ronda,
Some comments have been added to yours, for an additional perspective...
>Some thoughts for the new year that I welcome comments on.
>
>I have been reading a book of the conference proceedings of AFIPS in
>1970 about the Information Utility and Social Choice.
>
>The conference had a keynote by J.C.R. Licklider and talks by a
>number of other people including Harold Sackman, Irving S. Beglesdorf,
>Harold Borko, etc.
>
>I have been impressed to see the fact that there seems to have
>been a vision of how there would develop a network of networks
>either for increasing democratic participation by citizens in their
>societies and for increasing communication and interaction or for
>hoarding knowledge and toward creating totalitarian
>control.
When trying to understand a network, its potential for scalability,
its potential impact, its potential for human development and social
interaction, as Mssrs. Licklider, Sackman, Beglesdorf, and Borko attempted
to peer into the future and wake people up. How? By educating us.
To tackle such a task, it is/was necessary to breakdown the network
elements into their most simple components, and understand the physics (the
science) at work, which means paying attention to detail that few people
understand.
What they were doing in their exercise is what design engineers do
when they try to solve a problem by creating a new way of doing things.
Apparently, these visionary scientists and engineers recognized the
fundamental shift in communications and control that they were beginning to
enable in computer users, which would shift the power from a thing (or an
"other") to the user him/her "self".
Such a "self-emplowering" network, because of its new design,
would cause massive ripples in social and economic order, and they
apparently knew it, and attempted to brace others by using their "vision"
to foreshadow both the positive consequences (sharing of information), and
the negative consequences (hoarding knowledge and totalitarian control.)
>And that it would have to be administered in the same way that
>the development of the network had been created, i.e. through
>the experimental processes guided by computer science methodology
>and by a social vision and practice.
The methodology is not limited to "computer science" because THE
most important elements of the network itself are the producer and consumer
elements of the 'content' (creators and consumers of the bits and bytes
which flow across the network), the "individuals" each of whom is the owner
of their own computer-like, scientific-law-abiding brain, and its
individual software program, called their "mind".
The social vision, about which you speak, because of the
philosophical foundation of the system which funded its creation (the
Constitution), is one of a benevolent governing body, of the people, by the
people, and for the people, which is consistent with the creation of a
network which empowers individuals to create and transmit their energy from
one to another, freely and openly.
>For example J.C.R. Licklider recognized that there there
>would be a point reached where there was a switch that could
>go in either a social direction whereby the developing network
>would be directed toward fostering human-to-human communication
>and toward people being encouraged to interact with computers
>and information, or a downward direction where the network
>would encourage people to be passive and to just be the passive
>recipients of data from the developing network.
How individual people will use the network is a function of many
factors, personal and systemic. On the personal level, their language (Can
they speak the same language as others?), their economic means (Do they
have access?), their ability, their age, etc. affect whether they will
truly interact, or be passive. On the systemic level, the fundamental
design affects how the network will be used, and how it will scale to
accommodate users who find the network compelling and useful.
As others have pointed out, the limited use of words (used by the
human mind to organize its data) to address and locate things on the Net
has been a limitation, which created an opportunity that has generated
massive wealth by consolidating massive economic power in the hands of a
few small companies which solved the bottleneck problems, creating
searching and spidering technologies. When you write "passive recipients
of data", you are describing the Wall Street phenomenon formerly called the
"search engine", not called the "portal".
>Harold Borko urged that as "as scientists and as human beings
>we have the responsibility for guiding the products of our science
>in socially desirable directions." And he urged that the computer
>utility that was being developed be an instrument for sharing
>scientific achievements and improved democratic participation,
>rather than for hoarding knowledge or toward creating totalitarian
>control.
The tendency toward hoarding knowledge and creating totalitarian
control, about which you speak, is most present in the network segment
called "cookies", a term which is used to disguise the fact that personal
and behavioral data can be gathered without the knowledge of the user.
Again, somebody designed it into a network element, for some purpose,
either good, bad, or neutral.
>H. Sackman proposed that "no one has faced up to the problem of
>social information on a regulated public utility." He maintained
>that manufacturers and the industry didn't have any guidance
>as to "what the public wants nor what the public needs." And
>that "if immediate profits are the supreme end of all social
>planning because no other serious contenders arise, then the
>information utility could end up as the most barren wasteland
>of them all."
"What the public wants or what the public needs" is embedded in the
documents created at the system-wide funding level of the network, governed
by the U.S. Constitution. It is impossible to meaningfully speak about
"the public" in the same breath with the Internet, because it is a global
space, unless one speaks from the position of the science governing the
physical activities taking place at the network, which applies to the sum
of each and every Internet user (the public?).
>Instead he proposed that computers were revolutionizing science,
>particularly the method and findings of science.
In another sense, the network of computers allowing the
interconnection of persons who communicate data across far distances is
revolutionizing the understanding of the workings of the human mind, how
people interact with objects, how people use language for their own
benefit, and how individuals spontaneously form, virally, into communities
of common interest. The revolution is a revolution of both scientific and
social understanding, once it gets to the level where the majority of
people understand the relationship between the laws of science, the laws
which govern networks, and social consequences.
>He proposed "That suggested resolution looks toward an
>evolving universalization of science, nourished by global
>information utilities within a framework of increasing
>international cooperation."
More directly, using mathematics, there is one universe which is
governed by one set of laws, which affect everything, matter and energy.
That outer universe can be studied, in microcosm, by any individual through
the tool (a gateway) called 'computer' interface, linked to a telephone
line, linked to a physical network. Everything one sees on the screen is
created by someone who uses their own computer (their mind) to create an
external reflection (an image) of what existed within them. By studying
the relationship between a person, a computer, and a network, we learn
about ourselves, IF we understand the scientific basis, which is a function
of education, which is a by-product of egolessness and/or humility.
>He urged that the public interest be kept in mind as there
>be an effort to figure out how to provide the kind of
>scientific oversight to the developing computer information
>utility. He proposed utilizing scientific design and test
>methodologies to do this, much as the work in developing
>computer technology utilized these scientific processes.
>
>These are just short notes about three of the talks at this
>interesting conference that took place in 1970, just as
>the research on the ARPANET was in its earliest days.
DARPA, as the R&D arm of the Dept of Defense, is subject to the
political winds that blow in and out of Washington DC. Their constant
sense of mission across administrations has carried things forward over the
years, only to have political forces move decisions away from science and
principles to pragmatism, public benefit to economic gain.
>And yet there was a vision that a network of networks would
>develop and that there would be a need to apply the same
>kind of scientific methodology that was used to create
>the network to its development and toward having it serve
>people's needs and interests.
The missing link is science-based statesmanship and humanitarianism
bundled into a forceful voice for steering people toward doing what is
right for each and every person in the system. What is missing is called
leadership.
>There seemed a commitment to expanding communication among
>people and interactive participation of people rather than
>to creating passive processes that would mimic the worst
>of the old world.
The void of principled leadership, created by a short-sighted
focus on timetables, means that principles have been cast aside in favor of
organizing economic interests first.
>I wondered if anyone has an idea of what has happened to
>this vision and this commitment?
Ideas such as the visions that you described never go away, they
just become diluted by the massive dollars spent by special interests to
sway "the debate" one way or another, over a period of years. If you ask
interested, educated people about the issues, they might not jump out and
identify them, but if you presented the situation as it is, people would
recognize how important they are. It just does not rank up them in the
media's spotlight with Lewinskygate, or this month's paycheck.
>The recent events in the U.S. to privatize various aspects
>of the Internet show no understanding of this social vision
>or of the commitment to applying scientific processes to
>the development of the future computer utility, which we today
>call the Internet.
>
>Has this vision gotten lost?
No, the vision has not gotten lost, because people who have the
time and interest have constantly brought it forth in various forms and
action items, and it has always bounced against a wall of command and
"control" with apparently one over-riding agenda...to create a centralized
mechanism for allocating the supply of names and numbers, which can
generate revenue (like a tax).
>I was surprised to find it expressed so strongly in the presentations
>of several of the participants in this 1970 conference.
>
>Is there a way to bring this vision and the methodology back into
>the heart of the development of the network of networks?
Start with a Mission Statement. Memorialize it in this 50th
anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Symbolize
the movement (get a name, like ICIIU or DNSO.ORG or DNSO.NET). Make it
relevant to people's lives. Make it a membership organization with member
benefits. Add value over time.
>If so, perhaps there is a way that can be found for the plans
>by the U.S. govt to change the management structure of the essential
>functions of the Internet to reflect something that is scientific,
>based on increasing communication, and in spreading the Internet,
>rather than the legalistic, secretive and exclusive view of turning
>the Internet into a commercenet that currently is governing the
>way that the ICANN folks and those who seem to be designing its
>structure are functioning.
In my experience, this is the job of the administration, presently
in the hands of the Dept of Commerce' NTIA, which would best be handled by
an R&D organization, like DARPA. That's a political issue though, since it
would involve transferring resources and power from Dept of Commerce to the
Dept of Defense. If one really wants to push the envelope, there is really
a need for a functional U.S. Dept of Network Systems to insure the
democratic implementation of networks to the citizenry because network
systems cut across all departments and impact all people's daily lives, in
all geographical territories.
>We are entering a new year, and a year that is the prelude to
>welcoming in of a new millenium. It is important that we take the
>future seriously and try to figure out how to make it one we
>choose rather than one that is given to us by those who have
>no vision and no concern the advantages that increased
>communication among those around the world will bring to all
>aspects of society.
If you or anyone else would like details about "how to", please
feel free to contact me so that we might work together, otherwise we can
share ideas in the open forum of this list. Open lists, however, don't
necessarily lend themselves to accomplishing specific action items.
In the context of your post, Ronda, ICANN might be viewed as an
emerging oversight body for an emerging network of network systems which
will function to transform societies, worldwide because the future power to
access information will lie in the hands of the users, not the government
monopolies. The genie is out of the bottle, regardless of what totalitarian
regimes do to try and control it.
>Comments, disagreements, and any other variety of response welcome
>to help to properly celebrate the coming of a new year
>on the Internet :-)
Thanks for the historically-loaded post.
>
Steve Page
T: 925-454-8624
(c) Copyright, 1999. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved.
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
