Feb 26 - Mar 1, 1998

Dear colleagues,
here are my advises for Japan along Jimīs questions:

What new ideas need to be circulated to help get Japan ready for the networked world?

Individual creativity, social competence, the ability to act flexible and the will to get in communication with other cultural surroundings are the sources of all success in the networked world. If Japan would be able to insert the abilities into their society Japan will be a fixed and forming part of the global information society.

Based on what you know about Japan: their business structures, their political institutions, their education system, 0their cultural patterns, how would you recommend they change?

To see that something must be changed is the first and the most important step to change. So respective to their existing global economical power (also in information technology hardware) Japan has the best chances to find a leading place in the global information society. I see some cultural problems: many people will get problems when they recognize that hierarchies are changing and getting flat. The social orientation changes to act responsible for oneself . But these points refer to every nation.

What can they draw upon from the past and present to use in building the future information society?

Inventing and selling hardware is the one thing, implementing technology by software, information contents and services is another. Building the future information society is building information content and communication.

What is there about Japan now that enables them to be leaders in the information age?

Japan is member of the group of nations which went the first steps to the information age. In the last days of the industrial society they spread information technology, cars and industrial goods all over the world (by the way: most was firstly invented in Germany, telefax by Siemens etc..!) and they were the only real competitors to the US. Then the USA occupied the information market by being more innovative, faster and flexible. It seemed that the rest of world was sleeping or was not able to recognize that the information age includes economical future. Of course every nation in the world has the chance to be a leader in the global information society and Japan has very good chances to be one if the leaders if they act and change quickly. The knowledge and the economical power is existing. But: the USA is the leading nation because of their advantage of time. While there the discussion about the information age began in the early 90īs most of the other nations began 1995/1996. 5 Years in the information age are 5 long years. But the information age includes that everything can happen. And this very fast.

What new things and new ideas do they need to grasp to move forward?

Creativity: Watch these developments exactly where everybody is thinking that they are not important. These can be the developments of the future. Long plans can be false. Donīt hesitate to change your plan and to switch to another direction.

What specific changes need to happen, and in what frameworks? The schools? the businesses? the political institutions? the legal system?

I do not know the situation in Japan exactly so I cannot answer to these detailed questions. But I think that the tradition in Japan is a very important thing. In times of industrial mass production and logistics the Japanese tradition went conform to this kind of age. It seems that the information age includes new challenges for dealing with the Japanese tradition and power.

I have been out of the country and thus not involved in your discussions but have kept up with the issues being discussed.

It is my impression that the federal government in Japan has spent a good deal of time on information infrastructure deployment across Japan and not as much time working to assist citizens with applications to encourage them to use the world wide web. The Japanese schools have a project to connect a large number of schools in Japan but I am not sure where it stands at the moment.

A project known as Digital Communities being managed by Japan Elecronic Information Development Association has been working with a number of prefectures to assist them in getting a jump start on development of an information society. These prefectures include Mie, Kochi, Iwati, etc. Projects include virtual cities, virtual universities and a project called 'Teen Age Walkers' that encourages connectivity between students in schools in Japan and the United States.

I would encourage the Japanese government to work on applications development within Japan for telemedicine, in education, health, manufacturing and the courts systems. In addition, their work in transportaiton could also be enabled by working with other countries across the web.

I would also encourage the outfront development of champions for applications development. Rep. Meida of the Japanese Diet and fellow members of the informaiton technology caucus could become outfront champions. I believe that they should work with the Governors in their prefectures who have stepped out to move their own citizens forward in this information society. The government should put up for consideration a sum of dollars that would serve to be a RFP grants program. Groups of early adapters could apply for these funds from schools, libraries, industrial companies and nongovernment organizations. Even funds could be made available for connecting the hospitals in Japan (similar to the funding by the FCC for our hospitals, due to be completed over the next two years.)

These are just some of the ideas. Maybe I can write more later. It is very late.

Following is a summary of points discussed in the parallel Japanese Online Conference.

19th February to 22nd February
When we consider the problems faced by the modern cities created by industrial societies, what is needed is a framework (in the wider sense of social infrastructure) whereby the agricultural sector also can participate in contemporary value added creation.

The focus of discussion at the APRICOT conference was none other than domain names. There was heated debate on the subject of the green paper released by the American government at the end of January. 'To whom does the Internet belong?', who should be managing it, and how?, What should be done about the future global management of domain names, as this is a major element that can be used by anybody? How does the question impact trademarks? Also, the formal proposals by the American government, which seem set to nullify the de facto international agreements of the international community, are causing widening and ever increasing concern.

Responding to the post by Shumpei Kumon

A few days after the opening ceremony of Nagano Olympic, I had a bad flu that lasted over 10 days. Deprived of both mental and physical energy I couldn't even lurk. In the meanwhile this electronic conference is coming to the end.

Sorry to hear that you had a flu during the earlier part of this electronic conference. I hope you have fully recovered. We missed your contributions and the interesting discussion your participation makes possible.

(...)

On my part, I was, sort of, culturally overwhelmed by the exchanges between Ronda and Howard, I mean, by the 'confrontational?' way you discuss things. So let me just make a brief intervention to their discussion about the 'relative roles, or different functions, of the private sector vs. government.'

Good that you got to look back at the conference discussion about the private sector verus government. And that you point out that the differences are helpful to discuss and that the discussion of the differences is not antagonistic or to be seen as confrontational.

I admit that some governments are (sometimes) bellicose and/or tyrannical. I also admit that private sector, particularly some corporations are greedy.

With regard to the corporate sector, I have found that there are certain interests that the managers of a corporation have to serve, and therefore they can't look at the bigger social picture. That is why other sectors of society also have to have an influence on government so that government represents a broader view of the social needs than for example the corporate sector on its own can consider.

Nevertheless, the role of government has definitely changed in this century as their prestige game lost legitimacy in the international society. Its role will continue to change in the coming century. For example, its role as the main financial sponsor of socially useful activities (such as researches) and also as the main redistributor of income and wealth will be reduced. Instead, the private sector will take up more of these roles.

Through my study of the history of the ARPANET and Internet it is clear that the private sector couldn't and wouldn't have been able to sponsor the long term research that made the Net possible.

The corporate sector must keep in mind whether a project will be profitable, while government (i.e. the public sector) can support more socially necessary and useful projects because they yield long term social benefits. Government's obligation is to provide for the health and welfare of the population, while the private sector doesn't have that same obligation.

During the period the ARPANET was being developed there were efforts to make big cutbacks in U.S. government spending for scientific research. Those online took up to discuss how this was a harmful policy and how the private sector would not and could not take up to make up for the losses that would result from the cutbacks. There is a report online of how the cutbacks were stopped.

Why do you feel that the cutbacks in government spending for research will occur and why do you think the private sector will be able to make up for the cutbacks?

I realize there are likely to be differences in Japanese and U.S. circumstances regarding these issues.

But the government will continue to be an important and ultimate constabulary force to confirm and enforce a new set of rules in the coming information society. Governments will have to collaborate globally in order to play this role successfully.

It is interesting to hear this perspective of the importance of government to help enforce rules. That, I agree is an important role of government. It seemed the use of the Acceptible Use Policy in the development of the Internet helped to set out a common set of obligations that cooperating governments and academic communities agreed to and thus were able to work together to build the Net.

The private sector in the future will consist not only of business organizations but also of NGO-NPO-type organizations and individuals.

But often NGO-NPO type organizations (at least in the U.S.) have their own narrow mandate to serve and thus can't take on to serve the broader and more long term social needs.

What do you see as the role of individuals in this situation?

In general, at least in U.S. society, individuals are relatively powerless unless they have great wealth.

People may form movements but also there are problems when the movements become more entrenched as organizations, for example in the U.S. the trade unions have become much weaker as the organizations have gotten stronger but the rights of individuals inside them to have an effect on the organization has been considerably weakened.

They are 'intelprises (intellectual enterprises)' according to my neologism in the sense that their main interest is not in accumulation and demonstration of wealth but in acquisition and exhibition of intellectual power.

Does the Net function in any way in this model you have of the future?

To stay with the previous issues a bit more, I want to give a few examples that I feel are helpful in understanding why government still must be reckoned with for those who are not part of corporate structures or other enterprises.

When the CDA (the Communications Decency Act) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the U.S. President into law, there were many people online who understood why it would be harmful to the development of the Net and to their participation online. They carried on much discussion online, and took up to fight against the law. A court challenge was take up and it was soon struck down by the U.S. courts. (Also the written decision was helpful in affirming the importance of the Internet as a new means of mass communication among people and one that deserves government protection, not abuse.) If people had said we give up on government, then (at least in the U.S.) we would have been left with a harmful law impeding participation online. But it took a struggle to affect this government activity.

In a similar way, at INET '96 in Montreal, Canada, Professor Rolf Nordhagen from the University of Oslo in Norway spoke up at one of the sessions asking that the Internet Society be helpful in preventing a single company from trying to take over the Net in Norway. He was worried about the harmful effect that such commercial activity could have in Norway.

So there are concerns about how to affect both corporate and governmental actions so they won't be harmful to the growth and development of the Internet and in other socially important issues.

I have just been reading Jurgen Habermas's comments in an article 'Further Reflections on the Public Sphere' (in 'Habermas and the Public Sphere' edited by Craig Calhoun).

I was impressed by how he is trying to determine what role discussion and debate among citizens can help to influence the otherwise powerful sectors of society -- that of government and of corporate.

He maintains that by establishing a framework for public deliberation toward discovery and problem solving and discussions, it will be possible to have more socially helpful govenment decisions.

My own feeling is that it is remarkable that we live in a time when technical and social development necessitate the development of computer networks. And these networks make possible the democratic processes of discussion and Netizen (and citizen) participation that can help transform the power held by government and corporate sectors.

We are in the early stages of investigation to see whether this hope can translate into reality. The ability of those online to share their news and views is a hopeful sign and also a means to continue to develop and spread computer and networking technology.

Can you say what you see as the role of the Net and of online discussion in your formulation of business enterprises and intelprises? I wondered if it is similar to what Habermas presents as the role for citizen discussion and the recreation of a public sphere.

Also I wondered what Howard sees as the role the Net or discussion does and will play to help solve the poblems he sees with frustration with government as we have it now (at least in the U.S.) and with regard to the need he sees for leadership for the private sector.

Like Shumpei, I've been lurking. There is a lot to respond to, but to me the most important myth to be struck down (and I am surprised to see it here) is that somehow the Internet and interactive media will wash over the world (especially sclerotic governments and monopolies) and remake them in its image. The Internet is a profoundly plastic medium, and what we intepret today as some of its 'inherent' characteristics are more likely a reflection of the elite nature of its current user base. I don't use 'elite' as an insult but as a common term in political science to indicate a favored social strata.

I recommend a paper published recently by the ITU and available at: http://www.itu.int/ti/papers/inet97/ch2_sho.pdf The authors remind us that of all the world's communications infastructures, 'the Internet is the most grotesquely uneven in its distribution.' Thabo Mbecki, the Deputy President of South Africa, was probably right (tough to verify) that half of the world's population has never made a telephone call. The Internet is no where remotely close to having an impact on most of the world's population, let alone its economic, social and political structures.

And as the Internet becomes a mass medium it will lose many of the community-like characteristics that it has today. So while I appreciate Ronda's book (and use it to teach Internet history, law and policy at Georgetown), and appreciate Howard's book and work on virtual communities, my better sense tells me that yesterday or today's Internet are mostly interesting historically. You don't need to know much about the social milieu or educational background of the founders of the U.S. to explain American public policy in the late 20th century. And so it is with the Net: it is fun to know the origins but largely irrelevant except in a very abstract way.

I've enjoyed the discussion here...

I read Mr. David Lytel's comments regarding the have's and have not's, Internet plastic shape, etc. etc.

In my opinion, while there may be all of these things at play there is one factor that I believe far outweighs all the discussions and that is; not how the technology will or will not affect those who do not have it, but rather how the technology affects those who do have it and how it changes them and how THEY; the human beings who do have it will change (in some cases by force) those human beings who do not have it.

History teaches us that those which possessed technological innovation often changed their view of those who did not have it and often dictated their actions in less than humane ways. Witness the merchant ship technology of 15th century Europe and their view of themselves compared to those whom they 'discovered'.

The Internet does not have to penetrate the 'other' 50% of the planet who have never made a telephone call to change their lives and turn their world inside out. All the Internet has to do is change the other 50% of the world. Then watch the way they treat the other half when they get face to face. It will bring a whole new meaning to the often heard phrase on American television sitcoms; 'What planet are you from?'