Mar 2 - Mar 5, 1998

Responding to the post by David Lytel:
Like Sumpei, 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

Nobody said that the Internet would 'wash over the world'. But I welcome your comments and will be glad to clarify my concerns on these issues. Today there are deep economic and political problems thus a social problem as well.) There are people wanting a better life and the conditions in most societies leave many without much hope that life can be better aside from the change that the Net makes possible.

There are sectors in most societies today with much power and very little input from the rest of society so that the power cannot be wielded in a way that serves the larger interest, but rather in a way that serves only a very narrow self interest.

The interactive media like mailing lists and Usenet make it possible to have broad ranging discussion on topics of public concern and thus to figure out how to solve the problems that those with the power otherwise have no way to solve (as they don't have the input to solve those problems and don't know or understand even what the problmes are.)

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.

The Net is the one place where a broad mass of people, rather than the elite who usually get to speak publicly outside of the Net, have a change to discuss and have their concerns considered.

There is a need to spread the Net and to spread the advantages it makes possible, not negate its advantages because not everyone yet has access to them.

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.

Good you raise the issue, but not good that you have the future decided :-)

Not all of us agree with your pessimistic view of the future of the Net and of society fortunately, and perhaps we can even win you to a more optimistic assessment.(Also it is good to hear that you have found our book 'Netizens' of value, even if you only find the historical aspects of the book useful.)

However when Michael and I wrote the chapters that make up our book 'Netizens' because we were hopeful that they would help there to be a debate over this very question of 'What should be the future of the Net?'

A recent review of 'Netizens' in Educom Review March/April 1998 helps to phrase the question in an interesting way so I want to quote a part of the review here.

The reviewer writes: 'At the heart of the matter is the transition from NSFnet--a subsidized public good--to the Internet emerging as a set of private commercial goods. Can the best of that public good survive, or will all that promise simply go the way of radio, television and other media?'

The reviewer also describes what he feels 'Netizens' presents as the importance and promise of the Net. He writes:

'However, their focus is not so much on the technology and its history as the network community, its philosophy and values: openness, egalitarianism and its potential for a town meeting type of global democracy.'

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.

But we are just now deciding what will be the future of the Net, not looking back to what was decided 200 years ago as in your example.

And if we are making policy to shape that future shouldn't that policy be based on study, open discussion and a discussion of what we want to happen?

It seems David, as if you feel the policy issues are all solved and the future of the Net is determined as something that is in fact just another form of media like radio and tv.

I've enjoyed the discussion here...

It is quite special to be discussing these issues and your comments are much appreciated, as they do help to phrase the issues and provide the basis for further discussion over them.

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

February 23rd to 25th
The questions of children's education and the Internet were discussed. Topics such as the operation of networks in schools, and the screening of harmful material were raised.

Some were against the idea that public bodies should act as Internet providers, suggesting instead that programmes and criteria for the provision of sufficient local government information were more important.

As this on-line conference draws to a close, a summary of topics raised so far was presented.
1) The importance of the spread of development and information networks in the developing countries.
* Should the provision of equipment and infrastructure be prioritized? Will the introduction of information technology be effective in closing the gaps?
* Should there be different methods and priorities for the introduction of information technology in urban and rural areas?

2) Development of the educational uses of the Internet.
* The provision of a system and environment for schools and educators.
* Significant reductions in telecommunication costs in education.
* The question of 'harmful information'. To what degree are restrictions necessary?

3) Lowering of telecommunication charges.
* Japan ought to have the fastest, biggest capacity communications systems, with cheap charges.
* The fostering of competition.
* Expectations of new technology (satellites, etc.)

Dear Colleagues:

We have enjoyed this round of vigorous discussion and exchange of views. It is time now, alas, to call a recess so that we can gather these great thoughts together in a format to be presented to the Summit on March 10.

I want to thank you for your generous participation. Our sponsors, NIKKEI, have benefitted tremendously from your expression of ideas.

We are still open to final ideas or insights from all of you, but the time is limited.

Is there interest among any of you to keep this dialogue going? NIKKEI has expressed a willingness to consider this, and will be contacting you about your thoughts.

It has been a privilege for me monitor this discussion and gain from the great ideas and information which you have shared. I hope that we can all stay in touch. As you have expressed there is much work to do to get the world ready for the information revolution, and it is great to be linked with you in that effort.

Let's have one more round of ideas. And then you will be hearing more from Nikkei.

Thank you all. Keep on keeping on.

I had prepared these comments and now that we have been asked to do one more go around by the moderator of the conference, I felt these would serve as final thoughts (though in the future sometime welcome the chance to discuss them further. Hence I welcome comments to this post, either as part of the conference should it continue, or via email if it doesn't continue.)

Responding to the comments of Professor SHIMASAKI:
It would also be good to have discussion of different views of what Netizens and Netizenship represent. In our book 'Netizens', Michael, in the preface, notes that there are different ways the word is used, and that it is helpful to clarify how it is being used. The title of the panel discussion for the 3rd panel at the March 10 conference is intriguing:

Emerging Netizens and New Democracy -- Global Collaboration to Solve Network Society Problems

It would thus be good to hear how the panelists feel the terms Netizens and Netizenship are used and how they affect the New Democracy that the Net makes possible.

Professor SHIMASAKI, you have helpfully presented your views on Netizenship and Netizens as:

the membership here seems to mean naturally the 'netizenship' in various communities of common interests, composed by democracy/'world peace' -sensitive ordinary citizens having good computer-networking-related literacy.

I see Netizenship as a term not so much describing membership in a community, but the deeds done by someone online to help the Net grow and flourish. Also for me, a crucial aspect is that one recognize that the Net is in essence a new *communications* achievement (as opposed to *information* being primary etc.)

This means that someone who is a Netizen is interested in promoting *communication*, which is the basis for something new and different to emerge from the interaction of views and news of those discussing online.

It is this dynamic aspect of *communication* which I see as the basis to solve the real problems of real societies, both on and offline.

I find helpful also, that you say:

I share the interest in the items concerning netizens' influence/contribution to the above problem solution in global/national/regional/local REAL societies, with the Haubens and others.

It is good to know that we share an interest in how Netizens can contribute to the solution of real problems.

For example, recently, I surveyed some of the newsgroups on Usenet that I find interesting. I found a very helpful discussion ongoing on one of the newsgroups which referred to the current political and economic situation in Japan.

Following is the description I found.

Quoting from a post by someone on Usenet recently:

As for the standard of living improving....Huh?!?!? A better future?!?! What part of Japan are you living in? Have you been watching the news lately? The Finance Ministry has been taking bribes from some of the biggest banks in the country, economic growth has been at a standstill for years, the workforce is being drastically reduced as the population ages, urban families cannot afford to have more than 1 child, and people are still pulling 12-hour shifts so that their bosses will think they're hard workers. Everybody in Japan knows that the country is in trouble. And yet, as Eric said, the politicians are gutless. Hashimoto is making an attempt to reform things, but the ministries won't let him touch their territory. The ship is sinking, the captain's trying to patch the holes, the crew is in a mutiny, and most of the passengers don't know what to do. And you're telling us that everything's OK?

Others responding said the situation was not this bad, and I would need to hear from those who live in Japan now and who are on this list whether they feel this is an exaggeration of the current situation or a helpful description of what is happening in Japan now.

However, in response to this post, others on Usenet spoke particularly of the problem represented by long hours of work for many in Japan. That though there may be one day a week that people don't work overtime, many work 10 or 12 hours a day other days of the week. (One person said 9 to 9 or 10 to 10.) And since the extra work is not compensated by extra pay for many workers, it is not listed in official statements of hours of work. They also discussed that there is pressure to work the extra hours if one wants to get a promotion, a bonus, etc.

This discussion was helpful as it suggested there is an important social problem to be examined. In other societies, for example, in England, it took approximately 50 years of hard struggle by many people (from the early 1800's to 1848) to get Parliament to pass a law limiting the hours of work. In the U.S. too it took many years to get the Congress to pass legislation for an 8 hour day and for overtime pay to be paid after the 8 hours.(in the hopes this would limit the hours of work workers had to work). Yet at least in the U.S. today, there are again many people also working long hours of work and often without pay for the additional hours.

In reading Usenet this past weekend I found this interesting discussion raising this important problem to be considered both in Japanese society and in other countries like the U.S. as well.

This is an example of what is important about this new online public sphere that Usenet and the Internet make possible.

One can raise issues that are important issues that the traditional mass media (at least in the U.S.) do not usually concern themselves with. Historically, also, shorter hours legislation has helped to spur technological development and adoption, since once it is not possible for an employer to stretch the hours of work for the employees, the employer has a financial incentive to invest in upgrading the technology to get more work done.

Also if employees spend less time at work, then they have more time at home to participate onlline and and to engage in the discussion of public issues and concerns.

Thus I found this online discussion about the Japanese economy and problems a very hopeful sign that Usenet and the Internet *do* indeed provide a way to identify and consider the really important public issues so they can be put on the public agenda.

I welcome comments on this attribute of the new online public sphere -- i.e. of the ability of those online to identify important social or public issues and to consider and examine them towards having these issues placed on the public agenda.

I am also interested in discussing in what other ways the new online public sphere makes it possible to involve more of the public in identifying and discussing the important problems of the time and why this is desirable.

It is good to be able to discuss the ways in which the Internet and Usenet are so important toward creating a way to solve the problems of our time so as to create the possibility of a better society for a better future.

Congrats on getting thru!

A few shots for you:

1) There is a problem in these things in that the Americans are as loud mouthed and talkative in cyberspace via the keyboard as they are orally and in person. That I think is a proble, since the Japanese find some of the exchanges 'argumentative' and violent, as I think Dr. Kumon said. Maybe one way if continue would be to retrict each participant to only 25 lines per conference, forcing people to be more thotful, less fire from the hip. The basic challenge is how to get more Japanese to stay engaged, and to have a higher Japan-Ratio.

2) One idea that come thru was the idea of leadership, which I think you and I believe are important, and it did come thru some of the discussions.

I wonder if there is any interest out there in supporting a separate initiative on 'The Meaning of Leadership in the Digit Age'. We have a Center for Leadership here on campus that might be interested, (Bill Bradley, etc), but if cast in an international context, I wonder if we could get some of the biggies of the industries to sponsor a.....dinner/seminar series, then some roundtables, then a medium sized conference, to produce ultimately a paper/book.

Questions come to mind: what is the govts notion of leadership, or role? Private sector? Citizens group?
Are there Japanese notions of leadership diff from US, and are there ways to combine the best o each, or is this impossible?
What about what I call 'structural leadership', where leaders redo the rules of the game to change behavior?

Let me know what you think.