Feb 26 - Mar 1, 1998

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

19th February to 22nd February
There was discussion on the question of identity among Japanese. In particular, the claim was made that the Japanese need to wake up to the concept of the 'individual'. Also, proposals were made regarding the role of the Internet in this respect.

We need to reflect on what caused the monsters to die out, and why it is that among the higher life forms there are only those which reproduce sexually. In a certain sense, the Internet provides increased opportunity for the 'intercourse' of information. Crossbreeding among living organisms caused natural selection, in response to the new conditions in the changing environment.

The interrelation between the 'entertainment' industry and the Internet was discussed, as well as how far the range of legal responsibility may be fairly extended.

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.

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.

This is Jiro Kokuryo, the coordinator for the 'real ? (face-to-face, that is...)' GIS-NET on March 10. Nikkei asked me to propose a list of topics that might be covered at the conference. In the spirit of openness, I would like to share it with the on-line panelists.

I thank all of the participants to the gis-net and gisj-net for helping me come up with this list. The discussions helped me greatly in the making of the list.

Please note that the following is merely my proposal and the actual agenda may change (possibly drastically) after we receive feedback from the panel members.

I would appreciate any suggestions you might have on how I should handle the March 10 event.

====================================
Dear members of the panel:

This is Jiro Kokuryo. Your coordinator for the Nikkei Summit panel session.

Here is a proposed agenda for the upcoming Nikkei Summit on March 10.

The proposed design is to start from the individual and community level discussions and then to move to more social and global topics. I am naturally not asking every-one to cover all of the topics. In fact, I do not think we have the time to cover them all. I am proposing Nikkei to organize a pre-panel lunch meeting to priortize the topics.

1. The nature and the role of 'communities' on the net.
2. Membership to the net communities. The issue of 'haves' and 'have nots' on the net. How we should promote network literacy. How to educate children.
3. What is the nature, if any, of the interaction between 'geographic,' (i.e., physically close) communities and 'virtual' communities?
4. Who should take initiatives in developing the infrastructure at the local community level?
5. Is the net destroying local cultures? The rest of the world is fearful that the net is Americanizing the entire world... What can (or should) remain local? Some societies seem to feel that their cultures are not compatible with the net's.
6. Norms, rules and the conflict resolution mechanisms on the net. If and how we should protect children and/or decency of the society. To what extent and how we can protect privacy.
7. Changing roles of media in democracies. How will journalism evolve?
8. The future of sovereign states. For better or for worse, the sovereign states have been the guardian of modern societies by providing rules and its enforcement. The net creates a space in which this model do not function well. We either need a Super-Nation or a totally different model (the IETF model?)...
9. The future of capitalism. Where is our civilization headed to?