Mar 2 - Mar 5, 1998

Responding to message from Jiro Kokuryo to gis-net:

You wrote:

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 topics that might be covered at the conference. In the spirit openness, I would like to share it with the on-line panelists.

(...)

The proposed design is to start from the individual and community level discussions and then to move to a more social and global topics. I am naturally not asking every-

I don't see where you have included Netizens in the topics or the plans for the design of the discussion.

Since the topic given of the panel is 'Emerging Netizens and New Democracy -- Global Collabotation to Solve Network Society Problems'

It would seem that the list of topics to be discussed should start with the question of what is a Netizen (i.e. a citizen of the Net or as Michael explains in his preface to the book "Netizens" 'people who care about Usenet and the bigger Net and work toward building the cooperative and collective nature which benefits the larger world.') I would add that a Netizen is someone who recognizes the important new communications advance that the Net represents and works to spread that among a larger sector of people.

After discussing the role of Netizens and the nature of Netizens it would seem the panel could discuss the new form of democracy or of online 'public sphere' in the Habermas sense that the Net respresents and why that is important as a new means of democratic participation.

As such it would seem useful to have a discussion of how Usenet and mailing lists make possible participation by Netizens toward solving the problem of our times that occur both online and offline.

Then the panel could look at some of the problems that those online have helped solve and the kinds of problems that need to be taken up both online and offline and how those online can help to solve them.

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?

So I don't understand how the above questions proposed for the Netizens and New Democracy panel grapple with the significance of the fact that there is a new type of human being that is developing, that is Netizens, and there is a new form of public sphere where Netizens participate in discussion and debate, take the intiative to bring up the important topics, etc.

But it is in keeping with the spirit of the panel topic that you present the proposed topics for discussion on this list - and that we on the list respond honestly and in the spirit of spreading Netizenship.

AAA: This message is, first of all, concerning:
Prof.Kokuryo's [050] Discussion topics for the March 10 conference, and corresponding Mrs. Ronda Hauben's [051] Re: Discussion topics for the March 10 conference.

I believe that Prof. Kokuryo's topics selection in [050] is very fine and well reflecting the elaborated discussions in the both of MLs: [gis-net] & [gisj-net]. I am looking for learning, from the real GIS-NET panel, a lot more about network society/community for the provision of many information-intensified work/pleasure opportunities of the both types: 'not-for-profit' type and 'profit-pursuing' type.

BBB: In connection with Mrs Ronda Hauben's concern in her [051] perhaps about the missing of explicit wording: 'netizen', I think that the proposed topic #2:

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.

----will well provide panelists with the platform of discussion which is directly relevant to netizens themselves, because 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.

CCC: As a layman (or, in politically correct expression?, 'lay-person'), 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.

I should like to express my sincere hope that the scope of panel discussion on the issue of 'haves' and 'have nots' would be not limited to the cases 'inside'/'besides' nice cyber-communities, but it would be elaborated/extended to the item of 'have nots', or,'the information/knowledge-wise powerless', who are a bit too 'remote' to access easily to some appropriate 'net communities' and their members (netizens), either geographically, ethnically and/or, due to relatively rather higher age, to obtain the above computer-networking-related literacy. Naturally, this planet: the globe/human society is the common platform of the both of 'haves' and 'have nots'.

DDD: I would also like to learn the view of panelists about the commonality and difference among Japan, Asian countries, North Atlantic(Euro-American) Region, Anglo-American culture Region, USA, Latin-America Region, etc., concerning the current and possible future treatment/solution utilizing netizens' influence/contribution to the item/problem of the coexistence of information/knowledge-wise 'haves' and 'have nots' in REAL societies.

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

February 23rd to 25th
The propriety of the proposed amendments to the Law for the Control of Amusement Businesses was discussed. In addition, the question of how expression on the Internet is to be regulated was discussed.

It was pointed out that the topic 'Should the networks be regulated?' was not really such a major issue, but that the real question was whether the digital networks would succeed in the 'Approval of Diversity'.

As the network society develops, one has the feeling that diversity is likely to be lost, and homogeneity will be dictated by the network environment. When the Internet was born, the capacity to accept diversity was limited technologically. Now, with improvements in network environments, there is more scope for diversity to exist.

The following characteristics were highlighted. 1) Chat rooms as good examples of fractionation.
2) Networks have broadened the possibilities for finding the person you want instantaneously. This may have been a factor in accelerating fractionation.
3) Networks may be encouraging circles of friends to create micro-societies.

On the question of confidentiality in communications over digital networks, the following suggestions were made.
1) Send huge volumes of information, so that the thieves will not be able to process it all.
2) Increase the number of reception and transmission points.
3) Hide information inside information. (Steganography.)

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.