[governance] Netizens and citizens / new TLDs?

[Danny Butt]

I agree that netizen is an elitist concept in practice, if not so bad  
in theory. More pragmatically, citizenship of nation-states exists  
whether we like it or not, and no amount of becoming netizen changes  
the way we are subject to the decisions of nation-states. Unlike  
citizenship, there is no institutional structure that pressure can be  
applied to when there are contests over the term "netizen" or how it  
is used to justify people's positions - so one is just left with  
assertions and "dialogue". I realise that is seen as a benefit by  
those who promote its use, but I think in the WSIS context there is a  
need to be more applied to specific issues that can at least  
potentially aid development.

Re: new TLDs, Milton, while I agree with you that "competition,  
diversity and multilingualism" will require some new TLDs, in  
practical terms I fail to see how .xxx addresses my work on fostering  
the last two goals. Instead, it is a marker of the lack of diversity  
and US-centric biases of the current regime. From my POV the  
potential benefit of .xxx in fostering competition doesn't outweigh  
the fact that advocating its existence in the WSIS context against so  
much opposition is, um, obscene, given that we still can't provide a  
DNS that lets people use their own language scripts, and that TLDs  
are so obviously driven by commercial interests.  Yes, there is a  
process issue that is important. But to ignore the content of the TLD  
in the discussion is a dangerous strategy. I can't see how pumping  
for an industry that makes money out of sex is really going to serve  
CS credibility that well.

[for the record, in the larger scheme of things i couldn't care less  
whether .xxx exists or not]

Danny

--
http://www.dannybutt.net
Cultural Futures - December 1-5, 2005 - http:// 
culturalfutures.place.net.nz

On 30/08/2005, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> On 29 aug 2005, at 21.14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
>> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men
>> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who
>> were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable
>> about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an  
>> elite of
>> people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression,
>> nothing I
>> could substantiate.
>>
>
> The issue i have, is that one ultimate goal is to spread the net to
> all people.  so on the day of success, all citizens become netizens
> and the term loses any specific meaning.  and in the meantime it does
> seem to be restricted to those citizens who are lucky enough to have
> network connectivity.
>
> So I think I agree that netizen is an elite concept.  Beyond that, I
> don't understand why we need a concept beyond people, with the
> understanding that all people are to be considered as much as
> possible in governance, and all those who can and who are interested
> should have access to the governance discussions and process.
>
> i have no strong objection to neologisms and this one is no
> different, but i really don't see what purpose it serves, or what it
> adds.  though the discussion over its meaning and importance might be
> important in itself.  and of course that is one of the main reasons
> for neologisms, to get people to look at things in a different
> light.  but at this point i think the negative connotation of the
> term, the 'them and us' aspect, outweighs the value of contextual  
> shift.
>
> a.
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance