The Amateur
Computerist
Special Issue 5/1/02 Memory of Michael Hauben: Discoverer of Netizens Volume 11 No. 1
Table of Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2
The Emergence of the Netizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2
Michael, Computers and the Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16
Work And Life of Michael Hauben. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21
Some of Michael’s Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 23
In Memoriam: a Netizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 25
Giving Back to the World.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 28
Thoughts Regarding Michael’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 29
Mike: Sketches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31
“Netizens” in Hebrew Dictionary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 32
A Tribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 32
Writings by Michael Hauben
Preface: What is a Netizen?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34
What the Net Means to Me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 37
Declaration of the Rights of Netizens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 39
Democracy: SDS and the Net.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 40
The Untold History of the ARPAnet .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 57
Berlin Report: The Vision Lives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 78
Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
Page 1
Introduction
This special issue of the Amateur Computerist is dedicated to the
life and work of Michael Hauben. Michael helped found and edit this
publication. He gave it its name reflecting that it is intended for those
who love computing. Much of Michael’s writing appeared in the
Amateur Computerist from its beginning in 1988 until his untimely
death in June 2001. In our pages he published and explained and
popularized his vision of a democratizing, interactive and enlivening
Internet populated by many citizens of the net – netizens.
The first article explores the emergence of the concept of netizens.
It builds to its conclusion that the future cannot be known but we can
and should strive for the future we want. Michael’s vision of the netizen
can be a guide. The next article tells some of the story of Michael’s
growing up and his connection with computing. It is followed by tributes
to and remembrances of Michael. The bulk of the issue is a collection of
a few of Michael’s articles especially concerning netizens, democracy
and his understanding of the importance of the Net. The issue ends with
a report from a conference in Berlin where these same concerns were
discussed and debated.
We offer this issue not only to commemorate the life and work of
Michael Hauben but also because we feel the relevancy of these for
today.
The Emergence of the Netizen,
Is the Early Vision Still Viable?*
By Ronda Hauben
I want to explore a vision for the future, a vision that builds on the
inspiration provided the world by the French concept of “the citizen.”
The vision is based on a new form of “citizen” that has grown up with
Page 2
the Internet, called the “netizen.”
1
In 1992-1993, Michael Hauben, co-author of the book Netizens: On
the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet was in his second year
as a college student at Columbia University in New York City. Describ-
ing the research that he did which revealed the emergence of Netizens,
Michael writes:
I started using local bulletin board systems (called BBS’s) in
Michigan in 1985. After several years of participation on both
local hobbyist-run computer bulletin board systems and the
global Usenet, I began to research Usenet and the Internet.
The computer bulletin board culture being described flourished in the
U.S. and parts of Europe and elsewhere in the 1980s to the early 1990s.
As a hobby, early computer users set up their own home computers to
make it possible for other people to call, leave messages or programs,
respond to the messages or download the programs. They used modems
and the telephone lines to connect their computers. As a teenager in
Michigan in the 1980s, Michael was part of this computer bulletin board
community of sharing ideas, discussion and software. From other
computer users who were part of this community, he learned about the
Internet. By the early 1990s the Internet had become a network of
networks that spanned the globe. Michael also learned of Usenet which
used telephones, computers, modems and the Unix operating system to
send messages around the world. Usenet and the Internet made it
possible for computer users to have online discussions with people from
other parts of the world, to share technical problems, and to get help
from a global online community.
“This was a new environment for me,” Michael continues. “Little
thoughtful conversation was encouraged in my high school. Since my
daily life did not provide places and people to talk with about real issues
and real world topics, I wondered why the online experience encouraged
such discussion and consideration of others. Where did such a culture
spring from? And how did it arise? During my sophomore year of
college in 1992, I was curious to explore and better understand this new
online world.” (Netizens, “Preface,” p. ix)
By 1995, Michael’s research was recognized internationally, and he
was invited to Japan to speak at a conference about the subject of
Page 3
Netizens. In his talk, he describes his early investigation of Usenet and
the Internet. He explains how “As part of course work at Columbia
(University) I explored these questions. One professor encouraged me
to use Usenet and the Internet as places to conduct research. My research
was real participation in the online community, exploring how and why
these communication forums functioned.” He continues, “I posted
questions on Usenet, mailing lists and freenets [Freenets were just
springing up at the time as community networks which provided local
people with free access to the Internet -ed]. Along with my questions I
would attach some worthwhile preliminary research. People respected
my questions and found the preliminary research helpful. The entire
process was one of mutual respect and sharing of research and ideas,
fostering a sense of community and participation.” (Netizens, page ix)
Through this research process, he “found that on the Net people
willingly help each other and work together to define and address issues
important to them.” (ibid.)
This was the experience people had on Internet mailing lists and
Usenet newsgroups in the early 1990s, before the web culture had
developed and spread. What one found online was a great deal of
discussion and interactive communication. This was like the computer
bulletin board culture. While the computer bulletin boards put users in
contact with local computer users, Usenet newsgroups and Internet
mailing lists put users in contact with other computer users from around
the world. When Michael posted his early research questions on Usenet
and the Internet he received about 60 responses from around the globe.
A number of these responses were detailed descriptions of how people
online had found the Net an exciting and important contribution to their
lives.
Elaborating on the progression of his research, Michael writes:
My initial research concerned the origins and development of
the global discussion forum Usenet. For my second paper, I
wanted to explore the larger Net, what it was, and its signifi-
cance. This is when my research uncovered the remaining
details that helped me recognize the emergence of Netizens.
(Netizens, p. x)
While people answering his questions were describing how the
Page 4
Internet and Usenet were helpful in their lives, many wrote about their
efforts to contribute to the Net, and to help spread access to those not yet
online. It is this second aspect of the responses that Michael received
which he recognized as an especially significant aspect of his research.
Describing the characteristics of those he came to call netizens,
Michael writes:
There are people online who actively contribute to the develop-
ment of the Net. These are people who understand the value of
collective work and the communal aspects of public communi-
cations. These are the people who discuss and debate topics in
a constructive manner, who e-mail answers to people and
provide help to newcomers, who maintain FAQ’s, files and
other public information repositories. These are the people who
discuss the nature and role of this new communications
medium. These are the people who as citizens of the Net I
realized were Netizens. (Netizens, pp. ix-x)
Later Michael elaborates:
Net.citizen was used in Usenet...and this really represented
what people were telling me – they were really net citizens –
which Netizen captures. To be a ‘Netizen’ is different from
being a ‘citizen.’ This is because to be on the Net is to be part
of a global community. To be a citizen restricts someone to a
more local or geographical orientation.” (From “Webchat with
Michael Hauben,” http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/papers
/jr_gii_summit-webchat.txt, Jan. 25, 1996)
Michael was not referring to all users who get online. He differenti-
ates between netizens and others online:
Netizens are not just anyone who comes online. Netizens are
especially not people who come online for individual gain or
profit. They are not people who come to the Net thinking it is
a service. Rather, they are people who understand that it takes
effort and action on each and everyone’s part to make the Net
a regenerative and vibrant community and resource.” (Netizens,
p. x)
The talk Michael was invited to present in Japan, was given in
November 1995. The talk reflected his experiences and online research
Page 5
from 1992-1995.
By 1995 the U.S. portions of the Internet was becoming increas-
ingly commercialized. There was an effort on the part of the U.S. mass
media to promote a “get rich quick” view of the Internet. Many who
have come online since 1995 have not had the experience of the early
culture of interactive participation and sharing that prevailed through the
early 1990s. Instead these origins are hidden and the early development
of the Internet is erroneously characterized as a period of “exclusivity.”
This is not an accurate description. By the early 1990s users were
finding ways to spread the Internet through civic efforts like creating
community networks and Freenets and through creating gateways
between different networks like the Unix UUCP network and the
Internet and Fidonet. But by 1995 the U.S. government no longer
supported the efforts which would continued the sharing and cooperative
culture of the early Internet. Instead there was a vigorous campaign to
commercialize and privatize the U.S. portion of the public Internet. (The
way this was done was probably also in violation of U.S. constitutional
provisions with respect to the necessary public processes to be under-
taken before public property is privatized. However, the commercial
pressure to carry the privatization out quickly left little time to challenge
the process.)
In response to the growing commercialization and privatization,
Michael and I set out to do research into the origins of the sharing,
participatory Internet and Usenet culture to better understand the nature
of the interesting online world we had become part of in the early 1990s.
In January 1994 we put a draft book online documenting the origins
of the online network and culture it gave birth to. In his preface to the
book Michael wrote:
As more and more people join the online community and
contribute toward the nurturing of the Net and towards the de-
velopment of a great shared social wealth, the ideas and values
of netizenship spread. But with the increasing commercial-
ization and privatization of the Net, Netizenship is being
challenged. During such a period it is valuable to look back at
the pioneering vision and actions that made the Net possible
and examine the lessons they provide. (Netizens, p. xi)
Page 6
In the next section, I look back at the pioneering vision.
Historical Origins of the Vision for the Net
Through studies of the history of the Internet, it became evident that
the vision for its development had been pioneered by J. C. R. Licklider,
an experimental psychologist who was interested in human-computer
relation.
The world of the Netizen was envisioned more than twenty-
five years ago by J. C. R. Licklider. Licklider brought to his
leadership of the U.S. Department of Defense’s ARPA pro-
gram a vision of the ‘intergalactic computer network’.
(Netizens, p. 5)
Licklider introduced this vision when he gave talks for the Ad-
vanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) program inspiring people
with the idea of the importance of a new form of computing and of the
potential for a network that would make it possible to communicate
utilizing computers.
In a paper that Licklider wrote with Robert Taylor in 1968, they
established several principles about how the computer would play a
helpful role in human communication.
2
They wrote:
We believe that communicators have to do something
nontrivial with the information they send and receive...to
interact with the richness of living information – not merely in
the passive way that we have become accustomed to using
books and libraries, but as active participants in an ongoing
process, bringing something to it through our interaction with
it, and not simply receiving from it by our connection to it.
We want to emphasize something beyond its one-way transfer:
the increasing significance of the jointly constructive, the
mutually reinforcing aspect of communication – the part that
transcends ‘now that we both know a fact that only one of us
knew before.’ When minds interact, new ideas emerge.
(Licklider and Taylor, p. 21)
Michael had experienced the importance of online interaction
among people with different ideas. From the diversity, something new
Page 7
developed.
The network of various human communicators quickly forms
changes its goals, disbands and reforms into new collabora-
tions.
The fluidity of such group dynamics leads to a quickening of
the creation of new ideas. Groups can form to discuss an idea,
focus in or broaden out, and reform to fit the new ideas that
have been worked out. (Netizens, p. 6)
The virtual space created on noncommercial networks was
accessible to all, while the content on commercial networks like
CompuServe or America On Line was only accessible by those who paid
to belong. (Netizens, pp. 6-7)
By the early 1990s the research Licklider had initiated at ARPA had
led to the development of first the ARPAnet and then the Internet. Also
an effort by graduate students to have an online newsletter resulted in a
newsgroup network known as Usenet.
In 1996, Michael wrote that the Net should be like a public utility
– akin to postal/telephone/water. While he did not necessarily favor
regulation, he explained that regulation by government would be
necessary to have equal access available to all to the net. “The market,”
he predicted, “would not make the Internet available in areas where it
could not make a profit (and that the Net would lose if all potential con-
tributors were not able to participate.)”
Michael saw the Internet and Usenet as a communications public
utility that needed government support so that it could be available to all.
In response to a sensitivity among many online in the U.S. about
government regulation meaning potential censorship, he emphasized that
“Regulation does not mean censorship.... Rather regulation means
putting the public interest over the commercial or private interest. The
Net is a shared commons, which means it is important to make it
available to the many, and not grabable by the few.” (“WEBCHAT”)
By 1996, he found that:
Advertising will (and is) polluting the online world. Those with
money will quickly take over the spaces (...and) those without
money will not be able to. And those thinking of money are not
thinking about a global cooperative community – they are
Page 8
thinking of themselves. (ibid.)
He believed that commercial entities could not develop a network
that would spread access to all, a network that would encourage user
participation in its development. He also proposed the need for citizens
to find ways to influence their governments to counter the pressure on
government by commercial entities to direct the Internet’s development
in commercial directions.
A cornerstone before commercialization was the broad ranging
discussion on Usenet or mailing lists. This discussion encouraged the
interaction and exchange of diverse viewpoints. “Only by seeing many
points of view,” writes Michael, “can one figure out his or her position
on a topic.” Many of the people who responded to his research questions
told how they valued hearing from people with different experiences and
points of view. “Brainstorming among different types of people,” he
concludes, “produces robust thinking.”
Information is no longer a fixed commodity or resource on the
Net. It is constantly being added to and improved collectively,”
he observes, explaining, “The Net provides an alternative to the
normal channels and ways of doing things. The Net allows for
the meeting of minds to form and develop new ideas. It brings
people’s thinking processes out of isolation and out into the
open. Every user of the Net gains the role of being special and
useful. The fact that every user has his or her own opinions and
ideas adds to the general body of specialized knowledge on the
Net. Each netizen thus becomes a special resource valuable to
the Net. (Netizens, pp. 4-5)
In the course of researching the origins of networking, Michael
discovered the source of the culture of sharing and cooperation.
Developing the Internet was “not a commercial process.... The ‘selfless-
ness’ grew out of the fact that technology required helping each other to
succeed – for people to develop and further computing technologies.”
He also recognized the need for open code and for the open publication
of the technical developments. He writes:
The public funding of the ARPAnet project meant that the
documentation would be made public and freely available. The
documentation was neither restricted nor classified. This open
Page 9
process encouraging communication was necessary for these
pioneers to succeed. Research in new fields of study requires
that researchers cooperate and communicate in order to share
their expertise. Such openness is especially critical when no
one person has the answers in advance. (Netizens, p. 109)
Protection
Michael pointed out that both Usenet and the Internet flourished in
their early development because they were protected from commercial
use. He writes:
Usenet has not been allowed to be abused as a profit-making
venture by any one individual or group. Rather people are
fighting to keep it a resource that is helpful to society as a
whole. (Netizens, p. 55)
Commercial usage was prohibited on the U.S. part of the emerging
Internet known as the NSFnet. “There were Acceptable Use Policies
(AUP) that existed because these networks were initially founded and
financed by public money.”
This protection then extended to the networks from other countries
that connected to the NSFnet. Since on the NSFnet, Michael writes,
“commercial usage was prohibited, which meant it was also discouraged
on other networks that gatewayed into the NSFnet backbone.” (Netizens,
p. 29)
Recognizing the need for protection for such a medium, Michael
urges the importance of the net and of protecting the people’s ability to
develop its potential. He writes, “For the people of the world, the Net
provides a powerful means for peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly
allows people to take control. This power deserves to be appreciated and
protected. Any medium that helps people hold or gain power is
something special that has to be protected.” (Netizens, p. 26)
Not only did government regulation provide a protection from
commercial abuse during the Net’s development, but the developing
network also provided a means for citizens to affect and influence their
governments.
A study Michael did of an online conference sponsored by the U.S.
government in November 1994 showed the potential of the Net for
Page 10
making available to government a broad range of public views on an
important new development like the Internet. Similarly, discussion
groups such as those that Usenet provided could grow to provide a
forum through which people would be able to influence their govern-
ments. Also such forums would allow for discussion and debate of
issues in a mode that facilitates mass participation. Such discussion,
Michael writes, “becomes a source of independent information. An
independent source is helpful in the search for truth.”(Netizens, p. 56)
But universal access to the Internet is necessary to fulfill its promise.
The Internet is identified as a “public good” that needs to be accessible
to all the population. (Netizens, p. 246)
Michael recognized the difference between the view toward Usenet
and the Internet that he received in the responses to his research
questions and the view toward the future development of the Net which
was being proposed then by the U.S. government. Describing the two
different views, he writes:
The picture of the Internet painted by the U.S. government has
been one of an ‘information superhighway’ or ‘information in-
frastructure’ to which people could connect, download some
data or purchase some goods, and then disconnect. This image
is very different from the...cooperative communications forums
on Usenet where everyone...(was welcomed to -ed) contribute.
The transfer of information is secondary...in contrast to the
reality that the Internet and Usenet (can -ed) provide a place
where people can share ideas, observations and questions.
(Netizens, p. 254)
An important democratic development occurred. Users on Usenet
and mailing lists were able to be the architects of the evolving networks.
Michael writes:
The basic element of Usenet is a post. Each individual post
consists of a unique contribution from a user, placed in a
subject area called a newsgroup. Usenet grew from the ground
up in a grassroots manner. (...) In its simplest form, Usenet
represents democracy. Inherent in most mass media is central
control of content. Many people are influenced by the decisions
of a few.... Usenet, however, is controlled by its audience....
Page 11
Most of the material for Usenet is contributed by the same
people who actively read Usenet. Thus, the audience to Usenet,
decides the content and subject matter to be thought about,
presented and debated.
The ideas that exist on Usenet come from the mass of
people who participate in it. In this way, Usenet is an uncen-
sored forum for debate where many sides of an issue come into
view.... People control what happens on Usenet. In this rare
situation, issues and concerns that are of interest and thus
important to the participants, are brought up.... The range of
Usenet connectivity is international and quickly expanding into
every nook and cranny around the world. This explosive
expansion allows growing communication with people around
the world. (Netizens, p. 49)
From Usenet pioneers like Greg Woodbury, Michael learned that,
“it was the desire for communication that helped this social network
develop and expand.” While appreciating the potential of Usenet and the
Internet to help people make a better world possible, many of those
online in the mid 1990s also anticipated how difficult it would be to
bring this about.
“People on the Net,” Michael writes, “need to be active in order to
bring about the best possible use of the Net.” (Webchat)
It is interesting to see how closely the conceptual vision Michael
developed matched that of the vision of J. C. R. Licklider.
Michael’s views were influenced by his experience online, his study
and the comments he received in response to his research questions from
people around the world.
3
Subsequent research shows Licklider had recognized that to be able
to develop computer and network science and technology, an online
community that would encourage users to contribute was needed. This
collaborative community is what people found online on Usenet and the
Internet even into the early 1990s.
Also Licklider advocated support and protection of the creative
users online who were eager to explore how to utilize the Internet in
interesting and novel new ways. Licklider staunchly maintained that
users had to be participants in making the decisions that would develop
Page 12
and spread the Internet to all. He warned that commercial entities could
not develop a network that would spread access to all or that would
encourage user participation in its development.
The Future
In a similar way Licklider emphasized the need for a participatory
evolution for the Internet, and for there to be a public utility framework
for its development, Licklider sees that there is a public policy choice
that must be made. He writes:
4
It’s a choice between data and knowledge. It’s either mere
access to information or interaction with information. And for
mankind it implies either an enmeshment in silent gears of the
great electrical machine or mastery of a new and truly plastic
medium for formulating ideas and for explaining, expressing
and communicating them.
Michael and a friend he met when he was invited to Japan proposed
a Netizens Association as a way to take up the challenges of evolving a
network that would support interactive communication and user
participation.
5
Such an association could take on the goals of the Netizen
and netizenship. It could be a help in the struggle to forge a net that will
carry on the vision of an interactive participatory network of networks
that Licklider introduced. In January 1993 Michael put together a Draft
Declaration of the Rights of Netizens which could be a starting point for
a collaboration of Netizens who are committed to the original vision for
the Internet. This vision has made it possible for the Internet to develop
an infrastructure capable of promoting vibrant interactive participation
and resource sharing before the commercialization and privatization of
the Net. Michael writes in the Draft Declaration of the Rights of
Netizens:
The Net is not a Service, it is a Right. It is only valuable when
it is collective and universal. Volunteer effort protects the intel-
lectual and technological common-wealth that is being created.
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET
and NETIZENS.
6
Page 13
Conclusion
The vision of J. C. R. Licklider and then of users who Michael
recognized were netizens has helped to guide and spread a participatory
and interactive new form of communication infrastructure.
However the commercial model for the Internet’s development is
very different. It aims to create passive users who are at the mercy of
powerful corporations both for their access to the Net and for the
determination of how they can use the Net. The commercial model is a
challenge to the early vision of a participatory Internet where all the
population has the possibility of gaining access and of shaping the
network form and content that is socially beneficial.
How will netizens support each other to continue working toward
their goal? Is there a need for a netizens association as Michael and his
friend from Japan Hiro proposed? The path forward is not well marked.
In 1961, the linguist, Yehoshua Bar Hillel speaking about the computer,
pointed out that we cannot know the future. If however we know what
we are striving for, we can work for the future we want to have.
7
What future do we want to have?
The visions of J. C. R. Licklider and Michael Hauben are of a
participatory future. If we keep those visions alive we keep alive the
possibility that the potential of the Internet will be realized.
Footnotes
1. This article is taken from a speech given during “Semaine Europeenne” in
Strasbourg, France sponsored by L’Institue d’Etudes Politiques (IEP). More than three
hundred students attended and participated in a week long discussion of “Europe &
Internet” in the Winston Churchill building of the European Parliament.
2. Licklider, J. C. R. and Robert Taylor. “The Computer as a Communication Device.”
In Science and Technology: For the Technical Men in Management. No 76. April,
1968. Pp. 21-31. Also reprinted in In Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider: 1915-1990. Report
61. Systems Research Center. Digital Equipment Corporation. Palo Alto, California.
August 7, 1990. Pp. 21-41.12
3. See also the Livingnet website
http://livinginternet.com/. William Stewart the creator
of the site writes: “Joseph Carl Robnett ‘Lick’ Licklider developed the idea of a
universal network, spread his vision throughout the IPTO, and inspired his successors
to realize his dream by creation of the ARPAnet. He also developed the concepts that
Page 14
led to the idea of the Netizen.”
4. Licklider, “Social Prospects of Information Utilities” in “The Information Utility and
Social Choice.” Sackman and Norman Nie, editors, AFIPS Press, Montvale, 1970, p.
6. Licklider comments about the choice, “Thus though the crux is a switch, it is not a
switch in a level track. One branch goes down, one up.”
5. Michael writes: After our visit, I wrote Hiro Takashi that I was very happy to have
met him and his friends from their computer club at his University. In his e-mail when
I returned home he asked if there was a Netizens Association. He wrote in a P.S. in an
e-mail of Dec. 6 “Netizen association is available? If not in Japan, I want to make it.”
I told him I did not know of any and asked him what he had in mind for a Netizens
Association to do. He responded: “I think [a] Netizen Association is a guide into
tomorrow’s Internet world. Internet and other network[s] have a flood of electrical
information. So people cannot swim very good in Internet. So Netizen Association tell
or advise how to swim or get selected information. The association act as guide. Oh,
and we have to spread information about concept of netizen. But making association
process has many difficult points, I think. So we have to give careful consideration to
the matter.”
6. Proposed Declaration of the Rights of Netizens (Reproduced in this issue. See p. 18)
7. Y. Bar Hillel in Computers and the World of the Future, edited by Martin
Greenberger, MIT Press, 1962, p. 324.
* This article is from an invited talk presented at the European Parliament Building in
Strasbourg, France. The talk was given on February 26, 2002 to students as part of a
panel on “the Internet and Politics.”
Page 15
Michael, Computers and the Net
By Jay Hauben
For my whole family, it was wonderful that Michael was born on
May Day, May 1 1973 in Boston, Massachusetts. He was one month
early and was born early in the morning as the sun began to rise.
Michael went to nursery school and kindergarten in Boston. For his
5
th
birthday he surprised us by asking for a hand held calculator as his
birthday present. We bought him one in the COOP at MIT nearby.
Michael and I had great fun using that calculator to do iterations and
other math tricks. Shortly after that we moved to Detroit. There Michael
went to public school for one year. He was the only first grader with an
exhibit in the school’s Science Fair. The school was a rough place and
the staff discouraged Michael from reading. So Ronda and I were his
teachers for another year in what we called “home school.”
He first saw computers in the Toronto Science Center in 1980 when
he was 7 years old. There were hands-on computer exhibits and an
exhibit of computer controlled robots. He was soon asking for his own
computer. By 1983 he bought himself a Timex Sinclair 1000 computer
for $100 out of his birthday present money. The TS 1000 had 3K of
memory. We used a tape recorder as the storage device and our TV as
a monitor. Michael subscribed to some computer magazines. He typed
in some of the “TRY THIS” programs and learned a lot from them. He
and I worked on a program that used only the 3K memory. Using peeks
and pokes, we were able to get planes to drop bombs on moving ships!
We enrolled him in a TAG (Talented And Gifted) summer program
for junior high school kids (ages 12 and 13) in 1985. The first day the
instructor (Mrs. Brown) took off the cover of an Apple II computer to
show that it was just wires and components. She then showed some
simple BASIC commands. That night Michael tried to write a BASIC
program. Michael had us buy a book called The Applesoft Tutorial and
he read his way through that whole book. He succeeded in getting a
graphic program to work. He called it “BOO.” It was a skeleton that
blinked its eyes and made faces. We took Michael once a week to the
Page 16
Wayne County Education Center where he began to try Apple IIE, Texas
Instrument, Atari and Commodore computers. Mostly he tried to figure
out what BASIC commands would work and asked questions about the
features and advantages of each. Michael made friends with a neighbor,
Tom, who was three times his own age. Tom used Commodore
computers. When Tom bought a Commodore 64, Michael bought
himself his next Timex machine (Timex Sinclair 2068). But Timex made
a deal with Commodore and stopped supporting the 2068. Michael
thought he had the better computer but the deal made his obsolete.
Michael participated in computer clubs and programming competi-
tions in junior high school which must have been around 1986. Ronda
had won a Compaq computer in 1985 in a drawing. She asked for a
modem with the prize rather than a hard drive because she and Michael
agreed that communication was more important than storage. Michael
used the computer and modem to participate in local BBSs. His first
handle was “WizKid.” He was from then on an active participant in the
BBS communities in the Detroit area. To begin with, he was one of their
youngest members. Somehow he found out about an online time-sharing
system set up near the University of Michigan, called MNet. He became
an active member of that community even though the other members
were college students or older.
At first I was opposed to Michael’s being in discussions of how to
pick up women or things like that. He realized my opposition and wrote
an essay about censorship in Nazi Germany that convinced me that
censoring him was wrong. His argument was if the Nazi’s had not been
censored by the previous government, Hitler could not have come to
power. The German people would have been inoculated against Nazism
by the debate that would have occurred with it in the earlier days.
From MNET, Michael heard, in the late 1980s, about Usenet. At
some point while still in Michigan, Michael felt he was no longer a kid
and changed his handle to “Sentinel.” After using his handle for a while,
Michael found a thread on one of the BBSs where posters were
wondering whatever happened to “WizKid,” the poster who made the
discussions more serious and important. I think Michael was very happy
to see that thread and he posted that he was “WizKid,” now called
“Sentinel.”
Page 17
When Michael was 13 or 14 years old he left word in some
computer stores that he was willing to help people who were unsure
what to buy and how to set up their computers. A few people called him
and I had to drive him to his “jobs.” He did not know what to charge but
whatever he asked, his customers always gave him more.
In 1988, at age 15, Michael participated in the founding meetings
of the Amateur Computerist. One discussion was what to name the new
newsletter. Beginning Computerist was suggested. Michael argued that
the newsletter would be for all lovers of computing not just beginners.
Since an amateur does something for the love of it not for financial gain,
his suggestion of Amateur Computerist won the approval of all. Michael
was also one of the most prolific contributors of articles and editorial
suggestions.
From his contacts on MNet Michael was able for most of his high
school years to work at the University of Detroit. He was well loved
there for the care with which he set up people’s computers and taught
them how to use them. Michael went on to earn his Columbia College
work-study income by doing computer support work in the student labs
there.
When Michael first dialed into MNet in the mid 80s he was actually
using the Internet. He first explored Usenet and took full advantage of
e-mail when he started as a freshman at Columbia in Sept. 1991. He
helped initiate the alt.amateur-comp newsgroup on the U.S. Labor Day
in 1992. And, as he has written, that is when he started his research
about the value of the net to people (See the “Preface: What is a
Netizen,” pp. ix-xi in Netizens).
In 1992, Michael started an independent study at Columbia College
of Columbia University. He wanted to know if the net made a difference
in people’s lives. He posted a series of questions which are in the
appendix to chapter one of his book Netizens (pp. 29 to 34 in the hard
back edition). From the responses, he discovered there were Netizens,
people who saw that the newly emerging net held the promise of a fuller
more interesting life for everyone who could get connected. Michael
became very enthusiastic about the Net. It gave him a renewed personal
hope much the way the fall of the Berlin Wall had done three years
earlier. Michael shared his enthusiasm with his professor at Columbia.
Page 18
The professor told Michael he would fail the course if he did not rework
his data and analysis. The professor did not realize the importance of
what Michael had done. But Michael also shared his enthusiasm with the
online world. He gathered the documentation to prove his scientific
discovery was valid. His work inspired especially Ronda and that was
the genesis of the Netizen book originally called “Netizens and the
Wonderful World of the Net.”
In 1994, Michael and Ronda were excited to put their first draft of
their book Netizens online. They did a book reading on Jan 10, 1994 and
were happily surprised when Michael’s old friend Tom attended. They
also both spoke at Columbia University about netizens. After Michael
received his BA in Computer Science in 1995, he was, for one year, a
Columbia e-mail postmaster. He went on to earn a Masters degree from
Teachers College in Technology and Communications in 1997. Michael
considered it an honor to speak at conferences in Japan, Canada, and
Greece. He took joy in seeing his work appear in journals and books and
in a hard cover edition of Netizens.
A Netizens mailing list grew out of Michael’s invitation to speak
about netizens in Japan. One Japanese student reasoned that if there are
netizens there must be a netizens association that was international. The
student asked to join the Netizens Association. Michael answered that
one did not exist. He and the student talked about starting such an
association. Michael suggested that a first step would be a Netizens
Association mailing list. The student’s name is Hiroyuki Takahashi and
the story of the origin of the Netizens mailing list is at:
The privatization and commercialization of the net was very painful
to Michael. He was overjoyed that the Internet keeps spreading but was
disappointed that most users of the net didn’t see the net he had
envisioned. He was still trying to use the net for the purposes he thought
were its essence. He was on and contributed to many mailing lists,
especially those having to do with music and the efforts of young people
to form communities around their common interests in different music
genre. On these lists Michael reviewed music performances, analyzed
trends in the youth music culture and sent out pointers to upcoming
events. He also participated actively in the events so his online life was
Page 19
coupled with his offline life. He was however disappointed when some
people offline did not live up to the expectations he had from his online
contact with them.
Perhaps his biggest disappointment came when he never found or
was accepted at a graduate program he could afford that would have
allowed him to continue his pioneering research that he did as an
undergraduate. But still regularly for the last 8 or 9 years Michael
received inquires and requests for help. Perhaps averaging one every two
weeks, they were from people all over the world who knew of Michael’s
work from online sources and felt he was the expert or the best source
of the help they needed.
Even during his bouts of depression, Michael watched with interest
the spread all over the world of the concept of net citizens, his Netizens.
Michael is given credit for its origin in new dictionaries that are
appearing. The latest one may be a Hebrew dictionary still in prepara-
tion. Michael spoke in the last few months of his life of his hope and
plans for a paperback edition of the book Netizens. He gave thought to
a new introduction or epilogue which would begin, “It is now the
beginning of the 21
st
Century...” and would take up to make a frank and
scientific analysis of what parts of his original vision still seem accurate
and what if anything has been derailed or needs to be altered. It would
be his fond wish that the details of Internet technology be popularized
and that the fight for universal free or low cost access to Usenet, e-mail,
chat groups and all the other wonders of the net be continued.
Page 20
An Introduction to the Work And Life of
Michael Hauben (1973-2001)
By John Horvath
[Editor’s Note: The following is taken from a longer Eulogy in
TELEPOLIS at: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/9180/1.html]
Outside the community of netizens, Michael Hauben was not very
well known. His name was not splashed across the front pages of
newspapers or propagated through mainstream broadcast media. Even
in “cyberspace” he was relatively unknown, like most of us. Neverthe-
less, his words and ideas have had a profound effect on all those who
regularly use the Internet, whether they realize it or not. Indeed, in
Europe it was the foundation to what is now commonly referred to
throughout member states and accession countries, not to mention the
European Commission itself, as the “information society.”
In a 1992 article entitled “The Net and Netizens: The Impact the Net
Has on People’s Lives,” Michael Hauben wrote the following:
Welcome to the 21
st
Century. You are a Netizen (a Net Citi-
zen), and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global
connectivity that the Net makes possible. You consider
everyone as your compatriot. You physically live in one
country but you are in contact with much of the world via the
global computer network. Virtually, you live next door to every
other single Netizen in the world. Geographical separation is
replaced by existence in the same virtual space.
With these words the concept of a “Netizen” was introduced and
quickly spread into popular use. Later, in a book called Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, co-authored by Ronda
Hauben, herself a renown Netizen and ardent critic of ICANN, Michael
Hauben elaborated his concept:
My initial research concerned the origins and development of
the global discussion forum Usenet. [...] I wanted to explore the
larger Net and what it was and its significance. This is when
Page 21
my research uncovered the remaining details that helped me to
recognize the emergence of Netizens. There are people online
who actively contribute towards the development of the Net.
These people understand the value of collective work and the
communal aspects of public communications. These are the
people who discuss and debate topics in a constructive manner,
who e-mail answers to people and provide help to newcomers,
who maintain FAQ files and other public information reposito-
ries, who maintain mailing lists, and so on. These are people
who discuss the nature and role of this new communications
medium. These are the people who act as citizens of the Net.
Although in global terms Michael Hauben may be relatively
unknown, the words and ideas he introduced, embodied in the term
Netizen, is something which in retrospect seems as a matter of course
and a natural part of our language and civic discourse (other such
concepts include the Cold War, for instance, which was coined by a
French journalist). The ability to develop such a concept and introduce
it into daily use, which then remains as an integral part of our intellec-
tual heritage, betrays an insight akin to that of what we generally
consider to be a great thinker.
Despite not being a pop-icon, Michael Hauben’s influence extended
far and wide. He was invited to Japan to speak about his ideas, and he
appeared in documentaries about the Internet on TV Tokyo. He also was
frequently consulted to comment on the growing importance of the
Internet as a new democratic communications medium. Not surprisingly,
his co-authored book “Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet
and the Internet” is published not only in an English but in Japanese as
well.
Page 22
Some of Michael’s Accomplishments*
Research and Publications
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet
published May 1997 by IEEE Computer Society Press.
“Culture and Communication,” chapter in The Ethical Global Informa-
tion Society: Culture and Democracy Revisited, edited Jacques Berleur
and Diane Whitehouse published 1997 by Chapman & Hall.
“Birth of Netizens,” chapter in The Age of Netizens, Shumpei Kumon,
published 1996 by NTT Press.
“Netizens” in The Thinker Vol 2, No. 5 February 2, 1996, p. 1. Stanford
University.
“Online Public Discussion and the Future of Democracy,” in Proceed-
ings Telecommunities 95: Equity on the Internet, Victoria, B.C.
“Interview with Henry Spencer: On Usenet News and C News,” chapter
in Internet Secrets, edited by John R. Levine and Carol Baroudi,
published 1995 by IDG Books.
“A New Democratic Medium: The Global Computer Communications
Network,” in AHKCUS Quarterly, no. 14 July 1994, p. 26. Special Issue
on Hong Kong Media Facing 1997.
“Exploring New York City’s Online Community,” in CMC Magazine,
May 1995.
“Netizens,” in CMC Magazine, February 1997.
Presentations
Page 23
California: Live Radio Interview 11/2/94 on KUCI, 88.9 FM – Univer-
sity of California Irvine for the Cyberspace Report.
Michigan: Book Reading at Henry Ford Community College in
Dearborn, MI. on January 10, 1994.
New York: “Researching the Net: A talk on The Evolution of Usenet
News and The Significance of the Global Computer Network.” Given
to Columbia University’s student ACM Chapter on 4/24/94.
California: Interview on University of California, San Diego Radio
Station November ‘94.
New York: “Researching the Net” talk given at the Mid-Manhattan
Branch of the New York Public Library on May 1, 1995
Japan: Appeared in a Japanese Documentary about the Internet. 7/2/95
on NHK, TV Tokyo
Japan: Guest Speaker at Hypernetwork ‘95 Beppu Bay Conference.
11/24/95 in Beppu, Oita Prefecture, Japan. Topic “Netizens and
Community Networks”
Canada: Presented “The Effect of the Net on the Professional News
Media” at INET’96 in Montreal, Canada on June 27, 1996.
Greece: Presented “Culture and Communication: Usenet and Commu-
nity Networks” at IFIP WG 9.2/9.5 in Corfu, Greece on May 8, 1997.
*From the Resume of Michael Hauben
Page 24
In Memoriam a Netizen
Michael Hauben
By Dr. A. R. Herman*
Once upon a time I had been searching on the web for documents
about the life and work of the famous mathematician (maybe he is better
known as the co-inventor of the computer language BASIC and of
DTSS), of the late Professor John G. Kemeny. One of the robots sent me
to Michael Hauben and so it began.... I became acquainted with the
family Hauben. By the web I could read the early, digital version of the
book “Netizens,” written by Michael and Ronda Hauben.
The time went on and I met personally Ronda and Jay Hauben in
Budapest, Hungary. It was a pleasure to me. I received a significant gift
– the hardbound edition of “Netizens” (IEEE Computer Society Press,
Los Alamitos, CA, 1997). I read it over thoroughly because from one
side it is well written (readable) and from the other it is a fascinating
account of the past, present and the future of the Internet, including a
chronicle and impact of the Usenet, moreover about the life and usage
of the “net.” As an engineer, who worked that time in a library I was
interested to know more about the Internet.
Nathan and Ida Reingold, wrote in their book Science in America,
A Documentary History, 1900 – 1939 (The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago – London, 1981) that:
A traditional way of regarding science and its history is to
envisage a core consisting of concepts, data, and techniques, an
account of which constitutes the history of science. Human
beings and their institutions are outside the core; if they are
sometimes included within the definition of ‘core,’ if the
tendency is to define them in terms of importance to the
content of science. In fact, to this day both the ideology of
science and some histories have a tendency, explicitly or
implicitly, to identify the scientist and the scientific organ-
ization with the body of knowledge. Ohm becomes Ohm’s
Law; Darwin is natural selection; the early Royal Society is
Newtonian science. The core exists independently of humans;
Page 25
humans exist for the core.
Michael and Ronda Hauben wrote their book successfully in the
best tradition of science history and at the same time they made it clear
that the development of the network from the beginning was the result
of the scientific work of flesh and blood, i.e. real people.
The title of their book used the new word, new term, the “netizen,”
i.e. citizen of the net, which was coined by Michael. His word became
very popular in a short time, and if you search the web for it, you will
have hundreds of URL addresses to see, among them, Estonian or
Japanese addresses. (There is a Japanese translation of this book
initiating a social approach to this new phenomenon.) There are various
opinions about the beginning of the net. I use a citation from Michael
and Ronda’s book :
J. C. R. Licklider was one of these early network pioneers. His
vision of an Intergalactic Computer Network helped to inspire
these developments.
The book stays somehow mainly on ARPAnet and the Usenet. I think
that ARPAnet and the so called poor man’s ARPAnet were of course
very early phases of the “Internet revolution,” but I think that at MIT
and Dartmouth the first time-sharing systems were the beginning, not to
mention the work of Baran at Rand corporation.
Scientists and researchers and users who were free of market forces
have developed the current global computer network. There is a long list
of names of people who contributed to establishing this net, who may be
named netizens. Michael Hauben was the author of this new word, and
with his works, among others his main work, the book “Netizens,” made
a significant contribution to the exploring of the technical and social
roots and aspects of the Internet. He deserves the right to be one of the
netizens and be on the short list.
One of the first thinkers about the role of this network in the world
was Michael Hauben. His early passing away made a big gap mainly for
the community of netizens (not only for his parents) and this gap will be
very difficult to fill.
There were theoretical speculations proceeding the work on
Netizens. Some ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit
philosopher, published nearly half a century ago in “The Vision of the
Page 26
Past” (Harper & Row, New York, 1966) were about the “noosphere,” i.e.
the man-made sphere on the globe. The Hungarian biologist, Vilmos
Csányi, published his synthesizing work, “Evolution Systems and
Society: A General Theory of Life, Mind, and Culture” (General
Evolution Research Group/Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1989),
which concludes with the autogenesis of a global system based on new
technology.
Michael had the knowledge and foundation to make the next step,
to join these speculations with the birth and development of the Internet.
This work may be continued partially by Ronda and Jay Hauben, but I
think the method used nine years ago by Michael, i.e. lean upon the
netizens community, will help them to work on this topic and search for
possible coworker(s).
* * *
“Habent sua fata libelli” (the books have their own fate) the
original Latin expression meant (for me) how the work can live through
centuries and find its reader, but in this case it has other meaning. The
book was read over by me and left at the distant left corner on my
writing table. I thought that it may be and will be a good beginning for
a new period of my life. (I prepared myself for the period of my
retirement.)
That time I was working at the OMIKK. It is an abbreviation from
the Hungarian name of the National Technical Information Centre and
Library in Budapest. This library was serving the whole Hungarian
community, people and organizations, including small and medium
sized enterprises, both as a special and as public library in the fields of
science, technology and economy. OMIKK was one of the biggest
Hungarian libraries, with a holding of one million and a half library units
(books, serials and other documents), and traditionally it was in the
forefront of progress. OMIKK was the first public – and for a long time
the only – organization not only in Hungary, but in the whole so called
Eastern Block, or on the east side of the Iron Curtain which had
subscriptions to the western science and technology databases twenty
years ago. We had the biggest collection of CD-ROM databases (more
than one hundred) and the most subscriptions to electronic journals in
Hungary (more than six thousand). One element of the library crisis in
Page 27
the whole world is that in the best cases, budgets are flat while there is
the more or less exponentially growing number of publications, the
inflation in prices making an ever growing tension. So we had a money
shortage for acquisition.
At the same time it was clear to me, that Michael and Ronda
Hauben’s book Netizens, although it will be a very useful book for our
readers, we will not buy it. I had an exemplar dedicated personally to
me. I was afraid that not any other Hungarian library will have this book.
I decided one year ago, grudgingly, to give to the library. So it was that
this groundbreaking book became part of the OMIKK’s holding.
OMIKK was a state owned public budget organization, founded more
than a hundred years ago, in 1883. The Secretary of State for Education
decided to put an end of this success story, against the will of many
thousands of our users, so he made it with the date June 30, 2001. The
holdings of the previous OMIKK were transferred to Budapest
Technical University.
“Habent sua fata libelli” so it is the fate of the exemplar of Michael
and Ronda Hauben’s book Netizens, dedicated personally to me, in the
last two years.
Budapest, 25th November, 2001.
* Sadly, Dr. Akos Herman died on February 28, 2002.
Giving Back to the World
By Bill Steward
Like so many who learned from Michael’s work, I only knew him
on a virtual level, through the Internet. However, I knew a great deal
about the work he had done, and therefore felt the warmth and admira-
tion for him that one would feel for a good friend. His research and
publications helped me tremendously in understanding the context in
Page 28
which the Internet sits, and finding his writings on J. C. R. Licklider and
the Usenet were like discovering a wonderful window into the history
of the creation of the net. It is appropriate that he coined the term
Netizen, for he was one of its best practitioners, giving back to the world
by leveraging the power of the net to provide help and information to
untold numbers of people across the world. He set a great example we
are well recommended to follow. I’m sure he already has a mailing list
going in heaven.
Thoughts Regarding Michael’s
Work and Legacy
By Luis de Quesada
Perhaps Michael Hauben’s greatest ideal and contribution was that
he was people oriented. He envisioned government just as our forefa-
thers meant it to be “a government by the people and for the people”
nothing less is acceptable and that a true people’s government could be
strengthened and improved by public debate. Michael’s idea wasn’t far
fetched or utopian. Michael’s idea was exactly what our forefathers
intended our government to be. A government not in the hands of the big
corporations and their lobbyists, but a truly people oriented democracy.
Michael saw computers and the internet as unprecedented means of
communication and education which need to be preserved for collective
use and not for the private use of a privileged class. The computer and
its information highway are and must be for equally shared public use,
so Michael created Netizens, a collective for citizens equally sharing the
internet as a right not as a service. One needs only to read the principles
on which Netizens was founded, the rights of Netizens; to understand
Michael’s intentions, ideals and gift for all of us and all of man-kind.
The way I see it, Michael, like Cuba’s Jose Marti, chose to side with
the poor, the workers and all the little and disenfranchised people, as
Marti once said and wrote, “CON LOS POBRES DE LA TIERRA,
Page 29
QUIERO YO MI SUERTE ECHAR,” which translates, “WITH THE
POOR PEOPLE OF THIS EARTH, I WANT TO SHARE MY FATE.”
And he did, fighting for the rights of all the poor and the under served
to become computer literate, to enable them to freely log in and navigate
the Internet. Therefore it is my opinion that in founding Netizens, with
the help of his loving parents Ronda and Jay, Michael founded what I
call “THE SPANISH REPUBLIC OF THE INTERNET.” The Spanish
Republic 1931-1939 was founded on truly democratic principles and
justice for all, just like our own in 1776. It is therefore our duty to
defend Netizens and keep it alive, just like the loyal citizens of Spain
and their brothers and sisters from all over the world came to Spain to
defend it from fascism and the never ending greed of those who wanted
to keep Spain and its people in eternal servitude. Unfortunately “THE
GOOD FIGHT” in Spain was lost along with many other “good fights”
in recent decades. So we must therefore carry on the torch and keep
Michael’s idea, NETIZENS, alive to ensure that complete privatization
of the Internet never happens, because it is morally wrong, because in
time, logging in would be a private commodity, reserved for a privileged
few. They say people truly die when their ideas are no longer remem-
bered and no longer matter to anyone. Michael’s idea means so much to
the underprivileged and to all of us who shared his vision of justice for
all. We must keep up the fight so his idea of a free and collective
internet will keep on existing as a right for everyone, for mankind’s
benefit!
Page 30
Mike: Sketches
By Simon Butler
SimonHardy[email protected]
I first met Mike Hauben during freshman year at Columbia. We
were both on the same floor, Carman Nine. He was a friendly fellow,
always interested in chatting even when I, a surlier young man, wasn’t.
On the street, while passing all the restaurants and shops by the
university, he’d reel off the names of various sites if I were silent. He
was just trying to make conversation, of course. After a while, he
stopped. Newbie’s habit, I guess.
Mike introduced me to a great deal of new things I never would’ve
realized were there had he not taken the initiative to help me check them
out. Suddenly, I was posting messages on the poetry newsgroup,
rec.arts.poems, and interacting with other fans on the New York
Yankees newsgroup, when the only way I even dreamed about convers-
ing in this manner with people before was via some sort of hobbyist’s
salon or cultural group. Or at a baseball game, for that matter.
He got me into Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, two bands I absolutely
despised before I met him. And in turn, I introduced him to certain
pieces of classical music. We even went to the opera together, along
with our mutual friend Ed. And Mike who was enchanted by the theater
but was less exposed to the great works of the cinema joined me as we
watched various classics, from Kurosawa’s “Throne of Blood” to
Hitchcock’s “The Lady Vanishes.” Not all of them he liked. In some
cases, we held quite different, and often conflicting, opinions. But he
was always willing to experiment.
That’s what I think he wanted to do most, in order to enjoy life, to
experiment. Even his death seems the result of an ill-fated decision to try
the end of existence when all else seemed to fail. I think in his experi-
mentation, he produced some beauties, some truths; his book on the
Internet; his immersion into the world of music; his increased apprecia-
tion of the cinematic medium; his friendship with people worldwide, due
to his online and offline inter-connectivity.
I think he trod quite deeply on the Earth and broke the soil. His
Page 31
footprint is still there. The indentation of his life. The perpetuity of a
strange, unique wisdom, and the injustice of itself.
New Hebrew Dictionary
Subject: the term netizen
Hi, I was hoping you could help me define the term “netizen.” I’m
actually working on a Hebrew dictionary, and since the term is now used
in our language as well, we decided to include it in the new version of
our dictionary (hardcopy).
My question is: to my ear, the term implies a sense of responsibility,
belonging, sharing, cooperation etc., meaning malevolent users, such as
hackers and virus spreaders, wouldn’t be considered netizens. Am I
correct to assume this?
The reason I’m asking is that some definitions I found (on the Web,
of course) say netizen is simply an Internet user, or frequent user. This
seems lacking to me. Do you agree? TIA Best regards,
Dorit Attar <attarg[email protected]>
Linguist, Translator and Editor
A Tribute
By Claudia Hill
Although I never met Michael, his parents, Jay and Ronda have
asked me to write a few words about how I view Usenet as part of a
tribute to Michael, forever a citizen of the Net, a Netizen.
My view of Usenet is analogous to an architectural structure. Usenet
is made up of individuals exchanging information electronically through
newsgroups to form a virtual architectural structure of information in
Page 32
much the same manner that collaborations between architects, builders,
and construction workers result in real structures perhaps made of brick,
concrete, mortar and wood. The foundations of each Usenet newsgroup
depend on the agreement between participants who make decisions
about the group as its users. This seems to me like an architectural plan
of a building which developers agree to follow once drafted.
Along the way, architects’ plans may become altered or improved
and likewise, newsgroups may change direction or be influenced by
views of one sort or another. Newsgroup participants are accountable for
the traffic on a Usenet newsgroup, much like architects and resultant
buildings they design. Buildings, once constructed, can be modified, ex-
panded or abandoned, and newsgroups too can undergo changes in their
virtual structures as more and more information is sent over the
networks between newsgroup participants.
But, Usenet, a virtual architectural structure, has enduring character-
istics which real architecture does not. While real buildings are subjected
to the harsh elements of time; from inclement weather conditions acting
on natural and artificial materials, man-made acts of destruction,
changes in the whim of architectural fashion to economic downturns,
Usenet seems to have immortality to it. Once a participant or citizen of
Usenet, the individual becomes a part of this virtual architectural “net”
structure. Usenet participants, or “Netizens,” then are the sum total of
the views on a particular topic and in some sense are immortalized
within the virtual architectural structure. Usenet as an architectural
structure, albeit a virtual one, is a credible analogy and one, that I hope
you will agree, seems boundless in its reach and limitless in its potential.
Page 33
Some writings of
Michael Hauben
[Editor’s Note: The following is the Preface to Netizens: On the History
and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, IEEE Computer Science Press,
May 1997]
Preface: What is a Netizen?
By Michael Hauben
The story of Netizens is an
important one. In conducting re-
search four years ago online to de-
termine people’s uses for the global
computer communications network,
I became aware that there was a
new social institution, an electronic
commons, developing. It was excit-
ing to explore this new social insti-
tution. Others online shared this
excitement. I discovered from those
who wrote me that the people I was writing about were citizens of the
Net, or Netizens.
I started using local BBSs in Michigan in 1985. After seven years
of participation on both local hobbyist-run computer bulletin boards
systems, and global Usenet, I began to research Usenet and the Internet.
I found these online discussions to be mentally invigorating and
welcoming of thoughtful comments, questions and discussion. People
were also friendly and considerate of others and their questions. This
was a new environment for me. Little thoughtful conversation was
encouraged in my high school. Since my daily life did not provide places
and people to talk with about real issues and real world topics, I
wondered why the online experience encouraged such discussions and
consideration of others. Where did such a culture spring from, and how
did it arise? During my sophomore year of college in 1992, I was
Page 34
curious to explore and better understand this new online world.
As part of course work at Columbia University, I explored these
questions. One professor’s encouragement helped me to use Usenet and
the Internet as places to conduct research. My research was real
participation in the online community by exploring how and why these
communications forums functioned. I posed questions on Usenet,
mailing lists and freenets. Along with these questions, I would attach
some worthwhile preliminary research. People respected my questions
and found the preliminary research helpful. The entire process was one
of mutual respect and sharing of research and ideas. A real notion of
‘community’ and ‘participation’ takes place. I found that on the Net
people willingly help each other and work together to define and address
issues important to them. These are often important issues which the
conventional media would never cover.
My initial research concerned the origins and development of the
global discussion forum Usenet. For my second paper, I wanted to
explore the larger Net and what it was and its significance. This is when
my research uncovered the remaining details that helped me to recognize
the emergence of Netizens. There are people online who actively con-
tribute towards the development of the Net. These people understand the
value of collective work and the communal aspects of public communi-
cations. These are the people who discuss and debate topics in a
constructive manner, who e-mail answers to people and provide help to
new-comers, who maintain FAQ files and other public information
repositories, who maintain mailing lists, and so on. These are people
who discuss the nature and role of this new communications medium.
These are the people who as citizens of the Net, I realized were
Netizens. However, these are not all people. Netizens are not just anyone
who comes online, and they are especially not people who come online
for individual gain or profit. They are not people who come to the Net
thinking it is a service. Rather they are people who understand it takes
effort and action on each and everyone’s part to make the Net a
regenerative and vibrant community and resource. Netizens are people
who decide to devote time and effort into making the Net, this new part
of our world, a better place. Lurkers are not Netizens, and vanity home
pages are not the work of Netizens. While lurking or trivial home pages
Page 35
do not harm the Net, they do not contribute either.
The term Netizen has spread widely since it was first coined. The
genesis comes from net culture based on the original newsgroup naming
conventions. Network wide Usenet newsgroups included net.general for
general discussion, net.auto for discussion of autos, net.bugs for
discussion of unix bug reports, and so on. People who used Usenet
would prefix terms related to the online world with the word NET
similar to the newsgroup terminology. So there would be references to
net.gods, net.cops or net.citzens. My research demonstrated that there
were people active as members of the network, which the term net
citizen does not precisely represent. The word citizen suggests a
geographic or national definition of social membership. The word
Netizen reflects the new non-geographically based social membership.
So I contracted the phrase net.citizen to Netizen.
Two general uses of the term Netizen have developed. The first is
a broad usage to refer to anyone who uses the Net, for whatever purpose.
Thus, the term netizen has been prefixed in some uses with the adjec-
tives good or bad. The second usage is closer to my understanding. This
definition is used to describe people who care about Usenet and the
bigger Net and work towards building the cooperative and collective
nature which benefits the larger world. These are people who work
towards developing the Net. In this second case, Netizen represents
positive activity, and no adjective need be used. Both uses have spread
from the online community, appearing in newspapers, magazines,
television, books and other offline media. As more and more people join
the online community and contribute toward the nurturing of the Net and
towards the development of a great shared social wealth, the ideas and
values of Netizenship spread. But with the increasing commercialization
and privatization of the Net, Netizenship is being challenged. During
such a period it is valuable to look back at the pioneering vision and
actions that have helped make the Net possible and examine what
lessons they provide. That is what we have tried to do in these chapters.
Michael Hauben, New York and Beppu. November 1995
Page 36
What the Net Means to Me
By Michael Hauben
The Net means personal power in a world of little or no personal
power. (other than those on the top – who are called powerful because
of money, but not because of thoughts or ideas.) The essence of the Net
is Communication, of personal communication between individual
people, and between individuals and those who in society who care (and
do not care) to listen. The closest parallels I can think of are several fold:
- Samizdat Literature in Eastern Europe.
- People’s Presses
- The Searchlight, Appeal to Reason, Penny Press, etc.
- Citizen’s Band Radio
- Amateur or Ham radio.
However the Net seems to have grown farther and be more
accessible than the above. The audience is larger, and continues to grow.
Plus communication via the Net allows easier control over the informa-
tion – as it is digitized and can be stored, replied to, and easily adapted
to another format.
The Net is the vehicle for distribution of people’s ideas, thoughts
and yearnings. What commercial service deals with the presentation of
ideas? I do not need a computer to order flowers from FDT or clothes
from the Gap. I need the Net to be able to voice my thoughts, artistic
impressions, and opinions to the rest of the world. The world will then
be a judge as to if they are worthy by either responding or ignoring my
contribution.
Throughout history (at least in the U.S.A.), there has been a
phenomenon of the street corner Soapbox. People would “stand up” and
make a presentation of some beliefs or thoughts they have. There are
very few soapboxes in our society today. The 70s and 80s wiped out
public expression to the public via the financial crisis and growing
sentiment of put your money where your mouth is. In the late 80s and
early 90s, the Net has emerged as a forum for public expression and
discussion. The Net is partially a development from those who were
Page 37
involved with the Civil Rights, Anti-War struggles and Free Speech
movements in the 60s. The personal computer is also a development by
some of these same people.
Somehow the social advances rises from the fact that people are
communicating with other people to help them undermine the upper
hand other institutions have. An example is people in California keeping
tabs on gas station prices around the state using Netnews. More
examples of people reviewing music – rather than telling others, you
should really go buy the latest issue of magazine X (rolling stones, etc)
as it has a great review. This is what I mean by people power – people
individually communicating to present their take on something rather
than saying go get commercial entities’ X view from place Y. This is
people contributing to other people to make a difference in people’s
lives. In addition, people have debated commercial companies’
opposition to the selling of used CDs. This conversation is done in a
grassroots way – people are questioning the music industry’s profit
making grasp on the music out there. The industry definitely puts profit
ahead of artistic merit, and people are not interested in the industry’s
profit making motive, but rather great music.
Representation of two things:
- Way of expressing one’s voice - when that voice generally
does not have a place in the normal political order.
- Way of Organizing and questioning other peoples experiences
so as to have a better grip on a question or problem. Someone
regaining control of one’s life from society.
These are all reasons why I feel so passionately about 1) keeping the
Net open to everyone, and having such connections being available
publicly, and 2) Keeping the Net un-commercialized and un-privatized.
Commercialism will lead to growing emphasis on serving oriented rather
than sharing oriented uses of the Net. Like I said before, it is NOT
important for me to be able to custom order my next outfit from the Gap
or any other clothing store. Companies should develop their own
networks if they wish to provide another avenue to sell their products.
In addition, commercial companies will not have it in their interest to
Page 38
allow people to use the Net to realize their political self. Again let me
reemphasize, when I say politics, I mean power over one’s lives, and
surroundings. And this type of politics I would call democracy.
Proposed Declaration of the
Rights of Netizens*
We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights
of Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions, ideas,
and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following are some
beginning ideas.
The Declaration of the Rights of Netizens:
In recognition that the net represents a revolution in human
communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial
process, the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen is pre-
sented for Netizen comment.
As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the Net,
the following are proposed to be their rights:
o Universal access at no or low cost
o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange of
knowledge without fear of reprisal
o Uncensored Expression
o Access to Broad Distribution
o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
o Consideration of one’s ideas on their merits
o No limitation of access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute
o Equal quality of connection
o Equal time of connection
o No Official Spokesperson
o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
o Volunteer Contribution – no personal profit from the contribution
freely given by others
Page 39
o Protection of the public purpose from those who would use it for their
private and money making purposes
The Net is not a Service, It is a Right. It is only valuable when it is
collective and universal. Volunteer effort protects the intellectual and
technological common-wealth that is being created. DO NOT UNDER-
ESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NETIZENS.
Inspiration from: RFC 3 (1969), Thomas Paine, Declaration of
Independence (1776), Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen (1789), NSF Acceptable Use Policy, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and
the current cry for democracy worldwide.
* Written by Michael Hauben as a New Years message, January 1993.
Participatory Democracy
From the 1960s and
SDS into the Future Online*
By Michael Hauben
The 1960s was a time of people around the world struggling for
more of a say in the decisions of their society. The emergence of the
personal computer in the late 70s and early 80s and the longer gestation
of the new forms of people-controlled communication facilitated by the
Internet and Usenet in the late 80s and today are the direct decedents of
1960s.
The era of the 1960s was a special time in America. Masses of
people realized their own potential to affect how the world around them
worked. People rose up to protest the ways of society that were out of
their control, whether to fight against racial segregation, or to gain more
power for students in the university setting. The Port Huron Statement
(Miller, pp. 329-374) created by the Students for a Democratic Society
(SDS) was a document which helped set the mood for the decade.
By the 1970s, some of the people who were directly involved in
Page 40
student protests continued their efforts to bring power to the people by
developing and spreading computer power in a form accessible and
affordable to individuals. The personal computer movement of the 1970s
created the personal computer. By the mid 1980s they forced the
corporations to produce computers which everyone could afford. The
new communications media of the Internet grew out of the ARPAnet
research that started in 1969 and Usenet which was born in 1979. These
communications advances coupled with the availability of computers
transforms the spirit of the 1960s into an achievable goal for our times.
SDS and the Need for Participatory Democracy
The early members of SDS found a real problem in American
Society. They felt that the United States was a democracy that never
existed, or rather which was transformed into a representative system
after the constitutional convention. The United States society is called
a democracy, but had ceased being democratic after the early beginnings
of American society. SDS felt it is crucial for people to have a part in
how their society is governed. SDS leaders had an understanding of
democratic forms that did not function democratically in the 1960s nor
do they today. This is a real problem that the leaders and members of
SDS intuitively understood and worked to change.
An important part of the SDS program included the understanding
of the need for a medium to make it possible for a community of active
citizens to discuss and debate the issues affecting their lives. While not
available in the 1960s, such a medium exists today in the 1990s. The
seed for the revival of the 1960s SDS vision of how to bring about a
more democratic society now exist in the personal computer and the Net.
This seed will be an important element in the battle for winning control
for people as we approach the new millennium.
The Port Huron Statement and Deep Problems with
American Democracy
The Port Huron Statement was the foundation on which to build a
movement for participatory democracy in the 1960s. In June 1962, a
SDS national convention was held in a UAW camp located in the
Page 41
backwoods of Port Huron, Michigan. Tom Hayden, who was then SDS
Field Secretary, drafted The original text of The Port Huron Statement.
The Statement sets out the theory of SDS’s criticism of American
society. The Port Huron convention was itself a concrete living example
of the practice of participatory democracy.
The Port Huron Statement was originally thought of as a manifesto,
but SDS members moved instead to call it a “statement.” An introduc-
tory note describing how it was to be a document that should develop
and change with experience prefixed it:
This document represents the results of several months of
writing and discussion among the membership, a draft paper,
and revision by the Students for a Democratic Society national
convention meeting in Port Huron, Michigan, June 11-15,
1962. It is presented as a document with which SDS officially
identifies, but also as a living document open to change with
our times and experiences. It is a beginning: in our own debate
and education, in our dialogue with society. (The Port Huron
Statement in Miller, p. 329)
This note is important in that it signifies that the SDS document was
not defining the definite solution to the problems of society, but was
making suggestions that would be open to experiences towards a better
understanding. This openness is an important precursor to practicing
participatory democracy by asking for the opinions of everyone and
treating these various opinions equally.
The first serious problem inherent in American society identified by
The Port Huron Statement is the myth of a functioning democracy:
For Americans concerned with the development of democratic
societies, the anti-colonial movements and revolutions in the
emerging nations pose serious problems. We need to face the
problems with humanity; after 180 years of constitutional
government we are still striving for democracy in our own
society. (The Port Huron Statement in Miller, p. 361)
This lack of democracy in American society contributes to the
political disillusionment of the population. Tom Hayden and SDS were
deeply influenced by the writings of C. Wright Mills, a philosopher who
was a Professor at Columbia University until his death early in 1962.
Page 42
Mills’ thesis was that the “the idea of the community of publics” which
make up a democracy had disappeared as people increasingly got further
away from politics. Mills felt that the disengagement of people from the
State had resulted in control being given to a few who in the 1960s were
no longer valid representatives of the American people. In his book
about SDS, Democracy is in the Streets, James Miller wrote:
Politics became a spectator sport. The support of voters was
marshaled through advertising campaigns, not direct partic-
ipation in reasoned debate. A citizen’s chief sources of political
information, the mass media, typically assaulted him with a
barrage of distracting commercial come-ons, feeble enter-
tainments and hand-me-down glosses on complicated issues.
(Miller, p. 85)
Such fundamental problems with democracy continue today in the
middle of the 1990s. In The Port Huron Statement, SDS was successful
in identifying and understanding the problems, which still plague us
today. This is a necessary first step to working towards a solution. The
students involved with SDS understood people were tired of the prob-
lems and wanted to make changes in society. The Port Huron Statement
was written to address these concerns:
...do they not as well produce a yearning to believe there is an
alternative to the present, that something can be done to change
circumstances in the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies,
the government? It is to this latter yearning, at once the spark
and engine of change, that we direct our present appeal. The
search for a truly democratic alternatives to the present, and a
commitment to social experimentation with them, is a worthy
and fulfilling human enterprise, one which moves us, and we
hope, others today. (Miller, p. 331)
Describing how the separation of people from power is the means
used to keep people uninterested and apathetic, The Port Huron
Statement explains:
The apathy is, first, subjective – the felt powerlessness of
ordinary people, the resignation before the enormity of events.
But subjective apathy is encouraged by the objective American
situation – the actual structural separation of people from
Page 43
power, from relevant knowledge, from pinnacles of deci-
sion-making. Just as the university influences the student way
of life, so do major social institutions create the circumstances
which the isolated citizen will try hopelessly to understand the
world and himself. (“The Society Beyond” in The Port Huron
Statement, Miller, p. 336)
The Statement analyzes the personal disconnection to society and
its effect:
The very isolation of the individual – from power and com-
munity and ability to aspire – means the rise of democracy
without publics. With the great mass of people structurally
remote and psychologically hesitant with respect to democratic
institutions, those institutions themselves attenuate and
become, in the fashion of the vicious cycle, progressively less
accessible to those few who aspire to serious participation in
social affairs. The vital democratic connection between
community and leadership, between the mass and the several
elites, has been so wrenched and perverted that disastrous
policies go unchallenged time and again. (Miller, p. 336)
The Statement describes how it is typical for people to get frustrated
and quit going along with the electrical system as something that works.
The problem has continued, as we now have all time lows in voter
turn-outs for national and local elections. In a section titled “Politics
Without Publics,” the Statement explains:
The American voter is buffeted from all directions by
pseudo-problems, by the structurally initiated sense that noth-
ing political is subject to human mastery. Worried by his
mundane problems which never get solved, but constrained by
the common belief that politics is an agonizingly slow accom-
modation of views, he quits all pretense of bothering. (The Port
Huron Statement, Miller, p. 337)
Students in SDS did not let these real problems discourage their
efforts to work for a better future. They wanted to be part of the forces
to defeat the problems. The Port Huron Statement contains an under-
standing that people are inherently good and can deal with the problems
that were described. This understanding is conveyed in the “Values”
Page 44
section of the Statement:
Men have unrealized potential for self-cultivation, self-direc-
tion, self-understanding, and creativity. It is this potential that
we regard as crucial and to which we appeal, not to the human
potential for violence, unreason, and submission to authority.
The goal of man and society should be human independence:
a concern not with the image of popularity but with finding a
meaning in life that is personally authentic; a quality of mind
not compulsively driven by a sense of powerlessness, nor one
which unthinkingly adopts status values, nor one which re-
presses all threats to its habits, but one which easily unites the
fragmented parts of personal history, one which openly faces
problems which are troubling and unresolved; one with an
intuitive awareness of possibilities, an active sense of curiosity,
an ability and willingness to learn. (The Port Huron Statement,
Miller, p. 332)
Participatory Democracy
Those participating in the Port Huron convention came away with
a sense of the importance of participatory democracy. This sense was in
the air in several ways. The convention itself embodied participatory
democracy through the discussion and debate over the text of the
Statement as several people later explained. The Port Huron Statement
called for the implementation of participatory democracy as a way to
bring people back into decisions about the country in general, and their
individual lives, in particular. One of Tom Hayden’s professors at
University of Michigan, Arnold Kauman, came to speak about his
thoughts and use of phrase ‘participatory democracy.’
Miller writes that in a 1960 essay, “Participatory Democracy and
Human Nature,” Kauman had described a society in which every
member had a “direct responsibility for decisions.” The “main justifying
function” of participatory democracy, quotes Miller, “is and always has
been, not the extent to which it protects or stabilizes a community, but
the contribution it can make to the development of human powers of
thought, feeling and action. In this respect, it differs, and differs quite
fundamentally, from a representative system incorporating all sorts of
Page 45
institutional features designed to safeguard human rights and ensure
social order.” (Miller, p. 94)
Kauman explains:
Participation means both personal initiative – that men feel
obliged to help resolve social problems – and social oppor-
tunity – that society feels obliged to maximize the possibility
for personal initiative to find creative outlets. (Miller, p. 95)
A participant at the Port Huron Conference, Richard Flacks
remembers Arnold Kauman speaking at the convention, “At one point,
he declared that our job as citizens was not to role-play the President.
Our job was to put forth our own perspective. That was the real meaning
of democracy – press for your own perspective as you see it, not trying
to be a statesman understanding the big picture.” (Miller, p. 111)
After identifying participatory democracy as the means of how to
wrest control back from corporate and government bureaucracies, the
next step was to identify the means to having participatory democracy.
In the “Values” section of The Port Huron Statement, the means
proposed is a new media that would make this possible:
As a social system we seek the establishment of a democracy
of individual participation governed by two central aims: that
the individual share in those social decisions determining the
quality and direction of his life; the society be organized to
encourage independence in men and provide the media for their
common participation. (The Port Huron Statement, Miller, p.
333)
Others in SDS further detailed their understandings of participatory
democracy to mean people becoming active and committed to playing
more of a public role. Miller documents Al Haber’s idea of democracy
as “a model, another way of organizing society.” The emphasis was on
a charge to action. It was how to be out there doing. “Rather than an
ideology or a theory.” (Miller, pp. 143-144)
Tom Hayden, Miller writes, understood participatory democracy to
mean:
number one, action; we believed in action. We had behind us
the so-called decade of apathy; we were emerging from apathy.
What’s the opposite of apathy? Active participation. Citizen-
Page 46
ship. Making history. Secondly, we were very directly influ-
enced by the civil rights movement in its student phase, which
believed that by personally committing yourself and taking
risks, you could enter history and try to change it after a
hundred years of segregation. And so it was this element of
participation in democracy that was important. Voting was not
enough. Having a democracy in which you have an apathetic
citizenship, spoon-fed information by a monolithic media,
periodically voting, was very weak, a declining form of democ-
racy. And we believed, as an end in itself, to make the human
being whole by becoming an actor in history instead of just a
passive object. Not only as an end in itself, but as a means to
change, the idea of participatory democracy was our central
focus. (Miller, p. 144)
Another member of SDS, Sharon Jeffrey understood “Participatory”
to mean “involved in decisions.” She continued, “And I definitely
wanted to be involved in decisions that were going to affect me! How
could I let anyone make a decision about me that I wasn’t involved in?”
(Miller, p. 144)
It is important to see the value of participatory democracy as a
common understanding among both the leaders and members of SDS.
While The Port Huron Statement contained other criticisms and
thoughts, its major contribution was to highlight the need to more
actively involve the citizens of the United States in the daily political
process to correct some of the wrongs which passivity had allowed to
build. Richard Flacks summarizes this in his article, “On the Uses of
Participatory Democracy”:
The most frequently heard phrase for defining participatory
democracy is that ‘men must share in the decisions which
affect their lives.’ in other words, participator democrats take
seriously a vision of man as citizen: and by taking seriously
such a vision, they seek to extend the conception of citizenship
beyond the conventional political sphere to all institutions.
Other ways of stating the core values are to assert the follow-
ing: each man has responsibility for the action of the institu-
tions in which he is imbedded.... (Flacks, pp. 397-398)
Page 47
The Need for Community for Participatory Democracy
The leaders of SDS strived to create forms of participatory
democracy within its structure and organization as a prototype and as
leadership for the student protest movement and society in general. Al
Haber, the University of Michigan graduate student who was the first
SDS national officer, describes the need for a communication system to
provide the foundation for the movement:
The challenge ahead is to appraise and evolve radical alterna-
tives to the inadequate society of today, and to develop an
institutionalized communication system that will give perspec-
tive to our immediate actions. We will then have the ground-
work for a radical student movement in America. (Sale, p. 25)
He understood the general society would be the last place to
approach. There was a need to start smaller among the element of
society that was becoming more active in the 1960s, the students. Haber
outlined his idea of where to start:
We do not now have such a public [interaction in a functioning
community] in America. Perhaps, among the students, we are
beginning to approach it on the left. It is now the major task
before liberals, radicals, socialists and democrats. It is a task in
which the SDS should play a major role. (Miller, p. 69)
The Port Huron Statement defines ‘community’ to mean:
Human relations should involve fraternity and honesty. Human
interdependence is a contemporary fact;.... Personal links be-
tween man and man are needed. (SDS, p. 332)
Prior to his full time involvement with SDS, Hayden wrote an
article for the Michigan Daily describing how democratic decision-
making is a necessary first step towards creating community. Hayden’s
focus was on the University when he wrote, “If decisions are the sole
work of an isolated few rather than of a participating many, alienation
from the University complex will emerge, because the University will
be just that: a complex, not a community.” This sentiment persisted in
Hayden’s and others thoughts about community and democracy for the
whole country. (Miller, p. 54)
This feeling about community is represented in The Port Huron
Statement’s conclusion. The Statement calls for the communal sharing
Page 48
of problems to see that they are public and not private problems. Only
by communicating and sharing these problems through a community
will there be a chance to solve them together. SDS called for the new left
to “transform modern complexity into issues that can be understood and
felt close-up by every human being.” The statement continues, “It must
give form to the feelings of helplessness and indifference, so people may
see the political, social and economic sources of their private troubles
and organize to change society...” (The Port Huron Statement, p. 374 of
Miller)
The theory of participatory democracy was engaging. However, the
actual practice of giving everyone a say within the SDS structures made
the value of participatory democracy clear. The Port Huron Convention
was a real life example of how the principles were refreshing and
capable of bringing American citizens back into political process. The
community created among SDS members brought this new spirit to
light. C. Wright Mills writings spoke about “the scattered little circles
of face-to-face citizens discussing their public business.” Al Haber’s
hope for this to happen among students was demonstrated at Port Huron.
SDS members saw this as proof of Mills’s hope for democracy. This was
to be the first example of many among SDS gatherings and meetings.
Richard Flacks highlighted what made Port Huron special. He found a
“mutual discovery of like minds.” Flacks continued, “You felt isolated
before, because you had these political interests and values and suddenly
you were discovering not only like minds, but the possibility of actually
creating something together.” It was also exciting because, “it was our
thing: we were there at the beginning.” (Miller, p. 118)
The Means for Change
SDS succeeded in doing several things. First, they clearly identified
the crucial problem in American democracy. Next, they came up with
an understanding of what theory would make a difference. All that
remained was to find the means to make this change manifest. They
discovered how to create changes in their own lives and these changes
affected the world around them. However, something more was needed
to bring change to all of American society.
Al Haber understood this something more would be an open
Page 49
communication system or media which people could use to communi-
cate. He understood that, “the challenge ahead is to appraise and evolve
radical alternatives to the inadequate society of today, and to develop an
institutionalized communication system that will give perspective to our
immediate actions.” (Sale, p. 25) This system would lay the “the
groundwork for a radical student movement in America.” (Sale, p. 25)
Haber and Hayden understood SDS to be this, “a national communica-
tions network” (Miller, p. 72)
While many people made their voices heard and produced a real
effect on the world in the 1960s, lasting structural changes were not
established. The real problems outlined earlier continued in the 1970s
and afterwards. A national, or even international, public communications
network needed to be built to keep the public’s voice out in the open.
Members of SDS partially understood this, and put forth the
following two points in The Port Huron Statement section on “Toward
American Democracy”:
Mechanisms of voluntary association must be created through
which political information can be imparted and political par-
ticipation encouraged.
The allocation of resources must be based on social needs. A
truly ‘public sector’ must be established, and its nature debated
and planned. (PHS, Miller, p. 362)
International Public Communications Network – or the Net
This network and the means to access it began developing toward
the end of the 1960s. Two milestones in the genesis were 1969 when the
first ARPAnet node was installed and in 1979 when Usenet started. Both
are pioneering experiments in using computers to facilitate human
communication in a fundamentally different way than already existing
public communications networks like the telephone or television
networks. The ARPAnet, which was a single network predecessor of
today’s multi-network Internet, and Usenet, which continues to grow
and expand around the world, gave rise to the Net, or the worldwide
global computer communication networks. Another important step
toward the development of an international communication network was
Page 50
the personal computer movement, which took place in the middle to late
1970s. This movement created the personal computer, which makes it
affordable for an individual to purchase the means to connect to this
public network.
However, the network cannot simply be created. SDS understood
that “democracy and freedom do not magically occur, but have roots in
historical experience; they cannot always be demanded for any society
at any time, but must be nurtured and facilitated.” (The Port Huron
Statement, in Miller, p. 361)
Participants on the ARPAnet, Internet, and Usenet inherently
understood this, and built a social and knowledge network from the
ground up. As Usenet was created to help students who did not have
access to the ARPAnet, or a chance to communicate in a similar way,
they came to it in full force. The online user became part of a global
culture and considers him or herself to be a global citizen. This global
citizen is a net citizen, or a Netizen. The world, which has developed, is
based on communal effort to make a cooperative community. Those who
have become Netizens have gained more control of their lives and the
world around them. However, access to this world needs to spread in
order to have the largest possible effect for the most number of people.
In addition, as some efforts to spread the Net become more commercial,
some of the values important to the Net are being challenged. (Hauben,
“Culture and Community”)
A recent speech I was invited to present at a conference on “the
Netizen Revolution and the Regional Information Infrastructure” in
Beppu, Japan helps to bring the world of the Netizen into perspective
with the ideas of participatory democracy,
Netizens are not just anyone who comes on-line, and they are
especially not people who come on-line for isolated gain or
profit. They are not people who come to the Net thinking it is
a service. Rather they are people who understand it takes effort
and action on each and everyone’s part to make the Net a
regenerative and vibrant community and resource. Netizens are
people who decide to devote time and effort into making the
Net, this new part of our world, a better place. (Hauben,
Hypernetwork ‘95 speech)
Page 51
The Net is a technological and social development that is in the
spirit of the theory clearly defined by the Students for a Democratic
Society. This understanding could help in the fight to keep the Net an
uncommercialized public commons (Felsenstein). This many to many
medium provides the tools necessary to bring the open commons needed
to make participatory democracy a reality. It is important now to spread
access to this medium to all who understand they could benefit.
The Net brings power to people’s lives because it is a public forum.
The airing of real problems and concerns in the open brings help
towards the solution and makes those responsible accountable to the
general public. The Net is the public distribution of people’s muckraking
and whistle blowing. It is also just a damn good way for people to come
together to communicate about common interests and to come into
contact with people with similar and differing ideas.
The lack of control over the events surrounding an individual’s life
was a common concern of protestors in the 1960s. The Port Huron
Statement gave as a reason for the reforms SDS was calling for that
“Americans are in withdrawal from public life, from any collective
efforts at directing their own affairs.” (The Port Huron Statement,
Miller, p. 335)
Hayden echoed C. Wright Mills when he wrote, “What experience
we have is our own, not vicarious or inherited.” Hayden continued, “We
keep believing that people need to control, or try to control, their work
and their life. Otherwise, they are without intensity, without the
subjective creative consciousness of themselves, which is the root of free
and secure feeling. It may be too much to believe, we don’t know.”
(Miller, p. 262)
The desire to bring more control into people’s daily life was a
common goal of student protest in the 1960s. Mario Savio, active in the
Berkeley Free Speech movement, “believed that the students, who paid
the university to educate them, should have the power to influence
decisions concerning their university lives.” (Haskins and Benson, p. 55)
This desire was also a common motivator of the personal computer
movement.
The Personal Computer Movement
Page 52
The personal computer movement immediately picked up after the
protest movements of the 1960s died down. Hobbyist computer
enthusiasts wanted to provide access to computing power to the people.
People across the United States picked up circuit boards and worked on
making a personal mini-computer or mainframe which previously only
large corporations and educational institutions could afford. Magazines,
such as Creative Computing, Byte and Dr. Dobbs’ Journal, and clubs,
such as the Homebrew Club, formed cooperative communities of people
working towards solving the technical problems of building a personal
and inexpensive computer.
Several pioneers of the personal computer movement contributed
to the tenth anniversary issue of Creative Computing Magazine. Some
of their impressions follow:
The people involved were people with vision, people who
stubbornly clung to the idea that the computers could offer
individuals advantages previously available only to large
corporations.... (Leyland, p. 111)
Computer power was meant for the people. In the early 70s
computer cults were being formed across the country. Sol
Libes on the East Coast and Gordon French in the West were
organizing computer enthusiasts into clubs.... (Terrell, p. 100)
We didn’t have many things you take for granted today, but we
did have a feeling of excitement and adventure. A feeling that
we were the pioneers in a new era in which small computers
would free everyone from much of the drudgery of everyday
life. A feeling that we were secretly taking control of infor-
mation and power jealously guarded by the Fortune 500 owners
of multi-million dollar IBM mainframes. A feeling that the
world would never be the same once “hobby computers” really
caught on. (Marsh, p. 110)
There was a strong feeling [at the Homebrew Club] that we
were subversives. We were subverting the way the giant corp-
orations had run things. We were upsetting the establishment,
Page 53
forcing our mores into the industry. I was amazed that we
could continue to meet without people arriving with bayonets
to arrest the lot of us.
The Net and Conclusion
The development of the Internet and of Usenet is an investment in
a strong force towards making direct democracy a reality. These new
technologies present the chance to overcome the obstacles preventing
the implementation of direct democracy. Online communication forums
also make possible the discussion necessary to identify today’s fund-
amental questions. One criticism is that it would be impossible to
assemble the body politic in person at a single time. The Net allows for
a meeting that takes place on each person’s own time, rather than all at
one time. Usenet newsgroups are discussion forums where questions are
raised, and people can leave comments when convenient, rather than at
a particular time and at a particular place. As a computer discussion
forum, individuals can connect from their own computers, or from
publicly accessible computers across the nation to participate in a parti-
cular debate. The discussion takes place in one concrete time and place,
while the discussants can be dispersed. Current Usenet newsgroups and
mailing lists prove that citizens can both do their daily jobs and
participate in discussions that interest them within their daily schedules.
Another criticism was that people would not be able to communi-
cate peacefully after assembling. Online discussions do not have the
same characteristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to the
discussion forum when they wish, and when they have time, they can be
thoughtful in their responses to the discussion, whereas in a traditional
meeting, participants have to think quickly to respond. In addition,
online discussions allow everyone to have a say, whereas finite length
meetings only allow a certain number of people to have their say. Online
meetings allow everyone to contribute their thoughts in a message,
which is then accessible to whoever else is reading and participating in
the discussion.
These new communication technologies hold the potential for the
implementation of direct democracy in a country as long as the
necessary computer and communications infrastructure are installed.
Page 54
Future advancement towards a more responsible government is possible
with these new technologies. While the future is discussed and planned
for, it will also be possible to use these technologies to assist in the
citizen participation in government. Netizens are watching various
government institutions on various newsgroups and mailing lists
throughout the global computer communications network. People’s
thoughts about and criticisms of their respective governments are being
aired on the currently uncensored networks.
These networks can revitalize the concept of a democratic “Town
Meeting” via online communication and discussion. Discussions involve
people interacting with others. Voting involves the isolated thoughts of
an individual on an issue, and then his or her acting on those thoughts in
a private vote. In society where people live together, it is important for
people to communicate with each other about their situations to best
understand the world from the broadest possible viewpoint.
The individuals involved with SDS, the personal computer
movement and the pioneers involved with the development of the Net
understood they were a part of history. This spirit helped them to push
forward in the hard struggle needed to bring the movements to fruition.
The invention of the personal computer was one step that made it
possible for people to afford the means to connect to the Net. The
Internet has just begun to emerge as a tool available to the public. It is
important that the combination of the personal computer and the Net be
spread and made widely available at low or no costs to people around
the world. It is important to understand the tradition, which these
developments have come from, in order to truly understand their value
to society and to make them widely available. With the hope connected
to this new public communications medium, I encourage people to take
up the struggle, which continues in the great American radical tradition.
Bibliography
Felsenstein, Lee. “The Commons of Information.” In Dr. Dobbs’ Journal. May 1993
www.sils.umich.edu/impact/speakers/felsenstein/felsenstein-article.html
Flacks, Richard. “On the Uses of Particapatory Democracy.” In Dissent. No 13.
Page 55
November 1966. Pp. 701-708. Reprinted in The American Left. Edited by Loren Baritz.
Pp. 397-405.
Freiberger, Paul and Michael Swaine. Fire in the Valley: The Making of the Personal
Computer. Osborne/McGraw-Hill. Berkeley. 1984.
Haskins, James and Kathleen Benson. The 60s Reader. Viking Kestrel. New York.
1988.
Hauben, Michael. “Culture and Communication: The interplay in the new public
commons – Usenet and Community.” 1995.
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/usenet-culture.txt
Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben. Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet
and the Internet. 1994
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
Hauben, Michael. “Netizens and Community Networks.” Presentation at Hyper
network ‘95, Beppu Bay Conference. November 24, 1995. Beppu Bay, Oita Prefecture,
Japan.
Leyland, Diane Asher. “As We Were.” In Creative Computing. Vol 10 no 11.
November, 1984. Pp. 111-112.
Marsh, Robert. “1975: Ancient History.” In Creative Computing. Vol 10 no 11.
November, 1984. Pp. 108-110.
Miller, James. Democracy Is in the Streets. Simon and Schuster. New York. 1987
Sale, Kirkpatrick. SDS. Vintage Books. New York, 1974.
SDS. The Port Huron Statement. As found in Miller. Pp. 329-374.
Terrell, Paul. “A Guided Tour of Personal Computing.” In Creative Computing. Vol
10 no 11. November, 1984. Pp. 100-104.
* Written in December 1995
Page 56
Netizens, Chapter 7
Behind the Net: The Untold History of
the ARPAnet and Computer Science
By Michael Hauben
The global Internet’s progenitor was the Advanced Research
Projects Agency Network (ARPAnet), financed and encouraged by the
U.S. Department of Defense. This is important to remember, because the
support and style of management by ARPA of its contractors was crucial
to the success of the ARPAnet. As the Internet develops and the struggle
over the role it plays unfolds, it will be important to remember how the
network developed and the culture with which it was connected. The
culture of the Net as a facilitator of communication is an important
feature to understand.
The ARPAnet Completion Report, published jointly in 1978 by
Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
ARPA, concludes by stating:
...it is somewhat fitting to end on the note that the ARPAnet
program has had a strong and direct feedback into the support
and strength of computer science, from which the network
itself sprung.
1
In order to understand the wonder that the Internet and various other
components of the Net represent, we need to understand why the
ARPAnet Completion Report ends with the suggestion that the ARPAnet
is fundamentally connected to and born of computer science rather than
of the military.
THE HISTORY OF ARPA LEADING UP TO THE
ARPAnet
A climate of scientific research surrounded the entire history of the
ARPAnet. ARPA was formed to fund basic research, and thus was not
oriented toward military products. The formation of this agency was part
of the U.S. government’s response to the then Soviet Union’s launch of
Sputnik in 1957.
2
One area of ARPA-supported research concerned the
Page 57
question of how to utilize the military’s investment in computers to do
Command and Control Research (CCR). Dr. J. C. R. Licklider was
chosen to head this effort. Licklider came to ARPA from Bolt, Beranek
and Newman, (BBN) in Cambridge, MA in October 1962.
3
His
educational background was a combination of engineering studies and
physiological psychology. His multi-disciplinary experiences provided
Licklider with a prospective uncommon among engineers.
As a result of Licklider’s arrival, the Agency’s contracts were
shifted from non-academic contractors toward “the best academic
computer centers”.
4
The then-current method of computing was batch
processing. Licklider saw that improvements could be made in CCR
only from work that would advance the current state of computing
technology. He particularly wanted to move forward into the age of
interactive computing, and Defense Department contractors were not
moving in that direction. In an Interview, Licklider described how at one
of the contractors, System Development Corporation (SDC), the
computing research being done “was based on batch processing, and
while I was interested in a new way of doing things, they [SDC] were
studying how to make improvements in the ways things were done al-
ready.”
5
To reflect the changed direction Licklider was bringing to
ARPA-supported research, his division of ARPA was renamed the
Information Processing Techniques Office (IPT or IPTO). The office
“developed into a far-reaching basic research program in advanced
technology.”
6
The Completion Report Draft states that “Prophetically, Licklider
nicknamed the group of computer specialists he gathered the ‘Inter-
galactic Network’.”
7
Before work on the ARPAnet began, the foundation
had been established by the creation of the Information Processing
Techniques Office of ARPA. Robert Taylor, Licklider’s successor at the
IPTO, reflects on how this foundation was based on Licklider’s interest
in interconnecting communities:
Lick was among the first to perceive the spirit of community
created among the users of the first time-sharing systems.... In
pointing out the community phenomena created, in part, by the
sharing of resources in one timesharing system, Lick made it
easy to think about interconnecting the communities, the
Page 58
interconnection of interactive, on-line communities of peo-
ple...”
8
The “spirit of community” was related to Licklider’s interest in
having computers help people communicate with other people
9
Licklider’s vision of an “intergalactic network” connecting people rep-
resented an important conceptional shift in computer science. This
vision guided the researchers who created the ARPAnet. After the
ARPAnet was functioning, the computer scientists using it realized that
assisting human communication was a major fundamental advance that
the ARPAnet made possible.
As early as 1963, a commonly asked question of the IPTO directors
by the ARPA directors about IPTO projects was “Why don’t we rely on
the computer industry to do that?,” or occasionally more strongly, “We
should not support that effort because ABC (read, “computer industry”)
will do it – if it’s worth doing!”
10
This question leads to an important
distinction: ARPA research was different from what the computer
industry had in mind to do, or was likely to undertake. Since Licklider’s
creation of the IPTO, the work supported by ARPA/IPTO continued his
explicit emphasis on communications. The Completion Report explains:
The ARPA/IPTO theme...is that the promise offered by the
computer...as a communication medium between people,
dwarfs into relative insignificance the historical beginnings of
the computer as an arithmetic engine.
11
The Completion Report Draft goes on to differentiate the research
ARPA supported from the research done by the computer industry:
The computer industry, in the main, still thinks of the computer
as an arithmetic engine. Their heritage is reflected even in
current designs of “their communication systems.” They have
an economic and psychological commitment to the arithmetic
engine model, and it can die only slowly...
12
The Completion Report Draft further analyzes this problem by tracing
it back to the nation’s universities:
...furthermore, it is a view that is still reinforced by most of the
nation’s computer science programs. Even universities, or at
least parts of them, are held in the grasp of the arithmetic
engine concept....
13
Page 59
ARPA’s IPTO was responsible for the research and development
which led to the success of first the ARPAnet, and later the Internet.
Without this support and commitment, such a development might never
have happened. One of ARPA’s criterion for supporting research was
that the research had to offer an order of magnitude of advance over the
current state of development. Such research is never immediately
profitable. In society, therefore, is the need for organizations that do not
pursue profit as their goal, but rather work on furthering the state of the
art. Computer networking was developed and spread widely in an
environment outside of commercial and profit considerations, an
environment that supported such research.
Others understood the communications promise of computers. For
example, in RFC 1336, David Clark, senior research scientist at MIT’s
Laboratory for Computer Science, describes the impact of the Internet
in making possible new means of human-to-human communication:
It is not proper to think of networks as connecting computers.
Rather, they connect people using computers to mediate. The
great success of the internet is not technical, but in human
impact. Electronic mail may not be a wonderful advance in
Computer Science, but it is a whole new way for people to
communicate. The continued growth of the Internet is a
technical challenge to all of us, but we must never loose sight
of where we came from, the great change we have worked on
the larger computer community, and the great potential we
have for future change.
14
Research predating the ARPAnet had been done by Paul Baran,
Thomas Marill and others.
15
This led Lawrence Roberts and other IPTO
staff to formally introduce the topic of networking computers of
differing types (that is, incompatible hardware and software) together in
order to make it possible for ARPA’s Principle Investigators (PI) to
share resources. The ARPA Principle Investigators meeting was held
annually for university and other contractors to summarize results of the
previous year and discuss future research. In the spring of 1967 it was
held at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor. Networking was one
of the topics brought up at this meeting, it was decided that there had to
be agreement on conventions for character and block transmission, error
Page 60
checking and retransmission, and computer and user identification.
These specifications became the contents of the inter-host communica-
tion’s “protocol.” Frank Westervelt was chosen to write about this
protocol, and a communication group was formed to study the
questions.
16
In order to develop a network of varied computers, two main
problems had to be solved:
1. To construct a ‘subnetwork’ consisting of telephone circuits
and switching nodes whose reliability, delay characteristics,
capacity, and cost would facilitate resource sharing among
computers on the network.
2. To understand, design, and implement the protocols and
procedures within the operating systems of each connected
computer, in order to allow the use of the new subnetwork by
the computers in sharing resources.
17
After one draft and additional work on this communications
position paper were completed, a meeting was scheduled in early
October 1967 by ARPA at which the protocol paper and specifications
for the Interface Message Processor (IMP) were discussed. A
subnetwork of IMPs, dedicated mini-computers connected to each other
and to one or more of the participant’s computers, was the method
chosen to connect the computers (hosts) to each other via phone lines.
This standardized the subnet to which the hosts connected. Researchers
at each site would have to write the software necessary to connect their
local host computer to the IMP at their site. ARPA picked 19 possible
participants in what was now known as the “ARPA Network.”
From the time of the 1967 PI meeting, various computer scientists
who were ARPA contractors were busy thinking about the planning and
development of the ARPAnet. Part of that work was a document
outlining a beginning design for the IMP subnetwork. This specification
led to a competitive procurement for the design of the IMP subnetwork.
By late 1967 ARPA had given a contract to the Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) to write the specifications for the communications
Page 61
network they were developing. In December of 1968, SRI issued a
report “A Study of Computer Network Design Parameters.” Elmer
Shapiro played an important role in the research for this report. Based
on this work, Lawrence Roberts and Barry Wessler of ARPA wrote the
final ARPA version of the IMP specification.
18
This specification was
ready to be discussed at the June 1968 PI meeting.
The Program Plan “Resource Sharing Computer Networks” was
submitted June 3, 1968 by the IPTO to the ARPA Director, who, with
unusual speed, approved it on June 21, 1968. It outlined the objectives
of the research, and how the objectives would be fulfilled. The purposed
network was impressive, as it would prove useful to both the computing
research centers that connected to the network and to the military. The
proposed research requirements would provide immediate benefits to the
computer centers the network would connect. ARPA’s stated objectives
were to experiment with varied interconnections of computers and
sharing of resources in an attempt to improve productivity of computer
research. Justification was drawn from technical needs in both the
scientific and military environments. The Program Plan developed into
a set of specifications. These specifications were connected to a
competitive Request for Quotation (RFQ) to find an organization that
would design and build the IMP subnetwork.
19
Following the approval of the Program Plan, 140 potential bidders
were mailed the Request for Quotation. After a bidders conference, 12
proposals were received and from them ARPA narrowed the field down
to four bidders. BBN was the eventual recipient of the contract.
20
The second technical problem, as defined by the ad hoc Communi-
cations Group, still remained to be solved. The set of agreed upon
communications settings (known as a protocol), which would allow the
hosts to communicate with each other over the subnetwork, had to be
developed. This work was left “for host sites to work out among
themselves.”
21
This meant that the software necessary to connect the
hosts to the IMP subnetwork had to be developed. ARPA assigned this
duty to the initially designated ARPAnet sites. Each of the first sites had
a different type of computer to connect. ARPA trusted that the program-
mers at each site would be capable of modifying their operating systems
in order to connect their systems to the subnetwork. In addition, the sites
Page 62
needed to develop the software necessary to utilize the other hosts on the
network. By assigning them responsibilities, ARPA made the academic
computer science community an active part of the ARPAnet develop-
ment team.
22
Steve Crocker, one of graduate students involved with the develop-
ment of the earliest ARPAnet protocols, associates the placement of the
initial ARPAnet sites at research institutions with the fact that the
ARPAnet was ground-breaking research. He wrote in a message re-
sponding to questions on the COM-PRIV mailing list:
During the initial development of the ARPAnet, there was
simply a limit as to how far ahead anyone could see and
manage. The IMPs were placed in cooperative ARPA R&D
sites with the hope that these research sites would figure out
how to exploit this new communication medium.
23
The first sites of the ARPAnet were picked to provide either
network support services or unique resources. The key services the first
four sites provided were:
24
UCLA Network Measurement Center
SRI Network Information Center
UCSB Culler-Fried interactive mathematics
UTAH graphics (hidden line removal)
Crocker recounts that these four sites were selected because they were
“existing ARPA computer science research contractors.” This was
important because “the research community could be counted on to take
some initiative.”
25
The very first site to receive an IMP was UCLA. Professor Leonard
Kleinrock of UCLA was involved with much of the early development
of the ARPAnet. His work in queuing theory gave him a basis to develop
measurement techniques used to monitor the ARPAnet’s performance.
This made it natural that UCLA received one of the first nodes, as it
would be important to measure the network’s activity from early on -
one of the first two or three sites had to be the measurement site in order
for the statistics to be based on correct data for analysis purposes and
UCLA accordingly came to be the Network Measurement Center
(NMC).
26
Page 63
The Network Working Group
Once the initial sites were chosen, representatives from each site
gathered together to talk about how to solve the technical problem of
getting the hosts to communicate with each other. The Completion
Report Draft tells us about this beginning:
To provide the hosts with a little impetus to work on the
host-to-host problems. ARPA assigned Elmer Shapiro of SRI
“to make something happen,” a typically vague ARPA assign-
ment. Shapiro called a meeting in the summer of 1968 that was
attended by programmers from several of the first hosts to be
connected to the network. Individuals who were present have
said that it was clear from the meeting at that time, no one had
even any clear notions of what the fundamental host-to-host
issues might be.
27
This group, which came to be known as the Network Working
Group (NWG), was exploring new territory. The first meeting took place
several months before the first IMP was configured. In Crocker’s
recollections of the important developments produced by the NWG that
were provided as the introduction to RFC-1000, the reader is reminded
that the thinking involved was groundbreaking and thus exciting.
Crocker remembers that the first meeting was chaired by Elmer Shapiro,
who initiated the conversation with a list of questions.
28
Also present at
this first meeting were Steve Carr from University of Utah, Crocker
from UCLA, Jeff Rulifson from SRI, and Ron Stoughton from UCSB.
These attendees, most of them graduate students, were the programmers
described in the Completion Report Draft.
According to Crocker, this was a seminal meeting. The attendees
could only be theoretical, as none of the lowest levels of communication
had been developed yet. They needed a transport layer or low-level
communications platform to be able to build upon. BBN would not
deliver the first IMP until August 30, 1969. It was important to meet
before this date, as the NWG “imagined all sorts of possibilities.”
29
Only
once they started thinking together could this working group actually
develop anything. These fresh thoughts from fresh minds helped to
incubate new ideas. The Completion Report Draft properly acknow-
ledges what this early group helped accomplished: “Their early thinking
Page 64
was at a very high level.”
30
A concrete decision made at the first meeting
was to continue holding meetings similar to the first one. This set the
precedent of holding exchange meetings at each of their sites.
Crocker, describing the problems facing these networking pioneers,
writes:
With no specific service definition in place for what the IMPs
were providing to the hosts, there wasn’t any clear idea of what
work the hosts had to do. Only later did we articulate the notion
of building a layered set of protocols with general transport
services on the bottom and multiple application-specific
protocols on the top. More precisely, we understood quite early
that we wanted quite a bit of generality, but we didn’t have a
clear idea how to achieve it. We struggled between a grand
design and getting something working quickly.
31
The initial protocol developments lead to DEL (Decode-Encode
Language) and NIL (Network Interchange Language). These languages
were more advanced than what was needed and could not be imple-
mented at the time. The basic purpose was to form an on-the-fly
description that would tell the receiving end how to understand the
information that would be sent. The discussions at this first set of
meetings were extremely abstract as neither ARPA nor the universities
had conceived of an official charter. However, the lack of a specific
charter allowed the group to think broadly and openly.
BBN had provided details about the host-IMP interface specifica-
tions from the IMP side. This information gave the group some definite
starting points to build from. Soon after BBN provided more informa-
tion, members of the NWG, of BBN and of the Network Analysis
Corporation (NAC) met for the first time on Valentine’s Day, 1969. The
NAC had been invited because it had been contracted by ARPA to
specify the topological design of the ARPAnet and to analyze its cost,
performance, and reliability characteristics.
32
As all the parties had
different priorities, the meeting was a difficult one. BBN was interested
in the lowest level of making a reliable connection. The programmers
from the host sites were interested in getting the hosts to communicate
with each either via various higher-level programs. Even when the crew
from BBN did not turn out to be the “experts from the East,” members
Page 65
of the NWG still expected that “a professional crew would show up
eventually to take over the problems we were dealing with.”
A step of great importance that began the open documentation
process occurred as a result of a “particularly delightful” meeting a
month later in Utah. The participants decided it was time to start
recording their meetings in a consistent fashion. What resulted was a set
of informal notes titled “Request for Comments” (RFC). Crocker writes
about their formation:
I remember having great fear that we would offend whomever
the official protocol designers were, and I spent a sleepless
night composing humble words for our notes. The basic ground
rules were that anyone could say anything and that nothing was
official. And to emphasize the point, I labeled the notes
“Request for Comments.” I never dreamed these notes would
distributed through the very medium we were discussing in
these notes. Talk about Sorcerer’s Apprentice!
33
Crocker replaced Shapiro as the Chairman of the NWG soon after
the initial meeting. He describes how they wrestled with the creation of
the host-host protocols:
Over the spring and summer of 1969 we grappled with the
detailed problems of protocol design. Although we had a vision
of the vast potential for inter-computer communication,
designing usable protocols was another matter. A custom
hardware interface and custom intrusion into the operating
system was going to be required for anything we designed, and
we anticipated serious difficulty at each of the sites. We looked
for existing abstractions to use. It would have been convenient
if we could have made the network simply look like a tape
drive to each host, but we knew that wouldn’t do.
34
The first IMP was delivered to UCLA in late August 1969. The next
was delivered to SRI a month later in October.
35
As soon as more than
one IMP existed, the NWG had to implement a working communica-
tions protocol. The first set of pairwise host protocols included remote
login for interactive use (telnet), and a way to copy files between remote
hosts (FTP). Crocker writes:
In particular, only asymmetric, user-server relationships were
Page 66
supported. In December 1969, we met with Larry Roberts in
Utah, [and he] made it abundantly clear that our first step was
not big enough, and we went back to the drawing board. Over
the next few months we designed a symmetric host-host
protocol, and we defined an abstract implementation of the
protocol known as the Network Control Program. (“NCP” later
came to be used as the name for the protocol, but it originally
meant the program within the operating system that managed
connections. The protocol itself was known blandly only as the
host-host protocol.) Along with the basic host-host protocol,
we also envisioned a hierarchy of protocols, with Telnet, FTP
and some splinter protocols as the first examples. If we had
only consulted the ancient mystics, we would have seen
immediately that seven layers were required.
36
The NWG went on to develop the protocols necessary to make the
network viable. The group grew as more and more sites connected to the
ARPAnet. The group became large enough (around 100 people) that one
meeting was held in conjunction with the 1971 Spring Joint Computer
Conference in Atlantic City. A major test of the NWG’s work came in
October 1971, when a meeting was held at MIT. Crocker continues the
story,
[A] major protocol “fly-off” – Representatives from each site
were on hand, and everyone tried to log in to everyone else’s
site. With the exception of one site that was completely down,
the matrix was almost completely filled in, and we had reached
a major milestone in connectivity.
37
The NWG was creating as what was called the “host to host
protocol.” Explaining why this was important, the authors of the
Completion Report Draft wrote:
...[T]he problem is to design a host protocol which is suffi-
ciently powerful for the kinds of communication that will occur
and yet can be implemented in all of the various different host
computer systems. The initial approach taken involved an
entity called a “Network Control Program” which would
typically reside in the executive of a host, such that processes
within a host would communicate with the network through
Page 67
this Network Control Program. The primary function of the
NCP is to establish connections, break connections, switch
connections, and control flow. A layered approach was taken
such that more complex procedures (such as File Transfer
Procedures) were built on top of similar procedures in the host
Network Control Program.
38
As the ARPAnet grew, the number of users bypassed the number of
developers, signaling the success of these networking pioneers. Crocker
appointed Alex McKenize and Jon Postel to replace him as chairmen of
the Network Working Group. The Completion Report Draft details how
this role changed:
McKenzie and Postel interpreted their task to be one of
codification and coordination primarily, and after a few more
spurts of activity the protocol definition process settled for the
most part into a status of a maintenance effort.
39
ARPA was a management body that funded academic computer
scientists. ARPA’s funding paved the way for these scientists to create
the ARPAnet. BBN helped by developing the packet switching
techniques which served as the bottom level of transmitting information
between sites. The NWG provided an important development in its
“Request for Comments” documentation, which made possible
developing the new protocols.
RFCs as “Open” Documentation
The open exchange of ideas initiated from the very first meeting of
the Network Working Group continued in the Request For Comments.
As meeting notes, the RFCs were meant to keep members updated on
the status of various developments and ideas. They were also meant to
gather responses from people. RFC 3, “Documentation Conventions,”
documents the “rules” governing the production of these notes beginning
with the open distribution rules:
Documentation of the NWG’s effort is through notes such as
this. Notes may be produced at any site by anybody and in-
cluded in this series.
40
These opening sentences invite anyone willing to be helpful in the
protocol definition process. This is important because all restrictions are
Page 68
lifted by these words, allowing for the open process aimed for. (RFC-3
is reproduced in the appendix at the end of this chapter.) The guide goes
on to describe the rules concerning the contents of the RFCs:
The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion,
etc. related to the HOST software or other aspect of the net-
work. Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished.
Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics,
specific suggestions or implementation techniques without
introductory or background explication, and explicit questions
without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The mini-
mum length for a NWG note is one sentence.
41
In RFC-3, Crocker continues to explain the philosophy behind the
perhaps unprecedented openness represented:
These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two
reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement
as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the
exchange and discussion of considerably less than authoritative
ideas. Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something
unpolished, and we hope to ease this inhibition.
42
This open process encouraged and led to the exchange of information.
Technical development is only successful when information is allowed
to flow freely and easily between the parties involved. Encouraging
participation is the main principle that made the development of the Net
possible.
Statements like the ones contained in RFC-3 are democratic in their
support of a process of openness. They were written during the late
1960's, a time of popular protest for freedom of speech. People were
demanding more of a say in how their countries were run. The open
environment needed to develop new technologies is consistent with the
cry for more democracy by students and other throughout the world
during the 1960s. What is amazing is the collaboration of the NWG
(mostly graduate students) and ARPA (a component of the military)
during the 1960s and 1970s. This seems unusual given the active student
anti-war movement. Robert Braden of the Internet Activities Board
reflects on this collaboration:
For me, participation in the development of the ARPAnet and
Page 69
the Internet protocols has been very exciting. One important
reason it worked, I believe, is that there were a lot of very
bright people all working more or less in the same direction,
led by some very wise people in the funding agency. The result
was to create a community of network researchers who
believed strongly that collaboration is more powerful than
competition among researchers. I don’t think any other model
would have gotten us where we are today.
43
Such collaboration is why the work of these computer scientists led to
such amazing and democratic achievements, the Net and the cooperative
culture of the Net.
44
Calling their notes a “Request for Comment” established a
significant tradition. It predates the Usenet post, which in a fashion
could also be called a “request for comment.” Both are the presentation
of a particular person’s ideas, questions, or comments to the general
public for comments, criticism or suggestions. Early RFCs established
this tradition. Many RFCs are in fact comments on previous RFCs.
45
Conclusion
How were the developments of the ARPAnet made possible? None
of the participants had previous solutions to any of the problems they
faced in establishing a working packet-switched testbed with host-to-
host connectivity. They had to put much thought and work into their
research. As the resulting ARPAnet was tremendously successful and
fulfilled ARPA’s project objectives, it is important to see what can be
learned from the research and research methods from which it emerged.
Bernie Cosell, who worked at BBN during this early period, describes
the importance of an open process in a developmental situation:
*no*one* had the necessary expertise [and vision] to figure any
of this out on their own. The cultures among the early groups
were VERY different [-] multics, sigma-7, IBM...at Rand,
...PDP-10s at BBN and SRI...[and possibly] UCSB and Utah
had PDP-10's, too. The pie-in-the-sky applications ranged over
a WIDE landscape, with no one knowing quite where it would
lead. Some kind of free, cross-cultural info/idea exchange
*had* to happen.
46
Page 70
The computer scientists and others involved were encouraged in
their work by ARPA’s philosophy of gathering the best computer
scientists working in the field and supporting them:
IPT usually does little day-to-day management of its con-
tractors. Especially with its research contracts, IPT would not
be producing faster results with such management as research
must progress at its own pace. IPT has generally adopted a
mode of management that entails finding highly motivated,
highly skilled contractors, giving them a task, and allowing
them to proceed by themselves.
47
The work of the Network Working Group was vital to the develop-
ment of the ARPAnet. Vinton Cerf, another of the graduate students
involved with the early protocol development and still closely connected
to the Internet, echoed this sentiment in his paper “An Assessment of
ARPAnet Protocols”:
The history of the Advanced Research Project Agency resource
sharing computer network (ARPAnet) is in many ways a
history of the study, development, and implementation of
protocols.”
48
Cerf supports Cosell’s opinion about the uncertainty and newness of the
entire project:
The tasks facing the ARPAnet design teams were often
un-clear, and frequently required agreements which had never
been contemplated before (e.g., common protocols to permit
different operating systems and hardware to communicate).
The success of the effort, seen in retrospect, is astonishing, and
much credit is due to those who were willing to commit them-
selves to the job of putting the ARPAnet together.
49
The NWG’s work blazed the trail, which the developers of the
TCP/IP suite of protocols (Transport Control Protocol/ Internet Protocol)
successfully followed when the need to expand and include other
networks based on technologies other than NCP arose. The principles
embodied in RFC-3 and the open RFC documentation provided a strong
foundation that began with NCP and was continued by the work on
TCP/IP. NCP was developed in the field, and versions of it were
released early in its development so various programmers could work on
Page 71
implementing and improving the protocol. In addition, all specifications
were free and easily available for people to examine and comment on.
Through this principle of early release, problems and kinks were found
and worked out in a timely manner. The future developers of TCP/IP
learned from the developers of NCP a practice of developing from the
bottom up. The bottom-up model allows for a wide range of people and
experiences to join in and perfect the protocol and make it the best
possible.
The public funding of the ARPAnet project meant that the docu-
mentation could be made public and freely available. The documentation
was neither restricted nor classified. This open process encouraging
communication was necessary for these pioneers to succeed. Research
in new fields of study requires that researchers cooperate and communi-
cate in order to share their expertise. Such openness is especially critical
when no one person has the answers in advance. In his article, “The
Evolution of Packet Switching,” Larry Roberts described the public
nature of the process:
Since the ARPAnet was a public project connecting many
major universities and research institutions, the implementation
and performance details were widely published.
50
The people at the forefront of development of these protocols were
the members of the Network Working Group, many of whom came from
academic institutions, and who therefore had the support and time
needed for the research. In summing up the achievements of the process
that developed the ARPAnet, the Completion Report Draft explains:
The ARPAnet development was an extremely intense activity
in which contributions were made by many of the best com-
puter scientists in the United States. Thus, almost all of the
“major technical problems” already mentioned received con-
tinuing attention and the detailed approach to those problems
changed several times during the early years of the ARPAnet
effort.
51
Fundamental to the ARPAnet, as explained by the Completion
Report Draft, was the discovery of a new way of looking at computers.
The developers of the ARPAnet viewed the computer as a communica-
tions device rather than only as an arithmetic device.
52
This new view,
Page 72
which came from research conducted by those in academic computer
science, made the building of the ARPAnet possible. Such a shift in
understanding the role of the computer is fundamental in advancing
computer science. The ARPAnet research has provided a rich legacy for
the further advancement of computer science, and it is important that the
significant lessons learned be studied and used to further advance the
study of computer science.
NOTES
1. F. Heart, A. McKenzie, J. McQuillan, and D. Walden, ARPANET Completion
Report (Washington, D.C.: DARPA and BBN, 1978) III-132. (hereafter,
Completion Report).
2. ARPAnet Completion Report Draft, September 9, 1977, unpublished manuscript,
III-6. (hereafter, Completion Report Draft).
3. ibid.
4. ibid., III
5, “Interview with J. C. R. Licklider” conducted by William Aspray and Arthur L.
Norberg, tape recording, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 28 October 1988, OH 150,
Charles Babbage Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
6. Completion Report Draft, III-7.
7. ibid.
8. ibid., III-21.
9. See, for example, J. C. R. Licklider and Robert Taylor, “The Computer as a
Communication Device,” in In Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider 1915-1990 (Palo
Alto, CA.: Digital Systems Research Center, 1990), originally published in
Science and Technology, April 1968.
10. Completion Report Draft, III-23.
11. ibid., III-24.
12. ibid.
13. ibid.
14. RFC-1336, “Who’s Who in the Internet,” G. Malkin, May 1992, 15.
15. See Chapter 8 of this volume, “The Birth and Development of the ARPAnet” and
Completion Report, section 1.1.2, starting on III-9.
16. Completion Report Draft, III-25, III-26.
17. Completion Report, II-7-II-8.
18. Completion Report Draft, III-31-III-33.
19. ibid., III-35 and Completion Report, II-2.
20. Completion Report Draft, III-35, III-36.
21. ibid., III-67.
Page 73
22. ibid., III-39 and personal discussion with Alex McKenzie, November 1, 1993.
23. E-mail message to Com-Priv mailing list (com-priv@ psi.com). Subject “Re:
RFC-1000 (Partial response to part 1).” Date: Nov. 27, 1993.
24. Vinton G. Cerf, private e-mail correspondence, dated Nov. 27, 1993. Subject:
“Re: Early Days of the ARPAnet and the NWG.”
25. “The Origins of RFCs” by Stephen D. Crocker is contained in J. Reynolds and J.
Postal, RFC-1000, 1.
26. The following quotes show some of the reasoning that went into the choice of the
initial ARPAnet sites:
CCN’s [The Campus Computing Network of UCLA] chance to obtain a
connection to the ARPAnet was a result of the presence at UCLA of
Professor L. Kleinrock and his students, including S. Crocker, J. Postel, and
V. Cerf. This group was not only involved in the original design of the
network and the Host protocols, but also was to operate the Network
Measurement Center (NMC). For these reasons the first delivered IMP was
installed at UCLA, and ARPA was thus able to easily offer CCN the
opportunity for connection. (Completion Report Draft, III-689).
UCLA was specifically asked to take on the task of a “Network
Measurement Center” with the objective of studying the performance of the
network as it was built, grown, and modified; SRI was specifically asked to
take on the task of a “Network Information Center” with the objective of
collecting information about the network, about host resources, and at the
same time generating computer based tools for storing and accessing that
collected information (Completion Report Draft, II-16).
The accessibility of distributed resources carries with it the need for an
information service (either centralized or distributed) that enables users to
learn about those resources. This was recognized at the PI [ed. Primary
Instigators] meeting in Michigan in the spring of 1967. At the time, Doug
Engelbart and his group at the Stanford Research Institute were already in-
volved in research and development to provide a computer-based facility to
augment human interaction. Thus, it was decided that Stanford Research
Institute would be a suitable place for a “Network Information Center”
(NIC) to be established for the ARPAnet. With the beginning of implemen-
tation of the network in 1969, construction also began on the NIC at SRI
(Completion Report Draft, III-60).
27. Completion Report Draft, III-67.
28. E-mail message to Con-Priv mailing list. Subject: “Re: RFC-1000 (End of
response to part 1).” Date: Nov. 27, 1993.
29. RFC-1000.
30. Completion Report Draft, III-67.
31. E-mail message to Con-Priv mailing list. Subject: “Re: RFC-1000 (Response to
part 2),” Date: Nov. 27, 1993.
Page 74
32. Completion Report, III-30.
33. RFC-1000, 3.
34. ibid.
35. In RFC-1000, Stephen Crocker reports on the process of the installation of the
first IMP:
[T]ime was pressing: The first IMP was due to be delivered to UCLA
September 1, 1969, and the rest were scheduled at monthly intervals.
At UCLA we scrambled to build a host-IMP interface. SDS, the builder
of the Sigma 7, wanted many months and many dollars to do the job.
Mike Wingfield, another grad student at UCLA, stepped in and offered
to get interface built in six weeks for a few thousand dollars. He had a gor-
geous, fully instrumented interface working in five and one half weeks. I
was in charge of the software, and we were naturally running a bit late.
September 1 was Labor Day, so I knew I had a couple of extra days to
debug the software. Moreover, I had heard BBN was having some timing
troubles with the software, so I had some hope they’d miss the ship date.
And I figured that first some Honeywell people would install the hardware
– IMPs were built out of Honeywell 516s in those days – and then BBN
people would come in a few days later to shake down the software. An easy
couple of weeks of grace.
BBN fixed their timing trouble, air shipped the IMP, and it arrived on
our loading dock on Saturday, August 30. They arrived with the IMP,
wheeled it into our computer room, plugged it in and the software restarted
from where it had been when the plug was pulled in Cambridge. Still
Saturday, August 30. Panic time at UCLA.
The second IMP was delivered to SRI at the beginning of October, and
ARPA’s interest was intense. Larry Roberts and Barry Wessler came by for
a visit on November 21, and we actually managed to demonstrate a Telnet-
like connection to SRI.
36. RFC-1000, 4.
37. ibid.
38. Completion Report Draft, II-24.
39. ibid., III-69.
40. RFC-3, “Documentation Conventions,” Stephen Crocker, April 1969, 1.
41. ibid.
42. ibid.
43. RFC-1336, 5.
44. This democratic community is in danger of being fundamentally altered. This
study of the history of the development of the ARPANET in conjunction with
Chapter 3, “The Social Forces Behind the Development of Usenet” is meant to
help people understand where the Net has come from, in order to defend it, and
try to fight to keep it open and democratic – “the eighth wonder of the world,” as
Page 75
some call the Internet.
45. Some examples of comments upon comments include:
RFC-1 Crocker, S. Host software, 1969 April 7
RFC-65 Walden, D. Comments on Host/Host Protocol document #1
RFC-36 Crocker, S. Protocol notes, 1970 March 16
RFC-38 Wolfe, S. Comments on network protocol from NWG/RFC #36
RFC-39 Harslem, E.; Heafner, J. Comments on protocol re: NWG/RFC #36
RFC-33 Crocker, S. New Host-Host Protocol, 1970 February 12
RFC-47 Crowther, W. BBN’s comments on NWG/RFC #331970 April 20
46. Bernie Cosell, “Re: RFC-1000 - Questions about the Origins of ARPAnet
Protocols 2/2,” alt.folklore.computers, Nov. 23, 1993.
47. Completion Report Draft, III-47.
48. Vinton Cerf, “An Assessment of ARPAnet Protocols,” Infotech Education Ltd.,
Stanford University, California, (n.d.), 1.
49. ibid.
50. Lawrence Roberts, “The Evolution of Packet Switching,” Proceedings of the
IEEE 66 (November 1978): 267.
51. ibid., III-24.
52. ibid., III-24.
Special thanks to Alexander McKenzie of BBN, Stephen Crocker of TIS, and Vinton
Cerf of CNRI for making research materials available.
An early version of this chapter by Michael Hauben was posted on Usenet in January
1994.
Appendix
Network Working Group 4689
RFC-3 April 1969
Stev e Crocker
UCL A
DOCUMENTATION CONVENTIONS
The Network Working Group seems to consist of Steve Carr of Utah, Jeff
Rulifson and Bill Duvall at SRI, and Steve Crocker and Gerard Deloche at UCLA.
Membership is not closed.
The Network Working Group (NWG) is concerned with the HOST software, the
strategies for using the network, and initial experiments with the network.
Documentation of the NWG’s effort is through notes such as this. Notes may be
produced at any site by anybody and included in this series.
Page 76
CONTENT
The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. related to the
HOST software or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to be timely
rather than polished. Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics,
specific suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or background
explication, and explicit questions without any attempted answers are all acceptable.
The minimum length for a NWG note is one sentence.
These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two reasons. First, there
is a tendency to view a written statement as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to
promote the exchange and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas.
Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something unpolished, and we hope to
ease this inhibition.
FORM
Every NWG note should bear the following information:
1. “Network Working Group”
“Request for Comments:” x, where x is a serial number.
Serial numbers are assigned by Bill Duvall at SRI
2. Author and affiliation
3. Date
4. Title. The title need not be unique.
DISTRIBUTION
One copy only will be sent from the author’s site to”:
1. Bob Kahn, BB&N
2. Larry Roberts, ARPA
3. Steve Carr, UCLA
4. Jeff Rulifson, UTAH
5. Ron Stoughton, UCSB
6. Steve Crocker, UCLA
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally.
OTHER NOTES
Two notes (1 & 2) have been written so far. These are both titled HOST Software
and are by Steve Crocker and Bill Duvall, separately.
Other notes planned are on:
1. Network Timetable
2. The Philosophy of NIL
3. Specifications for NIL
4. Deeper Documentation of HOST Software.
Page 77
Report from Berlin: The Vision Lives
1
By Jay Hauben
In 1992, Michael Hauben began research about what was then still
called the Net (the Internet, Usenet, FidoNet, BITNET, etc.). Not only
was his research about the Net, it was conducted on the Net. This
research led him and Ronda Hauben to write the book Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.
2
The essence of Netizens
is the prediction that the impact on society of the Net could be over-
whelmingly positive. The authors examine the effect the Net was
beginning to have on people’s lives, on politics, the press, publishing,
democratic decision making, etc. They envision a participatory
democratic future made possible by the Net. But throughout their
analysis they raise the possibility of derailment of this vision if the Net
loses government protection or if an unregulated commercialism is
allowed to impose its agenda on the development of the Net.
For a long time, in the U.S. at least, the questions of social impact
and regulating commercialization raised in Netizens were only mini-
mally discussed. The situation now seems to be changing. An Associa-
tion of Internet Researchers (AoIR) is growing with a strong component
of sociologists and others concerned with social impact. Universities and
colleges are beginning to introduce Internet Studies degrees, with social
impact being a key question. In Europe, it is beginning to be realized
that the project of European unification will be profoundly affected by
the social impact of the new technologies – especially those of informa-
tion and communication. An indication of the importance being given
to considerations of the vision and precautions presented in Netizens was
an international conference, “Innovations for an e-Society: Challenges
for Technology Assessment” held in Germany in October 2001.
3
On October 17 to 19, about 200 researchers participated in this
conference in Berlin. The language of the conference was English with
participants from Germany and many other countries present. The focus
Page 78
of the conference was the impact on society which will result because of
recent technological developments, especially the Internet. The
assumption of the organizers was that the new technologies are bound
to cause profound societal changes. The sum total of these changes the
conference called “e-society.” The question for the conference was what
will or what should e-society look like?
The conference was organized on behalf of the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research. The Ministry has written of its
commitment to a broad-based societal dialogue about how to shape the
future.
4
This conference seemed intended to serve that purpose at least
in that it invited participation from researchers in many fields from the
academic, public and commercial sectors, and from many countries.
The participants were welcomed by Edelgard Bulmahn, the German
Federal Minister for Education and Research.
5
She outlined the
challenge: for there to be social justice in the future, there must be social
purpose given to the e-society that is emerging. Detectable in her
welcome was a sense that perhaps the current direction of e-society
might be problematic. The goals of e-society research should be “that
everyone benefit and no one be marginalized.” For this to occur the
Minister said there must be social discussion of what in the past guides
us to decide what path society wants to follow. To have this discussion
citizens need information about science and technology and scientists
need a sense of society’s needs. She concluded that the increasingly
rapid distribution of new information and communication technologies
requires an international dialogue on these questions and wished the
participants a fruitful exchange of experiences.
Next, Armin Grunwald, director of the coordinating Institute for
Technology and Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) set the goal
of the conference. He raised a question: Can technological developments
be influenced according to society’s goals or does technological
development follow its own or a market dynamic? This question for the
conference was in the context of the fear that the current direction might
be toward deepening the social divides digitally rather than toward a
globally networked civil society. Dr. Grunwald was optimistic that
society as a whole could, with real effort, shape the emerging e-society
according to societal goals and values and that was the reason for the
Page 79
conference.
6
The spectrum of research and opinion at the conference demon-
strated an opening up of the questions for a broader than usual participa-
tion. It is not uncommon in current discussions of the changes that are
expected in society due to new technologies to mention the need for
transparency, for the protection of privacy, for life-long learning and for
worker mobility in the new Europe. At this conference these were
mentioned but they were also challenged. A keynote speaker from the
commercial sector described in positive terms a Lifelong Learning
project as a backbone for advanced education and training.
7
His
presentation was questioned by a participant: “Do people really want to
spend their lives being retrained for new jobs as their old ones are made
obsolete or would quality of life require something else?” Lifelong
learning was seen from this point of view as a substitute for a commit-
ment to a shorter work week or fewer hours of work per day and other
advantages for workers from the new technology. The narrow need for
a constantly retrained workforce was countered by the criteria of a
higher quality of stable and secure life for all. Similarly, the projection
of a mobile work force as part of the goal of a “Mobile Europe”
8
was
questioned by a participant:
9
“Have you asked people if they want the
Mobile Europe you are planning?” The implication being there may be
more than one vision of Mobile Europe. The goal of the unimpeded flow
of ideas and people across all borders both internal and external versus
the goal of the easy flow from job to job. The former was proposed as
socially desirable. The latter was criticized as too narrow.
Privacy was raised as a universal concern. But in the E-Health
sessions it was reported that more than 80% of people polled in Iceland
favored the gathering of medical data for open medical research even if
that required relinquishing the confidentiality of medical records.
10
Icelanders apparently felt the social value of making their medical
records available overrode the personal value championed by some
doctors of keeping them private. Besides this difference over the
importance of privacy, there was a difference over the need for
transparency. There was much talk at the conference of the need for
transparency and openness as necessary for the social success of the
e-society. But it was argued in one of the presentations that transparency
Page 80
in nature is achieved by looking through a glass or crystal. Transparency
implies something can be watched, but the goal of social shaping
requires broad participation and influence on the process not merely
more open disclosure about the process.
11
At most conferences in the U.S., privacy, transparency, life-long
learning and representative democracy are mainly discussed. Differences
like those above suggest that this conference had participants from a
broader than usual spectrum of society. One conference preprint article
notes there is a view that e-governance relates to the performance of
government services including the delivery of information to the public
via information and communication technologies (ICT). But the
researchers comment that this view is too narrow. They see the citizens
of European countries as being “less prone to accept experts’ opinions
and regulators’ decisions without having a say.” They suggest gover-
nance needs to be “a more broad and creative idea... extending the par-
ticipation of civil society in the decision process that concerns all
citizens.”
12
They argue that social “safety can follow only from an open
dialogue, early extended participation and a negotiated partnership
among a multiplicity of parties.”
The conference organizers raised the need for social shaping of the
emerging e-society not mere adaptation to it. Among the researchers
there were some who understood that such social shaping requires actual
guidance based on the values and principles of the citizens of the future
Europe. One set of researchers reported about citizen cells or panels that
they convened.
13
The citizen panels they described seemed more than
a research tool. They were a possible prototypic form for citizen
participation. Randomly chosen citizens were invited to attend the
panels to answer the question, do people want Internet access and for
what purposes? Since their wages would be paid to them, release from
their jobs would be arranged and an honorarium offered, enough people
could attend to make the panels a good cross section of the citizens. A
consensus developed in all the panels that universal access to the
Internet would be valuable. But valuable for what? The participants
knew that their deliberations and opinions would be reported back to the
government body that sponsored the study. The researchers reported that
the consensus on that question was valuable for watching over the
Page 81
politicians and political structures about which the citizens had much
skepticism.
The citizen panels and research reported on by the German
researchers can be compared with the research reported on by an
American researcher. The American had asked with his research, did the
new media help to increase the number of voters, i.e., to get out the
vote? He reported, “My survey research shows...the Internet to have no
effect on voter turnout.”
14
His question and answer exposed a different
understanding of participation than that of the German researchers
discussed above. Participation for the American researcher meant
voting. In the German research it meant serving on a citizen panel. In
Germany and in Europe in general, low voter turnout is considered an
indicator of the breakdown of the political process and the need for a
reexamination of the process. In America, low voter turn out is often
ascribed to citizen contentment with the status quo. The observation by
Michael Hauben that the net makes possible “...a revitalization of
society, the frameworks...being redesigned from the bottom up [and] a
new more democratic world...becoming possible”
15
was reflected in the
German research but not the American. The questions of this conference
and its goals suggested a desire for revitalization and even some from
the bottom up. The citizen panel research echoed Hauben’s observation
that “the common people have a unique voice that is now being aired in
a new way.”
16
Another question that surfaced at the conference concerned the
effect on European unity of corporate globalization or marketization.
The Federal Minister raised the goal of reconciling innovation (market-
ization of technology) and social justice. She thought the reconciliation
was only possible if the debate over shaping the future or setting goals
was broadened to hear from all sectors of society. Two European
Commission researchers who were looking at the future Europe 10 years
and 20 years from now
17
reported they were surprised by the broad anti-
corporate globalization demonstrations and the criticism of global
marketization in Seattle (Nov. 1999) and especially in Genoa (June
2001). In response other conference participants pointed out that a
narrow economic agenda not under social or governmental regulation is
bound to produce social tension and protest. The corporate agenda of
Page 82
privatization and diminished governmental services and standards, and
for the expansion of the private sector at the expense of the public
sector, seemed to some to cloud the chance for social cohesion and thus
endangering the chances for a more integrated or united Europe. These
participants echoed the warning J. C. R. Licklider and Robert Taylor
made when they envisioned the Internet in 1968. “For the society, the
impact will be good or bad depending mainly on the question: Will ‘to
be on line’ be a privilege or a right? If only a favored segment of the
population gets a chance to enjoy the advantage of ‘intelligence
amplification,’ the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the
spectrum of intellectual opportunity.”
18
Armin Grunwald presented the conference wrap up. He suggested
that a proper summary of the conference was that after decades of
deregulation there was a need for reregulation. Only then he implied
could the social shaping of the future that the conference was aiming for
be achieved. It was not, he argued, to return to hierarchical decision
making but to engage in social dialogues with broad participation from
all sectors. That would require allowing enough time for broad delibera-
tion and careful assessment. Then a normative framework based on rule
of law and respect for human rights could emerge.
The conference was planned so that its events would contribute to
the work it was to accomplish. The welcome to Berlin included the
recognition that a vibrant Berlin required an advanced technological
base. That theme was reinforced by the banquet dinner speaker historian
Hubert Laitko. His speech may have been too long for a dinner speech
but was valuable for the detailed telling of the importance of scientific
research in the last 150 years in the development of industry and
technology in Berlin. In spite of wars, Nazism and the division of Berlin
for 44 years, a tradition of pure scientific research and networks of
creative activity continues in Berlin based he said on open intellectual
communication and exchange among institutions and researchers.
19
As
if to prove this last point, it was a special treat to have many scholars
from the former East Germany add their spirit and expertise to this
conference. Even the bus ride to the banquet was made into a guided
tour narrated by a architect although some Berliners on the bus disagreed
with some of his narrative.
Page 83
To this reporter from the U.S., the conference seemed different from
the U.S. norm. For the U.S. government and researchers the dominant
Internet question since at least 1991 has been privatization and commer-
cialization. Now in Europe, or at least at this conference called by the
German government, the dual questions of the book Netizens, the great
social potential of the Internet and great danger of the commercialization
and privatization were being taken up. To me the work of this confer-
ence was a positive development in the direction pioneered by Michael
Hauben and Ronda Hauben.
Notes:
1. This report is written for the memorial issue of the Amateur Computerist honoring
the life and work of Michael Hauben. The reporter attended the conference as a press
guest.
2. Online since January 1994. Now at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/netbook/. In
hard cover edition since 1997 from the IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos,
CA. Hereafter, Netizens.
3. Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment. Sponsored by
the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany. See:
http://www.itas.fzk.de/e-society/ See also Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for
Technology Assessment, Congress PrePrints, ISBN 3-89750-0973. Hereafter PrePrints.
4. Report of the Federal Government on Research 2000, BMBF, Bonn, no date, p. 10
and 46.
5. “Welcome Address,” handout at the conference.
6. “Technology Assessment for Shaping the e-Society,” copy provided by the author.
7. Joachim Schaper, “E-Learning as a Chance and Challenge for Lifelong Learning,”
presented at Plenary Session III.
8. Mathias Weber and J.C. Burgelman, “Mobile Europe: Balancing Technological
Change and Europe’s Socio-Economic Objectives.” See PrePrints, Section 8.
9. Karsten Weber. His presentation at the conference, "Who should have access to
which information?" can be seen at:
Page 84
http://www.phil.euv-frankfurt-o.de/download/Access.pdf
10. Janine Morgall and Ingunn Bjornsdottir, “Confidentiality an issue for whom?.” See
PrePrints, Session 4.
11. B. De Marchi, S. Functowicz and A. Guimaraes Pereira, “e2-Governance:
electronic and extended.” PrePrints, Session 3.
12. ibid.
13. Hans Kastenholz and Elmar Wienhofer, “Civic Participation and the Internet.
Opportunities and Limits of Electronic Democracy.” PrePrints, Session 3.
14. Bruce Bimber, “Information Technology and the “New” Politics: Lessons from the
American Experience.” PrePrints, Session 3.
15. Netizens, page 3.
16. ibid., page 10.
17. K. Mathias Weber and J. C. Burgelman, participants in the European Commission’s
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) Futures Project.
18.”The Computer as a Communication Device.” In Science and Technology: For the
Technical Men in Management. No 76. April, 1968. Pp. 21-31. Also reprinted in In
Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider: 1915-1990. Report 61. Systems Research Center. Digital
Equipment Corporation. Palo Alto, California. August 7, 1990. Pp. 21-41.
19. Unfortunately only an abstract of his talk was included among the preprints and the
talk is not available electronically.
The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not
necessarily the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We
welcome submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.
Page 85
EDITORIAL STAFF
Ronda Hauben
William Rohler
Norman O. Thompson
Michael Hauben (1973-2001)
Jay Hauben
The Amateur Computerist invites submissions. Articles can be
submitted via e-mail:
[email protected] Permission is given to reprint articles from
this issue in a non profit publication provided credit is given, with name of
author and source of article cited.
ELECTRONIC EDITION
ACN Webpage:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ All issues of the Amateur
Computerist are on-line. Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/
All issues can be accessed from the Index at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf
Page 86
