The Amateur

Computerist

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Winter 2021

Toward a Second Netizen Book (Part 5)

Volume 34 No. 5

Table of Contents

Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Netizens & Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

New Forms of News Can Improve Policy Making . . . Page 8

Declaration of the Rights of Netizens. . . . . . . . . Page 17

Graduation Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Netizens Providing Hope for Future Development . . Page 19

Struggle Over Internet Governance . . . . . . . . . Page 20

Forward

This issue of the Amateur Computerist, Vol. 34

No. 5, is the sixth issue in a series, each containing

articles that are the basis for possible chapters for a

second netizen book. The articles in this issue provide

some analysis and examples of the significance of the

discovery by Michael Hauben of the emergence of the

netizen and the development of the concept of netizen

with respect to politics, policy making and the fight

against corruption.

The first article, “Netizens & Communication:

A New Paradigm,” reviews the launch of the Netizens

book and puts the concept of netizens into the context

of its time. It explores the development of the concept

by the media theorist Mark Poster who was interested

in the relation of citizens to government in the age of

globalization. Poster wonders if globalization causes

that role to shift to netizens. The article also explores

the theory of social scientist Karl Deutsch who sees

governing not as an act of power but of com-

munication. In which case, netizen activity opens up

a new channel of communication for the increased

functioning of democracy.

The second article explores the possible effect

that netizen journalism can have on policy and

diplomacy. The case study is of the sinking of the

South Korean warship Cheonan in 2010 and the

bringing of that question by the South Korean

government to the UN. Netizens around the world

challenged the accusation of North Korean respons-

ibility for the sinking. Blog posts and presentations by

scientists refuted the evidence of any role by North

Korea. The result was that the UN Security Council

did not assign quilt but sent the question back to the

two Koreas to solve peacefully

The next article, “Proposed Declaration of the

Rights of Netizens” asserts the components of what

would constitute net access as a right, not a service. It

places the concept of netizen in the line of the de-

velopment of democracy along with the U.S. “Declar-

ation of Independence” (1776), the “Rights of Man

and of the Citizen” (1789) and RFC 3 (1969).

The fourth article is a speech made by Michael

Hauben when he graduated from Columbia University

in 1995. It connects his four years at Columbia, with

his increased use of Usenet and the internet and the

development of the concept of netizen via research

papers and active participation on Usenet and mailing

lists. He concluded by crediting his four years with

helping him realize that the internet and Usenet

provide society with a “place where people can

communicate with other people at a grassroots level

to make their lives better and to attempt to make the

world a better place.”

The next article shows how Cameroonian socio-

logist Charly Gabriel Mbock understands that the

netizens will make possible “the creation of a global

community devoted to a more equitable sharing of

world resources through efficient interactions.”

Mbock looks forward to a new world order based on

‘netdemocracy.’ Then there would be “a three-

pronged system of dialogue; dialogue among the

citizens of a given country, dialogue among these

‘netizens’ and their local or national government, and

dialogue among ‘netizens.’ The world as a global

community of ‘netizens,’ would then, ‘at last’ possess

its long-awaited engine for effective and social

development in Africa.”

Page 1

The final article in this issue, “The Struggle

Over Internet Governance and the Role of the

Netizen” analyzes the debate among the multi-

stakeholder, multilateral, and netizen models of

internet governance. It is a polemic against the 2020

UN “Roadmap for Digital Cooperation” which called

for multistakeholder internet governance. In this

article, Ronda Hauben emphasizes instead the need to

defend multilateralism and encourage netizen par-

ticipation in decisions concerning the Internet. She

cites an open letter signed by 400 NGOs opposing the

public-private partnership which the multistakeholder

model represents because that model is a form of

corporate capture seriously undermining the UN’s

mandate as a multilateral body. The article concludes

that the goal put forward by the UN at its 2003 and

2005 World Summit meetings of a “people centered,

inclusive and development oriented Information

Society” is a goal consistent with the multilateral and

netizen models for Internet governance.

[Editor’s Note: This is a slightly edited version of a

talk presented on May 1, 2012 at a small celebration

in honor of the 15

Anniversary of the publication of

the print edition of the book Netizens]

Netizens & Communication:

A New Paradigm

by Ronda Hauben

I. – Looking Back

Fifteen years ago on May 1, 1997, the print

edition of Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet was published in English.

Later that year, in October, a Japanese translation of

the book was published. Today we are celebrating the

occasion of the 15

Anniversary of this event.

In honor of this occasion I want to both look

back and look forward toward trying to assess the

significance of the book and of Michael Hauben’s

discovery of the emergence of the netizen. I want to

briefly look at what has happened in the interim of

these 15 years toward trying to understand what new

advance this development makes possible.

By the early 1990s, Michael recognized that the

Internet was a significant new development and that

it would have an impact on our world. He was curious

about what that impact would be and what could help

it to have a beneficial impact.

The book was compiled from a series of articles

written by Michael and by me which were posted on

the Net as they were written and which sometimes led

to substantial comments and discussion.

The most important article in the book was

clearly Michael’s article, “The Net and Netizens: the

Impact the Net Has on People’s Lives.”

Michael opened the article with the prophetic

words, which appeared online first in 1993:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a

Netizen (a Net Citizen) and you exist as a

citizen of the world thanks to the global

connectivity that the Net makes possible.

You consider everyone as your compa-

triot. 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. Geo-

graphical separation is replaced by exis-

tence in the same virtual space.

[Netizens, Chapter 1, p. 3]

Michael goes on to explain that what he is

predicting is not yet the reality. In fact many people

around the world were just becoming connected to the

Internet during the period in which these words were

written and posted on various different networks that

existed at the time.

But now fifteen years after the publication of the

print edition of Netizens, this description is very much

the reality for our time and for many it is hard to

remember or understand the world without the Net.

Similarly, in his articles that are collected in the

Netizens book, Michael looked at the pioneering

vision that gave birth to the Internet, he looked at the

role of computer science in the building of the

ARPAnet network, at the potential impact that the Net

and Netizen would have on politics, on journalism,

and on the revolution in ideas that the Net and

Netizen would bring about, comparing this to the

advance brought about by the printing press. The last

chapter of the book is an article Michael wrote early

on about the need for a watchdog function over

government in order to make democracy possible.

By the time the book was published in a print

edition, it had been freely available online for three

years. This was a period when the U.S. government

Page 2

was determined to change the nature of the Net from

the public and scientific infrastructure that had been

built with public and educational funds around the

world to a commercially driven entity. While there

were people online at the time promoting the pri-

vatization and commercialization of the Internet, the

concept of netizen was embraced by others, by many

who supported the public and collaborative nature of

the Internet and who wanted this to grow and flourish.

The article “The Net and Netizens” grew out of

a research project that Michael had done for a class at

Columbia University in Computer Ethics. Michael

was interested in the impact of the Net and so he

formulated several questions and sent them out on-

line. This was a pioneering project at the time and the

results he got back helped to establish the fact that the

Net was having an important impact on a number of

people’s lives.

Michael put together the results of his research

in the article “The Net and Netizens” and posted it

online. This helped the concept of netizen to spread

and to be embraced around the world. The netizen, it

is important to clarify, was not intended to describe

every net user. Rather netizen was the word to

describe those on the Net who took up to support the

public and collaborative nature of the Net and to help

it to grow and flourish. Netizens at the time often had

the hope that their efforts online would be helpful

toward creating a better world.

Describing this experience in a speech he gave

in Japan and which subsequently became the preface

to the Netizens book, Michael explained:

In conducting research five years ago

online to determine people’s uses of the

global computer communications net-

work, I became aware that there was a

new social institution, an electronic com-

mons, developing. It was exciting to ex-

plore this new social institution. Others

online shared this excitement. I discov-

ered from those who wrote me that the

people I was writing about were citizens

of the Net or Netizens.

[Netizens, Preface, p. ix]

Michael’s work which is included in the book

and the subsequent work he did recognized the ad-

vance made possible by the Internet and the emer-

gence of the Netizen.

The book is not only about what is wrong with

the old politics, or media, but more importantly, the

implications for the emergence of new developments,

of a new politics, of a new form of citizenship, and of

what Michael called the “poor man’s version of the

mass media.” He focused on what was new or emer-

ging and recognized the promise for the future rep-

resented by what was only at the time in an early

stage of development.

For example, Michael recognized that the col-

laborative contributions for a new media would far

exceed what the old media had achieved. “As people

continue to connect to Usenet and other discussion

forums, the collective population will contribute back

to the human community this new form of news,” he

wrote. [Netizens, Chapter 13, p. 233]

In order to consider the impact of Michael’s

work and of the publication of the book, both in its

online form and in the print edition, I want to look at

some of the implications of what has been written

since about netizens.

II. – Mark Poster on the Implications of

the Concept of Netizen

One interesting example is in a book on the

impact of the Internet and globalization by Mark

Poster, a media theorist. The book’s title is Infor-

mation Please: Culture and Politics in the Age of

Digital Machines. The book was published in 2006.

While Poster doesn’t make any explicit reference to

the book Netizens he finds the concept he has seen

used online to be an important one. He offers some

theoretical discussion on the use of the “netizen”

concept.

Referring to the concept of citizen, Poster is

interested in the relationship of the citizen to govern-

ment, and in the empowering of the citizen to be able

to affect the actions of one’s government. He

considers the “Declaration of the Rights of the Man

and the Citizen” as a monument from the French

Revolution of 1789. He explains that the idea of the

Rights of Man was one effort to empower people to

deal with governments. But this was not adequate and

the concept of the rights of the citizen, he proposes,

was an important addition.

“Human rights and citizenship,” he writes, “are

tied together and reinforce each other in the battle

against the ruling classes.” [Information Please, p. 68]

He proposes that “these rights are ensured by their

inscription in constitutions that found governments

and they persist in their association with those gov-

Page 3

ernments as the ground of political authority.” [Ibid.,

p. 68]

But with the coming of what he calls the age of

globalization, Poster wonders if the concept “citizen”

can continue to signify democracy. He wonders if the

concept is up to the task.

“The conditions of globalization and networked

media,” he writes, present a new situation “in which

the human is recast and along with it the citizen.”

[Ibid., p. 70] “The deepening of globalization pro-

cesses strips the citizen of power,” he writes. “As

economic processes become globalized, the nation-

state loses its ability to protect its population. The

citizen thereby loses her ability to elect leaders who

effectively pursue her interests.” [Ibid., p. 71]

In this situation, “the figure of the citizen is

placed in a defensive position.” [Ibid.] There is a

need, however, to find instead of a defensive position,

an offensive one.

Also, he is interested in the media and its role in

this new paradigm. “We need to examine the role of

the media in globalizing practices that construct new

subjects,” Poster writes. “We need especially to

examine those media that cross national boundaries

and to inquire if they form or may form the basis for

a new set of political relations.” [Ibid., p. 77]

In this context, for the new media, “the im-

portant questions, rather are these,” he proposes: “Can

the new media promote the construction of new

political forms not tied to historical, territorial

powers? What are the characteristics of new media

that promote new political relations and new political

subjects? How can these be furthered or enhanced by

political action?” [Ibid., p. 78]

“In contrast to the citizen of the nation,” he

notices, the name often given to the political subject

constituted on the Net is “netizen.” While Poster

makes it seem that the consciousness among some

online of themselves as “netizens” just appeared

online spontaneously, this is not accurate.

Before Michael’s work, netizen as a concept

was rarely if ever referred to. The paper “The Net and

Netizens” introduced and developed the concept of

“netizen.” This paper was widely circulated online.

Gradually the use of the concept of netizen became

increasingly common. Michael’s work was a process

of doing research online, summarizing the research,

analyzing it and then putting the research back online,

and of people embracing it. This was the process by

which the foundation for the concept of “netizen” was

established.

Considering this background, the observations

that Poster makes of how the concept of “netizen” is

used online represents recognition of the significant

role for the netizen in the future development of the

body politic. “The netizen,” Poster writes, “might be

the formative figure in a new kind of political rela-

tion, one that shares allegiance to the nation with

allegiance to the Net and to the planetary political

spaces it inaugurates.” [Ibid., p. 78]

These new phenomena, Poster concludes, “will

likely change the relation of forces around the globe.

In such an eventuality, the figure of the netizen might

serve as a critical concept in the politics of democ-

ratization.” [Ibid., p. 83]

III. – The Era of the Netizen

While Poster characterizes our period as the age

of globalization, I want to offer a different view. I

want to propose that we are in an era demarcated by

the creation of the Internet and the emergence of the

netizen. A more accurate characterization of this

period is as the “Era of the Netizen.”

The years since the publication of the book

Netizens have been marked by many interesting

developments that have been made possible by the

growth and development of the Internet and the

spread of netizens around the world. I don’t have the

time to go into these today but I will refer to a few

examples to give a flavor of the kind of developments

I am referring to.

A recent article by Vinay Kamat in the “Read-

er’s Opinion” section of the Times of India referred to

something I had written. Quoting my article, the

Times of India article said, “Not only is the Internet a

laboratory for democracy, but the scale of partic-

ipation and contribution is unprecedented. Online

discussion makes it possible for netizens to become

active individuals and group actors in social and

public affairs. The Internet makes it possible for

netizens to speak out independently of institutions or

officials.” [See “We are looking at the Fifth Estate,”

by Vinay Kamat, Reader’s Opinion, Times of India,

December 16, 2011, p. 2,

https://timesofindia.india

times.com/home/edit-page/We-are-looking-at-the-fi

fth-estate/articleshow/11133662.cms. The quote is

taken from “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case

Study of Netizens’ Impact on Democracy in South

Korea” by Ronda Hauben, at :

http://www.columbia

.edu/~rh120/other/misc/korean-democracy.txt.]

Page 4

Kamat points to the growing number of netizens

in China and India and the large proportion of the

population in South Korea who are connected to the

Internet. “Will it evolve into a fifth estate?” the article

asks, contrasting netizens’ discussion online with the

power of the 4

estate, i.e., the mainstream media.

“Will social and political discussion in social

media grow into deliberation?” asks Kamat. “Will

opinions expressed be merely ‘rabble rousing’ or will

they be ‘reflective’ instead of ‘impulsive’?”

One must recognize, the article explains, the

new situation online and the fact that it is important to

understand the nature of this new media and not

merely look at it through the lens of the old media.

What is the nature of this new media and how does it

differ from the old? This is an important area for

further research and discussion.

IV. – Looking for a Model

While I was in South Korea in 2008, a friend

asked if there is a model for democracy that could be

helpful for South Korea – like in some country per-

haps in Scandinavia. Thinking about the question I

realized it was more complex than it seemed on the

surface.

What I realized is that it isn’t that one can take

a model from the period before the Internet, from

before the emergence of the netizen. It is instead

necessary that models for a more democratic society

or nation in our times be models that include netizen

participation in the society. Both South Korea and

China are places where the role of netizens is

important in building more democratic structures for

the society. South Korea appears to be the most

advanced in grassroots efforts to create examples of

netizen forms for a more participatory decision mak-

ing process.

But China is also a place where there are

significant developments because of the Internet and

netizens.

In China there have been a large number of

issues that netizens have taken up online which have

then had an impact on the mainstream media and

where the online discussion has helped to bring about

a change in government policy.

In looking for other models to learn from,

however, I also realized that there is another relevant

area of development. This is the actual process of

building the Net, a prototype which is helpful to con-

sider when seeking to understand the nature and

particularity of the evolving new models for devel-

opment and participation represented in the Era of the

Netizen.

V. – Nerves of Government

In his article comparing the impact of the Net

with the important impact the printing press had on

society, Michael wrote: “The Net has opened a chan-

nel for ‘talking to the whole world’ to an even wider

set of people than did printed books.” [Netizens,

Chapter 16, p. 299]

In my presentation today I want to focus a bit on

the significance of this characteristic, on the notion

that the Net has opened a communication channel

available to a wide set of people.

In his study of the Net and Netizen, Michael

recognized the new that was emerging. In trying to

understand what impact the Net was having and

would have on society, he also kept in mind that the

technical processes of building the Net were impor-

tant.

In order to have a conceptual framework to

understand what these technical processes are, I re-

commend the book by Karl Deutsch titled, The

Nerves of Government.

In the preface to his book, Deutsch writes: “This

book suggests that it might be preferable to look upon

government somewhat less as a problem of power and

somewhat more as a problem of steering; and it tries

to show that steering is decisively a matter of com-

munication.” [The Nerves of Government, p. xxvii]

To look at the question of government not as a

problem of power, or of democracy, but as one of

steering, of communication, I want to propose is a

fundamental paradigm shift.

What is the difference?

While power has to do with force, with the

ability to exert force on something so as to affect its

direction and action, democracy has to do with the

participation and effect of people on the decisions

made for society. Steering and communication, how-

ever, are related to the process of the transmission of

a signal through a channel. The communication pro-

cess is one related to whether a signal is transmitted

in a manner that distorts the signal or whether it is

possible to transmit the signal accurately. The com-

munication process and the steering that it makes

possible through feedback mechanisms are an under-

lying framework to consider in seeking to understand

what Deutsch calls the “Nerves of Government.”

According to Deutsch, a nation can be looked at

Page 5

as a self steering communication system of a certain

kind and the messages that are used to steer it are

transmitted by certain channels.

I want to propose that some of the important

challenges of our times relate to the exposure of the

distortions of the information being spread. For

example, the misrepresentations by the mainstream

media about what is happening in Libya and Syria.

The creation and dissemination of channels of

communication that make possible “the essential two

way flow of information” are essential for the func-

tioning of an autonomous learning organization,

which is the form Deutsch proposes for a well func-

tioning system.

To look at this phenomenon in a more practical

way, I want to offer some considerations raised in a

speech given to honor a Philippine librarian, a speech

given by Zosio Lee. Lee refers to the kind of infor-

mation that is transmitted as essential to the well

being of a society. In considering the impact of

netizens and the form of information that is being

transmitted, Lee asks the question, “How do we detect

if we are being manipulated or deceived?”

[“Truthfulness and the Information Revolution” JPL

31 (2011), p. 105]

The importance of this question, he explains, is

that, “We would not have survived for so long if all

the information we needed to make valid judgments

were all false or unreliable.” [Ibid.] Also, he proposes

that “information has to be processed and discussed

for it to acquire full meaning and significance.” [Ibid.,

p. 106]

“When information is free, available and truth-

ful, we are better able to make appropriate judgments,

including whether existing governments fulfill their

mandate to govern for the benefit of the people,” Lee

writes. [Ibid., p. 108]

In his article “The Computer as a Democratizer”

Michael similarly explores the need for accurate

information about how government is functioning. He

writes, “Without information being available to them,

the people may elect candidates as bad as or worse

than the incumbents. Therefore, there is a need to

prevent government from censoring the information

available to people.” [Netizens, Chapter 18, p. 316]

Michael adds that, “The public needs accurate

information as to how their representatives are ful-

filling their role. Once these representatives have

abused their power, the principles established by

Paine and Mill require that the public have the ability

to replace the abusers.” [Ibid., p. 317]

Channels of accurate communication are critical

in order to share the information needed to determine

the nature of one’s government.

While in general I have focused on the impli-

cations of the concept of Netizen that have emerged

in the decade and a half since the publication of the

print edition of the book, it is also important to realize

that not everyone is friendly to the concept of Net-

izen. An article in the online newsfeed section of

Time magazine proposed that the word netizen should

be banished from the media.

Katy Steinmetz, who does an online column for

Time claimed, “The word has been around for almost

three decades (sic) [it is less than two decades], but

the likes of the Los Angeles Times were using it as

recently as last month. Perhaps it’s time to give it a

rest … .”

In the same article, she proposed to banish “oc-

cupy” and “# [the hashtag].” [See “Poll: What Word

Should Be Banished in 2012?” NewsFeed Time.com,

Time magazine, January 11, 2012,

http://newsfeed

.time.com/2012/01/11/poll-what-word-should-be-

banished-in-2012/.]

The following week she acknowledges that

there is very little sentiment to ban the word netizen.

VI. – Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to point to an article in a

blog at the Foreign Policy Association website which

has the title: “Institutions and New World ‘Netizens’:

Act 1.” The author, Oliver Barrett, reminds his

readers of a quote from Mohandas Gandhi: “First

They Ignore You – Then They Ridicule You – Then

They Fight You – Then You Win.”

Barrett asks, “Will technology fundamentally

change the relationship between the nation state and

citizens?” He asks if Net-connected citizens are “a

threat or opportunity for government?”

In response to this question, he writes, “But I am

not convinced that government officials, even in

industrialized countries, are cognizant of how tech-

nological innovations like social media have forever

robbed them of their positions as trusted sources of

timely and legitimate information … . I dare say that

netizens have started to short-circuit the politico-

corporate communications wiring, raising the political

and social justice consciousness of the hyper-con-

nected citizen in a way that might not be in the

interest of the governing classes.”

Page 6

“How will governments respond to this situ-

ation?” he asks.

“I look forward to witnessing how Act 2 of Rev-

olution 2.0 will unfold,” he concludes.

Barrett focuses on the opinions of those in

government. Instead I propose that the important

challenge is for Netizens. Netizens need to understand

the conceptual nature of the information and com-

munication changes represented by the Era of the Net-

izen so they will be able to successfully meet the new

challenges these represent for our society.

Notes

1. In South Korea there are many interesting examples of new

organizational forms or events created by netizens. For example

Nosamo combined the model of an online Fan club and off line

gathering of supporters who worked to get Roh Moo-hyun

elected as President in South Korea in 2002. Also, OhmyNews,

an online newspaper, helped to make the election of Roh Moo-

hyun possible in 2002.

Science mailing lists and discussion networks contributed

to by netizens helped to expose the fraudulent scientific work of

a leading South Korean scientist.

In 2008 there were 106 days of candlelight demonstrations

contributed to by people online and off to protest the South

Korean government’s adoption of a weakened set of regulations

about the import of poorly inspected U.S. beef into South Korea.

The debate on June 10-11 over the form the demonstration

should take involved both online and offline discussion and

demonstrated the generative nature of serious communication.

See for example, Ronda Hauben, “On Grassroots Journalism and

Participatory Democracy,”

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120

/other/netizens_draft.pdf.

2. Some examples include the anti-CNN website that was set up

to counter the inaccurate press reports in the western media about

the riot in Tibet, the murder case of a Chinese waitress who

killed a Communist Party official in self defense, the case of the

Chongqing Nail house and the online discussion about the issues

involved. See for example, Ronda Hauben, “China in the Era of

the Netizen,” http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010/02/14/china

_in_the_era_of_the_netizen/.

3. See for example “Libya, the UN and Netizen Journalism,” The

Amateur Computerist, Vol. 21, no. 1, Winter 2012,

https://www

.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn21-1.pdf.

Jay Hauben, “On the 15

Anniversary of Netizens: Neti-

zens Expose Distortions and Fabrications,”

http://www.columbia

.edu/~hauben/Book_Anniversary/presentation_2.doc.

4. As Michael explains in Netizens: “Thomas Paine, in The

Rights of Man, describes a fundamental principle of democracy.

Paine writes, “that the right of altering the government was a

national right, and not a right of the government.” (Netizens,

Chapter 18, p. 316)

5. Katy Steinmetz, “Wednesdays Words: Readers’ Choice for

Banished Word of 2012 and More,” Time Newsfeed, January 18,

2012.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/18/wednesday-words-

readers-choice-for-banished-word-of-2012-and-more/.

6. “Will the officials that govern the modern nation state engage

their respective societies in meaningful ways, or will they con-

tinue to hide their heads in the sand? From what I’ve learned

from history and the very erudite Mohandas Gandhi – I think I

know the answer.” Oliver Barrett, http://foreignpolicyblogs.com

/2012/01/12/institutions-and-new-world-netizens-act-1/ ,

(1/12/2012).

7. See for example: Ronda Hauben, “The Internet Model of

Socio-Economic Development and the Emergence of the Net-

izen,”

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010/11/02/the_internet_m

odel_of_socio-economic_development_and_the_emergence

_of_the_netizen/.

Ronda Hauben, “In Cheonan Dispute UN Security Coun-

cil Acts in Accord with UN Charter,”

http://blogs.taz.de/netiz

enblog/2010/09/05/in_cheonan_dispute_un_security_council_

discovers_un_charter/.

Bibliography

Oliver Barrett. “Introduction to the New World ‘Netizens’ Act

1.” Foreign Policy Blog, January 12, 2012, http://foreign

policyblogs.com/2012/01/12/institutions-and-new-world-

netizens-act-1/.

Karl Deutsch. The Nerves of Government, The Free Press, New

York, 1966.

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben. Netizens: On the History

and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, IEEE Computer

Society Press, Los Alamitos, 1997. Online edition:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120.

Ronda Hauben. “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case Study

of Netizens’ Impact on Democracy in South Korea,”

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/ronda2014/Rise_of_

Netizen_Democracy.pdf.

Vinay Komat. “We are looking at the Fifth Estate,” Reader’s

Opinion, Times of India, December 16, 2011. P. 2,

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/edit-page/We

-are-looking-at-the-fifth-estate/articleshow/11133662.c

ms.

Zosimo E. Lee. “Truthfulness and the Information Revolution,

“Journal of Philippine Librarianship (JPL 31). Pp. 101-

109,

http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/jpl/article/view

File/2779/2597 and https://ilc.upd.edu.ph/video page/truth

fulness-and-the-information-revolution-96/.

Mark Poster. Information Please, Duke University Press,

Durham, 2006.

Katy Steinmetz. “Poll: What Word Should Be Banished in

2012?.” Time Newsfeed, January 11, 2012,

http://news

feed.time.com/2012/01/11/poll-what-word-should-be-

banished-in-2012/.

Katy Steinmetz. “Wednesdays Words: Readers’ Choice for Ban-

ished Word of 2012 and More.” Time Newsfeed, January

18, 2012.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/18/wednes

day-words-readers-choice-for-banished-word-of-2012-

and-more/.

Page 7

[Editor’s Note: The following paper was prepared for

a program at the UN Headquarters in New York City

on May 2, 2014. It can be seen online at: http://www

.columbia.edu/~hauben/ronda2014/May2.pdf.]

Netizen Journalism

The Emergence of New

Forms of News that Can

Improve the Policy Making

Process

by Ronda Hauben

I. – Preface

In this paper I want to explore the new news that

is emerging and how this new form of news is making

it possible to improve the policymaking process. This

new news is part of the phenomenon I refer to as

netizen journalism.

In exploring this question I will discuss a case

study as an example to consider toward looking at the

potential for both the present and future of journalism

that this new phenomenon represents.

II. – First some background

In October of 2006, I began covering the United

Nations as a journalist for the English edition of the

South Korean online newspaper, OhmyNews Interna-

tional. When Ohmynews ended its English edition in

2010, I became a correspondent covering the UN for

an English language blog – http://blogs.taz.de/netiz

enblog at the website of the German newspaper Die

Tageszeitung. Both OhmyNews International and my

blog at the taz.de website are online publications.

With Michael Hauben, I am co-author of the

book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet (Hauben & Hauben, 1997). The book

was first published online in January 1994. Then, on

May 1, 1997, the print edition of the book Netizens

was published in English and in October, a Japanese

translation was published. This was the first book to

recognize that along with the development of the

Internet, a new form of citizenship, called netizenship

has emerged. This is a form of citizenship that has

developed based on the broader forms of political

participation and empowerment made possible by the

Net.

I want to share a brief overview of the origin,

use and impact of the netizen concept and its relation

to what I call netizen journalism before presenting a

case study about the impact netizen journalism has

had on the UN Security Council’s conflict resolution

process.

III. – Introduction

While now many people are interested in the

impact of the Internet on society, pioneering research

was done by my co-author Michael Hauben in the

early 1990s when the Internet was first beginning to

spread and to connect people around the world. In his

research, Hauben recognized that there were people

who appreciated the communication the Internet made

possible and that these people worked to spread the

Net and to do what they felt needed for it to help to

create a better world. Taking the common network

term, ‘net.citizen’ used online at the time, Hauben

proposed that these people who worked to contribute

to the Net and the bigger world it was part of were

‘netizens.’

In an article he wrote on the impact of the Net

on journalism, he recognized that many people online

were frustrated with the mainstream media and that

the netizens would be creating a broader and more

widespread media. As Hauben recognized in the early

1990s “the collective body of people assisted by (the

Net) … has grown larger than any individual newspa-

per … .” (Hauben, M., 1997b: 233). Predicting the

important impact the Net and Netizens would have on

the future of journalism and the media, (Hauben

1997a: 3-4) wrote:

A new world of connections between peo-

ple – either privately from individual to

individual or publicly from individuals to

the collective mass of many on the Net is

possible. The old model of distribution of

information from the central Network

Broadcasting Company is being question-

ed and challenged. The top-down model

of information being distributed by a few

for mass-consumption is no longer the

only news. Netnews brings the power of

the reporter to the Netizen. People now

have the ability to broadcast their observa-

tions or questions around the world and

have other people respond. The computer

networks form a new grassroots connec-

tion that allows the excluded sections of

society to have a voice. This new medium

Page 8

is unprecedented. Previous grassroots me-

dia have existed for much smaller sized

selections of people. The model of the Net

proves the old way does not have to be the

only way of networking. The Net extends

the idea of networking – of making con-

nections with strangers that prove to be

advantageous to one or both parties.

This broader collective of netizens and journal-

ists empowered by the Net are participating in gener-

ating and transmitting the news toward creating a

better society. This is a basis for developing a concep-

tion of netizen journalism.

I want to look at a news event about Korea and

the UN in the context of this description of the news

the Net makes possible and then consider the implica-

tion of this case study for the kind of journalism that

I propose netizens and the Internet are making possi-

ble.

IV. – Korea

First some background about South Korea and

the Net and Netizen. In February of 2003, I was

glancing at the front page summaries of the articles in

an issue of the Financial Times. I saw a surprising

headline for an article continued later in the issue. The

article said that in 2002 netizens in South Korea had

elected the President of the country, Roh Moo-hyun.

He had just taken office on February 25, 2003. The

new President promised that the Internet would be

influential in the form of government he established.

Also I learned that an online Korean newspaper called

OhmyNews and South Korean netizens had been im-

portant making these developments possible. Col-

leagues encouraged me to get in contact with Ohmy-

News and to learn more about the netizens activities

in South Korea and about OhmyNews.

I subsequently learned that both South Korea

and China are places where the role of netizens is

important in building more democratic structures for

society. I began to pay attention to both of these

netizen developments. South Korea, for example, has

been advanced in grassroots efforts to create ex-

amples of netizen forms for a more participatory

decision making processes. I wrote several research

papers documenting the achievements and activities

of Korean netizens (Hauben, R., 2005; 2006a; 2007a)

V. – Reporting on the UN

By October 2006 the second five year term for

Kofi Annan as the Secretary General of the United

Nations was soon to end. One of the main contenders

to become the 8

Secretary General of the UN was the

Foreign Minister of South Korea, Ban Ki-moon. By

2006, I was writing regularly as a featured columnist

for OhmyNews International, the English language

edition of OhmyNews. On October 9, 2006, Ban Ki-

moon won the Security Council nomination. This

nomination was to be approved by the General

Assembly on October 13. I thought this would be a

historic event for South Korea. I asked the Editor of

OhmyNews International (OMNI) if I could cover the

UN for it. He agreed and I was able to get my creden-

tial in time to go to the General Assembly meeting

when the General Assembly voted to accept the

Security Council’s nomination of Ban Ki-moon.

I was surprised that some of the speeches wel-

coming Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General elect

were meaningful speeches referring to actual

problems at the UN such as the need for reform of the

Security Council. A significant focus of the comments

to the new Secretary General from member states

emphasized the importance of communication at the

UN. That it was critical for the incoming Secretary

General to listen to all states and to hear their views.

Witnessing the vote for a new Secretary General who

was from South Korea, I wondered if the Internet

would be able to have any impact on the new

Secretary General and on what happened at the

United Nations, since the Internet had been able to

make it possible for netizens in South Korea to impact

politics.

The very next day, on October 14, the Security

Council took up to condemn the recent nuclear test by

North Korea. This had been North Korea’s first

nuclear test. The Security Council imposed sanctions

on North Korea, not giving the North Korean

Ambassador to the UN, Pak Gil Yon, a chance to

respond until after the sanctions had been voted on.

When the North Korean Ambassador responded, he

referred among other issues, to financial sanctions

that the U.S. had imposed on North Korea. No one in

the Security Council asked him what he was referring

to or how this affected the issues the Security Council

had just acted on. (Hauben, R., 2007c)

It impressed me that just as a new Secretary

General from South Korea was being chosen at the

UN, at the same time sanctions were being imposed

Page 9

on North Korea. The Security Council acted against

North Korea before hearing its views on the issue

they were considering. This was in sharp contrast to

the emphasis member nations put on the importance

of hearing the views of all members when they

welcomed Ban Ki moon to the United Nations in the

meeting just one day earlier in the General Assembly.

The article I wrote for OhmyNews International

described this situation. It explained:

The urgent problem facing the UN at this

juncture in history is not whether North

Korea has developed and tested a nuclear

device. It is the breakdown reflected by

the lack of participation and investigation

by the international community into how

a crisis will be handled once it develops,

and whether the concerns and problems of

those involved in the crisis will be consid-

ered as part of the process of seeking a

solution. It is how the UN functions when

tensions reach a point where serious atten-

tion is needed to help to understand and

solve a problem. (Hauben, R., 2006b)

VI. – The Phenomenon of Netizen Journalism

In the research I have been doing and the

experiences I have had exploring the potential of what

I call netizen journalism, several questions have been

raised:

What is this new form of news and what

are its characteristics?

Is this something different from traditional

journalism?

Is there some significant new aspect

represented by netizen journalism?

Traditionally, the press can function as a watch-

dog for society by exposing the use and abuse of

power. Or, the press can act to support the abuse of

political power. If netizen journalism can provide a

more accurate understanding of conflicts, it can help

make more likely the peaceful resolution of these

conflicts.

VII. – The Cheonan – Some Background

The Cheonan conflict which was brought to the

UN in 2010 provides an important example of how

netizen journalism has helped to make a significant

contribution to a peaceful resolution of a conflict by

the Security Council. The Cheonan incident concerns

a South Korean naval ship, a Navy Corvette, which

broke in two and sank on March 26, 2010. Forty-six

of the crew members died in the tragedy. At the time

the Cheonan was involved in U.S./South Korea naval

exercises in an area in the West Sea/Yellow Sea

between North Korea and China. The sinking of the

Cheonan and the South Korean government’s investi-

gation have been the subject of much discussion on

the Internet.

Initially, the South Korean government and the

U.S. government said there was no indication that

North Korea was involved. Then at a press conference

on May 20, 2010, the South Korean government

claimed that a torpedo fired by a North Korean

submarine exploded in the water near the Cheonan,

causing a pressure wave that was responsible for the

sinking. Many criticisms of this scenario have been

raised.

First, there was no direct evidence of any North

Korean submarine in the vicinity of the Cheonan. Nor

was there any evidence that a torpedo was actually

fired causing a pressure wave phenomenon. Hence the

South Korean government had no actual case that

could be presented in a court of law to support its

claims. In fact, if this claim of a pressure wave were

true, even those involved in the investigation of the

incident acknowledge that “North Korea would be the

first to have succeeded at using this kind of a bubble

jet torpedo action in actual fighting.” (Lee, Y., 2010)

VIII. – The Cheonan Press Conference

and the Local Election

A press conference was held by the South Ko-

rean government on May 20, to announce that North

Korea was responsible for the sinking of the

Cheonan. May 20, it turns out, was also the start of

the local and regional election period. Many South

Koreans were suspicious that the accusation was a

ploy to help the ruling party candidates win in the

elections. The widespread suspicions about the

government’s motives led to the ruling party’s losing

many of the local election contests. These election

results demonstrated the deep distrust among the

South Korean population of the motives behind the

South Korean government’s accusations about North

Korea’s responsibility for the sinking of the Cheonan.

In their article, “Blogging as ‘Recoding’: A

Case Study of the Discursive War over the Sinking of

the Cheonan,” Kim, Jeong, Khang, and Kim (2011),

Page 10

document that in the period between the day of the

accident, March 26, 2010 and June 16, 2010 there

were more than 120,000 posts by netizens about the

sinking of the Cheonan. Though they reduced these to

a sample set of 354, they found that the majority of

the posts were critical of the Korean government’s

claims about the sinking of the Cheonan. Many neti-

zens were critical of the investigation that the South

Korean government conducted and sought to chal-

lenge the conclusions.

Significantly, netizens demonstrated how they

were able to have an impact on the framing of the

Cheonan story. They also were to have an impact on

how the issue was to be treated at the UN Security

Council.

IX. – The Cheonan and Netizen Journalism

While there was a substantial response to the

Korean government’s claims among Korean netizens,

the issue also spread internationally. Netizens who

live in different countries and speak different lan-

guages took up to critique the claims of the South

Korean government about the cause of the sinking of

the Cheonan. This netizen activity appears to have

acted as a catalyst affecting the actions of the UN

Security Council in its treatment of the Cheonan

dispute.

Among the responses were substantial analyses

by non-governmental organizations like SPARK,

PSPD, Peaceboat and others, which were posted on

the Internet, either in English, in Korean, or in both

languages. Some of these online posts were in the

form of letters that were also sent to the members of

the UN Security Council (Hauben, R., 2010a;

2010c).

At the time, I saw discussions and critiques

of the Korean government’s claims at American,

Japanese and Chinese websites, in addition to conver-

sation and postings about the Cheonan on South

Korean websites.

One such critique included a three part analysis

by the South Korean NGO People’s Solidarity for

Participatory Democracy (PSPD).

This analysis rais-

ed a number of questions and problems with the

South Korean government’s case. The PSPD docu-

ment was posted widely on the Internet and also sent

to the President of the United Nations Security Coun-

cil for distribution to those Security Council members

interested and to the South Korean Mission to the UN.

While there were many blog comments about

the Cheonan incident in Korean, there were also some

bloggers writing in English who became active in

critiquing the South Korean investigation and the role

of the U.S. in the conflict. One blogger, Scott Creigh-

ton who uses the pen name Willy Loman, or

American Everyman, wrote a post (Creighton, 2010a)

titled “The Sinking of the Cheonan: We are being lied

to.” The South Korean government had claimed that

a diagram it had displayed at the press conference on

May20 was from a North Korean weapons sales

brochure which offered a torpedo similar to the tor-

pedo part it claimed to have found near where the ship

sank. The torpedo was identified as the CHT-02D. In

a post he titled “A Perfect Match?,” Creighton

showed how there was a discrepancy between the

diagram displayed by the South Korean government

in the press conference, and the part of the torpedo it

had on display in the glass case below the diagram

(

https://shadowproof.com/2010/06/15/the-sinking-o

f-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/). He demonstra-

ted that the diagram did not match the part of the

torpedo on display. He pointed out several dis-

crepancies between the two. For example, one of the

components of the torpedo shown was in the propeller

section, but in the diagram, the component appeared

in the shaft section. There were many comments in

response to this post, including some from netizens in

South Korea. Also the mainstream conservative

media in South Korea carried accounts of this

blogger’s critique. Three weeks later, at a news

conference, a South Korean government official

acknowledged that the diagram presented by the

South Korean government was not of the same tor-

pedo as the part displayed in the glass case. Instead

the diagram displayed was of the PT97W torpedo, not

the CHT-02D torpedo as claimed.

In a post titled “Thanks to Valuable Input” de-

scribing the significance of having documented one of

the fallacies in the South Korean government’s case,

(Creighton 2010b) writes:

(I)n the end, thanks to valuable input from

dozens of concerned people all across the

world … . Over 100,000 viewers read that

article and it was republished on dozens of

sites all across the world (even translated).

A South Korean MSM outlet even posted

our diagram depicting the glaring discrep-

ancies between the evidence and the draw-

ing of the CHT-O2D torpedo, which a

high-ranking military official could only

refute by stating he had 40 years military

Page 11

experience and to his knowledge, I had

none. But what I had, what we had, was

literally thousands of people all across the

world, scientists, military members, and

just concerned investigative bloggers who

were committed to the truth and who took

the time to contribute to what we were

doing here.

‘40 years military experience’ took a beat-

ing from ‘we the people World-Wide’ and

that is the way it is supposed to be.

This is just one of a number of serious questions

and challenges that were raised about the South

Korean government’s scenario of the sinking of the

Cheonan.

Other influential events which helped to chal-

lenge the South Korean government’s claims were a

press conference in Japan held on July 9 by two aca-

demic scientists. The two scientists presented results

of experiments they did which challenged the results

of experiments the South Korean government used to

support its case. These two scientists also wrote to the

Security Council with their findings.

Another significant challenge to the South

Korean government report was the finding of a

Russian team of four sent to South Korea to look at

the data from the investigation and to do an independ-

ent evaluation of it. The team of naval experts visited

South Korea from May 30 to June 7. The Russian

team did not accept the South Korean government’s

claim that a pressure wave from a torpedo caused the

Cheonan to sink.

Acquiring a leaked copy of the

Russian Team’s report, the Hankyoreh newspaper in

South Korea reported that the Russian investigators

determined that the ship had come in contact with the

ocean floor and a propeller and shaft became

entangled in a fishing net. Also the investigators

thought it likely that an old underwater mine had

exploded near the Cheonan adding to the factors that

led to the ship sinking.

Such efforts along with online posts and discus-

sions by many netizens provided a catalyst for the

actions of the UN Security Council concerning the

Cheonan incident.

When the UN Security Council took up the

Cheonan issue in June, I learned that some of the

members of the Council knew of the critiques of the

South Korean government investigation which blam-

ed North Korea for sinking the ship.

X. – The Cheonan and the UN Security

Council

After doing poorly in the local and regional

elections in South Korea, the South Korean govern-

ment brought the dispute over the sinking of the

Cheonan to the United Nations Security Council in

June 2010. A Presidential Statement was agreed to a

month later, in July. (Hauben, R., 2010b)

An account of what happened in the Security

Council during this process is described in an impor-

tant article that has appeared in several different

Spanish language publications (Guerrero, 2010) The

article describes the experience of the Mexican Am-

bassador to the UN, Claude Heller in his position as

president of the Security Council for the month of

June 2010. (The presidency rotates each month to a

different Security Council member state.)

In a letter to the Security Council dated June 4,

South Korea asked the Council to take up the

Cheonan dispute (United Nations Security Council,

2010a). Park Im-kook, then the South Korean

Ambassador to the UN, requested that the Security

Council consider the matter of the Cheonan and

respond in an appropriate manner. The letter de-

scribed the investigation into the sinking of the

Cheonan carried out by South Korean government

and military officials. In the letter South Korea

accused North Korea of sinking the South Korean

ship. How would the Mexican Ambassador as

President of the Security Council during the month of

June handle this dispute? This was a serious issue

facing Ambassador Heller as he began his presidency

in June 2010.

Ambassador Heller adopted what he referred to

as a “balanced” approach to treat both governments

on the Korean peninsula in a fair and objective

manner. He held bilateral meetings with each member

of the Security Council which led to support for a

process of informal presentations by both of the

Koreas to the members of the Security Council. He

arranged for the South Korean Ambassador to make

an informal presentation to the members of the

Security Council. Ambassador Heller also invited the

North Korean Ambassador to make a separate infor-

mal presentation to the members of the Security

Council. Sin Son Ho was then the UN Ambassador

from North Korea.

In response to the invitation from the President

of the Security Council, the North Korean Ambassa-

Page 12

dor to the UN sent a letter dated June 8 to the Security

Council, which denied the allegation that his country

was to blame (United Nations Security Council,

2010b). His letter urged the Security Council not to be

the victim of deceptive claims, as had happened with

Iraq in 2003. It asked the Security Council to support

his government’s call to be able to examine the

evidence and to be involved in a new and more inde-

pendent investigation of the sinking of the Cheonan.

In its June 8 letter to the Security Council, North

Korea referred to the widespread international senti-

ment questioning the conclusions of the South Korean

government’s investigation. The North Korean Am-

bassador to the UN wrote: “It would be very useful to

remind ourselves of the ever-increasing international

doubts and criticisms, going beyond the internal

boundary of south Korea, over the ‘investigation

result’ from the very moment of its release … .”

What Ambassador Heller called “interactive

informal meetings” were held on June 14 with the

South Koreans and the North Koreans in separate

sessions attended by the Security Council members,

who had time to ask questions and then to discuss the

presentations. At a media stakeout on June 14, after

the day’s presentations ended, Ambassador Heller

said that it was important to have received the de-

tailed presentation by South Korea and also to know

and learn the arguments of North Korea.

He com-

mented that “it was very important that North Korea

approached the Security Council.” In response to a

question about his view on the issues presented, he

replied, “I am not a judge. I think we will go on with

the consultations to deal in a proper manner on the

issue.” Ambassador Heller also explained that, “the

Security Council issued a call to the parties to refrain

from any act that could escalate tensions in the region,

and makes an appeal to preserve peace and stability in

the region.”

Though at the time, it was rare for the North

Korean Ambassador to the UN to hold press brief-

ings, the North Korean UN delegation scheduled a

press conference for Tuesday, June 15, the day fol-

lowing the interactive informal meeting. During the

press conference, the North Korean Ambassador

presented his government’s refutation of the alle-

gations made by South Korea.

Also he explained

North Korea’s request to be able to send an invest-

igation team to the site where the sinking of the

Cheonan occurred. South Korea had denied the re-

quest. During its press conference, the North Korean

Ambassador said that there was widespread condem-

nation of the South Korean government’s investi-

gation in both South Korea and around the world. The

press conference held on June 15 was a lively event.

Many of the journalists who attended were impressed

and requested that there be future press conferences

with the North Korean Ambassador.

During his presidency of the Security Council in

the month of June, Ambassador Heller held meetings

with the UN ambassadors from each of the two

Koreas and then with Security Council members

about the Cheonan issue. On the last day of his

presidency, on June 30, he was asked by the media

what was happening about the Cheonan dispute.

Ambassador Heller responded that the issue of

contention was over the evaluation of the South

Korean government’s investigation. Ambassador

Heller described how he introduced what he refers to

as “an innovation” into the Security Council process.

As the month of June ended, the issue was not yet

resolved, but the “innovation” set a basis to build on

the progress that was achieved during the month of

his presidency.

The “innovation” Ambassador Heller referred to

was a summary he made of the positions of each of

the two Koreas on the issue, taking care to present

each objectively. Heller explained that this summary

was not an official document, so it did not have to be

approved by the other members of the Council. This

summary provided the basis for further negotiations.

He believed that it had a positive impact on the

process of consideration in the Council, making pos-

sible the agreement that was later to be expressed in

the Presidential statement on the Cheonan that was

issued by the Security Council on July 9 (United

Nations Security Council, 2010c). His goal, the

Ambassador explained, was to “at all times be as

objective as possible” so as to avoid increasing the

conflict on the Korean peninsula. Such a goal was

consistent with the Security Council’s obligation

under the UN Charter.

In the Security Council’s Presidential Statement

(PRST) on the Cheonan, what stands out is that the

statement follows the pattern of presenting the views

of each of the two Koreas and urging that the dispute

be settled in a peaceful manner (United Nations

Security Council, 2010c). In the PRST, the members

of the Security Council did not blame North Korea.

Instead they refer to the South Korean investigation

and its conclusion, expressing their “deep concern”

Page 13

about the “findings” of the investigation. The PRST

explains that “The Security Council takes note of the

responses from other relevant parties, including the

DPRK, which has stated that it had nothing to do with

the incident.” With the exception of North Korea, it is

not indicated who “the other relevant parties” are. It

does suggest, however, that it is likely there are some

Security Council members, not just Russia and China,

who did not agree with the conclusions of the South

Korean investigation.

Analyzing the Presidential Statement, the

Korean newspaper Hankyoreh noted that the state-

ment “allows for a double interpretation and does not

blame or place consequences on North Korea.”(Lee,

J., 2010) Such a possibility of a “double interpreta-

tion” allows for different interpretations.

The Security Council action on the Cheonan

incident took place in a situation where there had

been a wide ranging international critique, especially

in the online media, about the problems of the South

Korean investigation, and of the South Korean gov-

ernment’s failure to make public any substantial doc-

umentation of its investigation, along with its practice

of harassing critics of the South Korean government

claims. The Security Council action included hearing

the positions of the different parties to the conflict.

The result of such efforts is something that is unusual

in the process of recent Security Council activity. The

Security Council process in the Cheonan incident

provided for an impartial analysis of the problem and

an effort to hear from those with an interest in the

issue.

The effort in the Security Council was described

by the Mexican Ambassador, as upholding the princi-

ples of impartiality and respectful treatment of all

members toward resolving a conflict between nations

in a peaceful manner. It represents an important

example of the Security Council acting in conformity

with its obligations as set out in the UN Charter.

In the July 9 Presidential Statement, the Security

Council urged that the parties to the dispute over the

sinking of the Cheonan find a means to peacefully

settle the dispute. The statement says:

The Security Council calls for full adher-

ence to the Korean Armistice Agreement

and encourages the settlement of outstand-

ing issues on the Korean peninsula by

peaceful means to resume direct dialogue

and negotiation through appropriate chan-

nels as early as possible, with a view to

avoiding conflicts and averting escalation.

The mainstream U.S. media for the most part,

chose to ignore the many critiques which have ap-

peared. These critiques of the South Korean govern-

ment’s investigation of the Cheonan sinking have

appeared mainly on the Internet, not only in Korean,

but also in English, in Japanese, and in other lan-

guages. An article in the Los Angeles Times on July

23 noted the fact, however, that the media in the U.S.

had ignored the critique of the South Korean

government investigation that was being discussed

online and spread around the world (Demick &

Glionna, 2010).

In this case, the netizen community in South

Korea and internationally were able to provide an

effective challenge to what they believed to be the

misrepresentations by the South Korean government

on the Cheonan incident.

In his article “Social Sciences and the Social

Development Process in Africa,” Charly Gabriel

Mbock (2001) proposes that there is a need for neti-

zens in different countries to work together across

national borders to solve the problems of our times.

Perhaps the response of netizens to the problems

raised by the investigation of the Cheonan incident is

but a prelude to the realization of this potential.

XI. – Conclusion

Much of the research about journalism is con-

cerned with the elements of creating and spreading a

narrative, with concepts like “framing,” “agenda set-

ting” and “news diffusion” providing a means to ana-

lyze and understand the processes that are compo-

nents of the news process. For example, if the framing

of a news story relies on officials of the government

or of powerful corporations, the story is likely to be

significantly different from where the framing focuses

on the perspective of the victim of some abuse by

government or corporate entities. Similarly, students

or workers are likely to have a different perspective of

a conflict from that of an investment banker or real

estate tycoon. The broad range of online posts about

the Cheonan incident provided a diversity of informa-

tion and views that enriches the news environment.

(Touri, 2009, 177)

In South Korea, there is ready access to posting

on the Internet and responding to others views. (Im,

et al., 2011, 606-607). In the Cheonan incident,

netizens were active offering their critiques of the

summary report the government released. (Kim, 2011,

Page 14

101) A blogger with a background in reading blue-

prints made his views known about the illegitimacy of

the claims by the South Korean government that the

part of the torpedo they produced and the diagram

they presented to demonstrate the torpedo’s North

Korean origins were from the same torpedo. (Creigh-

ton, 2010a)

With academic scientists evaluating the South

Korean government’s scientific claims and finding

them faulty, (Lee & Suh, 2010; Cyranoski, 2010) with

NGO’s studying the investigation claims and writing

analyses which they then send to the UN Security

Council members by e-mail, these are the signs that

there is an important process at play.

What had formerly been a process with static

components is being transformed into a process where

the components are now dynamic and changing. (Im

et al: 608-609)

Traditionally the news event is framed by the

journalist and his or her editor. That narrative is then

spread by the news channels of that media. The

narrative was traditionally static. When the Internet

and the netizens are part of the news process, this is

no longer the case. (Zhou and Moy, 2007:82-83; Im

et al.: 608-609) And the growing power and capabil-

ity of communication processes and of how the news

is reported and disseminated (diffused) has an effect

on how policy is created and how it is implemented.

(Gilboa, 202: 736-7,743; Touri, 2009: 174)

Those responsible for making policy can be

influenced by the news, by distortions spread as the

news or by a more accurate framing of the news

which the net and netizens at times can make

possible.

If it is clear that there are conflicting narratives

at the roots of a conflict, the effort to determine the

accurate narrative can help lead to a resolution or at

least a calming of the conflict.

The widespread discussion of diverse views of

the Cheonan conflict helped to support the effort by

Ambassador Heller to realize that he wasn’t to act as

a judge, but he would try to determine an under-

standing of the conflict, of the issues that were in

contention. The widespread public discussion in this

situation helped to clarify the issues and what was in

contention, and hence led to a policy at the Security

Council of hearing all sides of the issue, much as the

member states of the UN had urged Ban Ki-moon to

do when he was being welcomed to the UN.

In this case study of the Cheonan incident, my

earlier question of whether it was possible for South

Korean netizens to have an impact on what happened

at the UN was answered in the affirmative. And the

South Korean netizens were supported by other

netizens from around the world. This is an important

example of the UN, of the Security Council, function-

ing in a way to help to calm a conflict. And the wide-

spread public discussion online of the conflict was, I

argue, a helpful support for this process.

Notes:

1. About letters to UN Security Council, records at the UN show

that the practice of sending such correspondence to the Security

Council dates back to 1946. This is the date when the symbol

S/NC/ was introduced as the symbol for “Communications re-

ceived from private individuals and non-governmental bodies re-

lating to matters of which the Security Council is seized.” The

Security Council has the practice of periodically publishing a list

of the documents it receives, the name and organization of the

sender, and the date they are received. The Provisional Rules of

Procedure of the Security Council states that the list is to be

circulated to all representatives on the Security Council. A copy

of any communication on the list is to be given to any nation on

the Security Council that requests it. There are over 450 such

lists indicated in the UN records. As each list can contain several

or a large number of documents the Security Council has

received, the number of such documents is likely to be in the

thousands. Under Rule 39 of the Council procedures, the

Security Council may invite any person it deems competent for

the purpose to supply it with information on a given subject.

Thus the two procedures in the Security Council’s provisional

rules give it the basis to find assistance on issues it is considering

from others outside the Council and to consider the contribution

as part of its deliberation.

2. PSPD Report that was sent to Security Council was posted

online in three parts:

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584228,

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584287,

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584296.

3. The press conference was held on July 9 at the Tokyo Foreign

Correspondents Club. The program was titled “Lee and Suh:

Inconsistencies in the Cheonan Report,”

http://www.japan

times.co.jp/news/2010/07/10/news/scholars-doubt-cheonan-

finding/#.WX973SmQwdc. See also, (Cyranoski, 2010), (Lee,

S., & Suh, J. J. 2010).

4. The Russian team proposed a different theory for how the

Cheonan sank. They had observed that the ship’s propeller had

become entangled in a fishing net and subsequently that a

possible cause of the sinking could have been that the ship had

hit the antennae of a mine which then exploded. “Russian Navy

Team’s Analysis of the Cheonan Incident,” (Hankyoreh, 2010b).

The Russian Experts document is titled “Data from the Russian

Naval Expert Group’s Investigation into the Cause of the South

Korean Naval Vessel Cheonan’s Sinking.” See also “Russia’s

Cheonan Investigation Suspects that Sinking Cheonan Ship was

Caused by a Mine,” (Hankyoreh, 2010a).

5. Media Stakeout: Informal comments to the Media by the

Page 15

President of the Security Council and the Permanent Repre-

sentative of Mexico, H. E. Mr. Claude Heller on the Cheonan

incident (the sinking of the ship from the Republic of Korea) and

on Kyrgyzstan.

6. Video of North Korean Ambassador Press Conference:

https://

www.unmultimedia.org/avlibrary/asset/U100/U100615b/.

References

Creighton, Scott (2010a, May 24). “The Sinking of the Cheonan:

We Are Being Lied To.” (American Everyman blog).

Retrieved from:

https://shadowproof.com/2010/06/15/th

e-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/.

Creighton, Scott (2010b, June 20). “PCC-772 Cheonan: South

Korean Government Admits the Deception (and then Lies

About It).” (American Everyman blog).

Cyranoski, David (2010, July 8). “Controversy over South Ko-

rea’s sunken ship.” Nature. 10 (1038) Retrieved from:

https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.343.

Demick, Barbara, & Glionna, John M. (2010, July 23). “Doubts

Surface on North Korean Role in Ship Sinking.” Los

Angeles Times. Retrieved from:

https://www.latimes.com

/archives/la-xpm-2010-jul-23-la-fg-korea-torpedo-

20100724-story.html.

Frank, Rüdiger, Hoare, James E., Köllner, Patrick, & Pares,

Susan, editors (2007). Korea Yearbook (2007): Politics,

Economy and Society. Berlin: Brill.

Gilboa, E. (2002). Global communication and foreign policy.

Journal of Communication, 52(4). Pp. 731-748.

Guerrero, Maurizio (2010, July5). “Heller mediacionde Mexico

en conflicto de Peninsula de Corea.” La Economia

(Notimex). [See also, “Destaca Heller mediación de

México en conflicto de Península de Corea,” 05/07/2010,

http://cl.globedia.com/destaca-heller-mediacion-mexico-

conflicto-peninsula-corea.]

Hankyoreh (2010a, July 27). “Russia’s Cheonan investigation

suspects that the sinking Cheonan ship was caused by a

mine in water.” Retrieved from:

http://www.hani.co.kr

/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432 232.html.

Hankyoreh (2010b, July 27). “Russian Navy Expert Team’s

analysis on the Cheonan incident.” Retrieved from:

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_north-

korea/432230.html.

Hauben, Michael (1997a). “The Net and Netizens: The Impact

the Net has on People’s Lives.” Chapter 1. In Netizens:

On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.

Michael Hauben & Ronda Hauben. Los Alamitos, CA:

IEEE Computer Society Press.

Hauben, Michael (1997b). “The Effect of the Net on the Profes-

sional News Media: The Usenet News Collective – The

Man-Computer News Symbiosis.” Chapter 13. In

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet. Michael Hauben & Ronda Hauben. Los

Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Hauben, Ronda (2005). “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A

case study of netizens’ impact on democracy in South

Korea.” Retrieved from:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hau

ben/ronda2014/Rise_of_Netizen_Democracy.pdf.

Hauben, Ronda (2006a, Oct 17). “The New Dynamics of

Democratization in South Korea: The Internet and the

Emergence of the Netizen.” OhmyNews. Retrieved from:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/ronda2014/paperkor

ea.pdf.

Hauben, Ronda (2006b). “The Problem Facing the U.N.: Can

Ban Ki-moon help solve the problem with the Security

Council?” Retrieved from:

http://www.ais.org/~ronda

/new.papers/articles/paperdraft.txt.

Hauben, Ronda (2007a). “Online Grassroots Journalism and

Participatory Democracy in South Korea.” In Korea

Yearbook (2007): Politics, Economy and Society. Rüdiger

Frank, James E. Hoare, Patrick Köllner and Susan Pares

(editors). Berlin: Brill.

Hauben, Ronda (2007b). “North Korea’s $25 Million and Banco

Delta Asia: Another abuse under the U.S. Patriot Act

(2001).” OhmyNews. March 21. Retrieved from: https://

www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn16-1.pdf. Pp. 15-16.

Hauben, Ronda (2007c, May 19). “Behind the Blacklisting of

Banco Delta Asia: Is the policy aimed at targeting China

as well as North Korea?” OhmyNews. Retrieved from:

https://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn33-1.pdf. Pp.19-22.

Hauben, Ronda (2010a, June 8). “Netizens Question Cause of

Cheonan Tragedy: Online Media Challenge Claims that

North Korea is responsible for Sinking the Cheonan.”

OhmyNews. Online at:

https://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Acn

28-2.pdf. Pp. 2-5.

Hauben, Ronda (2010b. Sept 5). “In Cheonan Dispute UN

Security Council Acts in Accord with UN Charter.”

Retrieved from:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010/09

/05/in_cheonan_dispute_un_security_council_discovers

_un_charter/.

Hauben, Ronda (2010c, June 29). “Questioning Cheonan Invest-

igation Stirs Controversy South Korean Government

Threatens to Penalize NGO for Utilizing UN Security

Council Procedure.” OhmyNews. Retrieved from:

https://

www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn28-2.pdf. Pp. 5-9.

Hauben, Michael, & Hauben, Ronda (1997). Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los

Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Im, Y. H., Kim, E. M., Kim, K., & Kim, Y. (2011). “The emerg-

ing mediascape, same old theories? A case study of online

news diffusion in Korea.” New Media & Society, 13(4).

Pp. 605-625.

Kim, Yeran, Jeong, Irkwon, Khang, Hyoungkoo, & Kim, Bomi

(2011, Nov.). “Blogging as ‘Recoding’: A Case Study of

the Discursive War Over the Sinking of the Cheonan.”

Media International Australia. 141. Pp. 98-106.

Lee, Jae-hoon (2010, July10). “UN Condemns Attack on

Cheonan: The Presidential Statement allows for a ‘double

interpretation,’ and does not blame or place consequences

upon North Korea.” Hankyoreh. Retrieved from:

https://

www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/429768.

html.

Lee, S., & Suh, J. J. (2010). Rush to Judgment: Inconsistencies

In South Korea’s Cheonan Report. The Asia-Pacific

Journal, 12. Retrieved from:

http://apjjf.org/-JJ-Suh/3382

/article.html.

Lee, Yong-inn (2010, July3). “Questions linger 100 days after

the Cheonan sinking.”Hankyoreh. Retrieved from:

http://

www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/428715.

html.

Page 16

Mbock, Charly Gabriel (2001, June). “Social Sciences and the

Social Development Process in Africa.” Social Sciences

and Innovation. OECD. Pp. 157-171

Touri, M. (2009, March). News blogs: strengthening democracy

through conflict prevention. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol.

61, No. 2. Pp. 170-184). Emerald Group Publishing

Limited.

United Nations Security Council (2010a, June 4). “Letter dated

4 June, 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the

Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the

President of the Security Council.” S/2010/281. Retrieved

from:

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65

BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/DP

RK%20S%202010%20281%20SKorea%20Letter%20a

nd%20Cheonan%20Report.pdf.

United Nations Security Council (2010b, June 8). “Letter dated

8 June, 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United

Nations addressed to the President of the Security Coun-

cil.” S/2010/294. Retrieved from :

http://www.securityco

uncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/NKorea%20S%202010%20294.pdf.

United Nations Security Council (2010c, July 9). “Statement by

the President of the Security Council.” S/PRST/2010/13.

Retrieved from:

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/

cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9

%7D/NKorea%20SPRST•%202010%2013.pdf.

Zhou, Y., & Moy, P. (2007). “Parsing framing processes: The

interplay between online public opinion and media cover-

age.” Journal of Communication, 57(1). Pp. 79-98.

[Editor’s Note: The following declaration was written

as a New Years message, January 1993 by Michael

Hauben. It appears just after page 344 in the 1997

publication of Netizens: on the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet and online at:

https://first

monday.org/ojs /index.php/fm/article/view/614/535.]

Proposed Declaration of the

Rights of Netizens

We Netizens have begun to put together a De-

claration of the Rights of Netizens and are requesting

from other Netizens contributions, ideas, and sug-

gestions 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 rev-

olution in human communications that was built by a

cooperative non-commercial process, the following

Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen is presented

for Netizen comment.

As Netizens are those who take responsibility

and care for the Net, the following are proposed to be

their rights:

• Universal access at no or low cost.

• Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the

exchange of knowledge without fear of reprisal.

• Uncensored Expression.

• Access to Broad Distribution.

• Universal and Equal access to knowledge and infor-

mation.

• Consideration of one’s ideas on their merits.

• No limitation of access to read, to post and to other-

wise contribute.

• Equal quality of connection.

• Equal time of connection.

• No Official Spokesperson.

• Uphold the public grassroots purpose and partic-

ipation.

• Volunteer Contribution – no personal profit from the

contribution freely given by others.

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 com-

mon-wealth that is being created.

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE 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.

Page 17

[Editor’s Note: The following was presented on May

21, 1995 at a party celebrating the graduation of

Michael Hauben and some of his classmates from

Columbia University. It appears online at: https://

www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn24-1.pdf, pp 36-38.]

Graduation Presentation

May 21, 1995

by Michael Hauben

My graduation did not end at the May 1995

Columbia University Commencement ceremonies. I

did receive my Diploma on May 17, but my gradu-

ation was not completed until May 19. On that Friday,

I was interviewed about the internet by a Japanese

camera crew for a television documentary to be

shown on TV Tokyo. In speaking with these people

the result of my four years both here at Columbia and

connected to the outside world was revealed.

During the interview I described Netizens and

the world-wide community which the internet and

Usenet News make possible. Netizens are people who

use the various computer communications networks

and feel they are citizens of this net. People desire to

communicate with others around the world. In order

to communicate, to share information and to have a

discussion, it is necessary to share a common space

and to accept differences. People who connect to the

internet willingly help others and work collectively to

have a place which allows their personal speech and

which allows the speech of others. It is in this spirit of

an open forum that we are holding this party today.

The internet and other communications networks are

about people and are about people communicating

with each other. It is this understanding and exper-

ience which I shared with the interviewers. The inter-

net is not about computers and isolated experiences,

it is a very social human experience.

I entered Columbia asking the question “Why

are people, so complacent in this country?” I asked

this question on my application essay in 1990 consid-

ering that people in Eastern Europe and China were

fighting their governments for a better life and a

better world, while here at home little seemed to be

happening to combat the worsening times.

In thinking about this question, I chose the joint

Philosophy/Economics major as my prospective

major. My introduction to the Columbia bureaucracy

came about when upon visiting campus, I discovered

this major had been turned upside down, and was now

based in the Economics Department rather than the

Philosophy Department and was renamed Economics

and Philosophy. The emphasis was: similarly shifted

from classical philosophy to contemporary econ-

omics.

In arriving at Columbia and setting up my

computer account, I connected to the world by using

Usenet Newsgroups. My Unix account, hauben@-

columbia.edu, gave me access to Usenet Newsgroups

which are public discussion forums that are circulated

around the world. It was in discussions on these

newsgroups that I developed my academic study. I

was fascinated by the internet and Usenet News and

wanted to find out more about this network which

connected people from around the world.

It was on the internet and Usenet where I posed

questions and conducted research into what other

people found valuable about being online and how it

was important in their lives.

In researching these questions during different

history and literature classes, along with several

independent studies, I became an active participant of

the Usenet Newsgroups and mailing lists. I submitted

questions and thought pieces to these forums, and

people around the world responded with their opin-

ions and thoughts. I became interested in the Net

itself, and I posed questions about it online. Many

people online found they shared this interest, and they

connected to me and contributed their understandings

of the value of the Net to their lives. Many of these

private electronic mail messages and public Usenet

responses were extremely thoughtful. I also raised

questions about how it was possible for such a

medium to develop where people were helpful to total

strangers. In starting to research the history of the

internet and Usenet News, students and professors

who were part of that history sent me personal

accounts and supporting documentation.

My papers and research about the internet and

Usenet have been guided and helped by many real

people around the world. When I finished my papers,

I contributed back to the Net by making them publicly

available and asking for comments and criticism. In

addition to various responses of that sort, I also

received much encouragement and support. People

wrote thanking me for making my writings available.

Also, I received various requests from professors and

others to reprint and make my writings available to

classes and other more public forums. This support

Page 18

was of course in addition to help and encouragement

from my parents. All of this support came outside of

Columbia. There were two professors in the Com-

puter Science Department, namely Professor Unger

and Professor Greenleaf, and there was Professor

Garton from the Music Department who were helpful,

but there was very little help from the university or

computer science department as a whole. My

connection to the outside world and online

community is what has both made my research

possible, and provided feedback that this research was

important and valuable to others. I have mainly

enjoyed the time I have spent at Columbia because of

the feedback I received from other people saying they

appreciated my effort, and that my writings have been

useful for more than just a grade.

Identification of this value to society came

slowly but surely. People sent various e-mail mes-

sages, and this was helpful, but did not feel to be

lasting. These past two years have been marked by

various events which have helped to solidify my

understanding of the value. The word Netizen started

to appear both online and in print. Papers I wrote

were published in three journals. Ronda and I gave

several presentations in New York City and Michigan

from the book we put together. A radio station in

California interviewed me last semester. And cur-

rently Ronda and I are negotiating with a publisher to

publish our online book in a printed form. Lastly,

professors from the Global Communications Institute

in Japan have been communicating with me about my

participating at a conference in Japan later this year.

The interview on Friday was the culminating event

which identified that this work has been recognized as

important.

After four years, I feel I have answered the

question with which I entered Columbia. The internet

and Usenet News provides a place where people can

communicate with other people at a grassroots level

to make their lives better and to attempt to make the

world a better place. By connecting to others with

similar interests, questions and problems, along with

people with different understandings, it is now

possible to try and do something about the world, and

to gain some power in how one lives his or her life.

All in all, while Columbia has been a difficult

place to live for the last four years, it has been an

honor to be able to contribute to the world some

understanding of how to make a better future.

[Editor’s Note: In 2001, the OECD published Social

Science and Innovation, a workshop proceedings

examining the contribution of the social sciences to

improving understanding of social and technological

innovation processes. Below is a brief review of its

Chapter 15, “Social Sciences and the Social

Development Process in Africa” by Charly Gabriel

Mbock and its view of the value of netizens.]

Netizens Providing Hope for

Future Development

by Ronda Hauben

In his article “Social Science and the Social

Development Process in Africa” Charly Gabriel

Mbock, critiques the structural adjustment model of

development that has pauperized Africa. He describes

how loans were made by western countries which

benefited a small segment of African society and the

western nations that made the loans. These left a debt

of not only the loan but also continuing interest

payments which the people of Africa have to pay

back despite the fact they never benefited from the

loans themselves.

In place of the “structural adjustment program”

that brought the people of Africa so much trouble,

Mbock proposes a “democratic adjustment program.”

“No one can stop the globalization process,”

Mbock writes, “But perhaps a world of global neti-

zens could help to mitigate the consequences of the

global economy.”

Will the situation improve,” Mbock asks, “if the

future brings ‘netizenship’ to Africans?”

He writes:

Michael and Ronda Hauben are of the

opinion that the Net and the new com-

munications technologies will encourage

people to shifting from citizenry to neti-

zenry, away from ‘geographical national

definition of social membership to the

new non-geographically based social

membership (Netizens, Hauben and

Hauben, 1997, pp. x-xi.)

“The dream of worldwide ‘netizenry,’ Mbock

writes, “is the creation of a global community devoted

to a more equitable sharing of world resources

through efficient interactions.”

Quoting from Netizens, he writes:

A Netizen (Net citizen) exists as a citizen

Page 19

of the world thanks to the global con-

nectivity that the Net makes possible. You

consider everyone 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 Neti-

zen in the world. Geography and time are

no longer boundaries (...) A new, more

democratic world is becoming possible as

a new grassroots connection that allows

excluded sections of society to have a

voice. (Mbock referring to Hauben and

Hauben, 1997, pp. 3-5)

“If such a global community were to become reality,

then community ways would prevail over market

values,” writes Mbock. “As an efficient and demo-

cratic breakthrough, technological innovation would

lead to deep-seated social transformations resulting in

global change … .” (p. 165)

“The hypothesis of a new world order,” he

proposes, “is an opportunity for catch-up of countries

in Africa to create “a forum through which people

influence their governments, allowing for the dis-

cussion and debate of issues in a mode that facilitates

mass participation.” (Hauben and Hauben, 1997, p.

56)

“The outcome would be netdemocracy,” Mbock

writes, “with a three-pronged system of dialogue;

dialogue among the citizens of a given country, dia-

logue among these citizens and their local or national

government, and dialogue among ‘netizens.’ The

world as a global community of ‘netizens,’ would

then, ‘at last’ possess its long-awaited engine for

effective and social development in Africa.” (p. 165)

“To Sean Connell,” Mbock writes, referring to

a quote from Connell in Netizens, “the Net is a

highway to real democracy, “a means to create vocal,

active, communities that transcend race, geography

and wealth,” a mechanism through which everybody

can contribute to the governing of his or her country”

(Hauben and Hauben, 1997, p. 249).

Mbock argues that:

(A)s a new paradigm shift from citizen-

ship to genuine ‘netizenship’ is the world-

wide innovation that social scientists

should herald, and not only for Africa.

This implies looking beyond national

citizen passports, to negotiate global,

‘netizen’ ones.

Notes

1. Charly Gabriel Mbock, “Social Science and the Social

Development Process in Africa,” in Social Science and

Innovation, OECD, 2001, p. 161. The whole book can be read

for free at:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Social_Scie

nces_and_Innovation/LncFo1_SDxcC. Chapter 15 is on pages

157 to 169.

2. Ibid., p. 160.

3. Ibid., p. 165.

4. Ibid., p. 166.

5. Ibid.

[Editor’s Note: The following article analyzes the

debate between multistakeholder, multilateral, and

netizen models of internet governance, emphasizing

the need to defend multilateralism and encourage

netizen participation in decisions of Internet govern-

ance. An earlier version of this article was published

in German in Telepolis at:

https://www.heise.de/tp

/features/Die-UNO-und-das-Ringen-um-das-Internet-

5032944.html. This English version is online at:

https://botpopuli.net/struggle-internet-governance-

role-un/.]

The Struggle Over Internet

Governance and the Role of

the UN

by Ronda Hauben

In June 2020, the UN Secretary General António

Guterres issued a “Roadmap for Digital Cooperation”

to provide a new mechanism for the governance of

the Internet. (See also UN document A/74/821

)

This document comes out of a contentious

struggle in the UN over which sectors of society will

have the power to influence decisions about the

present and future management of the Internet. Yet,

the Secretary General’s Roadmap neither referred to

this background, nor mentioned any of the alternative

models or visions for how the Internet is to be

managed or how decisions are to be made about its

future. Instead the document presented a vague pro-

posal bestowing the power to influence the future of

the Internet upon already powerful entities. The vague

model being promoted by the UN Secretary General’s

Roadmap is referred to as a “multistakeholder” model

for Internet governance.

Page 20

Not only has the Secretary General suggested

empowering multistakeholderism, which has been

subjected to serious criticism and opposition, but this

activity to influence the future of the Internet is being

carried out in a camouflaged manner. The Roadmap

ignores the criticism of multistakeholderism while

hiding the alternative perspectives which reflect a

process more in-line with the democratic and partic-

ipatory origin of the Internet and the original vision

for its development.

There has been an ongoing struggle over Inter-

net governance at the United Nations for at least 15

years. Some pivotal events in this struggle include the

two World Summits on the Information Society

(WSIS) held by the UN in 2003 in Geneva and in

2005 in Tunis, along with the 2015 controversy

surrounding the 10 year review of the progress toward

the 2003 WSIS and 2005 WSIS goal to develop “a

people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented

Information Society.”

On one side of the controversy has been the

desire of many UN Member States to have a shared

form of governance in which all states are able to

participate on an equal footing. This is known as a

multilateral form of governance. Multilateralism is a

founding principle of the UN inscribed in the UN

Charter.

“Multilateralism” was the form of Internet

governance favored by the developing countries rep-

resented by the G77 + China at the 2015 UN dis-

cussions to review the progress made in the 10 years

since the 2005 WSIS. The Statement

by the Chair of

the Group of 77 explained that “it is important to

build a united, equal, open, transparent, fair and bal-

anced platform which recognizes all governments on

equal voice.”

The Secretary General’s Roadmap replaces a

form of governance committed to the people-centered

view put forward by the UN at WSIS events with

multistakeholderism, a corporate-empowering gover-

nance model.

Briefly, the Roadmap proposed by the UN

Secretary General promises to connect people around

the world to the Internet and monitor the problems

stemming from AI and other areas that may accom-

pany Internet development.

In its essence, however, the Roadmap proposes

creating a new means for governing the Internet. The

proposed governance mechanism will be one that

gives power to multistakeholders to decide the present

and future of the Internet. This is referred to as multi-

stakeholder governance.

Who are the “multistakeholders” and what is

their “stake” in the decisions they are to help de-

termine?

In an article about whether multistakeholderism

could be a means of democratizing the decision-

making processes about the Internet, Michael

Gurstein, a Canadian Internet activist, explained why

multistakeholderism is not a democratic form of

governance. (See Democracy or Multistakeholderism:

Competing Models of Governance.

) It is a form,

Gurstein wrote, “where governance is by and for

those with a ‘stake’ in the governance decision thus

shifting the basis of governance from one based on

people and (at least indirectly) citizenship or par-

ticipation in the broad community of the governed to

one based on ‘stakes …’.” That is, multistakeholder-

ism empowers those with a narrow interest in a

particular course of action, not those with the ability

to contribute to determining the public interest.

Moreover, as an Internet pioneer from China,

Madame Hu Qiheng explains, the public interest

needs to be protected with respect to Internet devel-

opment. She writes (page 1) that “The Internet is a

resplendent achievement of human civilization in the

20th century. And that government has to play the

essential role in Internet governance … creating a fav-

orable environment boosting Internet growth while

protecting the public interest.”

However, protecting the public interest is all but

gone from the Secretary General’s Roadmap.

The Roadmap erases the long controversy

around the appropriateness of multilateral versus

multistakeholder forms of Internet governance from

the historical record instead of clarifying the different

perspectives. The Roadmap also pretends that every

member of the UN agrees that the so called multi-

stakeholders should have a say in the Internet’s future

development.

Despite many criticisms of a multistakeholder

form of governance, in July 2018 the UN Secretary

General appointed Melinda Gates and Jack Ma as co-

chairs of what was claimed to be a high-level panel

“to consider models … to advance the debate sur-

rounding governance in the digital sphere.” Instead of

advancing the public debate by summarizing the

strengths and weaknesses of previous discussion at

the UN over different models for Internet governance,

they created a vague document stating a preference

Page 21

for “a multistakeholder ‘systems’ approach that is …

a fit-for-purpose for the fast-changing digital age.”

(See Executive Summary Report of the UN Secretary

General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation

Recommendation 5B.

)

Similarly, the UN published a document called

the Recommendation 5A/B: Options for the Future of

Global Digital Cooperation

(here after Options

Report), which calls for the creation of a leadership

group “... which would feature multistakeholder rep-

resentation (including business leaders and academia)

… (who) would bring outcomes from their leadership

group to decision leaders.” (Options Report, p. 12.)

The Options Report also calls for the improve-

ment of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) design

to strengthen corporate identity under the supervision

of the IGF Secretariat. (Options Report, p. 15.) The

IGF was created in 2005 at the close of the WSIS in

Tunis as a discussion and consultative body. The

Options Report proposes adding to the IGF a lead-

ership group with the participation of the UN Sec-

retary General and the UN’s host country’s Head of

State or Government. (Options Report, p. 3.)

One might ask why the UN Secretary General,

who is the administrative head in an organization built

on multilateralism, is erasing the public record about

the important issues raised in the debate between

multilateralism and multistakeholderism as forms of

governance to be supported by the UN for Internet

development.

In order to understand this enigma, it is helpful

to consider a document signed on behalf of the UN

Secretary General in June 2019 — agreeing to a

partnership agreement between the UN and the World

Economic Forum (WEF).

An open letter signed by 400 NGOs opposing

this partnership and asking the UN to withdraw from

it was sent to the UN Secretary General.

The NGOs letter argued that:

This public-private partnership will per-

manently associate the UN with trans-

national corporations, some of whose core

essential activities have caused or wors-

ened the social and environmental crises

that the planet faces. This is a form of

corporate capture … . The WEF agree-

ment with the UN … seriously under-

mine[s] the mandate of the UN as well as

the independence, impartiality and effec-

tiveness of this multilateral body.

Disregarding the arguments made by the NGOs

and the position on the question taken by the G77+

China, the Secretary General has launched the

elaborate Roadmap for Digital Cooperation as one of

the six areas in the UN-WEF partnership agreement.

In the debate at the UN over the future of

Internet governance in the past, there has been a third

model which has also been left out of the Roadmap.

This model emphasizes the need for netizens to have

a role in Internet governance. The netizen model

differs in part with those who argue for governments

to have the central role in decisions affecting their

citizens. The netizen model sees a role for citizens

and netizens to participate in determining what the

decisions will be. This model points to the capacity of

the Internet to support participatory democracy. As

one of the participants in an online portal created by

the UN leading up to the 2005 WSIS wrote:

This online forum constitutes an important

part of mobilizing efforts for the pursued

effective outcome. But in view of the

wide-ranging aspects that Internet Gov-

ernance covers, I believe it is duly impor-

tant to make it clearer the inclusion of

online contributions into the decision-

making process.

During 2020, when the UN celebrated its 75

founding anniversary, many voices argued that it is

more urgent than ever to support and strengthen

multilateralism. This was especially the sentiment

voiced by many of the 193 UN Member States during

the September 21, 2020 virtual session in celebration

of the 75

Anniversary of the Charter.

The goal of a “people centered, inclusive and

development oriented Information Society” is a goal

consistent with the multilateral and netizen models for

Internet governance. This was the goal put forward by

the UN at their 2003 and 2005 World Summit

meetings. Yet the goal was ignored by the high level

panel for digital cooperation in putting forward their

recommendations and it was ignored in the creation of

the Secretary General’s Roadmap. Hence, it is a

violation of obligations for UN Secretary General

António Guterres to promote a multistakeholder

model of Internet governance rather than defending

multilateralism and encouraging citizen and netizen

participation in the decisions related to continuing and

future Internet development.

Page 22

Notes

1. https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/74/821

2. https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

3. https://www.g77.org/statement/getstatement.php?id=151215c

4. https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/democracy-or-mul

ti-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance/

5. “5B: We support a multi-stakeholder ‘systems’ approach

for cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclu-

sive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age” at:

https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/HLP%20on%20Digital%20Coope

ration%20Report%20Executive%20Summary%20-%20ENG.pdf

6. https://www.global-cooperation.digital/GCD/Redaktion/EN

/Downloads/options-for-the-future-of-global-digital-cooperatio

n.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2

7. https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/world-economic-foru

m-and-un-sign-strategic-partnership-framework/

8. https://www.ininet.org/netizen-participation-in-internet-gover

nance1-izumi-aizu-deput.html

9. https://www.itu.int/osg/spu/forum/intgov04/contributions/izu

mi-contribution.pdf, see also https://www.un.org/en/un75/com

memoration.

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:

jrh29@columbia.edu

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.

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.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All issues from1988 to present of the Amateur Computerist

are on-line at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 23