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

Page 1

the theory of social scientist Karl Deutsch who sees governing not as an

act of power but of communication. 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 journal-

ism 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 responsibility 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 development

of democracy along with the U.S. “Declaration 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 sociologist 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

Page 2

engine for effective and social development in Africa.”

The final article in this issue, “The Struggle Over Internet Gover-

nance 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 participation 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

Page 3

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 compatriot. You physically live in one

country but you are in contact with much of the world via the

global computer network. Virtually, you live next door to

every other single Netizen in the world. Geographical separa-

tion is replaced by existence 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

Page 4

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 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 privatization 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 online. 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 network,

I became aware that there was a new social institution, an

electronic commons, developing. It was exciting to explore

this new social institution. Others online shared this excite-

ment. I discovered from those who wrote me that the people I

Page 5

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 advance made possible by the Internet and the

emergence 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 emerging and recognized the promise for the future

represented by what was only at the time in an early stage of development.

For example, Michael recognized that the collaborative 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

Information 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 government, 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

Page 6

Rights of Man was one effort to empower people to deal with govern-

ments. 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 governments as the ground of political author-

ity.” [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 processes 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 important 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

Page 7

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 relation, 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 democratiza-

tion.” [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 Reader’s Opinion section of

the Times of India referred to something I had written. Quoting my article,

Page 8

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

democracy, but the scale of participation and contribution is unprece-

dented. 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.indiatimes.com/home/edit-page/We-are-look-

ing-at-the-fifth-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.]

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 perhaps 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

Page 9

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 making 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 consider when

seeking to understand the nature and particularity of the evolving new

models for development 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 channel 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 important.

In order to have a conceptual framework to understand what these

technical processes are, I recommend 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 communication.” [The

Nerves of Government, p. xxvii]

Page 10

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, however, 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 accu-

rately. The communication process and the steering that it makes possible

through feedback mechanisms are an underlying framework to consider

in seeking to understand what Deutsch calls the “Nerves of Government.”

According to Deutsch, a nation can be looked at 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 functioning 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 informa-

tion 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

Page 11

“information has to be processed and discussed for it to acquire full

meaning and significance.” [Ibid., p. 106]

“When information is free, available and truthful, 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 fulfilling 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 implications 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 Netizen. 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 “occupy” 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.

Page 12

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 technological 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-connected citizen in a way that might not be

in the interest of the governing classes.”

“How will governments respond to this situation?” he asks.

“I look forward to witnessing how Act 2 of Revolution 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 communication

changes represented by the Era of the Netizen 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

Page 13

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: Netizens 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 continue 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 Develop-

ment and the Emergence of the Netizen,”

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

/the_internet_model_of_socio-economic_development_and_the_emergence

_of_the_netizen/.

Ronda Hauben, “In Cheonan Dispute UN Security Council Acts in Accord with

UN Charter,”

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

Page 14

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.cms.

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/viewFile/2779/2597 and https://ilc.upd.edu.ph/videopage/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 Banished 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/.

[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

Page 15

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 International. When Ohmynews ended its English edition in

2010, I became a correspondent covering the UN for an English language

blog –

http://blogs.taz.de/net izenblog 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 citizen-

ship that has developed based on the broader forms of political participa-

tion 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 recog-

nized 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

Page 16

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 wide-

spread media. As Hauben recognized in the early 1990s “the collective

body of people assisted by (the Net) … has grown larger than any

individual newspaper … .” (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 people – 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 questioned 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 observations or questions

around the world and have other people respond. The computer

networks form a new grassroots connection that allows the

excluded sections of society to have a voice. This new medium

is unprecedented. Previous grassroots media 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 net-

working. The Net extends the idea of networking – of making

connections with strangers that prove to be advantageous to

one or both parties.

This broader collective of netizens and journalists empowered by the

Net are participating in generating and transmitting the news toward

creating a better society. This is a basis for developing a conception 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 implication of this case study for the kind of journalism that I propose

netizens and the Internet are making possible.

Page 17

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 important making these

developments possible. Colleagues encouraged me to get in contact with

OhmyNews 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 examples 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 Kimoon 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 credential

in time to go to the General Assembly meeting when the General

Assembly voted to accept the Security Council’s nomination of Ban Ki-

Page 18

moon.

I was surprised that some of the speeches welcoming 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 communica-

tion 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 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 participa-

tion and investigation by the international community into how

Page 19

a crisis will be handled once it develops, and whether the

concerns and problems of those involved in the crisis will be

considered as part of the process of seeking a solution. It is

how the UN functions when tensions reach a point where

serious attention 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 watchdog 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 investigation 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

Page 20

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 Korean 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), 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 netizens were critical of the investigation that the South

Korean government conducted and sought to challenge the conclusions.

Significantly, netizens demonstrated how they were able to have an

Page 21

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 languages

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-governmen-

tal 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 raised a number of questions and problems with the South Korean

government’s case. The PSPD document was posted widely on the

Internet and also sent to the President of the United Nations Security

Council 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 Creighton 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 torpedo part it claimed to have

found near where the ship sank. The torpedo was identified as the CHT-

Page 22

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-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/). He dem-

onstrated that the diagram did not match the part of the torpedo on display.

He pointed out several discrepancies 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

torpedo as the part displayed in the glass case. Instead the diagram dis-

played was of the PT97W torpedo, not the CHT-02D torpedo as claimed.

In a post titled “Thanks to Valuable Input” describing the signifi-

cance 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 con-

cerned 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 drawing of the CHT-O2D

torpedo, which a high-ranking military official could only

refute by stating he had 40 years military 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 beating 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

Page 23

of the Cheonan.

Other influential events which helped to challenge the South Korean

government’s claims were a press conference in Japan held on July 9 by

two academic scientists. The two scientists presented results of experi-

ments 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 independent 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 discussions 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 blamed 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 government 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 important article that has appeared in several

different Spanish language publications (Guerrero, 2010) The article

Page 24

describes the experience of the Mexican Ambassador 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 described 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 presenta-

tions by both of the Koreas to the members of the Security Council. He

arranged for the South Korean Ambassador to make an informal presenta-

tion to the members of the Security Council. Ambassador Heller also

invited the North Korean Ambassador to make a separate informal

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 Ambassador 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 govern-

ment’s call to be able to examine the evidence and to be involved in a new

and more independent investigation of the sinking of the Cheonan.

In its June 8 letter to the Security Council, North Korea referred to

the widespread international sentiment questioning the conclusions of the

South Korean government’s investigation. The North Korean Ambassador

Page 25

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 detailed 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 briefings, the North Korean UN delegation scheduled

a press conference for Tuesday, June 15, the day following the interactive

informal meeting. During the press conference, the North Korean

Ambassador presented his government’s refutation of the allegations made

by South Korea.

Also he explained North Korea’s request to be able to

send an investigation team to the site where the sinking of the Cheonan

occurred. South Korea had denied the request. During its press conference,

the North Korean Ambassador said that there was widespread condem-

nation of the South Korean government’s investigation 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

Page 26

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 possible 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” 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 conclu-

sions of the South Korean investigation.

Analyzing the Presidential Statement, the Korean newspaper

Hankyoreh noted that the statement “allows for a double interpretation and

Page 27

does not blame or place consequences on North Korea.”(Lee, J., 2010)

Such a possibility of a “double interpretation” 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 government’s failure to make

public any substantial documentation 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 principles 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 adherence to the Korean

Armistice Agreement and encourages the settlement of

outstanding issues on the Korean peninsula by peaceful means

to resume direct dialogue and negotiation through appropriate

channels 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 appeared. These critiques of the South Korean

government’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 languages. 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

Page 28

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 internation-

ally 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

netizens 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 concerned with the

elements of creating and spreading a narrative, with concepts like

“framing,” “agenda setting” and “news diffusion” providing a means to

analyze and understand the processes that are components 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 information 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, 101) A blogger with a

background in reading blueprints 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 demon-

strate the torpedo’s North Korean origins were from the same torpedo.

(Creighton, 2010a)

Page 29

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 understanding 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 widespread public

Page 30

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 received

from private individuals and non-governmental bodies relating 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.japantimes. 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 President of the Security

Council and the Permanent Representative of Mexico, H. E. Mr. Claude Heller on the

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

Kyrgyzstan.

Page 31

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 /the-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 Korea’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 Professional 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

/~hauben/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/paperkorea.pdf.

Page 32

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 /ACn28-2.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 Investigation Stirs Controversy

South Korean Government Threatens to Penalize NGO for Utilizing UN Security

Co uncil P ro ce dure .” Oh my News. Ret rieved 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 emerging 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 sink-

ing.”Hankyoreh. Retrieved from:

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

/e_national/428715.html.

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

Process in Africa.” Social Sciences and Innovation. OECD. Pp. 157-171

Page 33

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/%7B6 5BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/DPRK%20S%202010%20281%20SKorea%20Letter%20

and%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 Council.” S/2010/294.

Retrieved from :

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D

27-4E9C-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.securitycouncil

report.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 coverage.” 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://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php

/fm/article/view/614/535.]

Proposed Declaration of the Rights of

Netizens

We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights

of Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions, ideas,

and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following are some

beginning ideas.

The Declaration of the Rights of Netizens

Page 34

In recognition that the net represents a revolution in human

communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial process,

the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen is 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 knowl-

edge without fear of reprisal.

• Uncensored Expression.

• Access to Broad Distribution.

• Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information.

• Consideration of one’s ideas on their merits.

• No limitation of access to read, to post and to otherwise contribute.

• Equal quality of connection.

• Equal time of connection.

• No Official Spokesperson.

• Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation.

• 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 tech-

nological common-wealth that is being created.

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NET-

IZENS.

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.

[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

Page 35

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

graduation 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 experience which I shared with the

interviewers. The internet 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 considering 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 Philos-

ophy/Economics major as my prospective major. My introduction to the

Page 36

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 economics.

In arriving at Columbia and setting up my computer account, I

connected to the world by using Usenet Newsgroups. My Unix account,

[email protected], 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 opinions 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

Page 37

my writings available to classes and other more public forums. This

support 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 Computer 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 messages, 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 currently 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

Page 38

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 netizens 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 communications technologies will encourage people

to shifting from citizenry to netizenry, away from ‘geograph-

Page 39

ical 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 of the world thanks

to the global connectivity 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 Netizen in the world. Geography and time are no

longer boundaries (...) A new, more democratic world is be-

coming 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 democratic 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 discussion 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, dialogue 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

Page 40

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 citizenship to genuine

‘netizenship’ is the worldwide 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_Sciences_and_Innova

tion/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 governance. 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

Page 41

“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 proposal 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.

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 participatory origin

of the Internet and the original vision for its development.

There has been an ongoing struggle over Internet 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 represented by the G77 + China at the 2015 UN

discussions 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 balanced

Page 42

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 governance

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 accompany

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 multistakeholder governance.

Who are the “multistakeholders” and what is their “stake” in the

decisions they are to help determine?

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 Multistake-

holderism: 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 participation in the broad

community of the governed to one based on ‘stakes …’.” That is,

multistakeholderism 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

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

achievement of human civilization in the 20

century. And that govern-

ment has to play the essential role in Internet governance … creating a

favorable environment boosting Internet growth while protecting the

public interest.”

However, protecting the public interest is all but gone from the

Secretary General’s Roadmap.

Page 43

The Roadmap erases the long controversy around the appropriate-

ness 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 multistakeholders 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 surrounding 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 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 representation (including business

leaders and academia) … (who) would bring outcomes from their lead-

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

The Options Report also calls for the improvement 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 Secretary 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 adminis-

trative 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

Page 44

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 permanently associate the

UN with transnational corporations, some of whose core

essential activities have caused or worsened the social and

environmental crises that the planet faces. This is a form of

corporate capture … . The WEF agreement with the UN …

seriously undermine[s] the mandate of the UN as well as the

independence, impartiality and effectiveness of this multi-

lateral 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 Governance covers, I

believe it is duly important 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

Page 45

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.

Notes

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

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

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

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-comp

eting-models-of-governance/.

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

regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing

digital age” at:

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

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

https://www.global-cooperation.digital/GCD/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/options-for-

the-future-of-global-digital-cooperation.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.

https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/world-economic-forum-and-un-sign-strateg

ic-partnership-framework/.

https://www.ininet.org/netizen-participation-in-internet-governance1-izumi-aizu-deput

.html.

https://www.itu.int/osg/spu/forum/intgov04/contributions/izu mi-contribution.pdf, see

also https://www.un.org/en/un75/com memoration.

Page 46

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 neces-

sarily 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 of the Amateur Computerist are on-line.

All issues can be accessed from the Index at:

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

Page 47