roundtable: Re: Live from the Summit - Report # 5 - Speech by Gore

roundtable: Re: Live from the Summit - Report # 5 - Speech by Gore

Re: Live from the Summit - Report # 5 - Speech by Gore

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Thu, 31 Mar 1994 14:31:07 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 14:31:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Live from the Summit - Report # 5 - Speech by Gore 
To: roundtable@cni.org
In-Reply-To: <9403292036.aa22212@q2.ics.uci.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9403311303.A25575-0100000@access2.digex.net>


On Wed, 30 Mar 1994, Rob Kling wrote:
> 
> I was stunned by the purified and odd symbolic dimensions of Gore's 
> talk.  (Improve education by wiring up every classroom, but support 
> no other changes in pedagogy, resources, skilling, etc.)
> 
> Gore portrayed "democracy" like division of labor when a bunch of
> people voluntarily solved a large prime decomposition problem on the 
> I-net. I interpret his concerns about sending & receiving in light of 
> his example.
> 
> He refuses to speak about the interests of the telecos and cablecos, 
> the really huge players in the NII game. Today's NII priorities were  
> "democracy" and "education" /// in contrast w/economic values that 
> shape the Sept 1993 "Agenda for Action."  
> 
> In contrast  I thought that the diverse other  speakers were fairly 
> frank and identifed  tough political issues of NII costs, access, uses 
> that might touch some people's lives, jobs, skilling, and possible (or 
> lack of) overall value.
> 
> I'm interested in your views of this spectacle.

  Where, indeed, is the Gore speech?  Is there no desire by Mr Gore and 
his staff or the organizers of this affair to disseminate an electronic 
format?  

  There are many aspects of this event that can be criticised.  Perhaps 
of greater importance, however, we have witnessed an important showing 
of willingness to honestly encourage and facilitate some significant 
public participation.  This evident good will (regardless of the struggle 
to get there!), must be commended and supported, and it certainly should 
be extended in every direction possible and with the fullest possible 
collaboration of all the public interest and private stakeholders.  
Additional events of the same character are coming up later in April 
by CPSR, and still later in October by the Center for Art Research, 
which can learn from the event just completed.  Libraries and schools 
around the country can pick up on these events to engage public 
discussion.

  What we heard from virtually all the participants, both panel members
and the public, were many important questions and very few answers.  We
still seem to be drifting along the same old plain of action, market
directed, without a clue how to transform the possibilities.  Everyone 
is in agreement it seems that the existing technology alone, will 
obviously not do what we need to be done, suggesting that the expected 
outcome will most likely be quite unsatisfactory to say the least.   
Now is the time, however, when the structural decisions are being made, 
to alter our course in forms that assure a better outcome.

  The only way to do this, in my view, is to make sure that people 
who are being placed in governing positions relevant to the emerging 
computer-information-communications systems, as well as the systems 
themselves, must be those that will support the public good.  For 
instance, loading the central management task forces and advisory 
committees with persons who are committed to profit-centered 
organizations will take this revolution in exactly the wrong direction.  
For instance, designing the infrastructure to respond primarily to the 
same profity-centered mentality will surely compound the problem.  

  So finally, we are talking about these issues.  Indeed, the U.S. 
Senate in reconfirming the public service role of the NREN with approval 
of S.4, is taking clear action in that direction.  But the rest of this 
revolution (e.g., the telecommunications infrastructure, information 
resources management, public information) is moving along the same old 
unsatisfactory track.  These components of the emerging Information Age 
must be clearly articulated and redesigned to better answer the 
cascading shower of unresolved questions that have been raised.  And we 
had better find appropriate answers, with all due speed.  Moreover, we 
had better assure that the answers we find don't arrive after the train 
of legislative innovation that are now being cooked up have left the 
station.   

  Vigdor Schreibman
  <fins@access.digex.net>

[CNI Home Page]