*sigh*
I'll give it one more try ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Thank you for the suggestion that I pay to become a member of
> a group which has 'interests in providing Internet education.'
That's not what I meant.
I suggested that you contact the individuals within ISOC who've
expressed an interest in education and find out what they are doing.
I also suggested that if what they are doing is in line with your
goals, you should join them (as individuals). If you feel comfortable
joining ISOC, you should, but you shouldn't if you don't want to pay
the fee, etc. There might be projects they are working on (as
individuals, outside of the ISOC umbrella) that you could collaborate
on. For example, I don't remember the woman's name offhand, but one
of them has a couple of web sites dedicated to providing Internet
access to the poor. I also found a very interesting (imho) website
featuring a group of teenagers discussing their online experiences.
They were part of INET '98, but I don't know exactly in what
capacity. (See www.an.org/inet98). Laura Breeden, who some of you
might remember from CSnet, interacted regularly with the teenagers,
and had quite a few remarks I found interesting. LB is also involved
with a community network project in East Palo Alto (California), which
is a poor neighborhood.
I also pointed you towards the CPSR article by Andy Oram, which I
thought was very well-written. There is a cyber-rights mailing list
that CPSR hosts, which you also might find useful as a place to find
people to aid you in your educational endeavors.
> Am I to take it that Internet education is not something that can be
> addressed in open fora, but must come to the masses from on high?
> That IFWP, for example, does not have such an interest?
That's not what I meant. See above.
> (By the way, what *is the reason for this group?)
[From www.ifwp.org]
What is the International Forum for the White Paper?
The IFWP is an ad hoc coalition of professional, trade and
educational associations representing a diversity of Internet
stakeholder groups, including ISPs, content developers, trademark
holders, networkers, intergovernmental groups, policy experts,
end-users and others. This coalition has come together to sponsor a
framework of coordinated international meetings, to be held around
the world, at which stakeholders will discuss the transition to
private sector management of the technical administration of
Internet names and numbers as outlined in the policy "White Paper"
recently released by the United States Government. These
international meetings are open to all Internet stakeholders, who
are encouraged to support this on-going process.
Whether this is what this list is doing right now is open to debate.
I think a lot of people are frustrated, understandably so, because
they feel ICANN has not lived up to the requirements of the White
Paper.
> Is it so odd to suggest that education in the very broadest sense is
> -- in the absence of any other objective -- not a bad interest for
> a group to have?
Not at all. I don't mind discussing education, and in fact have
enjoyed reading some of the posts from people here who advocate
education. I can only speak for myself, however.
> Now I understand! Something can always be done: go somewhere
> else. (There are, of course, no technical people here!)
I think you should just take my comments at face value, because that's
the spirit in which they're offered. You seem to be reading more into
them than is there. I'm just providing you with additional options.
--gregbo
