Numb. –> 5
\nTitle –> What is the ENA?
\nFrom –> RICK
\nLeft –> 28-DEC-85 11:33 PM<\/p>\n
\t\t\t THE ENA VISION:
\n\t\t\t What IS ENA?
\n\t\t\tEdited by Stefanie Kott<\/p>\n
ENA is an organization that grew out of the First Intersystem Symposium
\nconducted by Lisa Carlson, during which Lisa took (“pmrted”) comments from on
\nnetwork to the other until, finally, people from many places began to feel they
\nknew each other. In April 1985, 50 of those people representing MANY networks
\ncame from all over the country to meet in NYC.\tAnd ENA was born. Since then,
\nalthough the organization officially “meets” on Unison, a growing number of
\nsystems get reports of ENA activities through a growing number of “porters,” who
\ndownload items considered interesting and then upload them to the system they
\ncall “home.”<\/p>\n
As is expected in a diverse group of people, some of whom have never met,
\nthere are differing notions of an organization and what it should be and do.<\/p>\n
When, in a discussion on Unison about what ENA is (in “ENA Organization
\nTalk”), Victor Carson suggested that it is a SIG (Special Interest Group), a
\nnumber of explosive responsive followed.<\/p>\n
For some if not all of the people who met in NYC in April, ENA is a rather
\nserious venture to promote the new medium of computer conferencing (cc) and t
\ndeal with the problems inherent in it now. To many it is important to deal with
\nsubstantive issues–such as transmission problems, protocols, software,
\nintersystem links (either software or human)–at the same time that we
\naccomplish the first online intersystem network, intended to serve as an example
\nof the potential of this medium to facilitate global communications o
\nassociations, movements and business groups.<\/p>\n
For people who were not in NYC in April–people who became curious either
\nthrough Mike Greenly’s “Face To Face” conference on Parti on The Source, or
\nthrough some reference to or conference about ENA that they found on one of the
\nmany online networks represented by ENA members–there were varying ideas about
\nwhat ENA is. Some newcomers put their “own personal vision onto it,” as Paul
\nBunnell said, but even the “Original 50” had different ideas.<\/p>\n
Paul explained what he feels “is a dichotomy of background here,” which he
\nthinks “puts a strain on direction, purpose, interaction, organization, etc.
\nThere are the business-oriented, independent telecommunications
\ncorporate\/government consultant types — and there are ‘the rest of us.’ This
\nis not necessarily good or bad.”<\/p>\n
In his own personal vision of ENA, it never occurred to him “that the ENA’s
\nintended focus was primarily to serve the business and ‘professional’ networker
\ncommunity.” To this Stefanie later responded that she doesn’t “thin we formed
\njust to serve the business and professional communities, tho I do think that is
\nimportant.” She said, “I think we formed to help any online organization
\naccomplish its goals through networking. That could be a peace movement, a
\nresearch team worldwide, a business thinktank, a select society, or a social
\nclub.”<\/p>\n
Susanna Opper referred to a comment by Victor Carson’s that ENA members are
\nthe ‘power users’ of CC,” and she agreed. “BUT,” she said (comparing what ENA
\nis doing to a SIG), “the ways in which we use the technology differ radically
\nIt’s like trying to get a teenager and a telemarketer to agree on an association
\nfor telephone users.”<\/p>\n
Sherwin Levinson then pointed out that SIG is a fine acronym for what we ar
\ndoing, but that the name has received bad press (sometimes deserved). He
\nsuggested that in one fell swoop ENA could be serious, respected AND a SIG
\n(which is an interesting challenge for those inclined to bring SIG the
\ncredibility of a “lobby”).<\/p>\n
Susanna then shared her hopes for the medium with us: “I think we’re on to
\nsomething revolutionary here. Not CC or EN [Electronic Networking] or whatever
\nby itself, but the whole concept of communicating electronically. W take it for
\ngranted, but remember that most of the rest of the world can’t even imagine what
\nis commonplace to us.<\/p>\n
“My call is for a new type of organization that will allow vendors and users
\nto work together to represent this new technology to the world,” Susann said.<\/p>\n
Stefanie supported Susanna’s notion of “allowing vendors and users together to
\nwork to represent this new technology to the world.” She told a “parable” that
\nled her to think that if ENA is going to get business support and fundin so that
\nwe can do the things we hope to do, we’ll have to appear reasonably serious.
\nThe parable is this: “The issue of making the [ENA] newsletter an attractive
\nventure that would merit business support has come up [on EIES]. W were told
\nthat in the minds of businessmen with venture capital, many of our goals appear
\nto be in the “hobbyist” realm.”<\/p>\n
Stefanie then pointed out that there might be may far-flung benefits for those
\nof us who take ENA seriously when she said, “In the long run, once conferencing
\nis recognized by business as a viable future medium of communications, I _think_
\ntransmission and protocol issues ought to be even more seriously addressed . .
\n. and telelaw [legal issues that impinge on cc] issues ought to gain wider
\nattention. I also think people who are currently involved in today’s issues and
\ntechnology should find new job paths down the line, if interested. And once we
\nhave massive usage of the medium, I think online and transmission costs ought to
\ngo down.”<\/p>\n
She also said that “as big business gets involved, an organization that
\nincludes experts and people in touch with the central issues within the mediu
\n(ENA) should prove attractive to businesspeople as an information and resourc
\ngroup.”<\/p>\n
Paul pointed out that ENA “should exist to serve the cause of *NETWORKING*,
\nnot networking for a particular category of people.” Stefanie added that “no
\nmatter what side of the fence you’re on [no matter what you use cc for], this
\nventure (ENA) could be challenging, fun and\/or future-important to everyone, and
\nthis medium could be fruitful for just about anyone who wants to communicate
\nabout anything.”<\/p>\n
Paul said, “Who would have thought, back when the the telegraph was invented,
\nthat one day the world would by ‘wired’ and a voice-terminal installed in almost
\nevery home in the industrialized world? Most of that wor has been done for us.
\nI think we’re trying to push the system up to the threshhold of the next quantum
\nleap.” (Well said, Paul!)<\/p>\n
About the challenges that face us, Susanna said, “There _are_ some differen
\ninterests here. I actually expected these differences to be very apparent at
\nthe New York Symposium. But they weren’t–probably because we were aligned o
\nthe larger interest we held in common–that of the development and evolution of
\nelectronic networking.<\/p>\n
“Personally, I don’t think these differences are trivial. My vision for EN
\nwould be a place in which all could co-exist. But I think it will take some
\nskill in building an organization in which all can<\/p>\n
so, but it will require (I think) an alignment on a vision–we will need to
\nfind a destination which we are all interested in reaching. Can we do that?
\nDon’t know, but I think it’s worth a try.”<\/p>\n
Norman Kurland then reminded us that we have a lot of work to do, so we
\nstopped philosophizing and started moving on.<\/p>\n
For those of you reading about ENA for the first time, be advised: There is
\nno one today more qualified to be in ENA than anyone else. We are all relativ
\nnovices; who can be an expert pioneer?\tIf you believe in the future of this
\nmedium and want to work with an organization that can make a difference, please
\njoin ENA and help us try.<\/p>\n
Call The Works BBS – 1600+ Textfiles! – 300\/1200 – Always Open<\/p>\n
