dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) (01/16/89)
ICC stands for the International Computer Club which was recently (Dec. 1988) founded in Moscow, USSR. Recently a poor translation of the "charter" of this new club was posted (10127@well.UUCP) to comp.misc by John Draper (crunch@well.UUCP). It was called: "Agreement on the Establishment of the International Computer Club" and is about 7 pages long. Both organizations and individuals may join this club. This club purports to be an "international non-government organization" but the charter needs to be revised in order to really make it such. The only ones who can vote in the club are the organizations (founders) who join prior to 1991. Most of the signatories of the ICC agreement (charter or actually a partial charter) are Soviet organizations although there is some representation from the U.S., Britain, and France. Thus it is likely that unless the charter is modified, Soviet members will have a majority of votes and this is not what a truly international organization should be like. Another serious flaw in this agreement is that it can only be altered by unanimous decision of "all Contracting Parties and organizations ...". This is absurd. It would seems that a 2/3 majority of those voting should be enough for charter revision. What should be done is to widely circulate a proposed charter for comment on the net (and also on Soviet networks etc.) and elsewhere and then try to base the final document on what the general consensus of world opinion seems to be. I believe that one of its purposes should be promoting the creation, archiving and distribution of free software including machine translation of source codes from one natural language to another (e.g. Russian to English). While over a whole page of purposes are listed, this was not one of them. When will the charter itself (mistranslated as "statute") be available? The charter is supposed to be an "integral part of the present Agreement". Does this mean that a subset of the Agreement constitutes the charter? Also needed in the charter is a reference to the code of procedure to be used at meetings: Robert's Rules of Order, Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, etc., suitably modified for "electronic meetings" via the networks. Does such a procedural code exist? Needless to say, the ICC should become a newsgroup on the net: comp.icc. If ISO 8859-5 ([International Standards Organization] Eight-bit single-byte graphic character sets; Latin/Cyrillic Alphabet) is to be used for this group, the net needs to be upgraded to handle 8 bit (binary) transmissions. We will then need terminals which can handle this Latin/Cyrillic font so that we can read postings in both Russian, English, and other languages. The talk.politics.soviet group might also utilize this font.
simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) (01/24/89)
From: balboa.eng.uci.edu!dlawyer 16-JAN-1989 01:02 >ICC stands for the International Computer Club which was recently >(Dec. 1988) founded in Moscow, USSR. >...... >I believe that one of its purposes should be promoting the creation, >archiving and distribution of free software including machine >translation of source codes from one natural language to another (e.g. >Russian to English). >...... >Needless to say, the ICC should become a newsgroup on the net: >comp.icc. It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer contacts with the Soviet Union? Leo Simon
pss@unh.UUCP (Paul S. Sawyer) (01/26/89)
In article <8901241514.AA04102@decwrl.dec.com>, simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: > > It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet > citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by > law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer > contacts with the Soviet Union? And will discouraging those contacts GET THEM THOSE PRINTERS? By encouraging the contacts, SOME information MIGHT spill over to their "ordinary citizens" eventually, but WITHOUT such contacts it would seem that it could not. -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (01/27/89)
In article <8901241514.AA04102@decwrl.dec.com> simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: >It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet >citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by >law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer >contacts with the Soviet Union? Are you aware that computer disks have some advantages over printed matter? They store more information per pound, they can be easily concealed, and they can be easily transported. People in samizdat used to have to copy manuscripts laboriously on typewriters. Computers can certainly be misused by totalitarian regimes. In the end, however, they may signal the death knell of totalitarianism, because they make it virtually impossible to control the flow of information. I strongly support computer contacts with the Soviet Union. I don't believe that it will appreciably increase security risks. (The KGB seems to have done a pretty good job of penetrating our security already.) I don't fear exposure of Americans to Soviet propaganda. Our society accepts (or ought to accept) the view that public exposure is the best way of sorting out ideas. If anything, the Soviets have more to fear from this contact than we do. After all, our side has the more compelling arguments. Right? -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) (01/29/89)
From: bcsaic!rwojcik 26-JAN-1989 18:05 <In article <8901241514.AA04102@decwrl.dec.com> simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: >>It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet >>citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by >>law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer >>contacts with the Soviet Union? >Are you aware that computer disks have some advantages over printed matter? >They store more information per pound, they can be easily concealed, and they >can be easily transported. People in samizdat used to have to copy >manuscripts laboriously on typewriters. Computers can certainly be misused by >totalitarian regimes. In the end, however, they may signal the death knell of >totalitarianism, because they make it virtually impossible to control the flow >of information. Rick, I am afraid you are missing the point. There too few computers in the country. An IBM-PC compatible machine cost between 25K to 50K Rubles, 10 to 20 times average yearly salary. You can guess who can own them. If one got a disk, s/he still needs a computer to read it. The only way to distribute information there has been and is in print. There are no modems, etc. You got the idea. One shoud keep in mind that computer contacts with the USSR are not with ordinary people like you and me. These contacts are only with the government approved organizations at best or with the governmental agencies at worst. I am not advocating "computer silence", just suggesting to excercise caution. Leo Simon
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (02/01/89)
In article <8901290523.AA10179@decwrl.dec.com> simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: >Rick, I am afraid you are missing the point. There too few computers >in the country. An IBM-PC compatible machine cost between 25K to 50K >Rubles, 10 to 20 times average yearly salary. You can guess who can own >them. If one got a disk, s/he still needs a computer to read it. The >only way to distribute information there has been and is in print. >There are no modems, etc. You got the idea. I am not missing the point. The price of computers will go down. Soviet schools are being supplied with computers and printers. The Soviets have no choice but to open their society to the evils of computer technology. (Sometimes I think that it is the inevitability of computers that forced the CPSU into accepting glasnost.) I seem to recall that the Soviets had a little run-in with VCRs once. Who won that battle--the state or the people? Your assumption that everything will stay the way it is now is simply wrong. Soviet society is changing, and the Party can't stop it. We should encourage the changes, not act like a bunch of silly babushkas. >One shoud keep in mind that computer contacts with the USSR are not with >ordinary people like you and me. These contacts are only with the >government approved organizations at best or with the governmental >agencies at worst. I think that you are correct on this point. I don't believe that the ICC is anything but a government front. So we don't get contact with the 'ordinary' people. How is this going to harm us? Our side gathers intelligence too, you know. What can the Soviets learn that they can't through other means? On the other hand, we in the US have far fewer windows into their world. Let's bring them in and talk to them about ways of expanding glasnost and international friendship. It should be fun. Maybe, eventually, we'll even get to meet those 'ordinary' people that you want to contact. >I am not advocating "computer silence", just suggesting to excercise >caution. I think that you are less naive than most Americans about whom we are dealing with. But I still think that the risks are greater for the Soviets. What is it, specifically, that you fear will happen? -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/01/89)
In article <9778@bcsaic.UUCP., rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: . In article <8901241514.AA04102@decwrl.dec.com. simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: . .It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet . .citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by . .law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer . .contacts with the Soviet Union? . . Are you aware that computer disks have some advantages over printed matter? . They store more information per pound, they can be easily concealed, and they . can be easily transported. People in samizdat used to have to copy And the contents can be encrypted, allowing "subversive" materials to be circulated, and the key passed on mouth-to-mouth, making it more difficult to determine if the contents are pornographic or something REALLY subversive, like free market economics. . manuscripts laboriously on typewriters. Computers can certainly be misused by . totalitarian regimes. In the end, however, they may signal the death knell of . totalitarianism, because they make it virtually impossible to control the flow . of information. . . I strongly support computer contacts with the Soviet Union. I don't believe . that it will appreciably increase security risks. (The KGB seems to have done . a pretty good job of penetrating our security already.) I don't fear exposure . of Americans to Soviet propaganda. Our society accepts (or ought to accept) Not when we have American news media already. . the view that public exposure is the best way of sorting out ideas. If . anything, the Soviets have more to fear from this contact than we do. After . all, our side has the more compelling arguments. Right? . . Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com Personal computing and rock-and-roll are going to be the most important factors in the death of Marxism. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!