Volume 1, Number 1 ---CONTENTS--- August 1, 1985

1 - Masthead and Index

2 - Associating with Networkers
by Lisa Kimball

3 - The Fall Meeting of ENA, Nov. 7-11, 1985
by Susanna Opper

4 - The ENA Vision: What Is ENA?
by Stefanie Kott

5 - Interview: Mike Greenly, Interactive Online Journalist Extaordinaire
by Stefanie Kott

6 - Interview: Stewart Brand on the WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic 'Link)
by George Por

7 - Online Jargon or Hyperlanguage?
edited by Stefanie Kott

8 - Organizational Effectiveness: Electronic Grapevine
by George Por

9 - Have Micro, Get Teleducation: New School Goes Online
by George Por

10 - ENA Activities Update
by Lisa Kimball

ASSOCIATING WITH NETWORKERS
(grin)
Why We Need ENA
by Lisa Kimball

Why on earth would networkers need *another* network? Good question!

My own answer emerged from my experience using multiple conferencing systems over a period of time. I noticed that people on many different networks were expressing the same feelings of frustration about the gap between what they perceived as the potential of this medium and its current status. We all had similar questions about how to encourage more widespread use of computer conferencing, how to make it more accessible to more people by making it easier to use and lowering the cost to individuals, how to make its use more effective by improving our skills at facilitating different kinds of applications, and how to extend the state-of-the-art technically.

Ironically, it seemed to me that we were missing the opportunity to use the very medium which intrigued us to answer some of these questions. People on each network were questing in isolation from the experience and knowledge found on other networks. We weren't *networking*!

I think an organization like ENA can contribute to the medium at many different levels.

For networking systems: Pooling examples of successful applications of computer conferencing would provide us with many more examples to use in marketing and public relations efforts and increase the general visibility of networks with the media and the public.

For networking professionals: Sharing learnings about how to moderate conferences more effectively, how to introduce new users to the medium, and how to conduct professional activities online would improve our individual skills, give us a peer group for support, and increase our credibility as professionals in this new career field.

For organizational network users: Supporting research and development related to networking technology and practice would give us a source of ideas and information about using the medium to improve our organizations as information and communication become a larger part of every enterprise.

For individual network users: Becoming a collective voice would help us preserve the aspects of networking which are important to us like privacy and free speech and enable us to be heard on the many issues which will arise as this new technology develops within our society. Sharing our experience can also help us become better network consumers by providing comparative information about alternative systems and giving us an organization through which we can interact with network representatives and vendors of related products and services.

This may sound like an awfully big task. But, because we are networkers, I think we have some special advantages in tackling it. We can use our widely distributed system of networks and networkers to collect ideas about needs and strategies from a much larger and more diverse group than the average organization. And we can also spread the work (and the fun -grin) out more widely than a group without the communication infrastructure we have at our fingertips. We have a lot of exploration and learning ahead of us as we
experiment with how to use networking in this new way - but I think it will be fun to break this new ground and we can contribute much to our collective understanding of the medium as we organize ourselves.

All we need is *you*! (grin)

UPDATE ON THE FALL MEETING
by Susanna Opper

The Electronic Networking Association's first face-to-face, in-
person, real-time meeting is coming up. Plan to be there.

||The Dates: November 7-10, 1985
(beginning Thursday evening with a gathering)||

||The Place: George Washington University, Washington DC||

Plans are being made online on Unison and most of the rest of the details are still in process, but I'll give you an idea of some of the suggestions that seem to be popular.

LEARNING AS A THEME

After all, we'll be at a university; we're still in the learning mode about electonic networking. And we're learning how to establish an association without walls--a beyond-time-and-space organization. And we are also thinking about having some courses about computer conferencing itself for people who are interested but have never tried it before.

ONLINE ONSITE

There are some facilities at the university for terminals and we're looking at providing online capabilities for three purposes:

(1) teaching new users (see above)
(2) vendor demonstrations
(3) phoning home (Yes, Mike Greenley, there will be an easy way
for you to report out this time . . . and for everyone to
send updates to home systems.)

NETWORKING AND SESSIONS

There seems to be a general feeling that we want to allow ample time for networking and getting to know one another. We want some sessions that will bring us up to date. We seem to be heading more for case studies and informal panel discussions than reading papers or giving long addresses.

What would you like to see happen at the Fall Meeting? Make your suggestions by entering them as notes in "Fall 85 Meeting" on Unison or in "Netweaver Talk".

THE ENA VISION:
What IS ENA?
Edited by Stefanie Kott

ENA is an organization that grew out of the First Intersystem Symposium conducted by Lisa Kimball, during which Lisa took ("ported") comments from one network to the other until, finally, people from many places began to feel they knew each other. In April 1985, 50 of those people representing MANY networks came from all over the country to meet in NYC. And ENA was born. Since then, although the organization officially "meets" on Unison, a growing number of systems get reports of ENA activities through a growing number of "porters," who download items considered interesting and then upload them to the system they call "home."

As is expected in a diverse group of people, some of whom have never met, there are differing notions of an organization and what it should be and do.

When, in a discussion on Unison about what ENA is (in "ENA Organization Talk"), Victor Carson suggested that it is a SIG (Special Interest Group), a number of explosive responsive followed.

For some if not all of the people who met in NYC in April, ENA is a rather serious venture to promote the new medium of computer conferencing (cc) and to deal with the problems inherent in it now. To many it is important to deal with substantive issues--such as transmission problems, protocols, software, intersystem links (either software or human)--at the same time that we accomplish the first online intersystem network, intended to serve as an example of the potential of this medium to facilitate global communications of associations, movements and business groups.

For people who were not in NYC in April--people who became curious either through Mike Greenly's "Face To Face" conference on Parti on The Source, or through some reference to or conference about ENA that they found on one of the many online networks represented by ENA members--there were varying ideas about what ENA is. Some newcomers put their "own personal vision onto it," as Paul Bunnell said, but even the "Original 50" had different ideas.

Paul explained what he feels "is a dichotomy of background here," which he thinks "puts a strain on direction, purpose, interaction, organization, etc. There are the business-oriented, independent telecommunications corporate/government consultant types --- and there are 'the rest of us.' This is not necessarily good or bad."

In his own personal vision of ENA, it never occurred to him "that the ENA's intended focus was primarily to serve the business and 'professional' networker community." To this Stefanie later responded that she doesn't "think we formed just to serve the business and professional communities, tho I do think that is important." She said, "I think we formed to help any online organization accomplish its goals through networking. That could be a peace movement, a research team worldwide, a business thinktank, a select society, or a
social club."

Susanna Opper referred to a comment by Victor Carson's that ENA members are the 'power users' of CC," and she agreed. "BUT," she said (comparing what ENA is doing to a SIG), "the ways in which we use the technology differ radically. It's like trying to get a teenager and a telemarketer to agree on an association for telephone users."

Sherwin Levinson then pointed out that SIG is a fine acronym for what we are doing, but that the name has received bad press (sometimes deserved). He suggested that in one fell swoop ENA could be serious, respected AND a SIG (which is an interesting challenge for those inclined to bring SIG the credibility of a "lobby").

Susanna then shared her hopes for the medium with us: "I think we're on to something revolutionary here. Not CC or EN [Electronic Networking] or whatever by itself, but the whole concept of communicating electronically. We take it for granted, but remember that most of the rest of the world can't even imagine what is commonplace to us.

"My call is for a new type of organization that will allow vendors and users to work together to represent this new technology to the world," Susanna said.

Stefanie supported Susanna's notion of "allowing vendors and users together to work to represent this new technology to the world." She told a "parable" that led her to think that if ENA is going to get business support and funding so that we can do the things we hope to do, we'll have to appear reasonably serious. The parable is this:

"The issue of making the [ENA] newsletter an attractive venture that
would merit business support has come up [on EIES]. We were told that
in the minds of businessmen with venture capital, many of our goals
appear to be in the "hobbyist" realm."

Stefanie then pointed out that there might be may far-flung benefits for those of us who take ENA seriously when she said, "In the long run, once conferencing is recognized by business as a viable future medium of communications, I _think_ transmission and protocol issues ought to be even more seriously addressed . . . and telelaw [legal issues that impinge on cc] issues ought to gain wider attention. I also think people who are currently involved in today's issues and technology should find new job paths down the line, if interested. And once we have massive usage of the medium, I think online and transmission costs ought to go down."

She also said that "as big business gets involved, an organization that includes experts and people in touch with the central issues within the medium (ENA) should prove attractive to businesspeople as an information and resource group."

Paul pointed out that ENA "should exist to serve the cause of *NETWORKING*, not networking for a particular category of people." Stefanie added that "no matter what side of the fence you're on [no matter what you use cc for], this venture (ENA) could be challenging, fun and/or future-important to everyone, and this medium could be fruitful for just about anyone who wants to communicate about anything."

Paul said, "Who would have thought, back when the the telegraph was invented, that one day the world would by 'wired' and a voice- terminal installed in almost every home in the industrialized world? Most of that work has been done for us. I think we're trying to push the system up to the threshhold of the next quantum leap." (Well said, Paul!)

About the challenges that face us, Susanna said, "There _are_ some different interests here. I actually expected these differences to be very apparent at the New York Symposium. But they weren't-- probably because we were aligned on the larger interest we held in common--that of the development and evolution of electronic networking.

"Personally, I don't think these differences are trivial. My vision for ENA would be a place in which all could co-exist. But I think it will take some skill in building an organization in which all can be comforatble without constantly rehashing the differences issues. Is it possible? I think so, but it will require (I think) an alignment on a vision--we will need to find a destination which we are all interested in reaching. Can we do that? Don't know, but I think it's worth a try."

Norman Kurland then reminded us that we have a lot of work to do, so we stopped philosophizing and started moving on.

For those of you reading about ENA for the first time, be advised:
There is no one today more qualified to be in ENA than anyone else.
We are all relative novices; who can be an expert pioneer? If you
believe in the future of this medium and want to work with an
organization that can make a difference, please join ENA and help us
try.

And please let us know what you think about "the vision" in "Netweaver Talk".

INTERVIEW WITH MIKE GREENLY
Interactive Online Journalist Extraordinaire
by Stefanie Kott

Mike Greenly is a special friend to many ENA members. For many, it's Mike's work that prompted us to stick with Parti on the Source when it was a strange and foreign world. His fans in ever-growing numbers follow him wherever he goes, into whatever subject(s), just so we can see what he's doing now, like junkies.

Then the members of the First Intersystem Symposium, pioneered by Lisa Kimball, decided to get together and look into each other's eyeballs (and we learned they are NOT green on black!) Mike followed US and faithfully reported his reactions back to his readers on Parti on the Source in "Face To Face". Since then, some of his readers have joined us in ENA.

These are just some of the reasons why Mike Greenly is a special friend to many ENA members.

When you read the following interview, you will see other reasons.

************

Stefanie Kott: Mike, a lot of people know you as the "first interactive online journalist," but some do not realize that you're a marketing specialist with a pretty heavy business background. Would you explain the background you come from and why you left it to pioneer online journalism?

Mike Greenly: Well I was and am a "marketing junkie" -- I truly LOVE working on product strategy, market positioning, package design, advertising, PR, all of that stuff that can make or break a product or service. I loved gaining those skills the hard way at Scholastic, at Lever Brothers, and at Avon. And I love it when I do that kind of work for clients today.

I didn't leave Avon to do journalism -- that ultimate result caught *me* by surprise!

It was Toffler's book, THE THIRD WAVE, that made me return from a vacation and say to Avon Products, "HEY! We've got to plug into technology and fast!"

At that time, I was their VP of Product Marketing. I guess I was so convinced, I was wild-eyed. So they said, fine, calm down! They bought me an Apple II computer, a printer, modem, software -- and a Source Subscription! "That'll keep you busy in your spare time," they said. (My job was developing and marketing 300 new products a year.)

The software I saw showed me there was a huge opportunity for a true consumer orientation in technology. But it was the Source -- and the Participate teleconferencing system in particular -- that made me realize there was a *magic* out there I just had to be part of.

So I quit. (gulp) By the time of my first "Comdex," I had already become so hooked on teleconferencing that I traveled everywhere with a Model 100. When I sent back my first Comdex reports, so many people were so enthusiastic I decided I had to keep exploring the boundaries of what I realized was a new kind of journalism. New because it's interactive, and so time and space independent.

It's exciting to be the first of anything worthwhile, but it was really reader reaction that emotionally fueled me. And still does.

*****

SK: But, Mike -- clearly you're not supporting yourself through online journalism (lots of people know how to pick up a newspaper, not how to log on to a network). Doesn't Mike Greenly Marketing provide your livelihood, and how does it feed back and forth to the technology (does it?)

MG: It *is* my marketing that pays for the journalism. I'm always on the lookout for new clients I can enjoy working with, and for products I can respect enough to put soul into helping make it successful. But the communications technology DOES feed into the marketing.

I use teleconferencing with many of my clients, for example. I'm on the road so much that it's a lot easier to get in touch with me electronically than by phone or letter. When I was reporting on the Democratic Convention in San Francisco, I answered an east-coast client's request for a promotional writeup before heading out to a Congressman's press conference. We didn't skip a beat.

My work as a journalist helps me stay informed about the industry. I believe that helps my marketing views be more savvy. I have only one "rule" -- NEVER write anything that compromises either my journalistic integrity or my clients. I will ALWAYS tell readers if I have any kind of ax to grind, like a client closely related to a business I'm covering. It can actually be good publicity for a client; but more important to me personally is the importance of deserving and keeping trust from my readers.

*****

SK: Many Netweaver readers know you formed a new organization called Transcoastal Electronic News Service (TENS) with Sherwin Levinson and Diane Worthington. You three were the first electronic journalists to be credentialed by the White House for the 1984 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

Tell us what that experience meant to you and what impact you think it had on computer conferencing.

MG: For me, personally, all that hard work with Sherwin and Diane (and having readers share it with us) is one of the most meaningful experiences I'll ever had.

Every time I showed a political leader what teleconferencing can do, I saw a light bulb of recognition go on (or was that a CMOS display chip!?) I *know* we helped the Congressmen, Senators, and lobbyists we spoke with begin to think about how conferencing could organize a constituency or help people solve a problem irrespective of time and geography.

I also think we began to help some of the journalists who followed our work (including Erik Larson who wrote about us in the WALL STREET JOURNAL) appreciate this new medium -- its very existence, and its enormous potential.

That's how the process of growth is fed in the first place: by awareness of what's even possible. The fact that no one had ever used the medium before in that way was reason enough to spend money and time on the conventions. Every reader who participated in those conferences shares a particular "first" in history with us.

*** STAY TUNED, FANS! PART 2 WILL APPEAR IN THE NEXT NEWTWEAVER ***

THE WELL: WHOLE EARTH LECTRONIC LINK
An Interview with Stewart Brand
by George Por

The first multi-user, public access computer communications utility in the San Franscisco Bay Area is alive and WELL (Whole Earth Lectronic Link). As you walk in the "corridors" of this huge electronic conference facility with many "floors" and many conference "rooms", you'll see signs on the "doors" saying: Music, Desktop Publishing, Hackers/Homebrew, Photography, Macintosh, Unix, Education, Politics, Video, Databasics, Writers, etc... just to mention a few of the mushrooming new online groups.

Its founder, Stewart Brand, was described by Paul Levinson, Director of Connected Ed and faculty member of Western Behavioral Sciences Institute (WBSI), in "Space Guests", a branch of Paul's historic electure on "Space" in Parti on The Source, as follows:

"Steward Brand first became known in the 1960s with his request for a photograph of the Whole Earth. He later developed this planetary consciousness into the hugely successful Whole Earth Catalog. More recently he has published the Whole Earth Software Catalog, and advocates computer conferencing as a means of improving our awareness of life and our place in it.

"Stewart is a biologist in the best sense of the word -- he is concerned with life as living system, and much prefers the whole picture to any sort of fragmenting dissections."

The following interview was conducted online.

*********

George Por: First question. Stewart, what do you want to tell our readers about the space in which you receive my questions?

Stewart Brand: I think of where we're meeting sometimes as Hyperspace, sometimes intelligences dislodged from strict time and space, minds brushing minds. You press keys on your computer, and suddenly you're sucked out of your body into engrossing discourse with intimate strangers. But where is it you're sucked into? Hyperspace. A fiction, a conventional noplace.

*****

GP: Whom can we consider the WELL's parents?

SB: The WELL owes its origins to our co-venturer, NETI (Network Technologies International, of Ann Arbor, Michigan). They developed the software, Picospan, over several years of evolution, and they provided the hardware The WELL runs on.

*****

GP: What do you think, how does your personal vision affect the WELL?

SB: The vision I work with that may be affecting The WELL is a biological one. Evolution occurs by increments and in intense co-adaptation with other creatures, and that's how we're developing The WELL. Rather than being a Utopian Plan or finished product, it is a process of unceasing self-design.

*****

GP: Stewart, among the readers of this interview there will be people who will receive it at their computer terminals all over the world, including members of the Electronic Networking Association (ENA).

I noticed in The WELL excerpts of the "ENA Journal" discussion which had originally appeared on the EIES network (Electronic Information Exchange System), and somebody ported it over here. What do you think of interconnecting networks through human "gateways," frequently called "porters?"

SB: I think that "porters" serve a double function. Besides bearing information they also pick at it; they're editors. As telecom continues to grow from a torrent to a deluge to a flood of information, the pickers and choosers of select stuff for select audiences will have a growing role. Eventually an essential role.

*****

GP: Thank you Stewart, see you again online . . .

For further information, contact: Matthew McClure at the WELL, 27 Gate Five
Road, Sausalito, CA 94965 (415- 332-4335).

ONLINE JARGON OR HYPERLANGUAGE?
Edited by Stefanie Kott, Researched by Roger Bunting

As so frequently happens during the emergence of new technologies and disciplines, there has been a debate within ENA about the use of terms. This discussion has taken place on "ENA Forum", a conference branch created to provide a place for addressing such general issues.

The debate began when Stefanie Kott took exception to the use of language such as attunement, fusion teams and purposing, words that emerge (along with thers) from organization transformation (OT) principles.

One OT principle is _fusion,_ an approach that ENA has universally accepted for governance, since ENA has decided not to have elected leaders but to allow spontaneous and multiple leadership positions to evolve and emerge.

George Por offered the following:

"Fusion is what's happening in a fusion team--according to Linda Ackerman and Diana K. Whitney--when the team is built upon the following core values and beliefs:

"1) The pursuit of excellence enables people to fulfill their highest potential.

"2) Synergy brings talented people together to create an outcome greater than the product of any subset of the group and, at the same time, contributes to individual growth.

"3) Productivity stems from caring for people's physical, mental, emotional and spiritual needs within the work setting.

"4) Organizing to support a creative process enables an optimal balance of flexibility and control.

"5) Shared leadership enhances the experience of personal responsibility and group effectiveness and optimizes group resources.

"6) Personal responsibility enables each memeber of the project to take care of his or her own needs while supporting the needs of the overall group.

"7) Creating an environment where focused work is perceived as fun is a great facilitator and accelerator of learning, synthesis, and creativity.'"

Notwithstanding the fact that a number of people in ENA practice OT principles, Stefanie felt that OT language was not universally desirable to segments of the computer-conferencing world that ENA is attempting to represent, such as business. Stefanie believes "the principles of fusion and attunement and purposing are excellent." However, she feels that "perhaps we [ENA] could allow it to be the overriding direction of the group as stated so eloquently and clearly by George Por [who quoted Linda Ackerman and Diana K. Whitney]-- without allowing the terms to be the overriding lingo of ENA."

Lisa Kimball agreed that we shouldn't get "jargony." She said, "The trick will be how to create and use new forms - and the language to go with them without doing that."

Realizing that ENA could appeal to diverse communications needs, Lisa went on to say that, "It's hard not to act like an old fashioned committee if that's what you call yourself." But she mused that it is "interesting how much of an impact language can have on perceptions...in both directions."

She said she thinks "people should use whatever language makes them feel comfortable. One of the neat things about networking is that we can house a lot of diversity in one organization. I expect we will develop a vast range of words to define what we are doing which will be used by different members of the group in different settings."

Roger Bunting's response to the language issue follows:

"I submit that we are in the process of birthing a whole new context for organization design and an accompanying medium of organizational communication. In the process, we're developing new concepts, new approaches, new solutions, new ways of thinking and, certainly, new ways of communicating ideas. I don't have any trouble at all accepting the notion that we'll necessarily want to use some new language to describe and relate these new findings. I don't consider that to be jargon...I see it as the language of a new profession. I don't see it to be in conflict with previously held mind-sets, or a barrier to the development of new ones. I see it as part of the evolution of a hyperlanguage that will assist, not hinder, the emergence of this medium as the medium of choice in years to come. I see us as having the obligation to define and/or explain new terms for the benefit of those who wish it. But I don't feel we should constrain ourselves to using the language of the past as we forge new directions into the future."

About Roger's mentione of hyperlanguage, Stefanie cautioned that "there are LOTS of new terms we must learn, many of them technological--online, upload, facilitate, etc.--as we encounter this medium and are part of its continued unfolding." She expressed concern that OT language might add to the complexity of current computer terminology and be uncomfortable to certain segments of the cc population.

To that Roger supported the use of OT language as ENA's language with the following quote"

"I see an inextricable linkage between our collective assimilation of this new technology and the attendant transformation of organizations...to new structures (more circular and diffuse), to new leadership styles (distributed and less control-oriented), and to new processes (fusion teams, creative collaboration, empowerment). I see lots of NON-technical impacts accompanying the unrush of this technology, and I think we should accept the emergence of new ideas and relevant concepts (like Bill Henry's "Rolling Present" [an interesting expression that we will take up in another Netweaver] as a very natural and inevitable process of evolution.

"I certainly agree that we have a concurrent obligation to avoid the creation of jargon for its own sake. To the extent that emerging concepts can be more clearly articulated and *differentiated* by the use of fresh terms, which promote the "letting go" of no longer useful terms _and_ the mind sets they bring, I believe we should use the richness of our language to capture the essence of the new.

"I also see us (here within the ENA) as a very diverse group with a multi-disciplinary background. We have managed to collect quite an impressive array of talents, knowledges, and skills representing many different fields of endeavor. Each of those fields has its esoteric language, which has emerged over time to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information by its practitioners. One of the major challenges to inter-disciplinary groups (like us) is to get past the initial intermingling of seemingly obtuse language differences and develop a common understanding of each others' perspectives *and* the terms which illuminate them. We all need to be sensitive to our own use of *our* esoterica, and share definitions and explanations as necessary so others can begin to understand our frames of reference and our perspectives. Whatever synergy we attain will be the result of integration of those currently differentiated views."

And there ends the debate to date. Since this is an interactive newsletter, why don't you let us know what you think?

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: THE GRAPEVINE
by George Por

The other day I asked a friend of mine, a telecom executive with a large Bay Area corporation, "What's the single most menacing danger for your organization?"

In a speck of time he answered, "Becoming a dinosaur. You know why the dinosaur disappeared? It took too long a time to bring information from the members to the head."

As we started discussing which of the available communication technologies, or which combination of them, is the best antidote to dinosaurism, I asked him what his key criteria are for deciding "go/no go" when introducing a new communication technology.

"Richness, flexibility and seductiveness," he said.

Then he explained what he meant:

"Imagine my typical line manager who has to learn a different set
of instructions for each separate system---whenever he wants to call
for an online consultation with his counterparts in other divisions;
to access a departmental database; or to look into the next month's
schedule of the conference room---he's just not going to pick up on
them.

"By contrast, if he gets a handy tool on his desk, which provides
him with a rich choice of uses, a variety of communication modes, and
does it with the seductive power of icons, voice insert,
straightforward menus and color graphics integrated in the same
software architecture, that system will be the winner."

"Have you come across anything like that?"

I thought of this conversation while I was playing with the latest version of Grapevine, a system that offers electronic mail, chat (real-time conferencing), forums (asynchronous conferencing), bulletin boards, directories, organizational and personal calendars and schedules with automatic tickler files, database capabilities and the ability to create custom newsletters that can be searched and
retrieved by category, author and date.

Grapevine Communications, Inc. has recently signed a contract to install Grapevine for Britton Lee Inc., a publisher of database software for mainframes and minicomputers. Britton Lee will use its Grapevine system to offer service and support to its customers around the world.

For further information, contact: Anthony J. Bay, President, Grapevine Communications Inc., at 501 Seaport Court, Suite 107, Redwood City, CA 94063 (415-367-9980).

HAVE MICRO,
GET TELEDUCATION
by George Por

Connected Education, Inc., a new not-for-profit corporation devoted to the offering of courses online for academic credit, professional training, and enjoyment of knowledge, announces a joint program of courses with The New School for Social Research (New York) for the Fall of 1985.

Initially, three courses -- Teleworld by Andrew Feenberg, Artificial Intelligence and Real Life by Paul Levinson, and Propaganda by Alfred Lee-- will be conducted on the Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES).

Students who register for these courses will be eligible for graduate and/or undergraduate credit from the New School for Social Research (New York).

Director Paul Levinson recently completed an "electure" on "Space: Humanizing the Universe" on Parti on the Source, and is with the online faculty of the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute. He is a tenured Associate Professor of Communications at Fairleigh Dickinson University, on the Graduate Media Studies Faculty at the New School for Social Research, and faculty member of Western Behavioral Sciences Institute (WBSI).

The Connect Ed staff is dedicated to teaching people how to accomplish things through computer conferencing. True to the cooperative spirit of the growing online community, they promise to do anything in their power to support any person and organization engaged in electronic networking. They're going as far in that commitment as sharing information about other online educational opportunities that traditional "industrial age mentality" would consider as competitors.

Connected Education online addresses: EIES (Connected Education,1204) and (Lev,1303); Unison (Paul Levinson); MCI-Mail (Connected Education); Delphi (Paul Levinson); Parti on The Source (Paul Levinson); and Parti on New York Institute of Technology (Lev).

ENA ACTIVITIES UPDATE
July 20, 1985
by Lisa Kimball

CONFERENCE:
Our major activity between now and November will be planning our conference (to be held at George Washington U. in D.C. November 7- 10). We are currently planning to aim for a conference of about 200 people - most will be folks already familiar with the medium although we are also planning some activities for a small number of new users (probably most of these will be from the University itself).

Plans for the content are progressing. Current thinking is to focus on extending the state of our knowledge ("Learning" theme) in 3 tracks which reflect ENA's mission:

- ENRICH individuals - access issues, special applications for
users with special needs, public policy issues related to free
speech, cc consumer issues, broadening the user base

- ENHANCE organizations - applications in business and non-profit
organizations, cc economics, establishing the value/cost/benefit
of cc

- BUILD global communities - international access issues, what's
going on in cc around the world, how can we bring the power of
cc to bear on world issues (like hunger)

*******

TELELAW:
The major issue in telecommunications law seems to be a bill submitted by Senator Paul Trible (R-VA) in response to the news that some bulletin boards were being used to exchange information among people sexually exploiting children. Implications for free online speech and privacy are large.

****

INTERNATIONAL:
We are making some exciting progress in contacting fellow cc users in Japan and Europe. Plans are underway to develop an international access directory with information about how to get on Telenet abroad, about organizations and systems in other countries, modem compatibility, etc...

******

JOURNAL:
We are exploring possibilities of publishing a print journal for cc research and other articles of interest. An editorial board has been developed and they are currently calling for one-page abstracts of potential articles from authors interested in publishing in this forum.

*****

OTHER MEETINGS:
A meeting of some of the ENA folks in San Francisco was held recently. We found that face-to-face networking was both fun and informative. It is also a great way to introduce newcomers to the medium and answer their questions in a friendly atmosphere. ENAers in other cities are encouraged get together for this kind of sharing whenever possible.