This piece on nettime offers, like Brooks's comments suggest about all of Lovink's book, the beginnings of what should be significant debates about the Internet domain. That Lovink does not reflect upon the issues does not mean we cannot. What initially caught my interest was the continued use of real meetings to decide online policy. Understandably, this became an issue for nettime, as it rightly should. When perhaps a quarter of members are making decisions about a community, there is a problem when democracy is a goal. However, when considered in terms of a reflection of broader Internet culture, the nettimers who met at conventions were being transparent about a practice that occurs for all online systems, that of the real life controller. At least nettime acknowledged their practice, instead of attempting to shield it as occurs in numerous places.

Another point of discussion here is Lovink's calling upon the idea of the Maussian idea of the potlatch. Should members of an online community be required to give as they receive. This issue is prevalent in cyberspace, as in the issue of peer2peer networking and other venues. It merits more attention.

One more thought came to mind as I read this. If I am reading the numbers accurately, nettime had as much as maybe 1000 users. Lovink claims membership was greatest at the end, so present numbers may be higher today. With that being considered, what should we make of the democratic possibilities of the forum? Is there a critical mass of people required for actual changes to happen and, if so, how will those numbers affect the mailing list? Is Nettime just one of many fragmented groups all spouting off on the same issue, but not really accomplishing anything but infighting and self-aggrandizement?