OVERVIEW OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENT

The telephone and mail are familiar, time tested communication methods. They evolved slowly, initially during a time when few people interacted with government, and technological change was measured in decades, if not quarter centuries. The processes for receiving and dealing with mail and telephone calls are well established and effective. While these methods are considered the basic, if not sufficient, modes of business interaction, elected officials and public administrators are beginning to enter the realm of electronic communication. Most public offices have fax capacity and more and more agencies and localities are present on the World Wide Web. The Internet and its related services and facilities, including e mail, have pushed communications media in both the private and public sector around a significant corner on the information highway.

E mail is a new, relatively unfamiliar way for citizens to address their elected representatives. Government officials and their staffs are not yet acclimated to logging on to a terminal to read the mail. Yet trends show that more and more people are using this method of communication. Parents can keep in touch with out-of-town college students. Traveling workers can tell their children at home a bedtime story. Colleagues in multi-state and multi-national locations are able to chat about the latest developments in their field. Large and diverse segments of the population are continually proving that they are adopting this technology readily and comfortably. Government can and should do this too.

Publicizing accessibility via current technology creates the image of a forward-thinking, service-minded organization among users and non-users alike. Showing the e mail address on letterhead, business cards and publications, and including it in public service announcements, are further examples of aggressive government use of this medium. Reporting results of e mail analysis, whether alone or in concert with other comment data, is another indication of an agency's commitment to this technology.

Technologically advanced citizens are setting a high standard of service for their governments. Truly responsive and democratic governments at every level must meet this standard by building the structure necessary to receive electronic communication. They must actively solicit public comment via e mail.

In this paper, "government use of e mail to solicit public comment" means regular, active offering of e mail as a contact option in connection with notice of a public comment period or a request for remarks. It goes beyond passive mention of the address on a home page or a generic invitation for "feedback." Such use is connected to a specific topic, about which an agency wants citizen opinion or advice. There is an implication that public comment will influence action about a proposed change within the next weeks or months. For example, a state agency might ask for input on a revision to a business regulation. A local government might suggest e mail use for comments during a budget review period.

E mail is a major communication advance of the 90s. Governments which take it up and promote it will find themselves "ahead of the curve" in paving the way for greater citizen involvement. This paper discusses some of the characteristics of the Internet and e mail, and how those features might shape the way governments view e mail. Barriers to government use of e mail are analyzed, and remedies are suggested.

E MAIL: OPPORTUNITY NOW

The Technology is Here.....

Internal e mail systems have been available to businesses for some time. Generally speaking, the technology is mature and private sector managers have developed policies and protocols about its use. Governments too are developing internal and external on-line systems. These systems can readily be used to gather public comment.

The simplest type of any solicitation is a request for free-form information: read this draft regulation and give us your comments; what is your reaction to our proposed budget? This format requires no "development", and is convenient for the respondent, but involves the most work to analyze. At the other end of the spectrum is a closed response survey. For those willing to be pioneers, the software for structured surveys already exists. For example, with one product⁽¹⁾ you can create a survey form for e mail users to complete which will automatically aggregate responses. Thus, an agency can simply look at reports which would indicate such things as how many people had taken the survey, and which response options had been selected most frequently. Not only is e mail per se available, but so is supportive technology to expand and enhance its use.

... and People Are Using It ...

More people are using the Internet and the World Wide Web every year, and more research is being done to describe them. The Graphics, Visualization and Usability Center (GVU), College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, has conducted surveys of World-Wide Web users twice yearly since January 1994. The latest research was conducted in April, 1997 and results have been recently released.⁽²⁾ Of the 30 million WWW users in the US who responded to the survey, 66% were male, 34% female. The average age of respondents was 36; this age in increasing by about a year with each survey. Of the respondents registered to vote, 50% did so in the their most recent legislative election. Party affiliation for respondents is about even: 40% are Democrats, 34% are Republicans.

Based on voting behavior, these statistics show the typical WWW user to be somewhat more politically active than the average citizen. It would seem wise for government to facilitate communication with this group by encouraging them to use e mail, a familiar tool for these experienced on-line users. Many government offices publicize their e mail addresses, or issue an invitation for e mail on their home pages. However, they have yet to develop this medium as a regular, consistent channel to solicit and receive public comment. Much more can be done.

... To Great Advantage

E mail is inexpensive and easy for the sender. The length of the message does not generally affect the price. As with paper mail (which is sometimes called "snail mail"), writers can compose a careful, well thought-out message at their own convenience. E mail might be more available than using the Postal Service, since it does not require paper, stamps or a trip to the mail box. For the homebound or those in remote locations, it provides equal and immediate access. Handicapped persons for whom writing is difficult often are able to use a key board, making e mail an option for this group to participate in public policy debate.

Recipient organizations can easily view, process and (if necessary) print e mail. A central "mail room" for electronic messages may mirror the processes of the traditional one, with the same sort and forward tasks. Alternatively, organizations could route e mail directly to the person who will use the information. The fact that e mail is currently used only by a small segment of the population should be viewed as an advantage. This should reassure new users that they won't likely be overwhelmed by incoming messages.

By actively encouraging public participation via e mail, government agencies and localities can identify themselves both as concerned about access to government and eager to use new technologies. If public administrations start from a position of cooperation and collaboration with individuals and groups wanting e mail contact, they have a greater chance of shaping such systems, which could lead to as-yet-unidentified advantages.

Assuming that a county or state wanted to vigorously encourage use of e mail among its constituents, what traditions and experiences are there to guide it?

GOVERNMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

The public has a curiously schizophrenic attitude about government spending and use of technology. While on the one hand people want fast, efficient service, they also keep their eye on the bottom line and urge governmental fiscal restraint. This attitude can result in some curious contradictions. For example, technology has brought the cost of full color printing in line with that of black and white. However, many public agencies choose traditional black on white documents because color "looks too expensive." This sometimes results in publications that look amateurish or cheap, and which may not attract the readership that was hoped for. Since government typically does not expect to use technology until the market has driven down costs significantly, there is little tradition, expertise or expectation that the public sector will take up innovations early on.

The profit incentive encourages business to use advancing technology: offer a product first, or improve customer service relative to your competition, and stay ahead. The risks are great, but the rewards are greater. For government, the circumstances are different. First, there is no profit motive. Outside of the federal military arena, competition is not a factor. Furthermore, few government agencies have the funds or the entrepreneurial tradition required for frequent capital asset upgrades. In terms of system development, there is no "sales" network whereby a county or state could market its development to recover costs. Governmental units which do acquire new technology early on risk public criticism for spending on "status" or prestige items. For these reasons, among others, governments often lag behind business with regard to the adaptive use of technology. As communication media mature with greater and greater speed, this may serve to disadvantage the public.

BECOMING A FAST FOLLOWER

Government would seem to be caught between two equally unacceptable positions. On the one hand, it is pressed to save money, to not be flashy or trendy with regard to business tools. On the other hand, it receives criticism for not "keeping up" by utilizing technology and services that people enjoy and come to expect from the private sector.

Jerry Mechling, Director of the Program on Strategic Computing and Telecommunications in the Public Sector at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, offers a resolution to this dilemma. With regard to technology, Mechling suggests the public sector should adopt the role of "fast follower." ⁽³⁾ This is characterized by identifying leading edge practices and adopting them quickly. By legitimizing the practice of timely adoption of technology, government can help the public understand the benefits of prudent investment in new but proven innovations. This can lead to improved service early on and may prevent costly upgrades or massive conversions down the road. Mechling believes that by encouraging government to be a fast follower public service could be enhanced.

Government use of e mail for public comment could be a perfect example of fast followership. Although many governmental units can now be found on the Internet and can be contacted at their Web sites, few have actively developed e mail as a method for soliciting public comment.

POINT - COUNTERPOINT

Those considering greater use of e mail must have confidence that a decision to do so is well-founded, cost-effective and warranted. The following discussion considers some of the major concerns people raise about actively encouraging use of e mail, and offers arguments or techniques to meet those concerns.

Tradition - Traditions are comfortable, and they yield predictable results which have been proven over time. It is easy to forget, however, that at one time traditional methods were themselves an innovation. "It is little better than a toy. It amazes ignorant people for a while, but it is inferior to the well established (system)."⁽⁴⁾ This statement was made about the telephone around 1880. At that time, people could not imagine how basic and pervasive telephones would become in modern business and personal life. Such historical examples can help us remain open to contemporary innovations which have yet to find a secure place in business operations.

Right now, the traditional means used by governments to gather public comment are public hearings, mail and telephone calls. After considering criteria such as costs, accessibility, processing, suitability and time frames, governments select one or more of these approaches to satisfy their information needs. These methods are successful and should continue to be used. However, since e mail has the same advantages as these, plus additional ones, it should be viewed as an equally viable option.

There are many agencies at the state level which rely heavily on public hearings. In New York, these include transportation, public utilities, environmental conservation and health. Program agencies like these could become fast followers by publicizing an e mail address, especially during periods of citizen comment. Early use of e mail provides the advantage of "growing with the technology", providing for a comfortable transition to a new tradition.

Management Concerns - The Center for Technology in Government, Albany, New York, reports that of management, technology and policy barriers to establishing Web-based public services, management barriers are the most severe.⁽⁵⁾ Specifically, they found

• lack of appreciation for the complexity of the task
• lack of clear organizational roles and responsibilities
• lack of clear program goals
• need to coordinate and communicate among an unusually large number of units

These factors were found in connection with an organization's initial project to establish a Web site and become interactive. It is disheartening that managers are still plagued by these tired generic problems. However, as frequently as they arise they seem to be overcome, as the presence of governmental units on the Internet proves.

A city or county considering more active use of e mail within their existing system would have already faced these problems when coming on-line for the first time. However, they could be encountered again while expanding e mail capacity. Controlling for them will allow the project to be judged on its merits, freeing it from the tainted results of poorly conceived development and implementation.

Like personal computers two decades ago, e mail and the Internet do pose some new and legitimate managerial concerns. As in the past, not all managers understand new technology or grasp all of its implications, and therefore some are uncomfortable recommending it. However, the principle of "fast followership" urges them to confront their reticence and take reasonable action. Organizations already on the Internet have accomplished the first, hardest step. There are enough examples of successful e mail access to argue that it, too, can be done. Proper project management, with its attendant well-specified goals, adequate resources, training and controls, should prepare any pioneering agency to make e mail solicitation a regular part of its communication menu.

Cost - Cost is a key factor in any service decision and should be analyzed fully from several perspectives, including a comparison between cost and benefits. How does the cost of a certain communication method balance with its advantages, both to the public and the recipient organization. Does it yield greater, better or more representative responses? Do these improved responses justify the additional cost? Costs regarding new technology should be assessed both in terms of immediate expenses and with regard to the financial implications of NOT acting now.

Initially, encouraging the use of e mail for public comment might not save government agencies money, since it will be in addition to, rather than instead of, other methods. If e mail solicitation is successful, then there might be an increase in the overall amount of incoming communication to be dealt with. Depending on how e mail is processed, it might cost less, the same or more than paper mail or telephone calls. Only by experimenting with a combination of communication media can an organization determine the relative cost of different techniques.

As with most innovations, a pilot project, which limits initial investment and yields data for cost projections, is advisable. Depending on an agency's current staffing, hardware and software capacity, it may be wise to enter the world of solicited e mail for public comment with a small, specific or limited issue. Since procedures will probably have to be devised as the project unfolds, their associated costs (and savings) might be difficult to predict. Seeking advice and cost data from a comparable existing program would also provide information and comfort to e mail pioneers. Once a valid test of use has been conducted, an agency will have a better basis upon which to decide how and when to continue.

Authentication and Volume - The issue of author authentication is a legitimate concern for public managers interested in inviting voter comment about government programs and policies. Organizations should be reasonably confident that each e mail message they receive is a unique communication from a distinct sender. This is not difficult to achieve.

Using traditional methods, crusading advocacy organizations have on occasion distributed form letters to be mailed and have recruited non-members to make a large number of telephone calls to express an opinion. These "flood" techniques are usually easily recognized by the recipient agency. Identifying artificial floods of e mail requires a bit more attention. A single author can generate multiple e mail messages, each possibly looking like an original communication from a unique individual. Large responses, if taken at face value, could be misinterpreted.

Once an agency establishes some historical data about the number of correspondents who choose to use e mail, then unusually high message volumes will be noticeable. These can be investigated to determine, as much as possible, how authentic they are. It should be remembered that public comment overall, let alone e mail correspondence by itself, is only one factor used by government agencies to formulate policy or make regulations. Thus, the consequences of receiving counterfeit e mail seem to be small. Until more government offices use e mail more frequently as a medium for gathering citizen comments, problems with authentication are speculative and ignore the possibility of improved technology to detect flood techniques.

Flood techniques raise questions about volume as well as authentication. Massive public outcry can inundate mail rooms and cause telephone circuits to be jammed, but such occurrences are rare. People seldom send more than one letter on a given topic, and only the most irate and determined caller will not be put off by several hours of a busy signal. However, large numbers of legitimate e mail senders could exceed the capacity of an organization asking for comment. This fear is a reason organizations offer for not expanding their use of e mail.

Concerns about inadequate capacity should not prevent an agency from beginning to solicit public comment via e mail. If the project is carefully planned, and the initial topics are wisely chosen, then the risk of problems should be small. As time goes on there will be more and more existing examples to learn from. Nay sayers will always be able to identify reasons why "our situation is unique" and use this as an argument for suppressing implementation. There will NEVER be exact parallels between any two governmental units. An agency might be better advised to proceed in its own cautious way, starting slowly and quietly, when risks are small.

Any problems with volume would more likely be felt in processing the responses, rather than in the actual receipt mechanism. This should be viewed as a blessing; although it creates processing difficulties, it does indicate public interest and involvement in the issue at hand. Agencies which frequently have comment periods about controversial issues have learned how to avoid unmanageably large response volume. Comment periods are scheduled consecutively in different geographic areas; invitations for comment are issued over several days. This tends to spread responses over a longer period, thus reducing the chance of "crashing" any systems, and can be employed with e mail as well as with any other channel.

Author Identification - Author identification is an issue related to, but less significant than, authentication. While there are instances of the use of pseudonyms or anonymous mail or telephone calls, by and large this is not an issue with regard to these types of messages. There is a perception that with e mail author identification would be a problem. To address this point we must first consider the significance of author identification and then compare the level of certainty various communication methods offer.

Elected officials and public administrators are concerned about author identification because their first commitment is to their constituents. The opinion of an out-of-district person might shed new light, but it does not carry the weight of that from a local resident. In some instances, it is useful to associate responses with location for other reasons. For example, it would be important to know if proximity to a waste facility is related to support for it, and at what distance people felt unaffected.

Those who now call or write to their government by and large give a name and address if asked; this information is traditionally accepted as valid. Writers can be advised that unidentified communication will be ignored. There is no reason to believe that e mail users would differ from the general public in their compliance or truthfulness in responding. However, the current conventions for e mail are informal, and people's e mail addresses do not necessarily identify them. Therefore, those soliciting e mail comments would be wise to prompt correspondents about how to "sign" their messages.

For example, an office can provide a fixed format for public comment which has fields for name and address. Alternatively, writers might be asked to indicate their town, school district or zip code. This would locate them for response analysis while still allowing them to maintain anonymity. As with any communication, agencies can apply their existing policies to questionable missives.

Questions of Access - Right now among the general population access to the Internet is relatively limited, but this is changing by fits and starts.⁽⁶⁾ For example, in New York State in September, 1996, there was a "barn raising" and volunteers worked with the NYNEX telephone company to install Internet cable connections in all schools in the state. This effort was duplicated around the country the next month. Many public libraries are coming on-line, although they are not necessarily going to provide public access. Some businesses have been connected to the Internet for quite some time. All of this access is in addition to what private individuals may have in their own homes. Even so, one source reports that only about 15% of the population can easily send Internet e mail⁽⁷⁾.

For some, access is achievable but not currently desired. Many people can afford the equipment and the services needed to connect them to the information highway, but they choose not to participate. However, for the poor, there is less choice. As governments move more and more to electronic processing, access becomes a more salient point. William Gibson has described the Internet as "...nothing less than this nation's last and best hope of providing something like a level socio-economic playing field for a true majority of its citizens." ⁽⁸⁾ While this may be an overstatement, it does reflect e mail's unknown potential.

At the present time, access issues about e mail for input center more on increasing convenience for the public, which may encourage greater participation. Ultimately, all motivated citizens can now make their views known, most commonly through print mail. Encouraging the use of e mail does not disenfranchise anyone and may spur involvement by those who find e mail a comfortable and more convenient method. It may be some time before this medium can be the channel of choice for government gathering of citizens' comments. However, it is available to a growing segment of the population, and it could increase access for some who don't traditionally have high participation in government. Therefore it seems only prudent that agencies include e mail as a regular method of gathering citizen comment.

Lack of Champions - Based on research conducted for this paper, currently there seem to be few champions for the idea of government developing e mail for citizen input. Executive public administrators are harried by shrinking budgets and unsolicited complaints. Likewise, information officers are busy contending with the year 2000 and aging hardware. Since the current methods are universally available and seem to be sufficient, there might be little incentive to change, especially if that change involves expending resources, no matter how small. To all of these decisions makers, developing e mail for popular comment might seem a luxury government cannot afford. However, these circumstances may be creating a perfect opportunity for an enterprising program manager to become a "fast follower."

It is easier to advocate new technology in government if it has been successfully implemented in the private sector, and for many generic applications the systems are transferrable. For example, existing internal e mail systems in business probably don't differ much from those needed by a large public office. However, use of e mail for public comment is a different case. There is currently not a useful parallel in the private sector, nor is there likely to be one in the near future. Government will have to pave the way in this endeavor, for once being a "fast follower" of leaders within its own sector. Luckily, there are footsteps to follow, even if they are few and far between.

A FEW BRAVE SOULS

There are many examples of civic electronic networks (whose purpose is to promote public service among citizen groups) and of government presence on networks which allow e mail. Less frequent are instances of deliberate government development of e mail as a channel for public comment.⁽⁹⁾ Often networks are started with certain specific features and goals. These then evolve into additional or altered functions as users become more sophisticated and mold the system to meet their needs. The activities mentioned below are examples of organizations which have opened the door to e mail between government and the people.

New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) (www.dps.state.ny.us) - This state agency has used e mail, in conjunction with the telephone and print mail, to gather public comment on matters relating to public utilities, especially rate changes. Any public notice, brochure or press release mentions the comment page at their Internet address; the address appears on the agency letterhead. On the Internet, users can read about recent PSC decisions and get additional information which is not so immediately available to callers or those who write. The PSC receives comments via e mail, print mail and through a toll free telephone line, where messages are limited to 2 minutes. While the highest volume of messages comes via telephone, e mail, with no length limit, allows for a more informative comment.

E mail messages are downloaded daily, categorized, analyzed and prepared as a report. They are printed and forwarded for entry into an ongoing database to be merged with phone and print mail. The PSC finds this multifaceted approach a successful way of meeting their goal for public involvement, and it is more cost effective than public hearings.

Office of the Public Advocate, New York City (mgreen@pubadvocate.nyc.gov) - The Office of the New York City Public Advocate was the first New York City agency to go on-line, doing so in December, 1994. They currently receive between 50 and 100 e mail messages per week, with topics ranging from requests for publications to complaints about smelly fish markets to questions about pension problems. About half of the e mail is answered as it is processed. The remaining inquiries are assigned to staff based on areas of expertise. Correspondents usually receive an answer within a week. Right now lack of equipment for all staff necessitates some processing of paper print-outs of e mail.

The Public Advocate's Office publishes its e mail address widely and sees increased use of this medium directly following Town Hall meetings, which it holds frequently in many locations around New York City. While currently much of the e mail is related to a question or problem, constituents do use it to offer suggestions or express opinions. The Office is exploring ways to increase its e mail service. For example, it would like to be able to maintain records of people's concerns and forward new information to them as it becomes available. It is also seeking collaboration with a local college to develop the means to survey the public and to receive responses via e mail.

Public Electronic Network, City of Santa Monica (kkurtz@pen.ci.santa-monica.ca.us) - The Public Electronic Network (PEN) of Santa Monica, California, opened in 1989, and was the first city-sponsored interactive public access system in the country. PEN's services include e mail to city offices and other city residents, on-line discussions of public issues, access to forms and transactions, and a read-only bulletin board. The conference area offers discussion of topics such as city, state and national issues, education, an international kids message exchange, science, leisure and subjects popular among youths.

From the start PEN garnered strong participation, especially in the conference area, where people expressed opinions and exchanged ideas. One well-known success developed from complaints and discussion about homeless people using showers and changing facilities at public beaches. The e mail ideas and suggestions about how to deal with the problem were the basis for a satisfactory resolution. While PEN has encountered some bumps on the information superhighway, the people of Santa Monica continue to support it through active use and tax dollars.

City of San Carlos, California (www.ct.san-carlos.ca.us) - San Carlos is a city of about 28,000 which uses its network to receive complaints and service requests, and to disseminate information about city offices and activities. Assistant City Manager Brian Moura reports that e mail users seem to be people who do not have a tradition of contacting government. In addition to bringing constituents into the process, there are other advantages to this system. Through it, the city learns of people's concerns more quickly than with other methods, which allows the city to be more responsive. People can express their ideas directly to the mayor, the city manager, the police chief and other officials, who can reply directly.

While currently San Carlos does not actively solicit public comment via e mail, it is watching closely how sister cities like Santa Clara and Santa Monica fare with such activities. In addition, San Carlos hopes to expand access to its users, allowing them to interact directly with certain government systems to obtain information directly.

Blacksburg Electronic Village (www.bev.net/) - This civic network was started in 1993 as a collaborative effort among Virginia Institute of Technology, Bell Atlantic and the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia. It allows for citizens to interact with local government offices to do things such as offer suggestions, make services requests and obtain applications electronically. The Blacksburg Electronic Village (BEV) home page provides information about local, county, state and federal representatives and services. Links with local groups, such as the League of Women Voters and a Senior Citizen organization, allow users to stay in touch with community social and civic activities. BEV encourages participation in the democratic process; recently the text of a proposed zoning change was available with a request for comments. BEV has been the subject of so much research that there is an electronic site just for that purpose: duke.bev.net/project/research.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper examines some of the issues related to government use of e mail to solicit public comment. While there are real concerns to be dealt with regarding how to implement this technology, there seem to be no insurmountable problems. Indeed, brief research uncovered a few successful attempts and many projects verging on developing this facility. Undoubtedly, there are many more yet to be documented. While there are many good reasons for a government agency or locality to be skeptical and slow about using e mail for any purpose, there does not seem to be a valid argument against the idea in general. To paraphrase a common chant about another controversial issue, "E mail: it's here. You may as well get used to it."

How and when a city creates its own communication system, or a state agency establishes itself on the Internet will depend on many different and changing factors. Some may even decide that this move is not right for them; that their constituents can be better served with other communication methods. The critical point is that a thorough decision-making process be applied to the question. E mail is not a fad or an esoteric technique favored by a unique few. While supporters cannot predict its future any more accurately than skeptics can, all agree that e mail HAS a future. This is a rare opportunity for democratic government to actively participate in its own enhancement.

Current pressures on the public treasury call for downsizing, re-invention and greater accountability from elected officials and government agencies. E mail seems to be a tool useful for all these goals, and if adopted, will likely have additional, unexpected advantages. Governmental units at all levels should seriously consider this new, powerful means to involve and serve the public.

REFERENCES AND RESOURCES: The following materials were useful in preparing this paper.

- William Gates, The Road Ahead. Viking Penguin, New York City, 1995

- Naderson, Biksen, Law and Mitchell, Universal Access to E Mail: Feasibility and Societal Implications. RAND, California, 1995; rand.org/publications.

- Joshua Eddings, How the Internet Works. Ziff-Davis Press, Emeryville, California, 1994.

END NOTES

1. The Altavista Company, for one, has software to facilitate e mail polling. It is called Forum, and is available for a 30 day free trial from Altavista at altavista.software.digital.com.

2. A complete description of GVU's survey methodology and results is available on-line at cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/.

3. Jerry Mechling, "When It's Good to Steal," Governing, volume 9, number 11, August, 1996, p. 66.

4. Herbert Casson, History of the Telephone, A. C. McClurg, Chicago, 1911, p. 247.

5. Pardo, Connelly and Dawes, Delivering on the Web: The NYS Internet Services Testbed, Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, Albany, NY, 1996; ctg.albany.edu

6. For a discussion of the challenge associated with assessing Internet user demographics, see Leslie Miller, "On Line's Elusive Face," USA Today, October 9, 1996, p.1.

7. As reported in Opinion Digest, April, 1997, by National Family Opinion, Toledo, Ohio.

8. William Gibson, as quoted by Blake Harris, "Cyberspace 2000,", Government Technology, October, 1995.

9. One source of a list of networks is the Directory of Public Access Networks, available from the Morino Institute of Virginia⁽¹⁰⁾

10. Morino Institute, 1801 Robert Fulton Drive, Suite 550, Reston, Virginia; arc-online.org. -