Conference reflections
What I wanted to do with Bellhead/Nethead was focus attention on a hard question: who should be in charge of the internet? I emerged with the sense that it is time to stop being incrementalist about this question. It's apparent that the FCC's current statute doesn't fit internet services well. On the other hand, it's not clear to me that we should rewrite the act to fit the internet better. And tweaking around the edges of the act just isn't working (and won't work).
We need to, as a country, take a firm stand and reaffirm the message of 47 USC 230: no special-purpose meddling. Of course fraud statutes and antitrust laws and copyright laws will continue to affect online activities — as they should. But if we enact special internet-service “social policies,” every other country will too. And if we act as if the internet is a US thing, every other country will act as if it's their thing. Maybe we want access for the disabled — another country will want censorship or privacy or who knows what. Extraterritorial assertions of jurisdiction will become more and more aggressive. We need to take the lead and restrain ourselves. Otherwise, we face online mutual assured destruction.
It's tempting for telecom regulators all over the world to say “we should be in charge.” That's what the WSIS process is about. We should resist all the incremental steps towards that end — and that means resisting adoption of the agenda set forth in the IP-enabled services rulemaking (the subject of the conference). We need to start from a blank page, and neither import old regulatory structures into the internet nor set up new internet-specific national (or global) regimes.
Andy Pincus gets it. If you weren't there, you missed an extraordinary gem of a speech. I'm very grateful for David Weinberger's stellar blogging — David captured the essence of Andy's talk:
The Internet is global. We had been successful on pushing our “don't regulate the Internet” line, but with the World Summit on Information Services there's a serious push for world regulation of the Net. Countries have inconsistent demands. To defeat pro-regulation forces, we hvae to take a decentralized approach. We have to defeat them all, not patch them up. The ITU will have exactly the opposite approach.
That's right. The ITU sees things from the bellhead, centralized control perspective. The staff at the FCC are smart and kind people, but the small steps set forth in the IP-enabled services proceeding are part of the global trend that ITU is encouraging. Let's think twice, breathe deeply, and remember that we understand the internet. We — the users of the internet — are in charge.
I'm so grateful to so many people re yesterday's conference. I thought I'd stop gushing about this as today wore on, but it's 9:30pm and I still feel grateful. I'm so glad that Michael Herz and the Floersheimer Center wanted to hold the conference at Cardozo. I'm so grateful that the university was willing to install an open wireless connection just for this conference. I'm abashed by Weinberger's blogging. I'm awed by Dan Gillmor's effective, thoughtful approach to online life. I'm amazed that so many terrific people came — and sorry that they all got rained on so hard when they left. Sorry you had to rent a car to get home to DC. I was so happy to see my cousin Benjamin — and completely surprised.
But I think the conference was more than a good time (at least, I hope it was). It was designed to be a call to arms; a virtual trumpet. There's a lot to pay attention to — Induce negotiations, ICANN hearings, summits of various kinds — but the big picture is the real news right now. Big government wants to be in charge of the internet, and we have the opportunity to resist on a national level.