I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!
When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).
Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.
In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.
In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.
I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.
In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.
It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.
Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.
Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.
That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.
Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.
The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.
Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.
The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.
Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.
]]>
I’ve just posted on the Catalytic Communities blog a little bit about OWD from the CatComm perspective.
As part of the Chicago NetSquared/NetTuesday meetup group I’ve posted several interviews of participants as a small contribution to this global collaboration. Here they are:
And a story told by Melvin at the September 9 Net2Chi meetup:
You can find OWD video interviews of Chicagoans from prior years if you dig back a little.
Happy One Web Day Chicago! Happy One Web Day everyone!
]]>
Here’s more info:
Today’s music landscape is filled with both excitement and foreboding. With so many new technologies and ways to promote and distribute music, how do performers, composers, songwriters and independent labels know how to participate, who to trust, and what is most effective?
Future of Music Coalition — a national non-profit that seeks a bright future for musicians and fans — is organizing a musician education workshop at the Old Town School of Folk Music on September 22, from noon to 7PM. The “What’s the Future for Musicians?” seminar will provide musicians, songwriters, independent label owners and music fans with practical advice about a range of internet-based promotion and distribution options, how to navigate the health insurance landscape, the importance of open internet structures and how copyright law and business models affect musician compensation. Breakout sessions will give attendees a chance to interact with the experts on the latest developments in music, technology and policy. The forum is a great opportunity to network with other musicians while getting informed on topical issues.
Admission is $25, though a limited number of musician scholarships are also available.
Event page:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/chicago08/index.cfmRegistration:
https://www.futureofmusic.org/events/chicago08/regform.cfmMusician Scholarships:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/chicago08/scholarshipinfo.cfm
What else is happening for One Web Day?
As part of Chicago’s NetTuesdays Meetups we’ve been recording interviews with people from the Chicago NPO & Tech Sector – hope to have some of those up by Monday!
]]>Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that’s netted the firm millions of dollars, a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.
Isn’t it time to eliminate the Add-Grace-Period (AGP), domain name front-running, tasting and the RGP? We certainly don’t need an AGP . Think about it in micro-economic terms… the cost of staff (or even personal) time to handle and follow up on a “refund” for a mistaken domain registration is a wash or potentially greater than the cost of the domain registration. Beyond that, there are tremendous benefits to Internet users at large in the potential reduction of domain name tasting.
]]>Slashdot points to an important story for those following Internet/ICANN policy issues.
Domain Tasting occurs through a nice set of loopholes in Internet domain name governance. Some feel that the market will eventually sort this out, and others think that this much abused policy is a nice perk of the industry.
Most tasting occurs in what is known as the ‘add grace period” (agp) … a window of 5 days in which a domain can be returned to the pool of unregistered domains, but tasting can also occur after a domain expires.
Tasting refers to determining whether the domain has value… value has some subjective dimensions here, but two rather reductionist perspectives narrow in on whether 1) a domain is likely to attract plenty of traffic (so that even when parked it can generate profit) or 2) there are parties who will pay a premium price for control of that domain. This boils down to “what financial value can be extracted from control or resale of the domain.
A domain name being held by a Taster may be returned to the pool of unregistered names before the grace period ends at no cost… (excepting the case of .org domains, PIR.org having instituted a nominal restocking fee to dis-incent this behavior.
Tasting connects to a number of behaviors that may be detrimental to the name system and against the interest of Internet users in general.
Tasting identifies domains which can be snapped up and taken from the unregistered pool and which can be made profitable to the owner, but largely useless to everyone else (i.e. more noise and unavailable to meaningful development). If it looks like a domain is likely to generate revenue that would cover the cost of buying it, it makes perfect sense for them to hold on to it.
We have domain holders interested only in what they can monetize out of the domain … we have registrars engaged in holding domains in the add-grace and redemptive-grace period… we have perpetual holding of domains in successive registration and dropping of the same domain within add-grace provision…
Value of a domain should be more than this narrow sense of financial return.
The value of domains to the informational commons (the Internet) should also be considered.
The add-grace period may have made sense in the past. The Internet community would probably be better without it, but following the PIR lead, restocking fees may offer a partial solution. It’s a strategy favored by many as a solution to tasting.
However, if tasting is but one aspect of the behaviors in the domain ecology we shouldn’t treat it in isolation. Unfortunately the ICANN policy process favors segmenting some important issues (tasting, kiting, etc.) This divide the issues and conquer strategy benefits certain constituencies at the expense of others and at the expense of Internet users at large (all of us).
If we got rid of the add-grace period entirely… what would be the disadvantage to that? Think about it: a domain registration isn’t a large expense. The value of the time spent by an end user in the process of registering a domain, and dealing with the registrar easily outstrips the registration expense. (Just calculate the time spent by a modest hourly approximation of earning potential of the person in question.)
If we are talking about any scenario that isn’t a bulk processing of domains, the end user’s time (and the potential time of anyone he’d have to interact with assuming even the slightest possibility of a non-automated interaction) it makes no sense to have the AGP at all! If you bought it you bought it… let there be a restocking fee or return it to the pool (with no refund) if you made a mistake and don’t want to develop it. In short it doesnt save any legitimate buyer any real expense to be able to return a domain during AGP. (imagine the hurdles just in dealing directly with the registrar)
And in the case of bulk processing of domains, what basis would there be for return of domains other than your tasting didn’t return signs adequate value?
So, again, what domain is really tasty? The domain you want. Who has an inkling you might want a domain? A registrar where you checked the availability of a given domain name. They’re in a privileged position if you don’t take the domain. They’re also in a very privileged position if you fail to renew your domain in time, and they stand to make a nice profit off what was once your domain in that scenario. They may even play you off against others all the while offering to act in your interest for a premium price.
But that’s another topic. Or is it?
]]>Listening to people describe the Internet in their own terms and what they actually do with it opens an important space: there is such variety in the Internet, the really interesting things are not the new web 2.0 techniques or the hype surrounding them… it’s the actual interests that people bring to the ‘Net from their own life. When people speak about what they do others are prone to say “wow, I didn’t think about how that might be shared online, but now that I think bout it it makes sense!”
Which is to say there are tons of things online that we probably don’t think about but which pertain to the interests of others and it has become a tool in so many subcultures and obscure pursuits, allowing tremendous variety of community interests (and forms).
With the importance of the Web to our modern life, its use and potential in the full range of human experience and endeavor, it is fitting that we reflect on it’s governance and the basic communication freedoms which we should not take for granted.
This week Chicago played host to the fifth of six public hearings on media ownership convened by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Chicago Organizers did an excellent job in spreading the word and offering testimony. The phrase “media ownership rules” here reflects an older way of thinking… the various media – Cable, Broadcast TV and Radio and Print media need to be understood in the context of the Internet and the communications policy and infrastructure that supports it.  We live in a blended world…. the lines are blurred.
I didnt get to offer testimony, but it was quite clear that the people don’t buy the arguments favoring further relaxation of the ownership rules. The people want the FCC to enforce the rules of the commission.   I’ll try to write more about the hearing later, but concentration of media ownership, and ownership of our communications backbone and last/first mile are clearly related issues, and we need to move towards more local ownership, production and control. The FCC, and for that matter ICANN need to hear that message.
]]>The Keep The Core Neutral Coalition is committed to protecting freedom of expression and innovation in domain name policy at ICANN.
This means basing gTLD-approval policy on criteria of only a technical/operational and related nature, and refraining from embedding any particular national, regional, moral, or religious policy objectives into global ICANN policy.
Text of the petition:
]]>Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without interference through any media, including cyberspace.
As the new generic top-level domain name space emerges and policy choices are made about how ideas may be expressed at the Internet’s top-level, we ask ICANN to keep the core neutral of non-technical disputes and choose policies that respect freedom of expression and permit innovation in the new domain name space.
Encouraging the free flow of information is a foundational principle of public policy decisions related to information and communication technology. Freedom of expression rights, which are fundamental in an Information Society, foster democratic participation, individual empowerment, and economic development.
Cyberspace remains a unique and special place that bridges ancient divisions, where diverse communities interact readily, and all views are welcome. But only if these attributes are valued by policymakers who set Internet governance rules and incorporated into policies about how ideas may be expressed in domain names.
We ask that ICANN stay within its technical mandate and refrain from embedding particular national, regional, moral, or religious policy objectives into global rules over the use of language in domain names. It would be dangerous “mission-creep” for ICANN to adjudicate between conflicting policy objectives and set global standards for expression that are enforced through ICANN’s technical function. Please do not allow ICANN to become a convenient lever of global control by those seeking to censor unpopular or controversial expression on the Internet.
Please keep the Internet’s technical core neutral from national or other ideological conflicts, allowing freedom and innovation to flourish in cyberspace.
.ORG needs to go further in differentiating itself.
This is a big topic… as one of the early TLDs .ORG did not establish any strict requirements for registration of a .ORG domain (like .COM and .NET). Consequently, it is understood that new requirements or restrictions will not be added (and domains cannot be taken back). I don’t accept that this must necessarily follow, but I won’t argue that case here. As is obviously the intent for the .ORG TLD the space is decidedly non commercial and non-governmental as is clear in the name “Public Interest Registry”. While recognized status as a non-profit or a community group/voluntary association is not a requirement for a .org domain, my concern is for the interests of such entities.
There is another dimension to this: what is done as standard business practice in the servicing and managing of domains is an important aspect of the policy regime. Our choices as registrants are constrained by the business logic and interests of the registrars.
The business of domain registrars is business. These are the entities you go to for the purchase and renewal of rights to use your domain. Which registrar do you use and why? Does the climate and culture of this field line up with your values or those of your organization? Do you question the ethics of this field? What meaningful choice do you have?
If the Registry (as operator of the TLD) won’t (or can’t) take actions to differentiate itself, perhaps a Registrar can be established with principles of service and ethical standards appropriate to the public sector. While performing a transactional function it need not fall under the framework of a commercially oriented entity.
Aside from those registrars handling ccTLD (cc = country code) and therefore operating in a non-profit or public interest manner are there any registrars organized with a not-for-profit status? Here’s a list of ICANN-Accredited Registrars.
I’m sure that many in the Voluntary and Not-for-Profit sector would prefer to do business with an entity that reflects their commitment to civil society.
Who is ready to take up the banner and establish a non-profit domain registrar for .org? If there is no shining knight ready to save the day, what can we do for ourselves?
Can we not establish a Trust whose purpose is to serve NPOs domain needs?