wrythings

Today (September 22) is One Web Day! Last year I had my act together, and wasn’t dealing with a series of family health matters and together with Dave Chakrabarti conducted a series of interviews leading up to One Web Day. The videos are worth watching… most of the interviews followed a simple convention, and were intended to explore how we use the Internet in our daily life… and my personal favorite part of the questions was when we ask people to describe the Internet.

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.

Would I have been happier with a fiddle than a violin?

Andy writes that wiki may be used in a policy writing experiment on Ed Tech.

What’s critical here? Openness, yes, and sincere attention of Legislative staff or Legislators themselves.

Lars found this excellent statement by Marvin Minsky (The Society of Mind).

Common sense is not a simple thing. Instead, it is an immense society of hard-earned practical ideas - of multitudes of life-learned rules and exceptions, dispositions and tendencies, balances and checks.

Internet Policy matters. Regulation of “Top Level Domains” (TLDs) is but one aspect of Internet Policy. Oversight of the “market” in domains falls to ICANN and to each of the entities sponsoring and operating their respective TLDs. In the case of .ORG it is the Public Interest Registry (PIR.org).

.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?

In the recent national elections in France, there was a record voter turn-out of 84%.

‘Why the lucky stiff‘ - best known for his poignant guide to ruby has unveiled his secret project:  Hackety Hack: the Coder’s Starter Kit.  I can’t wait to check it out… though we’re limited to a windows environment at present. I’m excited because of the explicit intent to make programming more accessible to youth.