The 463: Inside Tech Policy

Please Don't Tell Me That There Isn't a Societal Interest in Kermit Covering "Hurt"

Thank you Jim DeLong for the polite rant on fair use, parody and online video. You gave me a semi-legitimate reason to post this video of Kermit the Frog covering the epic Nine Inch Nails' track "Hurt." (Not for the squeamish).

Sex, Domains and Governance

       

The ICANN board once again quashed an application for a new .xxx top level domain.  It would have been used adult content sites who chose to zone themselves in that Web neighborhood.

The board voted to reject the application 9-5 and the there was a good amount of contention among the members on the decision.  And, if you have followed the history of ICANN, even knowing this is a pretty remarkable thing.  The organization has been long dogged by Internet activists for being secretive, unaccountable and opaque in its decision making process.  By contrast, the transcript of the .xxx debate was almost immediately posted to the new ICANN blog.  On top of that, one of the board members, Susan Crawford, posted her own objections to the decision on her blog.  Another board member in the minority echoed her perspective on his blog.

Yet, obviously, it's the decision here that is really important and not how it was disclosed.  And, in reading the transcript, it's a pretty interesting exploration in the current state of Internet governance, how governments interact with ICANN (or not) and the impending pressures related to content and "community" norms that are hitting the Internet as it becomes more mainstream in diverse cultures around the world.

Much of the debate had to do with whether or not the board was unduly influenced by governments to make this decision.  Clearly, a February 28 letter (pdf) from Australia's Minister of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Helen Coonan, was a big sticking point for some.  In the letter, Coonan, who has called mobile phones "pipelines for perversion" wrote:

Meet Me in Copenhagen; US Drops in Global Competitiveness Rankings

The BBC has a headline today that says the US is "no longer the technology king."   Indeed, something is rotten in the District of Columbia.  Denmark has taken the crown as the highest-ranked country in the annual World Economic Forum/Insead "Network Readiness Index".

Looking behind the headline a bit, you'll learn that the US dropped from its number one perch in the 2005 rankings and that the Nordic countries dominate the top-10.  Our future overlords in India and China come in ranked 44th and 59th, respectively.  All 122 ranked countries are listed after the jump.  And, please don't get me started on how on earth the Kyrgyz Republic finished behind Burkina Faso.

Why did the US drop six spots?  Not because of our environment for innovation, access to capital, and university systems.  All those were ranked as the best in the world.  No, we slipped because of a "deterioration of the political and regulatory environment."   What exactly this means, I don't know for sure.  I'll have to wait to read the full report that you can buy online for 65 pounds.  Yet, one can assume that our backward and self-defeating H-1B and skilled immigration policies, lack of of emphasis science and math education, and Congressional dithering on innovation policies played a big role.  I would also be curious to know why (or if) the US regulatory environment was deemed more favorable in 2005 when the country finished in the top spot.

Patent Reform 101

Patent reform is a rare tech policy issue that can even make Net Neutrality seem sexy. But, quite often, it's the issues that make your ears bleed and eyes tear with legalese and regulatory arcana that carry the biggest stakes. Patent reform is no exception.

Today, Drew Clark at GigaOm does a helpful job in laying out the current politics of patent reform and the impact of a Democratic Congress on the debate.

For why patent reform is important, see our recent link to a good overview from Newsweek. And, here is a link to the Coalition for Patent Fairness led by Cisco, Intel, Dell, Oracle, eBay, HP and many others.

Professional Important Updates on YouTube and Video Policy

What a week.  Blink and a dozen big Internet video events fly by.

Fortunately, Demetri Martin on The Daily Show summarizes some of the big issues with the Google/Viacom battle in his Professional Important News segment....

Of course, ha ha, there is no shortage of irony in the clip or on the Web.  Thus:

Speaking of Viacom...

Mom, Tell Nana to Share the Wii!

Something profound is happening when those over 80-years-old are embracing the Nintendo Wii and holding video game bowling tournaments in senior homes. AP has a story on this trend today (photo of man playing Wii baseball from AP).

See videos of grandparents playing the Wii.

Lessig's "Modest Proposal" and COPA

While Larry Lessig gets a lot of flack in some quarters for being too extreme on Internet policy issues, I've got to say that at the very least he focuses on trying to find solutions instead of voicing repetitive rhetoric. Case in point is his "modest proposal" to code/codify the inclusion of an invisible tag in indecent Web content as harmful to minors (or H2M). Naturally, this raises all sorts of nettlesome issues regarding what really is indecent; whether this only hastens Web censorship; and, how folks can get around the rule. 

However, Lessig's point is that unless someone comes up with a middle ground solutions that is less bad than filtering software that, he says, over-censors non-objectional content without any checks and balances or less bad than a free-wheeling Web where kids can easily see bad stuff, than this is a way to bring technololgy and policy together to protects kids while maintaining free speech on the Web.

Indeeed, Lessig concludes that doing nothing would ultimately harm free speech.

His idea came out a day after a federal court struck down the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed "harmful".  The judge who struck down COPA said that there were less restrictive measures to prevent kids from accessing harmful material including software filters.

While, the decision will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, the ruling will only increase pressure on  Congress to do something about protecting kids online with a rule that will make it through the courts unscathed.  CDT says should do something and suggests:

Congress should promote education and the availability of filtering technology to empower parents to protect their children, allowing parents to tailor what they do to their individual child's situation. As courts and experts have repeatedly found, this approach will be far more effective at actually protecting kids.

This Hour in Google Government Affairs

Last October, The Guardian covered Google's initial European government affairs steps in London.  Now, FT reports that the company is hiring lobbyists in ten different European capitals.   Regardless, The Register says that Google "snubbed" a Westminster Net Neutrality debate.

Speaking of Net Neutrality, somehow this blog has missed heralding the hire of ex-MCI regulatory lawyer Rick Whitt to the DC team even though we saw him with a hand-written Google badge at the Internet Caucus conference back in early February.  Yesterday, Whitt re-explained Google's Net Neutrality position as covered by GigaOm's Paul Kapustka and as dissected by tech policy watcher Drew Clark.  Clark also shames this site's occasional Google-obsession by taking the time to comment under the GigaOm piece about the "different cultures" and backgrounds that exist on the Google government affairs team and says that this will be will be "one of the more interesting stories in Internet policy for months or even years to come." 

Yes, fascinating times, indeed.  I can just see a reality-TV producer pitching the can't miss show of the season...

"It's the perfect office conflict reality show.  We've got a Harvard Law School guy who helped run a quasi-Internet regulatory body mixing it up with a guy, who, get this went to Yale Law School!!!  And, the Yale Law School guy worked at an Internet policy advocacy think tank!  I know, it's pretty crazy, but wait, it gets even better.  The leading lady role goes to ..... drum roll, please .... a Republican!  And, she even worked in the White House.... Okay, you really need to get off the floor so I can finish this pitch.... You good?  Need water?  Okay.  Finally, in walks a guy from a telecom company and he went to Georgetown Law!  I know.  Whoa...

...Wait, wait ... did I tell you that they have a DC PR guy who is also a blogger?  And, even better, what's sexier than Net Neutrality?

I, for one, can't wait to program my Tivo for this. 

(We kid because we love, Drew ;).

Obama and Tech Policy

Kevin Werbach is not so sure Barack Obama will win, but he thinks that he is amassing a top-shelf tech policy team from the Clinton-era FCC days.

Social Networking Will Make You Go Blind

PFF's indefatigable Adam Thierer is an island of reasoned thought in an ocean of sensationalism and fear-mongering about The Evils of Social Networking.

Yesterday, he released a 35-page report titled "Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions."

And, on Friday, Adam will host an event in DC that will discuss the same issue.  (I plan to be there)

Today, he writes about how social networking myths are out of control and need to be debunked.  Excerpts: