Re: [ALSC-Forum] Coments on Bertelsmann Study

[Esther Dyson]

Thanks for the comments.

The issues discussed below are  (fortunately)  beyond ICANN's control, 
anyway. If that were not so, critics would be entirely correct in saying 
that ICANN has too much power.

Esther Dyson

At 09:02 24.05.01, Bruce Young wrote:
>Here's my comments on the study "Who Controls the Internet, the
>Bertelsmann
>Foundation's Recommendations for Internet Governance":
><http://www.democratic-internet.de/berlin2001/recommendations.pdf>
>
>Over all, this document displays a degree of forward thinking uncommon
>for a
>big content provider and RIAA member (which makes them automatically
>suspect!) :)  I agreed with much of what was stated in this document,
>and
>only have a few  comments on statements made in it:
>
>"Since Internet content is judged differently depending upon the culture
>in
>question, co-regulation must also take these differences into account."
>This implies establishing "least common denominator" rules that would
>remove
>from the Internet anything anyone in the world might find offensive,
>which
>is anathema to the proper discourse necessary to maintain a democracy!
>Instead, I subscribe to a "highest common denominator" policy that, in
>each
>instance, conforms itself to the *highest* level of free expression of
>all
>participants!
>
>" . . . all Internet users should have unrestricted access to encryption
>technologies through which they can ensure confidentiality in their
>exchange
>of data and communications."  I agree with this wholeheartedly.  However
>they then go on to say, "Here the interest of criminal prosecution is to
>be
>safeguarded to whatever degree necessary."  This smacks of the failed
>"key
>escrow" idea the Clinton Administration tried to implement, which would
>have
>violated the US Constitution's fourth amendment.  Jeff Schiller,
>executive
>member of the Internet Engineering Task Force, and network manager for
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology made what I believe to be the
>seminal
>statement on this subject "Law enforcement was not supposed to be easy.
>Where it is easy, it's called a police state."  'nuff said!
>
>"Efficient mechanisms based on self-organization, self-regulation,
>transparency and compliance with basic legal principles should be
>employed
>for dispute resolution."  Whose "basic legal principles?"  The law is
>very
>different from one jurisdiction to another even within the same country,
>let
>alone between countries.  Internet regulations must transcend local bias
>and/or sensitivities.  If this affords greater freedoms for action over
>the
>Internet than in the physical world, I can live with that!
>
>" . . . problematic content should be addressed with a co-regulatory
>system
>of responsibility."  The problem here is: who decides what is
>"problematic
>content"?  Again, if we endorse this thinking we're headed down the path
>toward "least common denominator" rules governing content.  The speech
>most
>in need of protection is often that which a majority of others in
>society
>find "problematic."  Libel (intentionally making statements the writer
>knows
>to be untrue to harm the reputation of another) should be the only
>content
>disallowed.  To ban anything else opens the door to allow one group to
>use
>their cultural or religious biases to block the speech of others who do
>not
>share similar beliefs.
>
>
>Bruce Young
>Portland, Oregon
>byoung651@home.com
>http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html



Esther Dyson			Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

High-Tech Forum in Europe: 7 to 9 November, Berlin
PC FORUM: 24 to 27 March 2002, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona