![]() |
|
|
Internet Policy SnapshotKeeping up with the issues-and the people-who are changing the face of global Internet public policy By Michael R. Nelson mrn@us.ibm.com This special issue of On The Internet is designed to help you better understand many of the policy issues that need to be addressed if the Internet is to realize its full potential. We have assembled articles by top experts on Internet policy who are deeply involved in Internet policy debates currently under way. When I was asked to edit this special issue on Internet policy, I knew it would be a difficult task-for at least three reasons. First, there are so many hot Internet policy issues; how could I pick six to eight of those on which to focus? Second, things are changing so quickly; how could I be sure that what we published was current? And third, I wanted to recruit the best possible people to write articles, and the best people also tend to be the busiest. Despite these challenges, I believe you will find this a very useful and stimulating issue, thanks to the hard work of the authors and of the production team at the Rickard Group. We have provided a snapshot of Internet policy development in the middle of the year 2000. It is a complicated picture indeed. For most sectors of the economy, policy is set by governments working through well-established organizations following time-tested procedures and processes. That's not the case with the Internet. The Internet is too new and too global. Applications like the Web, streaming video, and e-commerce were unknown 10 years ago. Everything is moving on Internet time. Amazon.com has transformed bookselling in the U.S. Start-ups like MP3.com and Napster have exploded onto the scene and could fundamentally change music distribution in just a couple of years. The Internet has gone from a tool used by a few million researchers-primarily in the United States-to a powerful platform for commerce worldwide. It has become a mass medium used by more than 200 million people worldwide. Along the way, a number of policy problems have developed, ranging from online privacy to cybersecurity, Internet pornography, and online piracy of copyrighted material. These are new issues and will require new mechanisms and new institutions to address them. Internet users, industry leaders, and interest groups are demanding answers to these problems, and governments are listening. As result, hundreds of pieces of legislation have been introduced. White papers and proposals are being released every week. And there are more and more reports in the news media about the latest government initiatives. Yet, in many cases, Internet policy will be set not by national governments but by the global Internet community. That is what makes Internet policy so complicated, so confusing, and so exciting. Governments are realizing that the Internet is a global medium and that national laws and regulations will be difficult or impossible to apply. Furthermore, it is clear that the Internet has grown so rapidly in part because it has not been encumbered by regulation. As governments compete to become leaders in the Internet economy, they are wary of inadvertently imposing regulations and requirements that would hinder investment and growth. As a result, many governments are turning to the private sector for help. Not only are they asking for advice; in many cases, they are challenging the private sector to find nongovernmental, nonregulatory solutions to Internet policy problems. One example of this is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an international nonprofit organization created in 1998 to oversee allocation of Internet domain names and Internet protocol (IP) numbers. ICANN was created when the U.S. government decided it no longer made sense to oversee allocation of domain names and IP addresses itself for an increasingly global medium. Rather than asking an intergovernmental organization to assume the responsibility, the U.S. government challenged the private sector to take on this role, and ICANN, a nongovernmental entity, was created. In more and more cases, the private sector-composed of companies, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals-is leading the way in addressing Internet policy issues. The Internet itself, by facilitating information sharing and consensus building, is helping make this possible. Since I joined IBM two years ago, I've been very involved with
the Global Internet Project (GIP). This group of Internet industry
leaders was founded in 1996 by Jim Clark, the founder of Netscape,
in order to jump-start private-sector initiatives for addressing
Internet policy issues and to help governments better understand
the Internet. The GIP has issued numerous policy primers and provided
critically needed financial support for ICANN when ICANN was first
getting organized. Vint Cerf, former chairman of the board of
the Internet Society, is one of the most active members of the
GIP and has helped foster cooperation between it and the Internet
Society.A May 1998 report from the GIP defined an "Internet policy architecture" that outlined six key areas of Internet policy (Figure 1). The six components of the GIP policy architecture are:
Each of these issues depends upon the preceding one, and each
one must be addressed if we are to enjoy the full benefits of
the Internet revolution. This special issue provides background
on the most controversial and difficult policy issues that face
the Internet. We have not tried to cover every issue but instead
have focused on the ones that are at the top of the agenda today
and are most likely to be debated and resolved in the next year
or two. It is clear that it will be some time before all of the
issues discussed here are addressed. It is also clear that the
rapid growth of the Internet and continued technological innovation
will ensure a steady stream of new, thorny policy challenges.
The authors were asked to answer these questions concisely and
with a minimum of jargon or legalese. As a result, it was not
possible to delve into all of the intricacies of each policy issue;
instead, each author provided a tour of the horizon for each issue.
|