International Trade Today is a service of Warren Communications News.
No Specific Target

Groups Release Dueling ‘Declaration of Internet Freedom’ Principles

A coalition of groups and companies led by Free Press said a set of principles that they put out Monday for an “free and open Internet” is nonpartisan and isn’t aimed specifically at the public or private sector. The coalition was responding to criticism from free-market groups including TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the International Center for Law & Economics that the principles blur “the distinction between political and civil society while endorsing certain business models over others.” Both the Free Press and TechFreedom groups came out with their own “Declarations of Internet Freedom” principles.

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.

The Free Press-led coalition’s set of principles at www.internetdeclaration.org includes online freedom of expression, promoting universal access to “fast and affordable networks,” privacy and keeping the Internet open. On a conference call, Josh Levy, Free Press campaign director, said there purposely is “no defined” public or private sector “target” in the set of principles, which he said the coalition expected would influence Internet and tech policy making. “This is about building political power for Internet users,” he said.

The coalition aims to unite “millions of people around these principles and build a movement” and “build political power,” Levy said. That would ensure that when Internet policy or tech policymaking is taken up, “Internet users would have a seat at the table” and have the ability to fight “bad legislation” like the derailed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act. The coalition’s “declaration is not a set of policies,” he said. It’s intended to “inspire” policy. The coalition will take public feedback in the next few months, and also use online platforms to allow people to vote on the principles, he said. But how exactly to “harness” the feedback is being “worked out,” he said. More than 90 groups and companies have signed on to the principles, he said. The list at the coalition website includes such digital luminaries as Cheezburger Inc. and its CEO Ben Huh, Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, author Neil Gaiman and musician Amanda Palmer, who recently raised $1.2 million through Kickstarter.

The coalition had taken care while putting the principles together to ensure that it was a “very nonpartisan effort,” said Mike Masnick, CEO of Techdirt.com. People who have already signed on are a “mix,” he said, when asked about groups like TechFreedom coming out with their own principles. “I don’t think it falls along any particular [political] lines,” he said. “I hope it stays that way.” Asked if the coalition would use the principles to get legislation passed in Congress, Levy said when millions of people are “watching” and “get involved” in what policymakers do, “elected officials have to pay attention” and would send a signal that “they can’t do business as usual” at the bidding of special interests.

The group led by TechFreedom said in a statement its set of principles at DeclarationOfInternetFreedom.org “articulates a dynamic vision of Internet freedom and explains why policymakers must exercise humility and restraint” in governing digital markets. “We've worked with many of the groups signing the other Declaration on a range of issues, from SOPA to government invasions of privacy,” said TechFreedom President Berin Szoka. “We'll continue to make common cause with them against government overreach.” But groups like his “need to underscore the profound philosophical differences behind our conceptions of Internet freedom,” he said. The Free Press-led coalition’s “declaration invites further government intervention in the name of freedom, while ours urges regulators: ‘First, do no harm,'” he said.