The document analyzes the National Information Infrastructure (NII) initiative, emphasizing the significance of multistakeholder participation in internet policy. It critiques recent internet policies like SOPA/PIPA and Prism for inadequate stakeholder engagement and potential harm to innovation and user rights. The author advocates for greater transparency and inclusion of diverse perspectives in policymaking to better address users' needs and foster a free and open internet.

1. Making Better Internet Policy: An
Analysis of the National Information
Infrastructure Initiative*
Jeremy Pesner
Communication, Culture & Technology
*Or, how we can all learn to stop worrying and prevent future SOPAs

2. Introduction
The Internet today
• Internet has influenced much of our
social world
• The reason we’re all here (viva la CCT)
• Internet, telecom & innovation policy all
extremely important

3. Users as Stakeholders
The power is yours
• Enables online communities – Second Life,
Wikimedia, Reddit (Tapscott, Benkler, Kraut,
Shirky)
• A “bastard culture” (Schaefer) where anything
can be hacked
• Avenue for entrepreneurship (Silicon Prairie)
• And so much more…

4. Recent Internet Policy
Whose interests are driving this?
• SOPA/PIPA – Would have placed the
onus on ISPs to filter content, could
disassociate DNS and IP addresses
• PRISM – A large percentage of US
Internet traffic is being monitored
• Online censorship – “Always on” filters
in Britain to remove “esoteric material”

5. When the Other Shoe Drops…
It hurts like hell
• SOPA/PIPA – Would have caused
security holes at the IP link layer, chilled
innovation, placed undue onus on sites
• PRISM – Reputation and security of US
Internet companies jeopardized, US
accused of international crimes
• Online censorship – Already a coalition
mounting to push back

6. Limited Stakeholder Participation
Users nowhere to be seen
• Many Internet users not technically or
politically savvy
• Much of this policy made behind closed
doors
• Internet is a global, not national,
phenomenon. Governed in
multistakeholder fashion

7. Getting Stakeholder Feedback
Because users are people too, dammit
• I planned to seek stakeholder feedback
on the development of Internet policy
• By understanding user interactions and
understanding of the Internet, better
policy principles could be derived
• What could possibly go wrong?

8. The Widespread Internet
It’s not just for cat photos anymore
Map of Stakeholder Conversations Around SOPA, January 16-23, 2012
(source: Benkler, Roberts et al, 2013)

9. Compromise: Diversity
Just the tip
If diversity in policymaking is positive, that is a
proxy for increased diversity in user feedback

10. The National Information
Infrastructure (NII)
When the Internet was invented
• Mid-90s policy initiative spearheaded by
Al Gore
• Discussed many issues: intellectual
property, universal service, privacy, etc.
• A number of different stakeholders
represented

11. Why Study the NII?
I’m glad I asked
• It was the first major and sweeping Internet policy
initiative
• It was user-oriented
• The stakeholders are more readily identifiable
• The initiative has not been closely examined since
around 2000

12. How Should I Do It?
STS theory lightning round
• Technological Determinism too broad
• Social Construction of Technology too limiting
• Theory of Actor-Network Theory paints an
adversarial picture
• All focused on technology development, rather
than policy deliberation

13. Diversity “Hypothesis”
Organizational, Network & Complexity Theory
• Functional diversity produces more ideas, but can
impede group collaboration (Williams & O’Reilly)
• Diversity helps groups make better decisions
(Page)
• Intersectional ideas formed between disciplines
(Johansson), so different perspectives should be
brought together

14. Science & Internet policymaking
A real hodgepodge here
• Science should not be “value-free” (Douglas)
• Values strongly drive certain issues of Internet
policy (Cheng, Fleischmann et al)
• Public participation in policymaking is effective
when used well (Rowe & Frewer)
• Internet governance has a history of “rough
consensus and running code” (multistakeholder)

15. Grounded Theory
This is how we do it
• Data-driven methodology: ideally “blank slate”
research, but not possible in most cases
• Assisted by lit review, thoughts on values &
diversity
• Actor-Network Theory method: Follow the actors
• Boundary objects: Reports and concepts can reveal
differing interpretations

16. Internet History
Well, a summary of a summary
• Funded by ARPA, developed by universities
• Network Working Group was a bunch of
researchers informally working on network
research. A welcoming bunch
• Cerf & Kahn invented TCP/IP, turning distinct
networks into an “inter-network”
• Over time, governance structures emerged to deal
with conflicts of interest

17. Internet Governance
i.e. the NWG today
Decisions and discussions regarding the Internet occur in a multistakeholder fashion
(this basically means anyone is welcome)

18. Al Gore
The man with the master plan
• An “Atari democrat” in the 1970s, focused on
technology and growth
• Authored High-Performance Computing Act,
which focused significant money & attention on IT
• Asked Clinton to run the show on IT, so he became
large and in charge
• Coordinated NII efforts, spoke around the world
on these issues

19. He Didn’t Invent It
No more stupid jokes (mine was the last one)
• “…I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” –
1999 CNN interview
• This was just poorly phrased
• “No other elected official, to our knowledge, has
made a greater contribution [to the Internet’s
development] over a longer period of time.” – Cerf
& Kahn
• A vital leader of the NII

20. IITF Organization
It took me way too long to figure this out
(source: Drexel University Archives)

21. National Information Infrastructure
Advisory Council
Advisory council included representation from:
• Academia
• Advocacy groups
• Content industries
• Public school education
• Research institutions
• State & local government
• Technology industries
• Telecommunications industries
The council deliberated at a high level, publishing
reports with educational tips and policy proposals
for the NII

22. Working Group on Intellectual Property
Chaired by USPTO head Bruce Lehman
• Published Green Paper recommending
significant changes to copyright law
• Abolition of first-sale doctrine, no mention
of fair use
• Lehman widely accused to limiting input from
other members, working solely with industry
• Blowback from Digital Future Coalition
• White Paper said law already protected IP
owners
• Lehman limited negotiating table, pushed
DMCA through Congress
NIIAC input was not considered during copyright
deliberations

23. Working Group on Universal Service
Working Group did not publish report
• FCC chairman Reed Hundt worked with Gore to
enable cross-industry competition and extend
connectivity to every classroom
• Government became Republican in 1994 – this
made things tricky
• Big long debate – eventually compromised on
Telecom Act of 1996
• FCC rulemaking process managed to increase
competition and get connectivity to many
schools
• Criticized for “expert capture” (Garcia)
NIIAC was comprised of parties on differing sides
– did not participate in debate

24. Working Group on Privacy
Sally Katzen seemed to lead this one
• No privacy legislation passed during this time
• Working group published several reports
explaining high-level privacy principles
• Criticized by EPIC for not using stronger 1973
guidelines (for government-stored information)
• Highlighted privacy laws/norms already in
place in government, proposed a privacy entity
within government
• Peter Swire filled this role, but no one has since
• Few people posting personal info online at this
point
NIIAC criticized the working group for not
focusing on the user perspective and private sector

25. Free Speech
When freedom isn’t free
• Senator James Exon wrote the Communications
Decency Act as a 1996 telecom amendment
• Did not allow pornography to be posted where
minors could access it
• Criticized and lambasted by many entities,
including NIIAC, on many grounds
• Declared unconstitutional the following year

26. e-Commerce
Brick and mortar need not apply
• Several organizations discussed this even before
NIIAC
• NIIAC set out basic recommendations for e-
commerce – dovetailed with IP, privacy
• Ira Magaziner proposed e-commerce framework in
1997, established interagency group
• Unclear who writes the rules on the global stage

27. Other Issues
All of these things are not like the others
• Telecommunications standards were debated, IP
protection could prevent interconnection
• Global Information Infrastructure Commission
(GIIC) established to coordinate NII efforts around
the world
• Scenarios published explaining how NII
technologies could improve shopping, medicine,
communication, etc.

28. Analytical Perspective
Enthusiasts, Deregulators, Guardians and Skeptics
(source: Case, 1998)
“We need a network that
everyone can participate
in and learn from.”
“The private sector commands
wealth, innovation and the
promise of economic growth.”
“The Internet is going to
change everything. Just
wait and see.”
“This is just another tool for
corporations/government to
assert their dominance.”

29. Interviews
Where the fun really starts
• Seventeen stakeholders interviewed
• Members of NIIAC
• Leaders of IITF
• Government officials
• Outside experts on Internet history/governance
• Some recordings of NIIAC meetings also briefly
analyzed
• Coded and categorized – Four main categories

30. Diversity in Decisionmaking
Bet you forgot about this
• “Collectivizing information and getting to know people
from different spheres who were relevant was a big driver
of positive development.”
• “Not everyone could draft—and when you draft by
committee, it gets god-awful.”
• “You need broad participation from all stakeholders, but
you don’t want [the committee] owned by any of them. I
think it’s what happens before you constitute the
committee that’s determinative.”

31. Understanding of the NII
Don’t criticize what you don’t understand
• “What is it? You know, just what is this super-
information highway and how can I access it and how can
I connect and what is going to be its cost?”
• “Kids [hackers] were being charged with felonies. It was a
lock ’em up and throw away the key mentality. It was
clear the law enforcement had no understanding of the
environment.”
• “This stuff is wild. This is an incredible communicative
environment. We need to be very careful about restricting
it on first amendment grounds.”

32. Effectiveness of the NII
Was it all worth it?
• “I like to think that the work we did made a difference.”
• “My takeaway was that it was about people protecting
their interests, which ultimately represented in
documents that were a hodgepodge of everyone's
interests.”
• “There was nothing at stake. There’s no money at stake.
There’s no legislation at stake. There’s no thing that
people need to fight to the death about. So it doesn’t
matter. I mean, who cares?”

33. Top Leadership
Follow the leader
• “Without him [Gore], we wouldn’t have had it. Because
he worked hard for the funding for it and for raising
awareness.”
• “The most important thing about the NII… was the
geographic and personal focus of the Vice President, as
the person who paid the most attention to every single
issue.”
• “Ira [Magaziner] had the president’s ear.”

34. Theory of the NII
Let’s wrap it up, folks
Intellectual
Property
Universal
Service
Information
Privacy
Free Speech e-Commerce
Diversity in
Decisionmaking
Weak Strong Middling Weak Strong
NII
Understanding
Middling Middling Middling Weak Strong
NIIAC
Effectiveness
Weak Weak Middling Middling Middling
Top Leadership Strong Strong Middling Strong Strong
Grounded Theory is “being eclectic, drawing on what works, defining what fits”
(Charmaz, 2006)

35. Concluding Analyses
I Fight for the Users
• Users have been unable to participate in relevant
policy/standards bodies because they lack time and
expertise (Davidson et al) (now easier, a la SOPA)
• Users frequently express themselves through
communities, but those communities are constantly
shifting in needs and composition (Ribes & Finholt)
• A strong public interest perspective is needed in Internet
policy debates, especially when the users are not present
(Schultze)

36. Recommendations
If you remember one slide…
• Greater transparency in policy deliberations. Will enable
users to understand the issue and hold representatives
accountable
• Connect advisory/advocacy groups with the entities
making policy decisions. This will ensure shared
information is accurate and useful
• A free and open Internet. Policymakers usually want to
change it to solve an unrelated problem. It also has a
chilling effect, limiting possible uses

37. Thank you for your time.
Questions?