<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18865"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>McTim
and all,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>I have
immense respect for Lauren Weinstein and particularly his work with the
Privacy Forum and I have no expert knowledge in the underlying argument either
of the original article by Raff or the article pointed to in Weinstein's
piece but clearly Weinstein has misread the Raff article (or I've missed
something important... </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The
Raff article is pointing to some significant risks from the dominance of one
company (Google) as the primary interface with the world wide web of
knowledge/information... Surely a significant (potential) issue in itself...
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The
rather (what seems to me) tenuous links of the Raff article to the anti-NN
argument are hardly sufficient to dismiss the basic question that Raff is asking
about the need for a policy/regulatory assessment of the significance of
Google's market dominance in this core area of Internet development and
value.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=653345214-29122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>M</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> McTim
[mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:41
AM<BR><B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Parminder<BR><B>Cc:</B>
irp<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net
neutrality<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>see below for a different perspective, one which I agree with for the
most part:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
"Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe"</DIV>
<DIV>
<A
href="http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html">http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-- <BR>Cheers,<BR><BR>McTim<BR>"A name indicates what we seek. An address
indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon
Postel<BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Parminder <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">See below an interesting article on how
the company that seeks to 'organise the world's knowledge' really may be
doing it. It is time we called for complete disclosure in public interest of
search logics of Google and other search engine, which truly are now a
(the?) principal source of information and knowledge globally. Also a point
to ponder for those who think everything, including controlling excesses of
market power, can be done bottom-up and may not need policy regimes.
<BR><BR>Parminder<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html"
target=_blank>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html</A>
<BR><BR></FONT>
<H1><SMALL><SMALL>Search, but You May Not Find </SMALL></SMALL></H1>
<DIV>By ADAM RAFF</DIV>
<DIV>Published: December 27, 2009 </DIV>
<P>AS we become increasingly dependent on the Internet, we need to be
increasingly concerned about how it is regulated. The Federal Communications
Commission has proposed “network neutrality” rules, which would prohibit
Internet service providers from discriminating against or charging premiums
for certain services or applications on the Web. The commission is correct
that ensuring equal access to the infrastructure of the Internet is vital,
but it errs in directing its regulations only at service providers like
AT&T and Comcast. </P>
<P>Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have
become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in
directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of
its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look
beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle
that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their
results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.</P>
<P>The need for search neutrality is particularly pressing because so much
market power lies in the hands of one company: Google. With 71 percent of
the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google’s
dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming
control. Google’s revenues exceeded $21 billion last year, but this pales
next to the hundreds of billions of dollars of other companies’ revenues
that Google controls indirectly through its search results and sponsored
links.</P>
<P>One way that Google exploits this control is by imposing covert
“penalties” that can strike legitimate and useful Web sites, removing them
entirely from its search results or placing them so far down the rankings
that they will in all likelihood never be found. For three years, my
company’s vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was
effectively “disappeared” from the Internet in this way. </P>
<P>Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential
placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal
search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its
search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of
others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product
queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results
for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And
Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only
the beginning.</P>
<P>Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to
penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search
results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And
Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any
service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new
entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled.</P>
<P>Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the
development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement
of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America’s
leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of
TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the
weeks since the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite
navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s leading real-estate portal,
lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google
planned a real-estate search service here. </P>
<P>Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive
advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google
Everything — Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real
Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. </P>
<P>Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t
worry. But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given credit
for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google
Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on
technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. </P>
<P>Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines
behind Google’s meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions:
Google acquired AdSense by purchasing Applied Semantics in 2003; and
AdWords, though developed by Google, is used under license from its
inventors, Overture.</P>
<P>Google was quick to recognize the threat to openness and innovation posed
by the market power of Internet service providers, and has long been a
leading proponent of net neutrality. But it now faces a difficult choice.
Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality
that truly protects equal access to the Internet? Or will it try to argue
that discriminatory market power is somehow dangerous in the hands of a
cable or telecommunications company but harmless in the hands of an
overwhelmingly dominant search engine?</P>
<P>The F.C.C. is now inviting public comment on its proposed network
neutrality rules, so there is still time to persuade the commission to
expand the scope of the regulations. In particular, it should ensure that
the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination apply to search engines
as well as to service providers. The alternative is an Internet in which
innovation can be squashed at will by an all-powerful search engine. </P>
<DIV>
<P><I>Adam Raff is a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm.</I>
</P></DIV><BR></DIV><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To
be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For
all list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>