<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18854">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">McTim,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">I disagree with two points you made in your 12-29-09
comments on search neutrality.</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">First, you said:<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">"Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't
give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing."
<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">I look at search and its impact on local governance and
worry about an instance like this. Google seeks to build an intellectually
stimulating office facility for its growing staff in New York City and feels
that privatizing a park is the best way to accomplish this - following the
example the New York Yankees set with their new stadium. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Some park neighbors get riled up, go to the Net, and do
a search for "opponents to the Google variance." What lists first is a
milquetoast advocacy group that opposes certain aspects of the development
but sees overall advantage from the construction jobs and to the economy.
Perhaps there are other listings and a Google ad or two that point to
materials supportive of this viewpoint. And perhaps Milquetoast has an agreement
with Google to meliorate neighborhood impacts.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors
to know what's not there? </FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs,
overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know
there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to
Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m
wrong?” And Google wins.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to
develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the
public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust
in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate
society.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">(Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me
slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google
“winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its
opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign?
Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! And even
if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning
the system.) <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Second, when you say, <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">"We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to
seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can
we?"<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">I disagree. Given the importance of search in the
development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think
it’s vital that we address the issue. </FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of
“search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret
sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is
a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) </FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated
it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for
the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility
and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Perhaps they might initially agree to a
trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines.
And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering
transparent search.</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no
one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and
decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development
of a transparent search engine.</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Tom Lowenhaupt, Founder and Chair</FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Connecting.nyc Inc.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">connectingnyc.org<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P></FONT><FONT size=2
face=Arial></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=dogwallah@gmail.com href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">McTim</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.cpsr.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:43
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] 'search
neutrality' to go with net neutrality</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 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">McTim<BR><BR>So you agree with Lauren
that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure network
neutrality,</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of
"action", then yes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<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">and that efforts to confuse this issue
should be resisted. </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>yes</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<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">Efforts at confusion like the arguments
" </FONT>that Internet content edge-caching (like that used by Akamai,
Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality
principles -- clearly a false assertion.<FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">" (quoting the article you
forwarded.)<BR><BR>That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever
heard you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the
precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN
discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare
agreement.<BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past. I am
abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different definition
of NN.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<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"><BR>However, what goes past me is that
while i agree that when FCC is discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even
reprehensible, for the implicated parties to point fingers at Google
alleging another kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam
Raff's article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in the
passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is not all
smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection between NN
practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive
activities. <BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What connection is that?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<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">Rest of the article has to be dealt on
its own merit, not only in terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That
is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go
ahead and make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article -
it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must
issue a rejoinder. <BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html">http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html</A>
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<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"><BR> Just addressing one main
points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google which seems so shallow. It is
roughly the assertion, I have often earlier also heard, that with one click
one can switch search engines. A powerful actor telling weaker
dependent groups that they always have the option to move away is a old
trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone
can understand this. </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I certainly don't. I have moved away from lots of search
engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<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">Secondly, I will move away only if I
knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for
me or not.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what
you need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole)
can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can
we? While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their
recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is?</DIV>
<DIV>\</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<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">So can we at least ask it to publish
its logic of arranging search results so the consumers can make a choice. It
is a wrong thing to ask? </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>yes</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<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">So what really is Lauren's blog trying
to do by being so defensive about Google and what exactly you are
agreeing with is not clear to me.<BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree with the below paragraph.</DIV>
<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"><BR></FONT>"Fundamentally, Google has
simply provided better products, that more people want to use. And anyone
else is free to do the same thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted
to strangle the Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet
access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog)<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Happy New Year,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>McTim</DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR><BR>For all list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>