Delimiter (draft) Statement of Principles

71

As regular Delimiter readers will know, I have made mistakes in the past. Not all of the articles I have written have been on target. Sometimes I have been naïve. In particular, I know that many of you will continue to feel angry at me about believing Turnbull’s NBN promises before the 2013 Federal Election. I screwed up there, and you all know it.

So that this will never happen again, today I am publishing the following as a draft Statement of Principles for Delimiter. If the site is rebooted, this document will represent the will of the Delimiter community and guide my writing. And I will expect you all to hold me to these principles on a daily basis.

I want to be clear that this document is not complete or final. I want these principles to be criticised. I want new principles to be suggested, if the Delimiter community does not feel the list is comprehensive. And, as time goes on, I want it to be reviewed. This should be a living document rather than a static one. This is the just the first draft.

Note that these are intended to be general principles that could be applied to any specific situation, rather than specific principles which can’t be applied generally. My intent is that whenever an issue arises, that the Delimiter community will look to this Statement of Principles to gauge how we should approach it.

The draft is now open for comments. Go hog wild. Rip it to shreds and make it better.


Principle 1: We support the development and adoption of beneficial new technologies.

Delimiter’s community is composed of individuals who work with or who are personally enthusiastic about technology. We recognise the beneficial impact that new technology usually has upon the operation of society in general and upon the human experience of individuals.

This means that we support removing artificial barriers to the development and adoption of beneficial new technologies. However, we also recognise that some specific technologies (for example, military technology) can be potentially harmful, and must be carefully regulated.

——

Principle 2: Where there is a choice of technologies to be implemented, we support the option that will be the best fit for purpose in the long-term.

There are a number of different mechanisms for judging which technology should be implemented in any situation. Some are based on pure technical capability, some on human factors such as usability, and some on financial issues such as cost or return on investment.

When judging what technology should be implemented, Delimiter believes that all available factors should be considered, with a view to finding the best solution for the long-term.

——

Principle 3: Free market competition between private sector companies is generally the best mechanism for society to develop and adopt beneficial new technologies.

Most new technology is primarily developed and distributed by innovative private sector companies competing with each other in a free market. In general, such companies should be given the freedom to develop and sell their products and services to consumers. However, we also recognise that such competition must be carefully and sensitively moderated by regulators and the Government.

——

Principle 4: No government should interfere in the operation of the Internet, beyond that which is required to ensure a stable domain name system.

The Delimiter community does not want the Internet to be censored, filtered, regulated or otherwise controlled by the Government. The Internet is a global network of networks which is beyond the reach of any one jurisdiction. The only role the Government should play in the operation of the Internet is to ensure a stable domain name system is maintained.

——

Principle 5: The privacy of individuals should be respected by default. Electronic surveillance must be targeted, proportionate, and subject to strong oversight.

Electronic surveillance is a legitimate part of modern law enforcement activities. However, the Delimiter community believes that the privacy of all individuals should be protected by default. Electronic surveillance should only be used when there is a strong law enforcement need for this information. When this occurs, such access should be targeted, proportionate and subject to strong oversight.

——

Principle 6: Corporations should pay a fair amount of tax in the geographic area where they made their revenue.

A number of major technology companies are currently gaming the global taxation system by funnelling their income through jurisdictions with extremely favourable tax regulations. Delimiter believes this results in a disproportionate rate of tax distribution to certain countries and should be stopped.

——

Principle 7: The implementation of new technology must be subject to appropriate governance controls.

This principle particularly refers to major technology-enabled projects of the kinds regularly undertaken by governments and corporations, although it can also apply to technology implemented by individuals.

It refers to the fact that it is not sufficient merely to purchase a new technology product or service. All technology must be implemented or ‘bedded down’ in such a way that it functions correctly and achieves a beneficial outcome.

——

Principle 8: Governments should grant favourable financial and regulatory incentives to digital economy industries to help generate new economic activity and to base their operations locally.

This principle reflects the fact that some new digital economy industries (for example, IT and video game development) have the potential to drive significant new economic activity, to add to or replace existing economic activity generated by legacy sectors such as resources and agriculture.

Some countries have granted these fast-growing industries significant concessions in order to help them expand more rapidly. In order to compete, it is essential that Australia does the same. It is also important that these industries are incentivised to grow their operations on-shore and not shift overseas.

——

Principle 9: Commercial service providers should respond to their customers’ needs and communicate openly with them

Many of the issues that have arisen in the global technology industry over the past several decades relate to a situation where a vendor stops directly responding to the needs of their customers, in terms of changing their products or services or the terms and conditions or pricing associated with such services.

This principle reflects the idea that vendors should seek to meet their customers’ needs, rather than fighting them. This can be a delicate balance at times, but there is no doubt that the Delimiter community comes down on the side of the customer.

71 COMMENTS

  1. I think that there needs to be something about change for change’s sake – the lure of the “new shiny”. As G K Chesterton once said:

    “My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.”

    The principles I generally adopt when considering change go along the lines of:

    Will it work?
    Are the circumstances under which the decision was made substantially the same?
    If the answer to either of those 2 questions is yes then don’t change the decision, even if the new way might be better. The cost of churn is too great to be constantly changing.

    • A very interesting point.

      I would argue that the default position of the Delimiter community would be that technological change is by default positive and should proceed — that’s why I set up principle #1 the way I did. I think history has shown that while technological change causes disruption, in general it does help increase the quality of life for people over the long term.

      Of course, there is technological change which is dangerous and negative, which is why I included the sub-clause.

      Let me know whether you think this is sufficient — or should be modified.

      • “I would argue that the default position of the Delimiter community would be that technological change is by default positive and should proceed”

        I would argue against this point. Not all technological change is beneficial, at lease, not all implementation of technological change is beneficial.

        On ‘Principle 4’: Should governments be involved in dealing with things like phishing and online fraud? Or do you consider that not part of the internet, just something from the mundane world that happens in the internet, so not covered by principle 4?

        Principle 6 really applies to corporations in general. But, yes, this is a technology site, so focus on the tech companies.

        I think you need to define what ‘Technology’ is. It is the key term in all your principles. Even a broad definition would do. Or is this a ‘I don’t want to limit myself’ thing?

        It is good to see you back in the wild.

        • hey man,

          with regard to Principle 1, it also states as sub-clauses:

          “we also recognise that some specific technologies (for example, military technology) can be potentially harmful, and must be carefully regulated.”

          In terms of Principle 4, this is what I wrote in relation to a similar question:

          “In terms of the Internet issues you raise … sure, this stuff is up for debate, but I think the overwhelming majority of the Delimiter audience wants the Government to keep its hands off the Internet. Most things on the Internet that people would object to can either be handled by PC-side Internet filtering, in the case of viruses and objectionable content where youngsters are concerned, or by the real-world police targeting real-world people (for example, in the case of child abuse materials).

          Government intervention in the Internet has almost always proven to be ineffective in addressing issues online, aside from the issue of DNS, where country-based authorities have proven useful in keeping things stable.
          Happy to discuss specific examples, but I don’t see a huge problem with the principles.”

          Hmm. Interesting issue regarding the definition of technology. I’ve been giving a bit of thought to this recently, as I have been considering whether to include renewable energy technology in Delimiter’s coverage. I’ll think about this a bit more in depth. Not sure that it needs to be added to the principles, but I will certainly consider it.

          It’s good to be back! :D

          • “I have been considering whether to include renewable energy technology in Delimiter’s coverage.”

            As a new solar owner that’s also interested in Powerwall (and similar things) I’d like to see that!

            I’ve also been looking into home automation/IoT’s as well (with a view to voice activate everything using something like an Amazon Echo!), so coverage there would be great too :o)

  2. OMG, I’m commenting on a Delimiter article again? *cue spooky music*

    I’ll have to absorb these thoughts, but on the surface they look reasonable – good to have the big “D” back…

  3. Principle 10: Every Government should provide Coding subjects as a compulsory part of children’s education from Primary School onwards.

    • This is a very worthy suggestion. I, for one, will support it being added to the list of principles. I’ll revise and make it more general and add it to the draft.

    • +1 back in the late 80’s I was lucky enough to have two great primary school teachers who brought their Amstrad CPC-6128’s (remember those and their proprietary 3″ floppy disks?) into class and taught us programming in Basic.

      Now-a-days there is just no excuse imo for every kid not to have their own Raspberry Pi and learn coding, Linux etc on it.

      • Likewise, I had great computer science teachers. They taught us introductory coding, showed off their personal PCs and tolerated us hacking the school computers. Fond memories, and this had a big influence on me :D

    • Disclosure – secondary teacher here, a lot of interest in the politics and realities of curriculum development.

      It would be great to have programming as part of the curriculum.
      It will not happen any time in the near to middle future.

      Already we’re seeing a biiiiiig push towards literacy and numeracy as being the prime drivers of all curriculum, especially in primary school. NAPLAN doesn’t help, but it’s bigger than that. Already subjects like Languages and The Arts are getting pushed out in favour of more and more instruction in literacy and numeracy (not even English and Maths). So as cool as it would be, I don’t see it being a thing.

  4. Good luck with your latest venture, I think this (and the book) are excellent ideas.

    Is there any room for a provision about rights to access to technology, or specifically rights to access the internet?

    Principles 3 & 4, taken together, could imply support for policies where rural/remote Australians won’t necessarily have decent access to the internet, if there are instances where the private sector doesn’t find it profitable to supply it. I might be misreading them though.

    • Thanks for your kind words!

      You raise a very good point.

      It may be that we need to modify the principles to state that the private sector will provide most services, but where the private sector is unable to provide essential services, that the Government needs to step in and provide those services. I’ll consider this and put this into a revised draft.

  5. Can we please add support for genuine Net Neutrality to either Principle 4 or as it’s own principal?

    The general idea being that just like with electricity, the purchaser of the Internet Service decides what he/she will use the service for, not the service provider.

  6. To be added:

    1. Supporting reforms or changes to the education curriculum to include a mandatory component that imparts the basic knowledge of programmatic structure and an introduction to programming languages.

    2. Deterring changes to legislation that seek to stifle innovation in favour or maintaining an old, antiquated or outdated business model. Disruptive technology should be encouraged and guided, not crushed under legislation.

    • I agree with #1 and will be adding this to the list in the next draft — a few commenters have mentioned this, and I think it makes sense.

      In terms of #2, I think this is kind of covered under the following paragraph in Principle 1, but let me know if you think it needs to be modified:

      This means that we support removing artificial barriers to the development and adoption of beneficial new technologies.

      • #2 was about opposing the lobby groups that push for legislation to protect broken business models. No so much about removing obstacles, more about not letting them become obstacles in the first place.

  7. I agree with Derek above re: adding something about the net neutrality, but to go a bit further, it would be great to include something about the importance of defining the internet as a utilitiy, and all the consequences that come from that.

    Great principles otherwise!

    • I think net neutrality is definitely a must. I also agree with the Internet as utility idea — will add to the list for inclusion in the next draft.

      Cheers!

  8. Good to see you back Renai!

    Just a couple of random thoughts and suggestions:

    Principle 2: Where there is a choice of technologies to be implemented, we support the option that will be the best fit for purpose in the long-term.

    Add: “at a fair cost”. In relation to the NBN, I don’t believe Malcolms “solution” is being provided a fair (or transparant) cost for example.

    Principle 4: No government should interfere in the operation of the Internet, beyond that which is required to ensure a stable domain name system.

    Maybe add something here to allow governments to also encourage the free market to remain free (thinking of geoblocking here). This is similar, but not the same thing as Principle 9, in that if the commercial service refuses to modify their anticompetative behaviour, the gov needs to act.

    Principle 7: The implementation of new technology must be subject to appropriate governance controls.

    Add: and frameworks. A lot of the (gov) projects that fail seem to have no framework like ITIL at all, they just seem to leave it ad hoc to the folks implementing it (which when there is a framework, they also seem to clash).

    I like the suggestion from Angus of a “Right to access the internet” principle. It would be “a good thing” to encourage the gov to legislate something here (more reading https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/background-paper-human-rights-cyberspace/1-background-and-context). The internet is becoming more and more important, both for work and personal spheres, it should be difficult to take away that right.

    • Good to be talking to you too! :D

      Re fair cost: I’ll have a think about this one. I’m not sure ‘fair’ is an easily defined concept in terms of competition policy — for example, it might be better to state ‘at a competitive cost relative to the market’ or similar? The market tends to define what is fair. Of course, this gets a little unclear when it comes to government purchasing.

      Re free market: You have a valid point here, and geoblocking is an issue. I’ll think about how to add this into the next draft. I agree with you that there is a role for government to step in when companies are exhibiting certain negative behaviours (especially in markets where there is a lack of competition).

      Re frameworks: This makes sense. Do you have any other examples apart from ITIL? It might be worth adding a couple in.

      Re Right to Access the Internet — I agree with this. I think we need to add something in about this, both to support universal fast broadband access, as well as to ensure that the right cannot be taken away (for example, in the case of Internet piracy lawsuits etc). The Internet underpins almost all commercial and government transactions these days — it needs to exist as a civil right.

      And I think you’re right — there does actually need to be legislation in this area to guarantee it. That is a bigger issue that I will put some thought into as well. That idea is quite important to me.

      • I agree the “fair cost” thing is difficult, it can be pretty subjective when comparing apples to bananas, or FTTP with HFC/FTTN :) I think most of the really long term debates on Delimiter were over stuff like “gold plating” and “Rolls Royce systems” and sorting those out took ages, so it’s probably in the “too hard” basket currently.

        As to frameworks, there are a bunch of them that all fall under ITSM (IT Service Management: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_service_management describes several), and they generally have associated frameworks for project management as well (like ITIL/PRINCE2 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRINCE2). A lot of the failed projects would have been flagged a lot faster as a problem if they’d had been using one of them (thats the point of them!).

  9. Wellcome back Renai.
    On the face of it without a thurough reading and reflection I agree with all of this.
    I do agree with Angus above that there should be some provision about the right to equitable access to technology.
    And also Derek about specific mention of net neutrality (not just in terms of government intervention, but also regarding service providers).

    Ken

  10. Hey everyone,

    Some awesome suggestions here — this is precisely the kind of discussion that I wanted to provoke.

    FYI I am still at work on a Sitting Day today, so limited in the time I can devote to this — I don’t want to try my boss’s patience too much ;) However, I will respond to all comments tonight with detailed thoughts after work. There is a lot to talk about!!

    Wow. It feels great to be commenting on articles on Delimiter again :D

    Renai

    • You know what would be really cool Renai?

      If we/you could get the actual politicians to come here (like Scott, Malcolm and Jason) and actually discuss things like real adults. Some one would need to mod it no doubt, but talking to the “common people” in tech would really help I think (if the pollies could keep the spin in check, and “we” could keep the outrage/trolling in line).

      I guess that’d never happen cause I just think our pollies just don’t really care, they are both really busy and as long as they can stay in long enough to get their “Retiring allowance”, they just don’t really give a damn (http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits#_Toc274224149 …most of the links on that page are 404’s, so good luck working out the actual amounts they get….typical…I know it’ll be more that I’ll be getting…).

      What’s your thoughts on it? You’ve been in belly of the beast, would there be a way to make it workable? That’d really help change things I think (maybe I’m not as jaded as I think and I’m just going all Polly Anna about connecting with the people that run the country?).

      • That would indeed be cool!

        However, the reality is that it is never going to happen. You’ll get isolated comments here and there where an article breaks through the politicians’ bubble, about something they really care about. And the younger politicians are increasingly commenting online, especially on Twitter.

        But in practice these guys are just too busy and swamped with a billion things. There is little return on investment for them to engage in commenting on individual forums. And when they do, it is going to be difficult to get any real insight from them, due to the thousands of competing priorities which they have.

        One other thing which I think it’s really important to understand is that when you’re dealing with a single politician, you’re not really actually dealing with them on an individual basis, normally. Out of site behind the scenes are many staff members, complex party and parliamentary structures, influential stakeholder groups and so on. This explains why so many of the politicians are so inconsistent on any issue — because they are being influenced by many different forces simultaneously.

        The only place you can really see how this works in practice is in Parliament House, which is why it’s so important to have a presence there.

        The best we’re going to get, normally, unfortunately, is when Internet-savvy politicians do isolated things like Reddit AMAs, monitor their Twitter and Facebook feeds, and occasionally post something on a site like Delimiter. Regular meaningful engagement will be much more difficult to obtain.

        Hope this helps :(

  11. +1 for net neutrality . We don’t have it now, I know, but we need to be prepared for it to emerge as an issue. At the moment principle 4 seems to explicitly rule out net neutrality legislation.

    • I agree — we need to be prepared for the net neutrality debate. I will ad this into the list for the next draft, and consider how to best modify Principle 4 to consider it.

    • Cheers for the kind words!

      I did see that piece. I agree with Gregory that there is a substantial amount of discontent simmering below the surface about the NBN. I think people will be willing to give Turnbull a chance until the FTTN and HFC components of the rollout start having problems (as I think they inevitably will, especially when across the suburb there may be areas with FTTP). Then the discontent will start spiking upwards again.

  12. Point 9 could include: Manufacturers and service providers must never design product that behaves in favour of the provider instead of the consumer. Eg: Proprietory connectors to force in-brand purchasing.
    Chips to detect third party parts or consumables.
    Screw heads or other mechanical measures that prevent customisation or repair.

    • Hmm. That’s a complex one, and I’m not sure I agree.

      I think this mainly only an issue in monopoly situations. For example, if Apple was the only mobile phone provider, and forced everyone to use its proprietary connector standard, then that would be an issue. We’ve seen this countless times. Internet Explorer (before Firefox came along) is a good example of a single company borking things up.

      However, where there is market competition, then things tend to sort themselves out. For example, it is annoying that Apple uses a proprietary connections for its phones, but if you don’t like it, you can just buy an Android phone these days and get a very similar service.

      Perhaps we do need a principle to deal with monopoly conditions though, where there is no alternative.

  13. Principle 3 seems to count against engagement with grassroots/community based free software projects, which is unfortunate. It feels to me like there is a lot of innovation that occurs there, and that there are many Australians who are connected to those communities.

    • Interesting — this is a very valid point. You’re right, the principles do need to reflect this. I’ll think about how to add this into the next draft. It’s especially interesting to consider how governments should explicitly support open source software and open standards as a first preference.

  14. I was having a think about Principle’s 3 & 4 and it occurs to me there is perhaps a tie-in principal that could be worth adding something along the lines of:

    Legacy Business models should not be protected by governments or government agencies just because at one time they where profitable.

    The two examples that imo best highlight the need for this are the:

    1/ The Content industry seeking legal protections & anti-consumer legislation instead of adapting their business models to properly embrace digital distribution. Also continuing to engage in practices like exclusive content deals and region locking which harm competition and consumer choice.

    2/ The Australian Back-haul owners twisting the ACCC’s arm into forcing NBN Co to adopt a wasteful, unnecessary and anti-competitive, anti-consumer 121+ POI model for the FTTP roll-out. Just because in the past they’d been able to make money connecting ~2000 legacy Telstra exchanges.

    Thoughts?

    • Interesting and valid point. I think this is partially, but probably not fully, covered by Principles 1 and 3. However, I will consider how to add this into the next draft, as I agree — this is a long-standing issue. We probably ned to explicitly address it.

  15. A few things.

    Firstly, it’s OK to be wrong. Everyone’s wrong sometimes. And even better, you weren’t really *that* wrong as you had a legitimate/logical argument regarding what MT was proposing (even if some people, including myself, disagreed). It’s not your fault he wormed his way out of it.

    So, regarding being wrong: I remember reading about something Richard Branson said – that a customer with an issue solved quickly and efficiently becomes a more loyal customer than one who never had an issue at all. I believe this is true (and try to use it in my own work), and can be extended here. You don’t need to kick yourself for it.

    Secondly, regarding the principles – I think this is a really good start, though remember it will not stop being wrong in some instances! But it’s a very interesting exercise though and will help with not only your thoughts but ours.

    However, I think one sits outside the rest: Principle 6 – Corporations should pay a fair amount of tax in the geographic area where they made their revenue. It’s fairly specific and (in my opinion) more a solution to a problem rather than a principle itself. Furthermore, though I don’t have a whole lot of knowledge in the area, I’m not sure I agree – there are some fairly reasonable arguments on all sides of this argument.

    Maybe it would be better to use something that says that Australian companies (particularly technological companies) should be provided with the proverbial ‘flat playing ground’? Or that they should be supported to allow them to compete in both the Australian and global markets?

    • Thanks for your kind words :)

      I think being wrong is probably the best way to learn :D And I would agree with Branson! But I want to try not to do it too often from now on :D

      Upon reflection, I agree with you regarding Principle 6 — it is a little too specific. And I agree that the additional issue you’ve raised regarding the flat playing ground is also worth exploring. I’ll see how I can reflect these concerns in the next draft.

  16. @Sean I agree with what your saying, but don’t really think it should be limited specifically to corporations, I think every one (or entity) in Australia should do their fair share really.

    The latest trend here seems to be following the US and making corporations “people”, fair enough. Those “people” corporations should also be responsible like the rest of the citizens of a country, and not pull the “But we only answer to our shareholders!” card when things get rough. It’s not like the “real” citizens get to weasel out like that…

    • I agree with you on this Tinman.

      I was thinking about this issue last night and was starting towards removing this whole principle – I don’t think that Delimiter (including its audience/members) would or should have the same opinions on tax policy.

      Part of what I was thinking is that the principle could be along the lines of ‘We support a fair go for Australian businesses, and best prices and availability for Australian consumers’ – knowing, of course, that sometimes these align (e.g., Adobe/Microsoft/Apple pricing) and sometimes they conflict. Taking this a step further though, these belong in the ‘competition’ principle rather than the tax policy one.

      • I think the main issue identified here is a very valid one — that Principle 6 is a band-aid fix and not a deeper general principle that can apply to a number of different situations (for example, it only applies to corporations and not citizens, and the country-specific revenue thing may not quite fit).

        I’ll definitely add this to the list for revision in the next draft and try and come up with something more appropriate.

  17. ok, this idea might be a bit too left field but here is the general idea that was floating around in my mind:

    “Corporations should never, under any circumstances, have more rights than actual living breathing Australian citizens.”

    some of the possible flow on effects of this would be:

    *preventing corporations form legally locking us out of hacking/unlocking/repurposing our own devices paid for with our own money, just because they made and sold them. (think restrictive ULA’s)

    *preventing corporations from selling equipment in Australia that enforces region locking (DVD’s, BluRays, Games, software etc)

    *preventing corporations from using any form of technological locks to monopolise any form of consumables whether it be printer ink or coffee pods.

    Im sure there are likely to be many many other positive effects for technology consumers and australians in general. In the US corporations have managed to get themselves “free speech” rights etc and the harm they are doing to americans is substantial, including corrupting their already bad political system even further.

    PS. can I please be removed from the pre-mod list? I tried emailing you but it prolly wound up in the spam filter.

  18. Renai. Gents. ‘been a while.

    *cracks knuckles* Trolls ;-)

    I’m going to get this out of the way and hopefully move on – Renai you and I butted heads over that Turnbull/LNP policy a heck of a lot. My beef was far less that you’d ‘got it wrong’ than the fact that in doing so, you flew in the face of your stated principles about sticking to the facts. You believed empty political statements from people who had zero credibility (well, negative credibility if you want to get into semantics) and held that up as being equally as valid as hard figures and facts, or even projected estimates of an operating company. But the kicker was you would brook no argument on the topic – I quickly lost count at the number of posts I had deleted and I think I was even suspended from commenting twice. Because I was vocal about the lack of supporting evidence for the LNP’s position and the inconsistency of your approach. And it turned out I was essentially right.

    I’m not here on day three for the purpose of sticking the boot in. To be honest I feel very self-conscious writing this, but I feel it is a little more important than what people might think about me – if I felt like this, it is pretty much guaranteed that a lot more people than me took a similar reading, and have just never bothered to say anything. Or maybe it’s just me and you can ignore this? ;-) I dunno, statistical probability is in my favour, but then maybe I’m far more of an outlier than I realised…

    For a couple of years, Delimiter felt like a refreshingly active, intelligent place to discuss important issues with a rare group of highly knowledgeable people, where facts and evidence were the sacred bar against which all discussion and argument was held. My experience of your response to that issue flew in the face of that culture. I realised my reason for loyalty to and interest in Delimiter was far more about the community and the tremendous wealth of knowledge that drove through the heart of every discussion than the specific content of any particular article – your articles are mostly very good, don’t get me wrong, but there are few other sites where the community is so knowledgeable and rational. But when you get down to it, it is still your site, and I suddenly felt like an unwelcome outsider, not just because of your stated position, but because you were able to silence me. You were censoring opinions that opposed yours, saying they were not factual, when it was not factual to state that a political promise was a ‘guarantee’.

    So today my post is bitter-sweet – I love the Delimiter community tremendously, as I have learnt so much from it, and from you. But I’m a very busy person with a lot of pressures – the time I take to write a comment on here might be all the free time I get throughout an entire day in spits and spurts, and to have that evaporate as though it never existed hurt every time. The last five or six months before you put Delimiter in mothballs I was only checking it sporadically at best.

    So I am encouraged by what you’ve written this week – Australia needs Delimiter, and the past year has demonstrated that there is no one else in the country that can stand up and create a place like this. It’s important work, and I’m glad you’re returning renewed, and wiser for your time on the other side.

    But I miss what Delimiter used to mean to me, and I am not naïve enough to think that it will all be cake and dancing (?) – I look forward to the return of your articles, I will probably read your book (if for no other reason than there has never been anything like it written in Australia), and I expect, sooner or later, I’m going to say something you’re not going to agree with. And I will do my best to ensure everything I write is backed up by facts. And I’ll try to be polite. But that doesn’t mean you’re going to agree with me. So what then?

    I sincerely hope you allow discussions you don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean you leave the site to devolve into anarchy – almost all (if not, all) of the commenting rules were always fine. It was the inconsistent application I had a problem with, and what will break this for me – inconsistently allowing trolls with zero factual basis for their statements to go on harassing people for weeks on end, while others had their comments deleted because they didn’t agree with your specific position.

    Sorry everyone, I know I’ve ruined the mood a bit. But I wanted this done and dusted, and I felt it important it got a public airing, because it didn’t just affect me. Renai, I don’t expect you to make some sort of definitive statement – the best intentions in the world are worthless in the heat of the moment if they’re not a core principle, anyway. What I wanted to do was explain that it wasn’t just a case of you getting the call wrong, it was about the handling. I sincerely hope the lessons you learnt weren’t just about making better calls, but how you treat people who disagree with you.

    I hope Delimiter can be a great jewel of Australian press, with an open, enthusiastic and thoroughly stimulating community without peer, that I can hopefully add something to occasionally.

    Welcome back, Renai. Whatever happens, I wish you the best of luck – like any of us, you may not be perfect, but I have no doubt that Australia is poorer without you.

    • On-topic, regarding your principles, I strongly endorse the open-source argument vs private sector; the two are equally important in their own right and not mutually exclusive.

      I also think something about transparency is important – you know yourself how utterly frustrating and idiotic the Government (regardless of party) has been blocking public access to things we have an overwhelmingly pertinent interest in knowing. Transparency has become a platitude politicians trot out to reassure the public that they are being fair and reasonable, but none of them are actually implementing (and the LNP have set new records for opaqueness and derision for accountable transparency). You were often frustrated at the lack of information coming out of NBN Co under Labor, but the place is a black box now. Companies both private and public and especially the government need to become a hell of a lot more transparent – how can you operate a reasonable democratic system if the people don’t have sufficient (or, indeed, any) information with which to make choices?

    • hey mate,

      I hope you’re well.

      I’m sorry, but I don’t want to rake over the past in detail. I have openly admitted my mistakes and apologised for them, as well as outlining an approach which I believe will help avoid such mistakes in future. I am openly engaging with the community and working for the greater good. I hope we can move forward with strength and positivity to build a better future for this great country — I don’t feel this is the time to be looking back at old grievances ;)

      Cheers,

      Renai

      • No problem. My purpose was to communicate the issue as I saw it – I’ve done that, now I’m more than happy to move on. I hope to provide a useful contribution if I can, and I’m looking forward to seeing the direction you take on a number of fronts. I have no desire to butt heads with you – we’re just both very passionate about lots of issues, including fairness, as each of us sees it. Hopefully we’ll be able to see eye-to-eye more often than not ;-)

        Enjoy your weekend :-)

      • As I have stated before. Its better to outsider then insider

        As insider you learn about the systems. However you influence to seed change can bring resistance from those whom not aligned to your views and opinions

        Sometimes these politics happen everywhere and not just in parliament. You could be a sys-admin trying to suggest a new way todo something and person that control the financials says “No. I have opinion that’s a bad idea”.. Sometimes “No” could be vendetta response

  19. I haven’t had time to read the other comments, but I am slightly confused as to what these ‘principles’ are. They seem oddly specific and topical… and I’m not sure I agree with all of them. For example:

    Principle 2: Where there is a choice of technologies to be implemented, we support the option that will be the best fit for purpose in the long-term.

    What’s so special about ‘long term’ when choosing a technology? Should a tech platform be chosen based upon *all* the relevant metrics? Sometimes a short term fix is preferable to a long term solution – especially if the later is expensive and outdates quickly.

    I guess I feel like this principle will force delimiter to support one option regardless of its merits, and shut-down conversation between and among you and the readers.

    Principle 4: No government should interfere in the operation of the Internet, beyond that which is required to ensure a stable domain name system.

    I find it odd that you on one hand argue that there should be no government interference in the operation of the internet, except on the sole issue of DNS – which is special because? Again I’d like to have a more nuanced discussion about each issue as it arises.

    TL;DR these principles seem to be arbitrary talking points, and I don’t want that.

    • “What’s so special about ‘long term’ when choosing a technology? Should a tech platform be chosen based upon *all* the relevant metrics? Sometimes a short term fix is preferable to a long term solution – especially if the later is expensive and outdates quickly.”

      Isn’t that last statement a bit of an oxymoron? How can something that “outdates quickly” be considered as “long term? Second IMHO there is nothing wrong w/ a short term fix as long as the returns in value is comparable to the more expensive option. As long as the “cheaper fix” can achieve almost the same capacity for a cheaper price and with a comparable shelf life then I don’t think that would really count as being against “long term” (and no the MTM is anything but this as you are spending the *same* amount of funding as the previous NBN for very little gain and an even shorter shelf life)

      “Principle 4: No government should interfere in the operation of the Internet, beyond that which is required to ensure a stable domain name system.”

      That’s basic Net Neutrality watered down to laymans terms. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

      • With respect to Net Neutrality, I think we need to add another clause into that specific principle to cover telcos’ behaviour, as well as that of Government. A few people have raised this. I’ll think about it and get it into the next draft.

      • “Isn’t that last statement a bit of an oxymoron? How can something that “outdates quickly” be considered as “long term?”

        Today, pick a PC that will last 10 years.

        Tech option 1: Buy a $300 tablet.

        Tech option b: Spend $10,000 on 30 core monster.

        Technically option B is the tech that will last longer. Of course, buying a new $300 tablet every year might end up giving far better results.

        Relating to a real issue, Malcolm is completely right that a low cost, fast rollout of FTTN is preferable to a long slow and expensive FTTP rollout. The reason he’s wrong is not because a FTTP is a ‘long term’ rather than short term solution, the reason he’s wrong is because a wide range of numbers to not add up – from start deployment date, projected need, cost, deployment time, total cost in the long term etc.

        • Sad fact, PC’s are consumables now – the last personal computer to have a genuine 10 year life span was the Commodore 64 (sold ~20 million from ’82-’94).

        • This issue can be solved by the application of context. Typically, PCs are deployed on 3-5 year time frames and carry out normal desktop workloads. Considering that context, you most likely wouldn’t consider a $300 tablet or a $10,000 30 core monster to be the best option over the time frame being considered.

          “Malcolm is completely right that a low cost, fast rollout of FTTN is preferable to a long slow and expensive FTTP rollout.”

          No, he’s not. Over the time frame of the NBN, FTTP is the best option by far — actually, over the long term, it’s the only viable option. Cost is only one factor here.

    • The purpose of the principles is to form a framework through which I will view any issue or situation that comes up in terms of my writing. For example, if a politician makes a statement, I will go back to these principles, and see how they match up. If there is a fundamental mismatch, it will probably indicate that the politician is on the wrong track with their policy, and I will likely criticise them for it.

      Regarding your specific issues:

      1. The explanatory text of Principle 2 explicitly states that all factors should be considered when implementing a technology.

      However, I think it is clear that far too many technical decisions are made in all spheres of life with only regard to the immediate need. This is a systemic problem. It often leads to technology needing to be re-implemented far too quickly. It is important to consider the whole picture over the long-term when implementing any technology.

      This can obviously apply to Govt IT procurement, or the choice of fibre for the NBN, but it can even apply to something as simple as a mobile phone purchase. Do you really want to switch to Android and buy all your expensive apps again if you already own an iPhone? Probably not.

      2. DNS is special. History has clearly shown that there needs to be one stable DNS authority in each country to ensure the stable operation of that country’s DNS system. auDA is a good example of a stable authority in this regard in Australia.

      Finally, yes — obviously there will be nuanced discussions on Delimiter about each tech issue as it rises. And as I stated, the principles are a live document. They will be modified, based on feedback from the community here, as time goes on. But at least they give us a framework to examine tech policy and corporate behaviour — it won’t just be my own opinion any more, which has led me to make mistakes in the past.

      I hope this helps.

      • “However, I think it is clear that far too many technical decisions are made in all spheres of life with only regard to the immediate need.”

        That makes sense – I can get behind that… so why not make that a principle?

        ‘We believe that technical decisions need to be made with consideration of long term goals’.

        I can 110% get onboard with that.

        “DNS is special.”

        I’ll admit ignorance of what events you’re talking about, but it does strike me as odd. DNS is in theory a pretty trivial system to implement – if the existing system breaks competitors could pop up very quickly. On the other side we can/do face very significant issues on issues of piracy, black markets, ransomware, hacking/cyber-warfare, rape/stalking/grooming, terrorism/radicalisation, privacy etc that are much harder to resolve and could well do with proper government policy [discussed on its own merits of course].

        As I read it now, you seem to say as long as http://www.google.com.au works, it doesn’t matter if everything else goes to hell.

        TBH I’m a little concerned you got fooled once, and now are making arbitrary rules to try and protect yourself rather than learning from your mistakes and using good judgement. We warned you against Turnbull because he, quite simply, had a long and extensive record of lying. One day he’d say something intelligent and inspiring and the day after he’d do the exact opposite. Oddly enough, not one of your principles here would prevent that from occurring again – you have no ‘people’s histories will be taken into account when accessing their arguments’ principle.

        • These aren’t arbitrary rules — they are setting a long-term framework which will govern my editorial approach on Delimiter, involving and being subject to the views of the community. If I am to represent your views in a place like Parliament House, I need to be firm in terms of the principles being represented.

          Obviously they will need to be interpreted with respect to events as they occur, and they are a live document — they will change regularly as events require it. Ultimately, it is the Delimiter audience that will keep me accountable — and these principles represent a tool to assist with that.

          In terms of the timing principle you mention, I’ll consider it for the next draft.

          In terms of the Internet issues you raise … sure, this stuff is up for debate, but I think the overwhelming majority of the Delimiter audience wants the Government to keep its hands off the Internet. Most things on the Internet that people would object to can either be handled by PC-side Internet filtering, in the case of viruses and objectionable content where youngsters are concerned, or by the real-world police targeting real-world people (for example, in the case of child abuse materials).

          Government intervention in the Internet has almost always proven to be ineffective in addressing issues online, aside from the issue of DNS, where country-based authorities have proven useful in keeping things stable.

          Happy to discuss specific examples, but I don’t see a huge problem with the principles.

          • “If I am to represent your views in a place like Parliament House…”

            … I see what you did there ;)

            (don’t worry, I’ll vote for you)

  20. Renai – welcome home. Kickstarter backed, and looking forward to this new Delimiter …

    Re Principle 3: I don’t think we should ignore Government (and government-backed bodies such as CSIRO) as a source of innovation – think of the Internet itself, www and wifi; all the “plumbing” we’re currently occupying for this discussion is a result of Government investment. It could also be argued that the Internet fails us most currently where it is used, misused and abused by private corporations. Not quite sure how to fit this point into your principles, but it needs to be made …

    • Cheers, much appreciated!

      Both points are valid — other commenters have also raised them. I’ll add something about this into the revised draft :)

  21. It won’t necessarily cost less to get your site this way, but it does provide a
    way to spread the cost over time. However, because they are
    free, users cannot have a custom domain name, rather the URL will be
    [insertname]. You will also find 30 free tools, and software programs to help you build a successfull Internet
    Business.

Comments are closed.