Author Archive

Please join me in welcoming Ronaldo Lemos to the Mozilla Foundation Board of Directors. Ronaldo brings a passion for the open Web and a wealth of new knowledge to the Mozilla Foundation Board. Ronaldo is an internationally respected Brazilian academic, lawyer and commentator on intellectual property, technology, and culture. He is the director of the Rio Institute for Technology & Society, and professor at the Rio de Janeiro State University´s Law School. He has also been the Project Lead for Creative Commons in Brazil since 2003.

Lemos was one of the creators of the Marco Civil da Internet, legislation for protecting civil rights, privacy and net neutrality for the Internet in Brazil—key, given Mozilla’s increasing focus on the role of policy in protecting (or harming) the open nature of the internet. Ronaldo also brings a broad view of the nature of the internet in markets like Brazil, where an increasing amount of people are coming online primarily via mobile.

Ronaldo has been working with Mozilla since 2005, helping Mozilla conduct activities in Brazil, working together on policy issues, and increasingly providing advice about Firefox OS as a tool for mobile empowerment. Ronaldo strengthens our voice and expands our reach. You can follow him (in Portugese mostly) on twitter at @lemos_ronaldo, Facebook and the Instituto de Tecnologia & Sociedade do Rio de Janeiro. We are excited to have Ronaldo’s expertise and energy as part of our leadership team.

Last week I attended the NETmundial Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Sao Paulo. It was a 2 day event, following a multi-month process. A web search for NetMundial outcome will provide a range of evaluations, including one from fellow Mozillian Chris Riley. Here I’ll provide a (somewhat idiosyncratic) description of what it was like to be at the event that led to these articles.

Internet Governance and NetMundial

Internet Governance has become a much more active topic of discussion recently, spurred in part by an increased level of scrutiny of the US Government’s involvement following the Snowden revelations. I should start by saying that there is some confusion over the meaning of “Internet Governance.” It’s sometimes used to refer to development process for technical decisions affecting the Internet, and is sometimes used more broadly to mean decisions regarding public policy issues that touch life through the Internet. Here is a nice infographic about the topics, attendees and goals of the event from the folks at Access Now.

I attended NetMundial as a representative of Mozilla and as a member of the Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms. This is a panel spurred by Fadi Chehadé,the president of ICANN, and organized late in 2013 as this press release describes.

The NetMundial organizing committees prepared a draft “final outcome” document. There have been a number of comments, questions and criticisms submitted in written form in the months leading up to the event. Both the Panel on which I participated and Mozilla made submissions to the drafting committee, as did many, many other organizations. A good part of the event was spent hearing comments from the floor. The final version of the document was published at the end of the NetMundial event.

Multi-stakeholderism, or Who is Able to Make Decisions About the Internet

One key issue is the nature of the group that should address Internet-related issues. Boiled down to the simplest possible formulation, the question can be seen as: should the Internet be regulated by governments, in a multi-government process (such as the UN); or (b) should civil society, technologies and / or business interests be able to participate in how the Internet is developed? The first of these is known as “multi-lateral” and the latter as “multi-stakeholder”. The multi-lateral approach is of course what the government ministers and other representatives are used to. The multi-stakeholder models is closer to what much of the technical community is accustomed to. NetMundial was designed as a multi-stakeholder event.

Like many of those involved technically with the Internet, I find it impossible to imagine how a government-only process can result in anything other than big trouble for Internet development. During this event I came to realize how many people view “multi-stakeholderism” as a way for big U.S. Internet corporations to have a controlling voice in policy and Internet development. Some civil society organizations seem to prefer a government-only approach as better than one that involves the commercial players. NetMundial brought me a much better understanding of this perspective. There were also speakers who commented that governments are the legitimate actors here and multi-stakeholder resolutions are inappropriate. One speaker from China noted that each country should be able to build its own infrastructure in line with its own needs.

The relationship of national sovereignty to multi-stakeholderism was raised but (to my knowledge) not thoroughly discussed. As just noted, a few people advocated that each country should make its own laws as it thinks best. Even within groups interested in pursuing the multi-stakeholder approach there remains a question of the correct role for government. Brazil President Dilma Rousseff raised the topic of national sovereignty explicitly within a multi-stakeholder context in her address as well.

One thing that was clear at the event however — the avenues of participation open to many high level government representatives were the same as the rest of us. During the comment section there were 5 or 6 microphones for different types of participants — civil society, business, technical community, government. Government ministers who wanted to comment were given a chance to get in line behind the government microphone and participate in the round robin of comments. The same 2 minute limit applied to them as well, though not to comments or responses from the organizing committee I was particularly struck by the comments of a minister from Argentina. Argentina was one of the 12 co-hosts of the event, which one might think would give the minister some particular influence. When her turn came she noted that her government had submitted written comments earlier in the process but those comments had not been included in the draft outcome documents, so she would make them again in this public forum in the hopes that they would be accepted. As noted earlier, representatives from China, Russia, and I’m told from Iran and Saudi Arabia, rose to raise their concerns. The Canadian minister used his turn to stay that Canada supports the outcome document, understanding it is imperfect, and believing it is well worth supporting.

I was told by a few seasoned political representatives that to their knowledge this aspect of the event was unique. They at least could not remember another meeting where government representatives of this level participated but did not control the final outcome.

This strikes me as a significant success, quite separate from the content of the document. Whatever the scope of national governments, it is good to have all representatives in Internet Governance see themselves as equal as human beings, and to experience what life is like for individual citizens.

The organizers also arranged for people to participate from a number of “Remote Hubs” around the world. When I first arrived at the event venue I ran into a Free Software and Mozilla advocate I’ve known since my first trip to Brazil some years ago. (Hello Felipe!) He was part of the staff arranging the Remote Hubs, and focusing on using Free Software to do so. I heard many people comment on how effective the Hubs were. At Mozilla we’re pretty used to people participating in our meetings all using the Internet as the communications channel. (This is another reason why I <3 the web.) For many however, NetMundial seems to be the first experience with such a thing and a number of people mentioned it to me as a new and powerful element.

Privacy

Another key topic was privacy, with a particular emphasis on protection from mass surveillance. President Rousseff has been outspoken on this issue, making a clear connection between privacy and democracy, and privacy and state-to-state relationships:

In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among nations.

(Sept. 2013 speech to the United Nations General Assembly: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/24/brazil-president-un-speech-nsa-surveillance.)

There were many, many comments on this topic at NetMundial. The reaction to US mass surveillance globally is deep and seems to be ongoing in a way that’s not nearly as apparent from inside the US. The NetMundial outcome document includes a condemnation of mass surveillance, but many, many people felt this is inadequate, and that a stronger and more specific response is required.

Net Neutrality

Another contentious topic was net neutrality. In ironic timing, the event took place at the same time as the US Federal Communications Commission announced that it is contemplating rules that allow business discretion in how content is delivered to people. The rules themselves are not yet known. There was an immediate and deep concern that this will dramatically change the rules in the US, and thus deepen problems on a global basis. The FCC chairman Mr. Wheeler asserts that “The proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted.” But many believe the changes will end up providing enhanced opportunity for those with extra financial resources, and limit opportunity for anyone else. Net neutrality language did not end up in the final document, which is another source of disappointment for many.

Overall

NetMundial’s big innovation was in the range of participants, not the particular format. For me, accustomed as I am to hack-a-thons and un-conferences and self-organizing work groups, the event was a bit traditional. However, I talked to enough other people to know it was wildly different from most events government officials and diplomats attend.

I’m very happy I was a participant, I’m very pleased the event occurred, and I see it as a positive step forward in Internet Governance. The challenges to a healthy Internet and healthy online life are deep and varied. There’s still a reasonable chance that the wildly democratizing and hopeful nature of the Internet will deteriorate into yet another centralized technology for the big organizations of the world. NetMundial was also an opportunity for citizens and civic groups to participate along with the big players — government and business. NetMundial showed the range of people everywhere who look to the Internet with hope and energy.

Last week I wrote that Mozilla’s commitment to inclusiveness for our LGBT community, and for all underrepresented groups, will not change. Acting for or on behalf of Mozilla, it is unacceptable to limit opportunity for *anyone* based on the nature of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This is not only a commitment, it is our identity.

This left unanswered the question of whether equality explicitly includes marital equality. I want to clear that up. Speaking as the Chairwoman, I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality.

Statement: Mozilla Supports Marriage Equality

Monday’s announcement of Brendan Eich as the new CEO of Mozilla brought a lot of reactions. Many people were excited about what this meant for Mozilla, and our emphasis on protecting the open Web. In the next few days we’ll see more from Brendan and the leadership team on the opportunities in front of us. Before that, however, both Brendan and I want to address a particular concern that has been raised about Mozilla’s commitment to inclusiveness for LGBT individuals and community, and whether Brendan’s role as CEO might diminish this commitment at Mozilla.

The short answer: Mozilla’s commitment to inclusiveness for our LGBT community, and for all underrepresented groups, will not change. Acting for or on behalf of Mozilla, it is unacceptable to limit opportunity for *anyone* based on the nature of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This is not only a commitment, it is our identity.

This commitment is a key requirement for all leadership within Mozilla, including for the CEO, and Brendan shares this commitment as the new Chief Executive Officer.

Second, I’ll point to Brendan’s comments on this topic.

Third, I’ll note that two years ago we had an open conversation and co-creation process about how we make sure our community supports all members, including all forms of gender and sexual orientation. The process, with me as the draftsperson, resulted in the Community Participation Guidelines. These Guidelines mandate that (1) each of us must be inclusive of all community members, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity and more, and (2) any exclusionary approach you might practice elsewhere must be left at the door, and not be brought into Mozilla’s spaces.

We expect everyone, regardless of role or title, to be committed to the breadth of inclusiveness described in the Guidelines. These Guidelines are in addition to our inclusive and non-discriminatory policies which apply particularly to employees. As a practical, concrete example we’ve also been pushing the boundaries to offer excellent health benefits across the board, to domestic partners and all married couples, same-sex and otherwise.

My experience is that Brendan is as committed to opportunity and diversity inside Mozilla as anyone, and more so than many. This commitment to opportunity for all within Mozilla has been a key foundation of our work for many years. I see it in action regularly.

The CEO role is obviously a key role, with a large amount of authority. The CEO must have a commitment to the inclusive nature of Mozilla. This includes of course a commitment to the Community Participation Guidelines, inclusive HR practices and the spirit that underlies them. Brendan has made this commitment.

Finally, I’ve been asked a few times about my own personal views, and so I’ll add a short comment.

I am an avid supporter of equal rights for all. I support equal rights for the LGBT community, I support equal rights for underrepresented groups, and I have some pretty radical views about the role of underrepresented groups in social institutions. I was surprised in 2012, when his donation in support of Proposition 8 came to light, to learn that Brendan and I aren’t in close alignment here, since I’ve never seen any indication of anything other than inclusiveness in our work together (note: I’ve edited this sentence to give clarity).

I spend most of my time focused on building an open Internet, which I think is a required infrastructure for empowerment for everyone and where I think I can add something that’s tricky to replace. If I weren’t doing this, I’d probably be spending a good chunk of my life focused more directly on equality issues.

I’m happy to welcome Brendan Eich to a new role at Mozilla, that of our CEO. I also want to thank Jay Sullivan for his dedication to Mozilla over the years and in particular as our acting CEO this last year.

Brendan has been an absolutely foundational element of Mozilla and our success for the past 15 years. The parallels between Mozilla’s history and our future are very strong, and I am very happy with this combination of continuity and change to help us continue to fulfill our mission, as Mozilla has big ambitions: providing a rich, exciting online experience that puts people at the center of digital life.

We exceeded our wildest dreams with Firefox when we first released it 10 years ago. We moved the desktop and browsing environments to a much more open place, with far more options and control available to individuals.

When I look back at the early days that led to Firefox, I think mostly of the personalities that achieved this great success. Mozilla was a small band of people, mostly volunteers and a few employees, bound together by a shared mission and led by Brendan and me as co-founders of the Mozilla project. We were an unusual group to have such huge ambitions. Looking at us, most people thought we would never succeed. But we did. We succeeded because like-minded people joined with us to make Mozilla so much stronger, and to create amazing products that embody our values — products that people love to use.

Today we live in a different online era. This era combines desktop, mobile devices, cloud services, big data and a social layer. It is feature-rich, highly centralized, and focused on a few giant organizations that exert control over almost all aspects of the experience. Today’s computing environment is deeply in need of an open, exciting alternative that shows what the Open Web brings to this setting — something built on parts including Firefox OS, WebGL, asm.js, and the many other innovations being developed at Mozilla. It is comparable to the desktop computing environment we set out to revolutionize when we started Mozilla.

Mozilla needs to bring a similar scope of change to the new computing era. Once again, Mozilla needs to break down the walled gardens of online life and bring openness and opportunity to all. Once again, we have the chance to build products and communities in a way that no one else will. Once again, we will build something new and exciting.

Over the years I’ve worked with Brendan, we’ve each had a variety of roles, and we have always had a great partnership. I look forward to working closely together in this phase of Mozilla’s development. I hope you’ll join us.

mitchell

The World Wide Web is the greatest tool for knowledge sharing and collaboration we have ever seen.  In the 25 years it has existed —  only a third of a modern lifespan– the Web has affected almost every aspect of life for much of humanity, and will do so for even more of humanity in the years to come.

The Web shows us the creativity and ingenuity and diversity of humanity.  The Web empowers all of us to try out new ideas and offer them to the world, without needing to ask the powerful for permission.    The rapid pace of innovation shows us what humanity is capable of when powerful tools are made equally available to all of us.

The next 25 years will show us whether this openness can be maintained in some significant degree or whether the Web will become “business as usual.”  Today many groups are working to tame this explosive openness and potential, some for very legitimate and understandable reasons.  Governments seek to limit or control the Web to protect their citizens, either from criminal activities or to protect cultural norms.  Some governments seek to regulate the Internet to protect and propagate their own positions.  Companies seek to tame the Web to build their business and return value to shareholders.

Mozilla believes that the full range of human potential must be represented on the Web.  We believe that the power of the Web is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. We will continue our dedication to building this portion of the Web and of online life.

Today on the Web’s 25th birthday, we are joining with the Web at 25 campaign and the Web We Want campaign to enable and amplify the voice of the Internet community. We encourage you to visit www.webat25.org to send a birthday greeting to the Web and visit our interactive quilt to share your vision for the type of Web you want.

Click below for thoughts from Mozilla CTO and SVP of Engineering, Brendan Eich on the 25th birthday:
https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/the-web-at-25/

I’ve been quiet since the Town Hall on Directory Tiles. That’s because I’ve been traveling and pretty wrapped up in the trip. I know there is a lot to think about with the Directory Tiles, a lot of good questions and topics raised.

I’m on my way to some more meetings in Europe and then Mobile World Congress. So I may be pretty quiet until MWC is over. Please don’t think that means I’ve zoned out on this topic. I know it’s important.

I’m starting with content but please rest assured I’ll get to the topic of ads and revenue.

In the early days of Firefox we were very careful not to offer content to our users.  Firefox came out of a world in which both Netscape/AOL (the alma mater of many early Mozillians) and Microsoft had valued their content and revenue sources over the user experience.  Those of us from Netscape/AOL had seen features, bookmarks, tabs, and other irritants added to the product to generate revenue.   We’d seen Mozilla code subsequently “enhanced” with these features.

And so we have a very strong, very negative reaction to any activities that even remotely remind us of this approach to product.  That’s good.

This reaction somehow became synonymous with other approaches that are not necessarily so helpful.  For a number of  years we refused to have any relationship with our users beyond we provide software and they use it.  We resisted offering content unless it came directly from an explicit user action.  This made sense at first when the web was so young.  But over the years many people have come to expect and want their software to do things on their behalf, to take note of what one has done before and do something useful with it.

In the last few years we’ve begun to respond to this.  We’re careful about it because the DNA is based on products serving users.  Every time we offer something to our users we question ourselves rigorously about the motivations for that offer.  Are we sure it’s the most value we can provide to our users? Are we sure, doubly-sure, we’re not fooling ourselves?  Sometimes my commercial colleagues laugh at me for the amount of real estate we leave unmonitored or the revenue opportunities we decline.

So we look at the Tiles and wonder if we can do more for people.    We think we can.  I’ve heard some people say they still don’t want any content offered.  They want their experience to be new, to be the same as it was the day they installed the browser, the same as anyone else might experience.  I understand this view, and think it’s not the default most people are choosing.  We think we can offer people useful content in the Tiles.

When we have ideas about how content might be useful to people, we look at whether there is a revenue possibility, and if that would annoy people or bring something potentially useful.  Ads in search turn out to be useful.  The gist  of the Tiles idea is that we would include something like 9 Tiles on a page, and that 2 or 3 of them would be sponsored — aka “ads.”  So to explicitly address the question of whether sponsored tiles (aka “ads”) could be included as part of a content offering, the answer is yes.

These sponsored results/ ads would not have tracking features.

Why would we include any sponsored results?  If the Tiles are useful to people then we’ll generate value.  That generates revenue that supports the Mozilla project.   So to explicitly address the question of whether we care about generating revenue and sustaining Mozilla’s work, the answer is yes.  In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly this.

Pretty much anytime we talk about revenue at Mozilla people get suspicious.  Mozillians get suspicious, and our supporters get suspicious.  There’s some value in that, as it reinforces our commitment to user experience and providing value to our users.  There’s some drawbacks to this as well, however.  I’ll be talking with Mozillians tomorrow and in the coming days on these topics in more detail.

Yesterday I came across the image of the launch day version of Netscape Navigator 1.0 — the first commercial browser that set the World Wide Web on fire, and caused the explosion of Internet technology into everyday life.  Here’s an image of an early info Netscape provided — how to click a link, find things in that era, etc.  Some fun history of the early, early World Wide Web. It’s so early that the list of search engines does not predates Google.

The image has a link labeled “LICENSE.”  I found myself trying to click on the link.  Silly, but still I wanted to see it.  I wrote the license that link used to point to.  I wrote every end-user license in Netscape’s products for many years, until the mighty Liz Compton took over.  The licenses were complicated.  They reflected something new — free product.  Today we are used to getting consumer grade software for free, but Netscape was a pioneer.  Netscape Navigator was free until the 1.0 version, and then they were free to charitable organizations.  (This change was quite controversial among Netscape employees; I was not the decision-maker.)  That made for complicated business terms and license terms.  We had long negotiations with organizations that supplied code we integrated, explaining to them why Netscape would not pay them for every copy distributed.  Explaining that the software was sometimes given away led to astonishment at first, and long negotiating sessions.  I was responsible for all these negotiations with external vendors of software bits as well, so at least I knew how important it was.

One time I had to rewrite the license because our installer program had a length limit.  I think that’s when we combine the licenses for the free and the paid versions into one document.  Perhaps that was a good forcing function to shorter licensing terms, but it did require the business owners to take some risk with less specific language.

All these licenses were training for writing the Mozilla Public License 1.0 (now superceded by the 2.0 version). I see the MPL as the highlight of my time in the licensing world.  I had help, including  Liz and Harvey Anderson, both now with Mozilla.  Even so, I “held the pen” and by the time I was done I had memorized almost every clause.  Harvey had a big role in the patent pieces of the 1.1 license, which may have been the first open source/free software license to have a patent defense clause.  It’s the first I know of so far, and I know we didn’t work from examples, so at least it was an original creation.  (Ironically, original creation is not a patent defense although it is for copyright infringement.)

The idea of Mozilla was announced on January 22, and the project launched March 31, 1998.  I wrote the MPL within that period, as the engineering team got ready for the release and we all worked to figure out how the first iteration of Mozilla would work.  A bunch of today’s Mozillians have stories of that time.  Many people told us a license couldn’t be created, let alone in 2+ months, but those of us at Netscape just went ahead and did it.  We had public review via newsgroup — appropriately called 331.  If anyone has archives of that newsgroup I would love to get a copy.  Once again, a part of Mozilla’s history predates the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

(As a side note, the wondrous Internet Archive suffered a fire which damaged its building and its digitizing materials.  The fund-raising campaign to support rebuilding is underway.  Mozilla is contributing to this invaluable asset and we hope to see the Internet Archive fully restored as soon as possible.)

I still wish I could click that “LICENSE” link … “-)

Mozilla is a global, non-profit community dedicated to the mission of building an Internet that is “knowable,” interoperable and open to everyone.  When the Internet is knowable it is transparent, we can see it and understand it; we can know more. When the Internet is interoperable we have more opportunity to try new things; we can do more. When it is open to everyone it becomes “ours,” and we can build things that support the full range of human life, from economic to social to public to individual; we can do better.

When we use the word “open” we mean all of these things. We expect these traits in all aspects of online life. We work to represent these traits in how we organize and operate as Mozilla. We are organized as a non-profit so we can put these elements first, always. We seek to influence the Web as a whole towards user-control, towards the openness that builds accountability and trustworthiness, and individual choice and empowerment.

We build products, such as Firefox and Firefox OS, to make our values concrete and part of daily online life. We empower global communities, so more of the people who share our mission have the knowledge and experience and credibility to move the mission forward. We do this by deepening our volunteer engagement in our core products, and by encouraging them to develop their own projects. We teach and learn, both through our product development and through dedicated teaching and learning programs such as Webmaker. Ultimately we aim to shape environments, from the consumer Internet experience to public policy to learning environments.

Mozilla’s direction and decisions are based on our mission of making the Internet understandable, interoperable and open to all, while moving the Web forward as a platform for creation and consumption. We recently released our State of Mozilla and audited financial statements for 2012. That generally sparks comments on our finances, which of course makes sense. The finances are important, they are what allows us to support our work at the scale at which we need to operate and to advocate for the Web and the billions of people online. For us, however, financial return is not our main organizing principle. Our stakeholders are our global communities, the people who use our projects and ultimately all those interested in the health and openness of the Internet. The key return on investment for these stakeholders is the degree to which we move Internet life towards being knowable, interoperable and open to everyone.