that thanks to powerful and flexible Internet architectures, a decentralized regulatory regime is a viable alternative to centralized structures and the uniformity they tend to impose. These architectures, however, must be used prudently, and this introduces an ethical dimension into our discussion. Our argument is that ethical self-regulation facilitated by technology is the most reasonable way to “control” and impose order on the Net. Technology transforms the regulatory landscape in cyberspace by lowering transaction costs and making it possible for individuals to deal with some negative externalities on their own terms.

On the other hand, we do not agree with an extreme libertarian perspective that argues for a simple “hands-off” approach by government. Government intervention is especially important when individuals lack the tools to deal with the negative by-products of cyberspace transactions or the problems involving the Internet infrastructure. Government intervention seems essential to preserve the original Internet design principles, such as end-to-end, which permit true open access on the Internet. And the government must ensure that Microsoft or some other monopolistic enterprise does not exert its dominance in a way that stifles innovation and ultimately hurts the consumer.

As we survey relevant policies, our main focus will be on five areas of social concern: fair competition in cyberspace, free expression, intellectual property, privacy rights, and security. The range of specific issues that emerge in each of these areas represents a fairly sizable portion of the political agenda in Washington. These issues demand creative and prompt responses, which are sensitive to jurisdictional ambiguities. But Washington, with a culture mired in special interests and bureaucratic paralysis, may be ill-equipped to handle all these matters expeditiously. Hence, the need for a more decentralized approach, whenever possible.

As one plunges into this book, it will also become apparent that we are embracing a centrist philosophy when policies are necessary. Regulating the Internet is about exercising control, and successful regulation is about achieving the proper level of control. In our estimation the center is usually the proper place to be, especially when dealing with contentious issues like free expression and intellectual property. We must eschew corporate extremism, which is sometimes hostile to democratic values and free expression on the Net, while it advocates exceptionally strong property protection. But we must also avoid liberal orthodoxy, which espouses few if any restrictions on speech and loose property protection. Balance or measure is the key virtue in both areas, especially in the case of intellectual property protection. In Aristotle’s (1941) terminology, the goal of regulators should be to “hit the mark” and not to fail through excess (hyperbole) or defect (ellipsis); that is, to avoid excessive or feeble protections. In a world where intellectual property has such exceptional value, the challenge to “hit the mark” and get it right could not be more important.

-x-