DOCUMENT RESUME ED 441 402 IR 020 434 TITLE Commission on Child Online Protection (COPA) Report to Congress. Appendices. PUB DATE 2000-10-20 NOTE 1085p.; For the Commission on Child Online Protection (COPA) Report to Congress, see IR 020 433. AVAILABLE FROM For full text: http://www.copacommission.org. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF08/PC44 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Access to Information; *Child Safety; *Children; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; Freedom of Speech; *Information Policy; Information Technology; *Internet; Policy Formation; Pornography; Privacy IDENTIFIERS Acceptable Use Policy; Commission on Online Child Protection; Filters; First Amendment ABSTRACT The appendices for the Commission on Child Online Protection (COPA) Report to Congress, October 20, 2000, include the following: Commission overview, which includes scope and timeline, original statute, amended statute, technologies and methods, and biographies of the commissioners; Commission finances; Commission meetings for the year 2000; materials submitted to the Commission, including materials for hearings as well as research papers, reports, and correspondence; compilation of matrices on filtering, labeling, and rating technologies; Commission responses to questionnaire; and catalog of drawer files, which includes a detailed index of all materials submitted to the Commission in nonelectronic format such as books, software programs, handouts, and VHS tape recordings of hearings and transcripts. (AA) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Commission on Child Online Protection (COPA) Report to Congress October 20, 2000 Appendices BEST COPYAVAILABLE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CSA 011ice of Educational Research fins Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS CENTER (ERIC) BEEN GRAN TED BY 0 This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. K.L:i4ercsi 0 Minor changes have been made to 0 improve reproduction quality. N Points of view or opinions stated in this TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES document do not necessarily represent INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) official OERI position or policy. 0 1 COPA Commission http://www.copacommission.orereport/appendix.shtml, . pnblitinethild*pag.0:(00/1),., ho fi0111411,,,1:311 Pit Appendices to COPA Commission Report TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Commission Overview 1. Scope and Timeline 2. Original Statute 3. Amended Statute 4. Technologies and Methods 5. Biographies of the Commissioners B. Commission Finances C. Commission Meetings 1. Meeting, March 7, 2000 Suinmary 2. Meeting, April 28, 2000 Agenda Minutes 3. Meeting, June 9, 2000 Agenda Minutes 4. Meeting, July 21, 2000 Minutes (.pdf) 5. Meeting, August 4, 2000 Minutes (.pdf) 6. Report Drafting Meeting,September 18-19, 2000 Agenda Minutes 7. Report Drafting Meeting,October 4-5, 2000 Agenda D. Materials Submitted to the Commission 1. Hearing 1, June 8-9, 2000 Formal Notice Guidelines for submitting public comments Agenda and Witnesses' Testimony Additional Testimony 2. Hearing 2, July 20-21, 2000 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Formal Notice of 2 11/8/00 2:22 PM COPA Commission http://www.copaconunission.org/report/appendix.shtml Guidelines for submitting public comments Agenda and Witnesses' Testimony Additional Testimony 3. Hearing 3, August 3-4, 2000 Formal Notice Guidelines for submitting public comments Agenda and Witnesses' Testimony Additional Testimony 4. Research Papers and Reports 5. Correspondence (.pdf) E. Compilation of Matrices on Filtering, Labeling, and Rating Technologies F. Commission Responses to Questionnaire (.pdf) G. Catalog of Drawer Files A detailed index of all materials submitted to the commission in non-electronic format such as books, software programs, and handouts. Also includes VHS tape recordings of hearings and transcripts. Next: Personal statements of individual Previous: Conclusion Commissioners. [ Home ] [ Final Report ] [ About this Site ] [ FAQ ] [ The Commission ] [ Press Room ] [Meetings and Hearings ] [ Research Papers ] [ Privacy Policy ] [email protected] / Copyright © 2000 2 of 2 11/8/00 2:22 PM COPA Commission http://www.copaconunission.org/commission/scope.shtml COPA Commission: Scope & Timeline Proposal To: COPA Commissioners From: Don Telage This memo includes both a discussion proposing the scope of the COPA Commission's inquiry and analysis, and a timeline for producing that analysis. I. SCOPE Congress has specifically asked the COPA Commission to conduct a study of six topic areas related to methods for reducing minors' access to material on the Internet that is "harmful to minors." The specific topics the Commission must address are: A. A common resource for parents to use to help protect minors (such as "one-click-away" resources), B. Filtering or blocking software or services; C. Labeling or rating systems; D. Age verification systems; E. The establishment of a domain name for posting of any material that is harmful to minors; and F. Any other existing or proposed technologies or methods for reducing access by minors to such material. We have also been instructed to analyze each of these types of technology, specifically considering the following: o Cost of such technologies and methods to parents o Accessibility of such technologies and methods to parents o Effect of this technology on law enforcement o Effect of this technology on privacy o Effect of this technology on the global and decentralized nature of the Internet Some of these topics are broader and include a greater number of competitive issues than others. However, in every case, it is necessary that we develop a plan for how to receive and analyze the products, resources, and issues these raise, or we will be overwhelmed by ad hoc requests from those companies and organizations with the resources to do so. A structured approach will be fairer to everyone with an interest in these issues. II. POSSIBLE APPROACHES 1. Essential Elements BEST COPYAVAILABLE 1 of 7 5 11/8/00 2:23 PM COPA Commission http://www.copacommission.org/comtnission/scope.shtml There are five specific types of technological resources that the Commission has been instructed to look at, plus "any other" existing or proposed technologies for reducing minors' access to material that is "harmful to minors." The Commission should invite a number of companies to demonstrate their products, making sure that we hear from companies making a range of different products that work in different ways. If we decide to allow any company that wishes to demonstrate a product, we will have to limit the amount of time available to any given product. Prior to the hearings, the Commission should request information about these products -- how they work, how much they cost, how widely they are used -- from as many companies as possible. In light of proprietary information concerns, I recommend that we make assurances that only aggregate data will be released. (For example, there are X companies that filter using URL lists, there are Y filtered ISPs (perhaps broken down by state), a bar graph reflecting the costs of these products (under $30, $30-50, yearly subscription...) looks like Z.) Since the best evidence of a product's effectiveness is its track record, the Commission should require that any company whose product is demonstrated submit a list of at least three customers or users, which the Commission may contact for information about the product's effectiveness. Where that product has been submitted for independent or other testing those results should also be obtained. Finally, since the problems encountered by children and families caused Congress to create the Commission, the Commission should solicit, by public notice, written submissions setting out problems, solutions, or their concerns. Given the robust marketplace of tools in these areas, a minimum of three technology-focused hearings will be necessary. One hearing on filtering and blocking software and services (item B), including both client-based software and server-based "Filtered ISPs", image recognition, list-based, keyword-based. I would recommend combining this hearing with item C, labeling and rating services, so that the panel can learn about PICS based filtering along with other forms of filtering technology. A second hearing should cover common resources that are "one-click away" from or available to parents (item A), including, but not limited to: netmom.com; protectkids.com; filtering facts.org; enough.org; childrenspartnership.org; safekids.com; safeteens.com; bluehighways.org; ala.org/parentspage/greatsites and the GetNetWise resource. That hearing should be combined with demonstrations and instruction on age verification technologies (item D) and discussion of establishment of a domain name for posting material that is harmful to minors (item E). While these topics are disparate, each is also narrower in scope than most of the other topics and all three can be covered in one day. The third hearing and final technology-oriented hearing should focus on item F, other kinds of technological tools and methods. These should include, at a minimum, client-based monitoring software, search engines and subscription services that are oriented towards children, tools that limit the amount of time a given user can spend online, and any other tools that the commission deems important. 2 of 7 11/8/00 2:23 PM COPA Commission http://www.copacommission.org/commission/scope.shtml 2.