Search

German Abstract: Welches Politikfeld bildet den Bezugsrahmen fur Debatten uber die Digitalisierung? Der Beitrag wirft den Blick auf den Begriff der Netzpolitik in der politischen Diskussion und seine Wandlung. English Abstract: Which policy field is the reference framework for debates on the digital transformation? This article takes a look at the concept of Internet policy in German political discussion and its transformation over time.

A month by month review of legal tech innovation, events in law and technology, Internet Policy, and moments when the legal industry grappled with advances in software and the Internet.

Although the internet has become increasingly pervasive in our daily lives and interactions and has impacted existing social norms and ethics, very few studies have examined the relationship between the internet and ethics. In the face of increasing numbers of internet-related ethical violations, this lack of research constitutes a policy vacuum. This study investigates ethical controversies in cyberspace by examining actual events that occurred in South Korea, such as the “dog poop girl” incident, the suicide of a famous actress, a candlelight vigil against U.S. beef imports, and the arrest of a blogger named “Minerva.” The study proposes a preliminary framework for evaluating ethical issues occurring on and via the internet, focusing on the agent's moral and legal responsibility and on internet regulation.

This study is an attempt to estimate the essentiality of the new generic top-level domains, which were newly introduced to the domain name system according to ICANN's New gTLD Program, and to draw implications on Internet policy for both national governments and ICANN. Based on quantitative analyses, the author finds that the effect of the registration fee on the number of domain name registrations is significantly different between the generic and geographic gTLD's, and between the generic and internationalised gTLD's, thus concluding that the geographic and internationalised gTLD's have a higher degree of essentiality and that they cater to different demands of the domain name registrants. Based on the findings, the author also draws two policy implications. First, the expansion of the top-level domain name space, which ICANN has implemented over years, is considered to serve real-world user demands. Second, considering the higher degree of essentiality, the geographic gTLD's, unlike new gTLD's of other types, may well fall under some regulatory oversight in order to ensure stability and trust among the domain name registrants.

Italian Abstract: Nel corso del tempo la Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ha adottato diversi e opposti approcci al Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS). All’inizio dello scorso decennio, ritenendo che il mercato del BIAS dovesse funzionare «in a minimal regulatory environment», la FCC decise di astenersi da qualunque intervento regolativo (no-regulation). Qualche anno dopo, la Internet Policy Statement dettava alcuni orientamenti in tema di BIAS (non-legislative rules). In applicazione di quest’ultima, la FCC adottava nel 2008 il Comcast Order che imponeva a Comcast di porre fine al blocco del traffico dati prodotto da applicazioni basate sull’architettura P2P (adjudication). Infine, una prima volta nel 2010 e poi una seconda nel 2015, la Commissione ha stabilito una articolata e complessa regolazione del BIAS (2010 Open Internet Order e 2015 Open Internet Order) finalizzata alla tutela della open Internet (rulemaking). Da questo succinto resoconto emerge una tendenza progressivamente interventista della Commissione che, partita dalla anomia, e infine approdata alla formulazione di un ricco apparato regolativo che, nell’ultima e piu recente versione del 2015, incorpora nel BIAS anche il servizio di interconnessione. Lo studio ha per oggetto i due Open Internet Orders. Il suo scopo, tuttavia, non e di analizzarne in modo esaustivo e compiuto la disciplina, quanto piuttosto di conseguire tre risultati. Il primo luogo, metterne in luce il tratto qualificante comune a entrambi, costituito dall’uso pervasivo della ragionevolezza e, quindi, di svelare come dietro i vari divieti posti dai due provvedimenti si celi in realta un unico e solo principio generale che tutti li comprende e li compendia, principio in forza del quale “tutti i dati sono ragionevolmente uguali” (all data is reasonably equal). In secondo luogo, rivelare che “open Internet” e “all data is reasonably equal” sono distinte formulazioni del medesimo principio. La prima caratterizzata da una forte valenza filosofica e politica. La seconda espressiva del modo in cui il principio della Internet aperta vive e opera in concreto. Infine, in terzo e ultimo luogo, tracciare una netta distinzione tra “open Internet” e “Net neutrality”. Mentre quest’ultima evoca l’idea di una Internet perfettamente neutrale nella quale i broadband providers sono privi di autonomia, il principio della open Internet rimanda al concetto popperiano di open society. Come nella societa aperta la via giusta non e predeterminata e i comportamenti dei consociati rappresentano il frutto di decisioni personali e razionali, cosi nella Internet aperta le soluzioni corrette su come gestire le reti non sono tutte predefinite ed esiste uno spazio di liberta al cui interno i broadband providers possono legittimamente discriminare il traffico dati, salvo il sindacato della FCC sulla ragionevolezza delle discriminazioni operate. La studio si divide in tre parti. La prima esamina l’oggetto e la tecnica regolativa degli Open Internet Orders, la seconda ne illustra i contesti ingegneristico e giuridico, la terza, infine, ne analizza le disposizioni rilevanti. English Abstract: Over the course of time the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted different and opposing approaches towards the Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS). At the start of the last decade, believing that the BIAS market should run «in a minimal regulatory environment», the FCC decided to refrain from any regulatory intervention (no-regulation). A few years later, the Internet Policy Statement established some general approaches to the BIAS (non-legislative rules). In order to implement the latter, the FCC laid down the Comcast Order in 2008 which forced Comcast to put an end to the blocking of traffic generated by applications based on P2P architecture (adjudication). Finally, for the first time in 2010 and then for the second in 2015, the Commission determined a well-structured and complex regulation of the BIAS (2010 Open Internet Order and 2015 Open Internet Order) aimed at the protection of the Open Internet (rule-making). Subsequent to these brief reports a gradual trend of interventionism emerged from the Commission which, shedding its anomie, finally arrived at the formulation of an elaborate regulative apparatus that, in the last and latest version of 2015, incorporates the interconnection service into the BIAS. The subject of this study is the two Open Internet Orders. The objective of this study, however, is not to analyse the regulations completely and exhaustively, but to accomplish three outcomes. Firstly, to highlight the common features of both Orders represented by the pervasive use of reasonableness and then to show that behind the various bans made by the two Orders there is actually a hidden principle, which is the only general all-embracing principle pursuant to which “all data is reasonably equal”. Secondly, to make clear that “open Internet” and “all data is reasonably equal” are different formulations of the same principle. The first is characterised by a strong political and philosophical value. The second expresses the way in which the principle of open Internet actually exists and operates. Finally and thirdly, to point out a clear difference between “open Internet” and “Net neutrality”. Whereas the latter recalls the idea of a perfectly neutral Internet where the broadband providers don’t have any autonomy, the principle of open Internet refers to the Popperian concept of open society. As in open society there is no predetermined right way and the behaviour of its members is the outcome of personal and rational decisions, just as in the open Internet the correct solutions about network management are not all predefined and that adequate freedom exists where broadband providers can lawfully differentiate data traffic, except for the FCC controls on the reasonableness of the discriminations. The study is divided into three parts. The first examines the object and the regulative technique of the Open Internet Orders, the second illustrates the engineering and legal context of the Orders, the third and last analyses the important rules of the Orders.

Fil: Aguerre, Carolina. Universidad de San Andres. Centro de Estudios de Tecnologia y Sociedad; Argentina.

Professor Susan Crawford has just published an exciting new book on the future of high-speed Internet access in America. To hear Crawford tell it in 270 pages (excluding the copious footnotes), Americans should be worried because most of them will not have access to the fastest lane on the information superhighway. Indeed, only the rich will likely purchase high-speed Internet access because it will be too expensive for the rest of us.At the risk of oversimplifying, Crawford's argument can be summarized in three sentences. Americans need really fast Internet. The market has failed to supply this Internet. Government needs to introduce a "utility model," where high-speed fiber is made available to everyone at reasonable prices.

With the increasing international focus on the future of the ITU and its role (or lack thereof) in Internet governance, there is greater attention being paid to the fact that much of the 'governance' of the Internet is in fact carried out by so-called 'multistakeholder ('MSH') organizations.' Over the last two decades, these entities have largely established the norms and standards for the global Internet, but they are little known to the general public and even to most regulators and legislators. Indeed, most governments do not understand the essential role of MSH organizations. Consequently, to develop an effective Internet governance strategy, the origin, role, and operation of MSH organizations must be better understood, as must the limits of such organizations for 'governing' an ever more complex Internet ecosystem. This essay, which builds on a roundtable conference on this topic, addresses the rising importance of MSH organizations and sets forth the framework for a research agenda on the topic. Notably, it explains that, for them to become broadly accepted, a new wave of research is needed to better understand how MSH organizations engage in Internet governance, where they operate effectively, and where they fall short of the mark. It also discusses when MSH organization may, or may not, be the right tool for particular Internet policy challenges and how they can best work in conjunction with governmental bodies.

This paper analyzes the influence of online activism, especially technical activist actions like web blackouts, on the policy-making process. It compares the actions associated with anti-SOPA campaigns in the United States with campaigns against ACTA in Europe. In order to investigate the various linked aspects of internet activism’s impact on policy change, this paper examines how online activism shifted the ways that these bills were covered by the popular press and how press coverage modeled new frames. In the United States, salient actions included suspended access to web sites including Wikipedia, symbolic actions such as 'black outs' of some website content, and mobilization efforts including invitations to contact elected representatives. For European advocates organizing against ACTA, this meant that some new frames for action were available in the early months of 2012. This analysis contributes to contemporary readings of ‘mediated opportunity structures’ by focusing on two new aspects: the mediatized nature of contemporary activism (especially ‘recursive’ activism that uses disruption of internet communications to draw attention to digital rights) and the significance for policy making of claims that the internet is ‘exceptional.’This is a Slightly Revised Version of a Paper Presented at EUROCPR, Brussels, on March 21, 2013. Please Cite With This Information.

A new academic consensus is emerging that innovation is the key to consumer welfare, and rules governing Internet policy need to be updated to reflect this reality, according to Robert Hahn.