Internet Governance and Regulation: Difference between revisions

From The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(61 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===Session Date:  April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''


==Precis==
{{TOCright}}
 
==Concrete Question of the Week==
With regard to both structure and content, what issues, if any, does the Internet raise at the national and international levels that may require regulation?  What alternatives are there to such regulation?
 
==Brief Overview==
How should the Internet do what it does? And what is it that the Internet does? Who should be responsible for the Internet?  
How should the Internet do what it does? And what is it that the Internet does? Who should be responsible for the Internet?  


These are the questions behind the idea of "Internet governance," to which the different Internet stakeholders have conflicting answers - ranging from a strict regulatory scheme, like those applied to traditional communications media (like television and cell phones), to vehement opposition to any kind of formal control structures. Part of this disagreement stems from the Internet's technical nature. which suggests two ways of thinking about Internet governance: (1) control of the mechanisms comprising the technical structure and standards, and (2) regulating the substantive use of the Internet.  (Under Yochai Benkler's framework, these would be the "physical infrastructure" and "logical" layers, and the "content" layer, respectively.) The Net's origins as a US Department of Defense-funded research network, and the continued heavy influence on its maintenance and development by US actors, meanwhile, have given rise to conflicting national and international dimensions to these questions. For example, even after ICANN's [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7475986.stm expansion] of the top-level domains, the Department of Commerce has [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html reiterated] that its management of changes to the authoritative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone root zone] file (including its contracts with VeriSign and ICANN) will remain intact. This topic seeks to explore through select cast studies the viewpoints of the major Internet stakeholders today (including the US government, ICANN, the UN Internet Governance Forum, businesses, and other private actors), to provide a clearer picture of where Internet governance is headed in the near future, and to establish why (or even whether) it matters.
These are the questions behind the idea of "Internet governance," to which the different Internet stakeholders have conflicting answers - ranging from a strict regulatory scheme, like those applied to traditional communications media (like television and cell phones), to vehement opposition to any kind of formal control structures. Part of this disagreement stems from the Internet's technical nature. which suggests two ways of thinking about Internet governance: (1) control of the mechanisms comprising the technical structure and standards, and (2) regulating the substantive use of the Internet.  (Under Yochai Benkler's framework, these would be the "physical infrastructure" and "logical" layers, and the "content" layer, respectively.) The Net's origins as a US Department of Defense-funded research network, and the continued heavy influence on its maintenance and development by US actors, meanwhile, have given rise to conflicting national and international dimensions to these questions. This topic seeks to explore through select case studies already encountered in class the issues of the Internet today, to provide a clearer picture of where Internet governance is headed in the near future, and to establish why (or even whether) it matters.
 
Throughout this course, we have encountered many "issues at the frontier."  For some of these issues, regulation may be useful (e.g. [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Future_of_%C2%A9_and_entertainment the Future of Copyright]), whereas for others, not as much (e.g. [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Future_of_News the Future of News]).  But there is no distinct line separating the two categories.
 
Several theories exist on how the Internet should be governed and regulated, if at all.  Below are two examples of structures that exist today to regulate the Internet, and the relative zones they seek to regulate.  Are these bodies the right way to go?  Do they meet the needs of today?
 
==Session Outline==
 
The session will be designed to view the issues that we have previously considered in this class in the context of Internet regulation.  The class will be divided into two parts.
 
First, we will have guest speaker Milton Mueller speak to the class on Internet regulation in general, discussing how he views its structure and implementation.  After Prof. Mueller speaks, we will have Prof. Zittrain respond to his comments, offering his own viewpoint on how he envisions Internet regulation.  We hope to spur a dialog between the two professors, as well as engaging the class.
 
For the second half, we will examine topics we have already discussed during the course of the term from the perspective of Internet regulation.  Using what Profs Mueller and Zittrain outline, we hope that we can address various complications with each viewpoint as it applies to each issue.
 
*'''Pre-class assignment''': Each member of the class will be expected to submit questions based on Internet regulation on any of the topics already addressed in class ''for a topic that is not their own''.  They should submit at least 3 questions, on three different topics.
*'''Class Discussion''':  We will use the topics that generate the most number of questions to stimulate the conversation. We hope that the leaders of the topic will respond to the questions presented and stimulate a discussion amongst the class.
*'''Wrap Up''': The class will conclude with a discussion of the issues from the larger perspective, discussing what the class thinks are the most pressing concerns and how they think we can address them.
 
==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].
 
Professor Mueller is a Professor and Director of Telecommunications Network Management Program at the Syracuse University [http://ischool.syr.edu School of Information Studies], where he teaches and does research on the political economy of communication and information.  He has been involved in many ongoing Internet governance projects, including ICANN and the UN's Internet Governance Forum.
 
Professor Mueller's presentation to the class will be followed a short responsive presentation by Prof. Zittrain.
 
==Readings==
 
===Required Readings===
In preparation for our class discussion with Prof. Milton Mueller and Prof. Zittrain, please do the following '''required readings''':
 
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Prof. Mueller's Bio]
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/about.html "About" page for the Internet Governance Project]
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Mueller
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/1/9/4051237.html Prof. Mueller's "Top Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009"]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course] - watch from the 38th minute onwards.
 
===Suggested Background and Readings===


====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====
In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the types of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on.  Though not the only issues that Internet Governance applies to, they provide examples of how Internet Governance interacts with different organizations and institutions.


=====Case Study: ICANN's top-level domain name ("TLD") expansion=====  
====ICANN's top-level domain name ("TLD") expansion====


This summer, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icann Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers] (ICANN) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7475986.stm voted] to expand the possible [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain top-level domain names] (TLDs) such that individuals, businesses, governments, and other entities can register TLDs composed of any combination of letters in any script, so long as they can show a "business plan and technical capacity" to back up their desired domain. The new TLDs will cost in the six figures to register, and will likely start going online in 2009. While there will be an arbitration process for disputed domains (particularly in cases of trademark infringement and geographic domains), most domains will end up going to the highest bidder in an auction process.  
Last summer, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icann Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers] (ICANN) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7475986.stm voted] to expand the possible [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain top-level domain names] (TLDs) such that individuals, businesses, governments, and other entities can register TLDs composed of any combination of letters in any script, so long as they can show a "business plan and technical capacity" to back up their desired domain. Most domains will end up going to the highest bidder in an auction process. Despite ICANN's expansion of TLDs, the Department of Commerce has [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html reiterated] that its management of changes to the authoritative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone root zone] file (including its contracts with VeriSign and ICANN) will remain intact.  


''Issues to discuss:''
*Should we be concerned about control of generic domains, like ".news" or ".shop," by a few wealthy individuals or groups?
*Should we be concerned about control of generic domains, like ".news" or ".shop," by a few wealthy individuals or groups?
*Many corporations are [http://www.pcworld.com/article/155542/domain_sale_dangerous.html?tk=rss_news opposed] to this expansion because they already have established .com domains for their purposes and are worried about a potentially huge number of infringing domains, including in foreign languages, which may require them to spend millions to register additional domains. Is this a valid concern?
*Should we worry that ICANN is the sole body setting the standards for TLDs and resolving disputes?
*How should disputes involving geographic domains be resolved if both parties are government entities? If one party is a private actor (an individual or business) and the other a government entity?
*Who should control the root zone file, and why?
*On a larger scale, should we worry that ICANN is the sole body setting the standards for TLDs and resolving disputes?
*Although the US has supported worldwide participation in the management of country-specific TLDs, it is [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html not willing] to give up oversight of the authoritative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone root zone] file. Who should control the root zone file, and why?


====Regulation and Control of Substance====
=====Selected Readings (''skim'')=====
*Prof. Mueller and JZ discussing ICANN and top-level domains (TLDs) on the Internet Governance Project blog:
**[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html What Zittrain Doesn't Get] (also read the response by JZ in the comments)
**[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/7/3145104.html Response to Professor Zittrain] (also read the comments by JZ and Prof. Mueller following the post).


=====Case Study: The Internet Governance Forum=====
====The Internet Governance Forum====


The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Internet_Governance Working Group on Internet Governance] (WGIG) was set up during the first phase of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society United Nations World Summit on the Information Society] (WSIS) in 2003 in order "to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005." In its final report, the WGIG provided the following [http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/html/off5/index3.html working definition] of Internet governance:
The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Internet_Governance Working Group on Internet Governance] (WGIG) was set up during the first phase of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society United Nations World Summit on the Information Society] (WSIS) in 2003 in order "to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005." In its final report, the WGIG provided the following [http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/html/off5/index3.html working definition] of Internet governance:
Line 27: Line 69:
:''Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.''
:''Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.''


Based on the report, the UN Secretary-General established the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum Internet Governance Forum] (IGF) in 2006 with multiple stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and civil society. The [http://www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm mandate] of the IGF declares that the forum's purpose is to discuss Internet governance-related public policy issues and advise stakeholders on such issues, but it does not have any real decision-making authority. The IGF held its [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/hyderabadprogramme/hyderabadmainsessions third meeting] during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad, India, in which panels explored topics such as expanding Internet access to the next billion people, promoting cyber-security, and global arrangements for managing critical internet resources.
Based on the report, the UN Secretary-General established the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum Internet Governance Forum] (IGF) in 2006 with multiple stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and civil society. The [http://www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm mandate] of the IGF declares that the forum's purpose is to discuss Internet governance-related public policy issues and advise stakeholders on such issues, but it does not have any real decision-making authority. The IGF held its [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad third meeting] during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad, India, in which panels explored topics such as expanding Internet access to the next billion people, promoting cyber-security, and global arrangements for managing critical internet resources.


''Issues to discuss:''
*Should the IGF have direct decision-making authority? If so, what substantive areas should this authority cover, how far should it go, and should it be binding? If not, what good does the IGF really do?
*Should the IGF have direct decision-making authority? If so, what substantive areas should this authority cover, how far should it go, and should it be binding? If not, what good does the IGF really do?
*A review of the organizations moderating [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php the many workshops] that took place at the most recent IGF meeting shows a mix of government groups, corporations, and civil groups. Should we expect all these groups to have an equal say in setting the agenda for the IGF? If not, how do we ensure proper representation of all interested groups, regardless of power and influence?
*Is global governance of Internet use a good idea in any respect? If so, is the IGF the best form of this governance?
*Is global governance of Internet use a good idea in any respect? If so, is the IGF the best form of this governance?


==Concrete Question of the Week==
=====Selected Readings (''skim'')=====
With both structure and content, what issues does the Internet raise at the international level that require governance and what are the best ways to do?
*[http://publius.cc/path_towards_centralization_internet_governance_under_un The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - Part 1 of a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.
**[http://publius.cc/path_towards_centralization_internet_governance_under_un_part_2 Part 2]
**[http://publius.cc/path_towards_centralization_internet_governance_under_un_part_3 Part 3]
*[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/Emerging%20issues.txt Transcript of "The Internet of Tomorrow: Innovation and the Evolution of the Internet" - a panel discussion from the latest IGF meeting] (''really'' skim - to get an idea of how one of these discussions proceeds)
 
====The Cybersecurity Act of 2009====
 
On April 1st, 2009, Senators John D. Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103684.html?hpid=topnews introduced] legislation drafted (with White House input) that, among other things, creates a "cybersecurity czar" who would have the power to shut down private computer networks in the event of a cyberattack.
 
*Is it a good idea for the US government to have such control over the private Internet?
 
=====Selected Readings (''skim'')=====
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/3/4142495.html Prof. Mueller's description and reaction to the Act]
*[http://futureoftheinternet.org/federalizing-cybersecurity Prof. Zittrain's reaction to the Act]
 
==Session Recap==
===Prof. Mueller's Presentation===
 
What is governance?  The tendency is for it to be poorly defined.  We have a vague idea that it's something to do with ICANN - but is it a small subset of bigger field perhaps? We should look at Internet Governance as how the internet is shaped and ordered, including such things as standards, organizations like ICANN, public policy and the legal framework within which it operates.  We need to ask critical questions of the effect at the international level of the nation-state on policy.
 
For a long time, the nation-state has been the basis of law.  Basis of collective identity, political organization.  But the Internet is global.  Internet Governance is about this disjunction.  There is a system of anarchy at the global level.  ICANN is interesting in that it is a truly global institution native to the Internet, and it was founded on strange delegation of authority. It and organizations like it challenge the nation-state system.  But despite these fundamental differences from international organizations that preceded it, ICANN is still tethered to nation-state by its contracts and links to US government.
 
The global politics of Internet Governance came to a forefront in WSIS.  There, people challenged special status of US, and capitalized on anti-US sentiment after Iraq war.
 
But who should have roles?  As a result of WSIS, there was attempt to create division of labor, a division that was misguided.  The result was the IGF, a bargain between US and rest of world.  The IGF was founded on the belief that they could continue to discuss issues, but had to do it in multi-stakeholder context, and all results had to be non-binding.


==Guests==
But these organizations just highlight that the role of nation-state is central to all problems. There are 4 basic categories of substantive policy issues:  
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].
*[http://ipjustice.org/wp/about/people/robin-d-gross/ Robin Gross] of [http://ipjustice.org/ IP Justice] and a member of the Advisory Group to the IGF (to be confirmed)


==Readings==
# Critical internet resources
## e.g. unique identifiers.  top level domains, multi lingual standards, etc.
# IP protection
# Content regulation
# Security


*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
The many tensions between these fields have lead to many institutional changes.
*Prof. Mueller and JZ discussing ICANN and top-level domains (TLDs) on the Internet Governance Porject blog:
**[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html What Zittrain Doesn't Get] (also read the response by JZ in the comments)
**[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/7/3145104.html Response to Professor Zittrain] (also read the comments by JZ and Prof. Mueller following the post).
*[http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - Part 1 of a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.
**[http://publius.cc/2008/12/03/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-2/ Part 2]
**[http://publius.cc/2008/12/04/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-3/ Part 3]
''Optional Reading:''
*[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/hyderabadprogramme Panel discussion transcripts] - from the IGF's latest meeting during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad.
*[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php List of Workshops] from the 2008 IGF meeting.


----
However, there are common patterns in modes of governance that have arisen:  national control is always undermined and asserted in new forms, scale shift in activity - but old modes of content regulation not scalable, organized groups work to takedown copyrighted material and child porn, there is more delegation to non-state actors to regulate the Internet, and a push to make ISPs responsible for policing.
----


==Brainstorming==
The changing role of state is what is interesting and important.  State-free Internet is threatened by the problems outlined, and attempts to deal with them by the old vanguard that is not equipped to deal with them.


Much like open-source software,
===Prof. Zittrain's Presentation===


:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is!  [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Prof. Zittrain shares a lot of the same commitments as Prof. Mueller, but he approaches it from a different angle.  There are different methodologies that different academics follow when thinking about Internet governance - what is it? how do we define it? and what tools do we have to solve it?


the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.
But framing the topic changes how you look at the issues.  Political scientists view the nation-state as the central player, but this is different from how other people would look at it.  The thought of multi-national, multi-stakeholder governance is something that Prof. Zittrain doesn't naturally think of because that's not how he was trained.  


:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
ICANN felt like it could have been great at creating a new Internet constitution.  But Prof. Zittrain's experience with it made him feel that is is really hard to do.  For example, how do you define a stakeholder?  You pretty much have to accept everyone who claims to be one, but that leaves out the people who don't realize they are stakeholders.  How would we allocate the board seats? This leads to an unresolved tension of the idea on one hand that we know some issues are too important to leave to the geeks, and the problem that the geeks aren't in a good position to make this kind of decisionIt's hard to get consensus - tech people don't even want to be there at these IGF meetings.


How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.
So should we even invest in this IGF thing?  Does it even make sense?  Does it, structurally speaking, turn out to be flawed?  


:'''UnpackWhat does it mean for US to get its wayGov't, culture, people[[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
So what are the issues that need intervention at the international level?  Intellectual property, surely, and maybe also for other types of content controlAnd what about securityProf. Zittrain finds that the most interesting question.  The Internet system is designed to allow everyone in, but what happens when there are bad applesWikipedia is an interesting example of how the Internet can govern itself.


This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.
===Class Discussion===


:'''What was the question?  "How does the Internet keep working?"  Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
====On the Presentations====


With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?
Prof. Mueller responded that he was not an advocate of multistakeholder governance.  He wants maybe networked governance, and sees the "big room" idea as precisely what's wrong with multistakeholder governance because most likely, people outside of the room may actually be the ones that control what happens. The political science approach highlights the problems with this.  So Prof. Mueller wanted to hear more from JZ about how he proposes to deal with the issues.  It's a hard problem, but is there an optimal solution?  Is there a method he proposes?


:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Prof. Zittrain wants several pilot projects launched by fairly small, tight groups, then wants to scale them if they work.  This seems to parallel how the Internet happened, how Wikipedia happened.  It seems more organic.  He likes the ".org" better than the ".gov" (metaphorically speaking).  That doesn't mean one size fits all, but Prof. Zittrain is skeptical of attempts to integrate into the Internet protocols a bunch of new features.  He thinks that the standards groups and protocol groups (IETF) are out of touch and are too self-conscious to be effective today. There are also no statutes on point to deal with the issues of the Internet, and by the time a judge is asked to weigh in on the problem, some outcomes are precluded because of the ubiquity of certain things on the Internet. Prof. Zittrain has some concern about precluding Internet development through government actionThe specter of state power limits us in solving problems that we can recognize and deal with using traditional means.  The ACLU, for example, knows how to challenge the government.  Prof. Zittrain is interested in how the waves of the market change things, rather than the government, and how they deliver us into an environment where we accept regulation.


Guests: Susan Crawford?
Prof. Mueller responded that we need to protect ICANN from governments, but at the same time protect rights.  The ACLU works in the US, but what about the global internet? He sees the need to attack the problem at a global level.


:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Prof. Zittrain says geeks brought us the net and are still pretty good at solving a lot of problems on the Net. We were able to benefit from that.


Some questions:
One of the people in the class asked, could there not be a meeting place between the geeks and the regulators? Prof. Zittrain responded that there is currently a libertarian ethos on the Internet.  Geeks seem to have a different idea about what would be acceptable than the regulators.  Not because they think government doesn't do a good job, but because they don't want to be interfered with.  Prof. Mueller doesn't think there is as strong of a libertarian bent from the geeks.  Responding, Prof. Zittrain clarified that there are perhaps two typs of geeks - slashdot geeks and "tech geeks" who want to solve problems and like tech, but aren't as deep into it, i.e.  02139 (MIT) geeks vs. 02138 (Harvard) geeks.
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The conversation then shifted to a comment from a "geek" in our midst.  Dharmishta's dad, who works as a CIO at San Francisco State.  He stated that he often feels pressured by those around them, and like a co-conspirator when told to take things down, do DPI, or other "regulatory" things.  He says that he and others like him don't want to be the bad guys, or the Internet police.


=== International Regulation ===
Prof. Fisher then comments that there are some things that need management, and completely decentralized behavior doesn't work well. He wonders what exactly these things are. What might be on this list?  2 categories - allocation of resources, and stopping behavior that is socially noxious. E.g. in first section is domain names, and in second, child porn. Maybe copyright infringement? Maybe security?
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?


:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.  
Prof. Mueller feels that there should be governance in certain areas, and the object of that governance should be to protect and secure freedoms.  He notes however, that there is a difficult tradeoff between flexibility, openness and youth of new forms of governance, and the location of private governance in certain hands. On issue of scarce resources, it doesn't mean we need to control outcomes; we don't need to achieve certain objectives.  We just let people use predictable rules.  


:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)
After Prof. Mueller disconnected from the video conference, Prof. Zittrain spent a few minutes describing a political theory-type view of Internet governance:
Consider an x-y grid: on the x axis, from left-to-right, we go from hierarchy to polyarchy, and on the y-axis, from bottom-to-top, we go from bottom-up governance to top-down governance.  Federalism is in the first quadrant.  Market is in the far right part of the first quadrant.  Authoritarianism is in the far left part of the second quadrant.  The Internet seems to be in the fourth quadrant.  The classic Internet of 1995 is in the far right part of the fourth quadrant. 


::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGFMilton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for thisHe has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The third quadrant is a corner that interests Prof. Zittrain.  He thinks that people in the fourth quadrant who need to solve a problem seem to move to the third quadrant.  The question is who do you use (and what quadrant are they from) to solve your problem?  What's interesting about wikipedia is how it tries to harness the civic aspects of its contributors; it wants to make everyone personally investedKind of like how in the UK, people want to be involved in civil society, and the government actually wants to know what the people generally thinkThis is how he sees the Wikipedia idea getting into government.  


=== Local/national Regulation ===
Prof. Zittrain thinks that the Google News "addendum" feature is interesting.  Anyone who is quoted in an article is especially privileged to make a comment on the article.  It doesn't let just anyone leave a comment.  But it also doesn't address issues of how to validate someone, and whether that person is "mentioned."  Google just lets the people figure it out.
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.


:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A student asked whether there *is* actual power and control that we just don't recognize?  For example, Wikipedia administrators, Obama's message being top-down even though his campaign seemed like it was bottom-up.  Is the Internet that diffuse?


::'''It will be helpful to differentiate between governing the Internet -- controlling its infrastructure, protocols, or evolution -- and governing use of the Internet. You could pick a hot topic from the FCC's docket, though, and some there are about Internet deployment, such as the free wireless proposal just abandoned. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Prof. Zittrain says that in the case of government, it doesn't like unpredictability.  It needs to have everything figured out.  This is how modern governments view things, but does this work with the Internet?


=== Rights of Minors ===
Another student asked, does the current makeup of the Internet mean that people have a hard time joining the crowd, and could the government help people join the crowd?


Minors have long been recognized to not have free speech rights that are co-extensive with adults.  But with the Internet, how do we define those rightsAnd what, if any, regulation should the government enact to protect minors on the Internet, while also respecting their rights?
Someone else asked, how do we balance issues of security with issues of openness?  With contentWhere do we strike the balance?  What balance does each player need/want?  What if the government tried to tax use?  Would we accept that, versus the "free" use that we have now?


There are two traditional categories where minors' free speech rights have been restrictedThe first is with respect to pornography, the second with respect to the school environmentThese two areas raise different concerns.
====[[Internet_Governance_Class_Questions|Pre-submitted Questions]]====
The class submitted questions on the topic of Internet regulation that related to topics we had already discussed in classThere were many interesting and thoughtful questions, however we did not have time to address them.   


'''[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]''' (fun topics, all: we could invite [http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_progj/task,view/id,1117/ the CSIS commission] which has been grappling with all these issues and is desperate for legal guidance)
For a look at the questions submitted by the class, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|click here]]


:'''Sure; you could take this topic a step further by looking at existing scholarship on the topic and/or the just-about-to-be-released report from the Palfrey Commission, chartered by 49 state Attorneys General to discuss protection of minors online.  Given its Berkman Center connections, we'd have a good chance of getting the main players in that process to discuss. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
==Teacher's Guide==


=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===
===Evaluation of the Class===


====Question Submission====


We have come to rely on the Internet for almost every aspect of our livesIf the Internet somehow suddenly went "down" (through either a cyberattack or physical attack on key backbone pieces of infrastructure), the result would likely be calamity, as well as hordes of people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves.  Can we even imagine what the world would look like the morning after such an attack if it was successful?  Are we wrong to rely so heavily on a single tool whose detailed technical inner workings so few people truly understand?  Are we setting ourselves up to be ruined when someone compromises this tool?  What about the tradeoffs between keeping the Net free+open vs. regulation to ensure that it retains its functional integrity in the face of attack? 
As outlined above, we asked the class to submit questions on topics we looked at through the term and issues they raise with regards to Internet regulationThis generated a healthy set of thoughtful and provoking questions.


We can invite Dan Kaminsky, who recently discovered a flaw in the inner-workings of the Net that could have caused some serious damage.  See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/technology/09flaw.html?hp
One thing that was noticeable was that many students were interested in the issues of copyright, network neutrality, and how they are accomplished both nationally and internationally. It was interesting to see where the students' interests were.
(or we could invite will smith, who defeated the aliens in independence day with the help of cyber-attack).


* I vote Will Smith.  Unless everyone wants to get into the desirability of a DNS nonce of sufficient bitlength, in which case... no, still Will Smith.  That guy's an elliptic curve cryptography fiend.  However, if we do want to talk about design issues in the internet, and the failure of the marketplace to handle externalities created by poor software design, leading to the perpetual crisis of bugginess, we could do worse than to invite [http://cr.yp.to/djb.html Daniel Bernstein].  Plus, as an added bonus, he saw the issues that gave rise to the Kaminsky bug coming down the pike [http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html a long] [http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/forgery.html time ago]. --[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]
====Live Discussion====


:'''It might be interesting to see if there are contingency plans by various parties -- business, gov't, etc. -- to weather and respond to an Internet outageWe could ask the cybersecurity team from the DoD joint staff to present their most difficult problem here -- they're still in the early stages of thinking this through -- or perhaps cue to the new cybersecurity czar that is rumored to be brought on by the new Administration(Then again, it might be too soon for that person to want to spend time interacting with a class.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The interaction between Profs. Mueller and Zittrain was enlightening and stimulatingPart of what made the discussion so interesting was that in addition to both professors being very knowledgeable and engaging speakers, their viewpoints on Internet governance are slightly at odds with each other, even though they share the same goals.  This made for a friendly but still adversarial conversation between them, with both sides pushing back at each other's points.  We allowed the discussion to go where it naturally went, not trying to control the discussion too muchThis was successful in that it allowed the students and the presenters to speak on things they were interested in.


=== Internet as International Conflict Zone ===
The fact that Prof. Mueller joined the class via video conference made having a more natural discussion difficult, however it still worked reasonably well. 


We had planned to address some of the questions and topics generated by the class in their question submission.  However, we decided to just let the conversation continue.


In light of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_on_Estonia_2007 recent events in Estonia], have we finally reached the long-predicted era of cyberwarfare?  Is cyber-espionage a counterintelligence problem or something more? ([http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20080531_6948.php This article from the National Journal] talks bluntly about perceived threats, although is perhaps a little too willing to attribute causation of certain events to Chinese actors on dubious evidence)
Though we couldn't address the questions submitted, the choice to allow the conversation to continue seemed like a good one. We felt that the students were engaged and did not need to be encouraged to discuss new topics or ideas.


:'''There is much sound and fury about "cyberwarfare"; I could see a class designed to see if there's a there there on the topic, and whether any of the theory applied to traditional warfare can be deployed to help us understand the phenomenon. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
===Use of Technology===


=== Internet as an Extension of National Infrastructure ===
====Prior to class====


We used the email list to elicit questions from our classmates to use to stimulate discussion.  These questions were aggregated using a Google Form, which allowed for a quick and easy way for us to see what questions the class had.


It is easy to define the borders of the nation in realspace (ports, airports, land crossings), and the tradeoffs between private propertyholders' rights and national security interests (making those tradeoffs? Not always so easy)But what are the national borders in cyberspace?  Given the dangers described in the two topics above, what kind of role, if any, should national government play in monitoring and regulating major backbone communications links?  What about the networks of semi-public industries such as utilities?  Private corporations that store government secrets?  Financial systems?  Other types of privately owned networks?
This worked well in encouraging people to submit questions.  It was a quick and easy way for the students to contributeIt also worked well from our end - we were able to keep our inboxes free from an influx of questions, and we could both sign up to have access to the questions online.


--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 23:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)
====In class====
For the in-class session, we chose not to allow any use of laptops.  We found that during previous iterations, laptops tended to distract people from the main discussion.  When we made this decision, no class had yet banned laptops.  However, by the time our session occurred, several classes had used this strategy.


:'''There's a lot of interesting stuff to be mined about interexchange policies among Tier 1 internet service providers, and some fun/confusing economics about such interconnections which would be good for the economist types among usRamesh Johari at Stanford is doing good work here, and David Clark down the street at MIT would be a natural for this. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
We also had Prof. Mueller join us via video conference.  The technology worked well for our needs, and allowed Prof. Mueller to join in and contribute where he otherwise would not have been able toOne problem with video conferencing though, is that it makes it feel less like a group discussion and more like one side talking to just one other side.


=====Case study: a look at the Comcast BitTorrent controversy=====
Finally, the room we had for the video conference was not ideal.  The room had a capacity of about 110-120 and our class had about 30 members. This made the room feel empty and consequently the class less engaged, despite the fact that many people were participating and contributing.
By now, everyone is most likely familiar with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Network_Neutrality controversy] that arose after Comcast was alleged to have throttled BitTorrent traffic.  The FCC decided [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080108-fcc-to-investigate-comcast-bittorrent-blocking.html to get involved], ultimately deciding that Comcast violated the FCC's [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf Internet Policy Statement] and ordered it to [http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/FccComcastOrder.pdf. stop].


''Issues to Discuss:''
===Suggestions for Future Iterations===
*The FCC claims jurisdiction, though it is unclear.  Regardless, should the FCC have jurisdiction? 
*If not the FCC, who would be the proper governing authority?  Should there be one at all?
*What issues should we consider when determining how/if to regulate technical standards?
**What does the net neutrality debate illustrate that could help us reach an answer?


=====Case Study: Congressional, judicial, and private attempts to regulate content on the Internet through laws (like COPPA) and private action===== 


There has long been a recognition that there is a legitimate need to regulate content on the Internet, however many attempts to do so have met with resistance.  Often, legislative attempts to regulate meet with criticism and challenges from Free Speech activists and organizations.
We found that we had a lot to talk about, but too little time.  A suggestion would be to pick one topic, and focus on that.  In the class, we ended up mainly engaging in a theoretical discussion about how to regulate the Internet (if at all).  This conversation was good, however we had planned to do more, and had asked the class to prepare much more than we had time to cover.


Beyond direct regulation, another possibility would be the creation of standards to allow private entities to provide effective content controlBut would mandating certain technologies lead to effects similar to the V-Chip had on TV? i.e. would it just stifle innovation and limit the introduction of better and more useful technology?
There are many interesting topics in this field, so picking one that a majority of people are interested in should be easyA suggestion would be to solicit ideas from the class prior to the session to find a topic that people are knowledgeable and interested in, and to focus the class there.


A final possibility would be to allow the market to regulate itself.  The government has at times encouraged this option through incentives to help resolve certain issuesFor example, the ''Internet Tax Freedom Act'', [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000151----000-notes.html 47 USC 151 note], places a moratorium on taxation of Internet access provided that protections are put in place to protect minors.  Perhaps as a result, perhaps due to market forces, ISPs offer filtering technology to those who want it.  Like many ISPs, [http://www.comcast.com/Shop/Buyflow/default.ashx?Popup=true&RenderedBy=Products&FormName=ProductDetails&ProductID=20951 Comcast] offers McAfee parental controls as standard in its Internet packages.
Like many of the other sessions, having more than one day to discuss such a broad topic would be useful.  The opportunity to let ideas rest and to approach the topic from a different direction on a new day should not be wastedIn the future, we suggest revisiting topics on different days, and trying to link them to other topics.
----


''Issues to Discuss''
*How should the Internet be ''shaped''?
*What is the best way to achieve the stated goals?
*What areas, if any, should be encouraged?  What areas should be discouraged? how?


===Possible Readings===
[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]
*Speta, J., FCC Authority to Regulate the Internet: Creating It and Limiting It, 35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 15 (2004). [http://heinonline.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/luclj35&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav&collection=journals&page=15 HeinOnline]
*Lessig, L., Law Regulating Code Regulating Law, 35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1 (2004). [http://heinonline.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/luclj35&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav&collection=journals&page=1 HeinOnline]
*[http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Milton Mueller at the Institute for Research and Debate on Governance
*Mueller and JZ discussing ICANN and top-level domains (TLDs) on the Internet Governance Porject blog: [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html One], [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/7/3145104.html Two].
*ICANN's [http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23oct08-en.htm process] for applying for a new TLD, including the full [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-24oct08-en.pdf draft applicant guidebook] (warning: PDF).
*[http://www.wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html The 2005 WGIG Report] (PDF/MS Word links on page)
*[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/hyderabadprogramme Panel discussion transcripts] - from the IGF's latest meeting during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad.
**[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php List of Workshops] from the 2008 IGF meeting.

Latest revision as of 14:23, 15 May 2009

Session Date: April 20, 2009

Topic owners: Vera, Arjun

Concrete Question of the Week

With regard to both structure and content, what issues, if any, does the Internet raise at the national and international levels that may require regulation? What alternatives are there to such regulation?

Brief Overview

How should the Internet do what it does? And what is it that the Internet does? Who should be responsible for the Internet?

These are the questions behind the idea of "Internet governance," to which the different Internet stakeholders have conflicting answers - ranging from a strict regulatory scheme, like those applied to traditional communications media (like television and cell phones), to vehement opposition to any kind of formal control structures. Part of this disagreement stems from the Internet's technical nature. which suggests two ways of thinking about Internet governance: (1) control of the mechanisms comprising the technical structure and standards, and (2) regulating the substantive use of the Internet. (Under Yochai Benkler's framework, these would be the "physical infrastructure" and "logical" layers, and the "content" layer, respectively.) The Net's origins as a US Department of Defense-funded research network, and the continued heavy influence on its maintenance and development by US actors, meanwhile, have given rise to conflicting national and international dimensions to these questions. This topic seeks to explore through select case studies already encountered in class the issues of the Internet today, to provide a clearer picture of where Internet governance is headed in the near future, and to establish why (or even whether) it matters.

Throughout this course, we have encountered many "issues at the frontier." For some of these issues, regulation may be useful (e.g. the Future of Copyright), whereas for others, not as much (e.g. the Future of News). But there is no distinct line separating the two categories.

Several theories exist on how the Internet should be governed and regulated, if at all. Below are two examples of structures that exist today to regulate the Internet, and the relative zones they seek to regulate. Are these bodies the right way to go? Do they meet the needs of today?

Session Outline

The session will be designed to view the issues that we have previously considered in this class in the context of Internet regulation. The class will be divided into two parts.

First, we will have guest speaker Milton Mueller speak to the class on Internet regulation in general, discussing how he views its structure and implementation. After Prof. Mueller speaks, we will have Prof. Zittrain respond to his comments, offering his own viewpoint on how he envisions Internet regulation. We hope to spur a dialog between the two professors, as well as engaging the class.

For the second half, we will examine topics we have already discussed during the course of the term from the perspective of Internet regulation. Using what Profs Mueller and Zittrain outline, we hope that we can address various complications with each viewpoint as it applies to each issue.

  • Pre-class assignment: Each member of the class will be expected to submit questions based on Internet regulation on any of the topics already addressed in class for a topic that is not their own. They should submit at least 3 questions, on three different topics.
  • Class Discussion: We will use the topics that generate the most number of questions to stimulate the conversation. We hope that the leaders of the topic will respond to the questions presented and stimulate a discussion amongst the class.
  • Wrap Up: The class will conclude with a discussion of the issues from the larger perspective, discussing what the class thinks are the most pressing concerns and how they think we can address them.

Guests

Professor Mueller is a Professor and Director of Telecommunications Network Management Program at the Syracuse University School of Information Studies, where he teaches and does research on the political economy of communication and information. He has been involved in many ongoing Internet governance projects, including ICANN and the UN's Internet Governance Forum.

Professor Mueller's presentation to the class will be followed a short responsive presentation by Prof. Zittrain.

Readings

Required Readings

In preparation for our class discussion with Prof. Milton Mueller and Prof. Zittrain, please do the following required readings:

Suggested Background and Readings

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the types of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Though not the only issues that Internet Governance applies to, they provide examples of how Internet Governance interacts with different organizations and institutions.

ICANN's top-level domain name ("TLD") expansion

Last summer, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) voted to expand the possible top-level domain names (TLDs) such that individuals, businesses, governments, and other entities can register TLDs composed of any combination of letters in any script, so long as they can show a "business plan and technical capacity" to back up their desired domain. Most domains will end up going to the highest bidder in an auction process. Despite ICANN's expansion of TLDs, the Department of Commerce has reiterated that its management of changes to the authoritative root zone file (including its contracts with VeriSign and ICANN) will remain intact.

  • Should we be concerned about control of generic domains, like ".news" or ".shop," by a few wealthy individuals or groups?
  • Should we worry that ICANN is the sole body setting the standards for TLDs and resolving disputes?
  • Who should control the root zone file, and why?
Selected Readings (skim)
  • Prof. Mueller and JZ discussing ICANN and top-level domains (TLDs) on the Internet Governance Project blog:

The Internet Governance Forum

The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was set up during the first phase of the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 in order "to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005." In its final report, the WGIG provided the following working definition of Internet governance:

Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.

Based on the report, the UN Secretary-General established the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in 2006 with multiple stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and civil society. The mandate of the IGF declares that the forum's purpose is to discuss Internet governance-related public policy issues and advise stakeholders on such issues, but it does not have any real decision-making authority. The IGF held its third meeting during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad, India, in which panels explored topics such as expanding Internet access to the next billion people, promoting cyber-security, and global arrangements for managing critical internet resources.

  • Should the IGF have direct decision-making authority? If so, what substantive areas should this authority cover, how far should it go, and should it be binding? If not, what good does the IGF really do?
  • Is global governance of Internet use a good idea in any respect? If so, is the IGF the best form of this governance?
Selected Readings (skim)

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009

On April 1st, 2009, Senators John D. Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe introduced legislation drafted (with White House input) that, among other things, creates a "cybersecurity czar" who would have the power to shut down private computer networks in the event of a cyberattack.

  • Is it a good idea for the US government to have such control over the private Internet?
Selected Readings (skim)

Session Recap

Prof. Mueller's Presentation

What is governance? The tendency is for it to be poorly defined. We have a vague idea that it's something to do with ICANN - but is it a small subset of bigger field perhaps? We should look at Internet Governance as how the internet is shaped and ordered, including such things as standards, organizations like ICANN, public policy and the legal framework within which it operates. We need to ask critical questions of the effect at the international level of the nation-state on policy.

For a long time, the nation-state has been the basis of law. Basis of collective identity, political organization. But the Internet is global. Internet Governance is about this disjunction. There is a system of anarchy at the global level. ICANN is interesting in that it is a truly global institution native to the Internet, and it was founded on strange delegation of authority. It and organizations like it challenge the nation-state system. But despite these fundamental differences from international organizations that preceded it, ICANN is still tethered to nation-state by its contracts and links to US government.

The global politics of Internet Governance came to a forefront in WSIS. There, people challenged special status of US, and capitalized on anti-US sentiment after Iraq war.

But who should have roles? As a result of WSIS, there was attempt to create division of labor, a division that was misguided. The result was the IGF, a bargain between US and rest of world. The IGF was founded on the belief that they could continue to discuss issues, but had to do it in multi-stakeholder context, and all results had to be non-binding.

But these organizations just highlight that the role of nation-state is central to all problems. There are 4 basic categories of substantive policy issues:

  1. Critical internet resources
    1. e.g. unique identifiers. top level domains, multi lingual standards, etc.
  2. IP protection
  3. Content regulation
  4. Security

The many tensions between these fields have lead to many institutional changes.

However, there are common patterns in modes of governance that have arisen: national control is always undermined and asserted in new forms, scale shift in activity - but old modes of content regulation not scalable, organized groups work to takedown copyrighted material and child porn, there is more delegation to non-state actors to regulate the Internet, and a push to make ISPs responsible for policing.

The changing role of state is what is interesting and important. State-free Internet is threatened by the problems outlined, and attempts to deal with them by the old vanguard that is not equipped to deal with them.

Prof. Zittrain's Presentation

Prof. Zittrain shares a lot of the same commitments as Prof. Mueller, but he approaches it from a different angle. There are different methodologies that different academics follow when thinking about Internet governance - what is it? how do we define it? and what tools do we have to solve it?

But framing the topic changes how you look at the issues. Political scientists view the nation-state as the central player, but this is different from how other people would look at it. The thought of multi-national, multi-stakeholder governance is something that Prof. Zittrain doesn't naturally think of because that's not how he was trained.

ICANN felt like it could have been great at creating a new Internet constitution. But Prof. Zittrain's experience with it made him feel that is is really hard to do. For example, how do you define a stakeholder? You pretty much have to accept everyone who claims to be one, but that leaves out the people who don't realize they are stakeholders. How would we allocate the board seats? This leads to an unresolved tension of the idea on one hand that we know some issues are too important to leave to the geeks, and the problem that the geeks aren't in a good position to make this kind of decision. It's hard to get consensus - tech people don't even want to be there at these IGF meetings.

So should we even invest in this IGF thing? Does it even make sense? Does it, structurally speaking, turn out to be flawed?

So what are the issues that need intervention at the international level? Intellectual property, surely, and maybe also for other types of content control. And what about security? Prof. Zittrain finds that the most interesting question. The Internet system is designed to allow everyone in, but what happens when there are bad apples? Wikipedia is an interesting example of how the Internet can govern itself.

Class Discussion

On the Presentations

Prof. Mueller responded that he was not an advocate of multistakeholder governance. He wants maybe networked governance, and sees the "big room" idea as precisely what's wrong with multistakeholder governance because most likely, people outside of the room may actually be the ones that control what happens. The political science approach highlights the problems with this. So Prof. Mueller wanted to hear more from JZ about how he proposes to deal with the issues. It's a hard problem, but is there an optimal solution? Is there a method he proposes?

Prof. Zittrain wants several pilot projects launched by fairly small, tight groups, then wants to scale them if they work. This seems to parallel how the Internet happened, how Wikipedia happened. It seems more organic. He likes the ".org" better than the ".gov" (metaphorically speaking). That doesn't mean one size fits all, but Prof. Zittrain is skeptical of attempts to integrate into the Internet protocols a bunch of new features. He thinks that the standards groups and protocol groups (IETF) are out of touch and are too self-conscious to be effective today. There are also no statutes on point to deal with the issues of the Internet, and by the time a judge is asked to weigh in on the problem, some outcomes are precluded because of the ubiquity of certain things on the Internet. Prof. Zittrain has some concern about precluding Internet development through government action. The specter of state power limits us in solving problems that we can recognize and deal with using traditional means. The ACLU, for example, knows how to challenge the government. Prof. Zittrain is interested in how the waves of the market change things, rather than the government, and how they deliver us into an environment where we accept regulation.

Prof. Mueller responded that we need to protect ICANN from governments, but at the same time protect rights. The ACLU works in the US, but what about the global internet? He sees the need to attack the problem at a global level.

Prof. Zittrain says geeks brought us the net and are still pretty good at solving a lot of problems on the Net. We were able to benefit from that.

One of the people in the class asked, could there not be a meeting place between the geeks and the regulators? Prof. Zittrain responded that there is currently a libertarian ethos on the Internet. Geeks seem to have a different idea about what would be acceptable than the regulators. Not because they think government doesn't do a good job, but because they don't want to be interfered with. Prof. Mueller doesn't think there is as strong of a libertarian bent from the geeks. Responding, Prof. Zittrain clarified that there are perhaps two typs of geeks - slashdot geeks and "tech geeks" who want to solve problems and like tech, but aren't as deep into it, i.e. 02139 (MIT) geeks vs. 02138 (Harvard) geeks.

The conversation then shifted to a comment from a "geek" in our midst. Dharmishta's dad, who works as a CIO at San Francisco State. He stated that he often feels pressured by those around them, and like a co-conspirator when told to take things down, do DPI, or other "regulatory" things. He says that he and others like him don't want to be the bad guys, or the Internet police.

Prof. Fisher then comments that there are some things that need management, and completely decentralized behavior doesn't work well. He wonders what exactly these things are. What might be on this list? 2 categories - allocation of resources, and stopping behavior that is socially noxious. E.g. in first section is domain names, and in second, child porn. Maybe copyright infringement? Maybe security?

Prof. Mueller feels that there should be governance in certain areas, and the object of that governance should be to protect and secure freedoms. He notes however, that there is a difficult tradeoff between flexibility, openness and youth of new forms of governance, and the location of private governance in certain hands. On issue of scarce resources, it doesn't mean we need to control outcomes; we don't need to achieve certain objectives. We just let people use predictable rules.

After Prof. Mueller disconnected from the video conference, Prof. Zittrain spent a few minutes describing a political theory-type view of Internet governance: Consider an x-y grid: on the x axis, from left-to-right, we go from hierarchy to polyarchy, and on the y-axis, from bottom-to-top, we go from bottom-up governance to top-down governance. Federalism is in the first quadrant. Market is in the far right part of the first quadrant. Authoritarianism is in the far left part of the second quadrant. The Internet seems to be in the fourth quadrant. The classic Internet of 1995 is in the far right part of the fourth quadrant.

The third quadrant is a corner that interests Prof. Zittrain. He thinks that people in the fourth quadrant who need to solve a problem seem to move to the third quadrant. The question is who do you use (and what quadrant are they from) to solve your problem? What's interesting about wikipedia is how it tries to harness the civic aspects of its contributors; it wants to make everyone personally invested. Kind of like how in the UK, people want to be involved in civil society, and the government actually wants to know what the people generally think. This is how he sees the Wikipedia idea getting into government.

Prof. Zittrain thinks that the Google News "addendum" feature is interesting. Anyone who is quoted in an article is especially privileged to make a comment on the article. It doesn't let just anyone leave a comment. But it also doesn't address issues of how to validate someone, and whether that person is "mentioned." Google just lets the people figure it out.

A student asked whether there *is* actual power and control that we just don't recognize? For example, Wikipedia administrators, Obama's message being top-down even though his campaign seemed like it was bottom-up. Is the Internet that diffuse?

Prof. Zittrain says that in the case of government, it doesn't like unpredictability. It needs to have everything figured out. This is how modern governments view things, but does this work with the Internet?

Another student asked, does the current makeup of the Internet mean that people have a hard time joining the crowd, and could the government help people join the crowd?

Someone else asked, how do we balance issues of security with issues of openness? With content? Where do we strike the balance? What balance does each player need/want? What if the government tried to tax use? Would we accept that, versus the "free" use that we have now?

Pre-submitted Questions

The class submitted questions on the topic of Internet regulation that related to topics we had already discussed in class. There were many interesting and thoughtful questions, however we did not have time to address them.

For a look at the questions submitted by the class, click here

Teacher's Guide

Evaluation of the Class

Question Submission

As outlined above, we asked the class to submit questions on topics we looked at through the term and issues they raise with regards to Internet regulation. This generated a healthy set of thoughtful and provoking questions.

One thing that was noticeable was that many students were interested in the issues of copyright, network neutrality, and how they are accomplished both nationally and internationally. It was interesting to see where the students' interests were.

Live Discussion

The interaction between Profs. Mueller and Zittrain was enlightening and stimulating. Part of what made the discussion so interesting was that in addition to both professors being very knowledgeable and engaging speakers, their viewpoints on Internet governance are slightly at odds with each other, even though they share the same goals. This made for a friendly but still adversarial conversation between them, with both sides pushing back at each other's points. We allowed the discussion to go where it naturally went, not trying to control the discussion too much. This was successful in that it allowed the students and the presenters to speak on things they were interested in.

The fact that Prof. Mueller joined the class via video conference made having a more natural discussion difficult, however it still worked reasonably well.

We had planned to address some of the questions and topics generated by the class in their question submission. However, we decided to just let the conversation continue.

Though we couldn't address the questions submitted, the choice to allow the conversation to continue seemed like a good one. We felt that the students were engaged and did not need to be encouraged to discuss new topics or ideas.

Use of Technology

Prior to class

We used the email list to elicit questions from our classmates to use to stimulate discussion. These questions were aggregated using a Google Form, which allowed for a quick and easy way for us to see what questions the class had.

This worked well in encouraging people to submit questions. It was a quick and easy way for the students to contribute. It also worked well from our end - we were able to keep our inboxes free from an influx of questions, and we could both sign up to have access to the questions online.

In class

For the in-class session, we chose not to allow any use of laptops. We found that during previous iterations, laptops tended to distract people from the main discussion. When we made this decision, no class had yet banned laptops. However, by the time our session occurred, several classes had used this strategy.

We also had Prof. Mueller join us via video conference. The technology worked well for our needs, and allowed Prof. Mueller to join in and contribute where he otherwise would not have been able to. One problem with video conferencing though, is that it makes it feel less like a group discussion and more like one side talking to just one other side.

Finally, the room we had for the video conference was not ideal. The room had a capacity of about 110-120 and our class had about 30 members. This made the room feel empty and consequently the class less engaged, despite the fact that many people were participating and contributing.

Suggestions for Future Iterations

We found that we had a lot to talk about, but too little time. A suggestion would be to pick one topic, and focus on that. In the class, we ended up mainly engaging in a theoretical discussion about how to regulate the Internet (if at all). This conversation was good, however we had planned to do more, and had asked the class to prepare much more than we had time to cover.

There are many interesting topics in this field, so picking one that a majority of people are interested in should be easy. A suggestion would be to solicit ideas from the class prior to the session to find a topic that people are knowledgeable and interested in, and to focus the class there.

Like many of the other sessions, having more than one day to discuss such a broad topic would be useful. The opportunity to let ideas rest and to approach the topic from a different direction on a new day should not be wasted. In the future, we suggest revisiting topics on different days, and trying to link them to other topics.



Old discussion here