Internet Governance Class Questions

Questions Submitted Prior To Session

• Should the Internet be regulated such that it is provided for free, as a public good, to all Americans?
• Should individuals be able to control personal information that appears about them on search engine sites like Google?
• Are there Internet companies that present systemic risk to America's national security and, if so, how should we regulate them differently than we already do?
• What is net neutrality?
• Is the global online freedom act a good idea? should there be domestic sanctions for breaches of privacy abroad?
• Should the government subsidize internet access for all US citizens?
• The Internet has developed explosively fast. It has developed faster than society has been able to keep up with. Won't lack of regulation equally fuel the vices of the Internet as well as the virtues? Examples abound, but here are some examples of where our inability to stop, take pause, catch our breath, and react through regulation has really cost us: the proliferation of file sharing, the proliferation of child pornography, and the proliferation of pornography to children.
• Peter last week stated that globalization was one of the underpinnings of the recent bubbles that have ravaged our economy. If the world gets wired in such an intimate fashion, then America's (economic or other) problems spread and become the world's problems. Do we want to be linked up like that? Isn't it good to keep some separation (i.e., avoid complete and total globalization, fueled by complete Internet connectivity)?
• It seems a lot of Internet "regulation" comes in the form of legislation, as opposed to regulation by administrative agencies. E.g., DMCA, CDA. What are the merits of having a new regulatory agency focused exclusively on the Internet and Internet regulations? The Internet is clearly as important as, for example, aviation -- why not a Federal Internat Association? To the extent that we think are currently on the path to lumping Internet regulation in with the FCC, is that wise?
• Some have advocated for copyright infringement controls at the network level. Is this feasible or advisable?
• What about proposed legislation to kick violators of copyright or other laws off the Internet? Is it advisable to switch the focus of Internet regulation from controlling content to controlling access itself? If the proposed Google Books "v. 2.0" ever gets off the ground, a chief concern of copyright holders will be ensuring that it really is accessible only to American viewers. How realistic is this?
• (please please please can we talk about net neutrality?) What are the arguments against net neutrality? How will the issue infold between corporations and government? What will the fallout be from Comcast's FCC decision (august 08)? How will NN unfold given its hostile relationship to privacy and network neutrality?
• How are we going to resolve the privacy issues associated with social networking and third party advertising? How far up the stack are we going to allow DPI (see, i.e. NebuAd and Phorm)?
• The three strikes rule seems to be popping up as an alternative all over the world to combat piracy and security. What are the implications and fallout from this approach?
• Does ICANN's continued US-based control over root servers/TLDs/etc. benefit global activism by making it harder to silence activists' voices worldwide? If technology is the single most important game-changing investment that a modern government can make, as Peter Thiel asserted, what kind of security does such an investment require? What kind of cybersecurity investments are dictated by the idea of the Internet not only as a functional necessity, but as a competitive advantage that governments should consider subsidizing? Can the Internet live without any formal governance at all? Are there small protocol tweaks which could remove the need for hierarchy in servers, namespaces, and IPs and push the management of the network closer to the FOSS model of provision of services by talented amateurs? Or are there larger geostrategic considerations in management of the Internet which would lead such a system to be co-opted by major nations and corporations, and which thus necessitate a formal control structure? If so, what does this say about how limited the application of the lessons learned from FOSS might be?
• As the rise of F/OSS (especially the GPL), creative commons, and Wikipedia show, there is significant room for self- and peer-regulation. Is the internet a "special place" where such peer-regulation is sufficient, and government regulation (or industry "regulation") is not necessary? Or does the relatively invisible prevalence of self-regulated commons IRL (see Ostrom's work re: Maine lobster farmers, etc.) indicate that such regulatory schemes have broad application (and thus the internet is not special)? Conversely, the rise of piracy and the (supposed) apocalyptic effect this has had on the bottom lines of copyright-holders might seem to indicate that the regulatory framework that worked in the pre-digital world is insufficient to tackle the unique environment created by the internet. Does regulation over intellectual property need to be beefed up, or should we (as a society) embrace this sea change and see it as an opportunity for wide-ranging reform in our intellectual property framework - perhaps even, heaven forbid, look to other disciplines that have extensively studied incentives - (behavioral) economics, social cognition/psychology, cognitie sciences - to design incentive schemes that actually maximize innovation? Given the global nature of the internet, at what level should regulation occur (nationally, regionally, globally)? Is it even possible to have a functional internet if regulatory regimes diverge grossly between countries? Conversely, would it be possible to have a more global/international control structure over the fundamentals of the internet, instead of the current US-based approach? (at least, as I understand it, but my knowledge of the fundamentals of networks/the internet is poor at best).
• Should internet service (for one example) be a monopoly? If so, should it be government-run? If not, who else should run it? Does the current governance system for things like domain name assignments unfairly reflect "first claimant" access by more technologically developed countries (the US having stronger footing than, say, Botswana)? If so, how should this be addressed? If not, why is it fair? What would a decentralized regulatory body for the internet look like (or is that what we have now)?
• Why doesn't Harvard / other institutions create a competitor to Google Books? How can Twitter be embraced by social action movements?
• How can coalitions be formed between governments and private actors like citizen bloggers when groups have such different interests?
• Why doesn't Harvard / other institutions create a competitor to Google Books? How can Twitter be embraced by social action movements?
• How can coalitions be formed between governments and private actors like citizen bloggers when groups have such different interests?
• What powers has the federal government had in the past to "shut down" the Internet. Where are/were there points of control and what was the role of CERT in this process?
• What is the relationship between IETF and ICANN and who controls the .arpa protocols?
• Who gets to regulate the Internet? Does regulation need to come from some sort of International body, or can nation-states unilaterally regulate certain aspects of the 'Net, whether on the content layer or the physical layer? Where does content on the 'Net exist for purposes of regulation? What courts should have jurisdiction to adjudicate a copyright or a libel dispute between people from different countries? Different states? Can any government or other body regulate interactions in private virtual worlds, like Second Life or the World of Warcraft? Does the presence or absence of commerce in these worlds change anything? How similar or different have self-regulation of these spaces been to what we could reasonably expect from a governmental body?
• Is ICANN just an extension of the US government?
• Is there a workable alternative to ICANN?
• Are there a minimum set of standards and laws that could be applied to the internet as a whole? And if so, is this desirable?
• Arguably the single greatest quality of the Internet is the politics-free design of the protocol suit, TCP/UDP/IP/.... As the Internet grows and new protocols are designed (e.g., imagine a re-engineering of HTTP to take into account the "web 2.0" functionality that has been grafted into and atop the protocol), who will appoint the bodies that design the protocols? The IGP? ICANN? IETF?
• I think that software developers (including private corporations) are in a sense best equipped and most likely to create the new protocols, tying them into their products and throwing them out to market to compete with the others, may the best protocol win. In light of this, should the public be concerned about governments forcing backdoors and traps into the protocol designs?
• A potential solution exists in open source, wherein "enough eyeballs" would root out any exploits. Other solutions may exist as well. What are they, and which bodies would be best equipped with prescriptive / adjudicative / and enforcement jurisdiction? All governments have a security incentive in controlling the flow of information, not just totalitarian regimes. Parties who claim large amouts of intellectual property have an enormous interest in state policies that help them enforce their property rights. There's room for agreement here: both may be interested in policies that help create virtual borders by establishing the hardware and processes for border-site filtering. Assuming arguendo that installation of the tools for border-site filtering are a threat to the qualities that make the Internet a successful phenomenon, what can Internet governance organizations actually do to combat the threat? How can they throw their weight around with the reasonable expectation of changing the cost/benefit analysis for governments and IP holders? Are there other groups of people who likewise may be interested in border filtration?
• I have to run off to a meeting now, and if I sit and think too hard about my third question I'd be late. I'd rather submit two than zero. Blerg.
• Our session on the internet and social inequity involved discussion of the difficulties many people have in accessing and using the internet -- the general point was that the internet might have unfortunate redistributive effects. Can and should we make regulation of the internet more equitable, for example by removing authority from groups like ICANN, which is responsible to the US government rather than to a more inclusive set of countries?
• The internet makes possible some anonymity, a feature that China and other countries want to change. Anonymity may hinder regulation, but it has many other positive consequences, perhaps like enabling discussion (as well as some negative consequences). How should we weigh the desirability of steps that would ease internet regulation and government control over the internet while sacrificing some of the internet's more unique virtues? Peter Thiel suggested that regulation of internet companies was undesirable or a losing battle because technology changes so quickly. Is this true of internet governance as well? Will we be forever playing catch-up?
• Could (and should) Internet governance be used to protect copyright? For example, if we no longer hold to a net-neutrality principle, but give different packages (text, video, audio, etc.) different priorities - how would that change the enforcement of copyright (for example, by increasing the scrutiny over 'suspected' sound or video packages).
• What are the distributive effects of current Internet governance discussions? Is the distributive question (for example, in regards to the digital divide or international implications of availability of knowledge) apperant at all in these discussions?
• Who really decides about Internet governance? Is this really the public, through the political process, or maybe the market (ISPs, inventrors of new technology, etc.) or the programmers?
• What type of liability should Ciolli/Cohen or those similarly situated face?
• Is "regulatory capture" a credible threat for the net industry?
• Does the demographic skew of tech types bias these discussions towards libertarianism?
• Does society benefit from regulations that hold online intermediaries -- such as Internet Service Providers, individual websites, and file-sharing programs -- liable for the actions of their users? Is society better served by comprehensive international regulations as to legal online conduct or by deferring to individual nations' choice of regulations?
• Does the Internet require its own court that exists outside the jurisdiction of any individual nation?
• For enforcing copyright laws on the internet, is it possible to regulate the content layer without regulating the physical infrastructure?
• Should a branch of anti-trust regulation be developed specifically to address monopolies that develop on the internet?
• Would uniform infrastructure or logic-level regulation applied to all U.S. technology companies operating in foreign countries facilitate more responsible dealings with oppressive regimes? E.g., should regulation of hardware be put in place that makes it possible for U.S. companies to comply only with certain levels of censorship and surveillance requests?
• Should the government impose regulations to limit technology for those already using the internet, in Harrison Bergeron fashion, in order to allow others to catch up, in the hopes of limiting social inequity?
• Does antitrust regulation need to be modified for the internet industry?
• How are people harnessing the internet to organize and impact the regulatory process?
• To what extent can or should national governments include international concerns in their Internet-related regulations? If the Internet is a jurisdiction-crossing network, can governments cooperate to form an alliance of coordinated policy environments?
• Will it be possible to move from current IP and other standards to significantly different systems on the basis of consensus or critical mass-based transitions, or is an executive governance model a desirable innovation?
• If the United States adopts network neutrality principles, what happens in other jurisdictions? If other countries don't adopt the same principles, do we effectively end up with politically zoned network regulatory structures? What are the implications of this?
• We've seen a large number of metaphors for the Internet throughout this semester: From the University Professor's perspective, is there a dominant default metaphor which net academics use that venture caps and government-types don't?
• Does this administration present a make-or-break moment for Internet regulation?
• Are our nation's leaders asking the right questions in considering what and how to regulate online?
• How should the US government and world governments protect the privacy and anonymity of internet users, both domestically and internationally.
• Should the regulations vary by nation, or should there be a uniform international standard?
• Given the importance of a free press to a democratic government (the "fourth branch"), should democratic governments intercede in the demise of newspapers by subsidizing newspapers or by giving intellectual property protections to their news content (thereby inhibiting bloggers, google, and other internet news regurgitators) How strong should be the IP protections governments impose on the internet -- should they be relaxed given the new ease of copying and increased accessibility so as to encourage consumption of art and science? Or should they be increased so as to encourage production? What is the right balance?
• Should federal agencies/courts be making the decisions about the allocation of physical resources on the net? Is it in any way analogous to the Supreme Court's intervention with regard to bandwidth & terrestrial radio (e.g., ensuring that all voices can be heard), or is a complete lack of regulation more appropriate? Or would technological progress like the implementation of IPv6 render the question entirely moot? [Old Laws, New Media] Is there really such a thing as net neutrality? Robert Hale argued that any purportedly neutral rules of decision can never truly be neutral, because they inevitably occur against the backdrop of existing property interests--which are themselves normatively driven. He was writing about tangible property interests, but the argument could easily be extended to cyberlaw. If that's the case, where precisely is the "neutrality" in net neutrality located, if at all? [Old Laws, News Media]
• Is the European Union's recent suggestions that the Internet access is a fundamental right likely to represent an attitude that will have any bite in policy decisions? [Social inequality]
• Lawyers for Verizon have argued that in a net neutrality regime, they will have no incentive to make many additional business investments. They -- along with other ISPs -- have accused Google and Skype of free riding on the network they spent lots of money to build and making a profit off of it. Many ISPs obviously make economic arguments against net neutrality. Which, if any of them, do you find most reasonable and/or compelling?

Questions To Be Discussed (as selected by class organizers)

• What about proposed legislation to kick violators of copyright or other laws off the Internet? Is it advisable to switch the focus of Internet regulation from controlling content to controlling access itself?

• The three strikes rule seems to be popping up as an alternative all over the world to combat piracy and security. What are the implications and fallout from this approach?

• Could (and should) Internet governance be used to protect copyright? For example, if we no longer hold to a net-neutrality principle, but give different packages (text, video, audio, etc.) different priorities - how would that change the enforcement of copyright (for example, by increasing the scrutiny over 'suspected' sound or video packages).

• Given the global nature of the internet, at what level should regulation occur (nationally, regionally, globally)? Is it even possible to have a functional internet if regulatory regimes diverge grossly between countries? Conversely, would it be possible to have a more global/international control structure over the fundamentals of the internet, instead of the current US-based approach? (at least, as I understand it, but my knowledge of the fundamentals of networks/the internet is poor at best).

• Is society better served by comprehensive international regulations as to legal online conduct or by deferring to individual nations' choice of regulations?

• If the United States adopts network neutrality principles, what happens in other jurisdictions? If other countries don't adopt the same principles, do we effectively end up with politically zoned network regulatory structures? What are the implications of this?