The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki) - User contributions [en]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-15T19:23:57Z

AMehra: /* Guests */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-15T19:22:06Z

AMehra: /* Guests */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-15T19:17:39Z

AMehra: /* Live Discussion */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-13T05:06:14Z

AMehra: /* Live Discussion */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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 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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-13T04:59:27Z

AMehra: /* Live Discussion */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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. 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. A drawback, though, was that because students were interested in the ongoing conversation, we did not have time to address their submitted questions.

===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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-13T04:54:45Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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. 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. A drawback, though, was that obviously students were interested in the topic, and we did not have time to address their questions.

===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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-13T04:44:48Z

AMehra: /* Prior to class */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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. 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. A drawback, though, was that obviously students were interested in the topic, and we did not have time to address their questions.

===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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T18:01:44Z

AMehra: /* On the Presentations */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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. 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. A drawback, though, was that obviously students were interested in the topic, and we did not have time to address their questions.

===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 used 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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T17:40:55Z

AMehra: /* On the Presentations */

===Session Date: April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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.

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:

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

Could there not be a meeting place between teh geeks and the regulators?

JZ
gov
Libertarian ethos on the Internet. Geeks seem to have a different idea about what would be acceptable. Not because government does bad, but because they don't want to be interferred with.

Mueller

Doesn't see as much libertarianism from the geeks as JZ.

JZ

There are maybe two types of geeks - slashdot geeks and "tech geeks" who want to solve problems and like tech, but aren't as deep into it. 02139 geeks vs. 02138 geeks.

CIO Dharmistra's Dad

feels pressured, and feels like co-conspirator. Doesn't want to do it, but has consulted with legal counsel and they were told they had to do DPI and get involved. They don't want to be the bad guys - they don't want to be the internet police.

Josh

Mesh netowrking is something that is incentivized by regulatory frameworks. Curious to know why JZ is dismissive of clean slate ideas, especially where it could be people locked in a closet, and we could just see what happens.

JZ

How do you know who to trust? Very difficult. Seems to be an issue for MM too.

TFisher

There are somet hings that need management, and completely decentralized behaviour doesn't work well. TFish wonders what exactly these things are. What might be on this list? 2 categories - allocation of resources, and stopping behaviour that is socially noxious.

In first section is domain names, eg. And in second, child porn. Maybe copyright infringement? Maybe security?

Mueller

Feels that there should be govenrnance in certain areas, and the object of that governance should be to protect and secure freedoms. Difficult tradeoff between flexibilty and openness and youth of new forms of governance, and the location of private governance in certain hands.

On issue of scarce resources, doesn't mean we need to control outcomes - don't need to achieve certain objectives. Just let people use predictable rules.

JZ

There is an x-y grid we could consider. On x axis, running from hierarchy to polyarchy, and the y-axis from bottom-up to top-down. Federalism is in the first quadrant. Market is in the far right first quadrant. Authoritarianism is in the far left second quadrant. Internet seems to be in the 4th quadrant. Classic internet of 1995 in far right quadrant. Third quadrant is a corner that interests him. He thinks maybe people in the fourth quadrant who need to solve a problem seem to move to the third quadrant.

Question is - who do you use (and what quadrant are they from) to solve your problem?

INteresting about wikipedia is how it tries to harness the civic aspects of its contributors. Want to make eveyrone personally invested. Kind of like how in UK, people want to be involved in civil society, and government wans to know what the people generally think. This is how he sees the wikipedia idea getting into government.

JZ thinks that Google news feature is interesting. Anyone who is quoted in an article is especially privileged to make a comment on the article. Doesn't let just anyone leave a comment. Doesn't though, bring up issues of how to validate someone, whether that person is "mentioned". Let the people figure it out.

====[[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 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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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. 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. A drawback, though, was that obviously students were interested in the topic, and we did not have time to address their questions.

===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 used 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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T17:18:05Z

AMehra: /* Prof. Zittrain's Presentation */

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T16:59:12Z

AMehra: /* Pre-submitted Questions */

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T16:55:59Z

AMehra:

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T16:54:17Z

AMehra:

===April 20, 2009===
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

==Precis==
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. [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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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===

===Prof. Zittrain's Presentation===

===Class Discussion===

====On the Presentations====

====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, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|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. 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. A drawback, though, was that obviously students were interested in the topic, and we did not have time to address their questions.

===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 used 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.
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance Class Questions

2009-05-02T16:51:38Z

AMehra: /* Questions Submitted Prior To Session */

==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?

Internet Governance Class Questions

2009-05-02T16:51:10Z

AMehra:

==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?

Internet Governance Class Questions

2009-05-02T16:48:23Z

AMehra: New page: ==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 pe...

==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?

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T16:33:33Z

AMehra: /* Session Recap */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

==Precis==
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. [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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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===

===Prof. Zittrain's Presentation===

===Class Discussion===
For a look at the questions submitted by the class, [[Internet Governance Class Questions|click here]]

==Teacher's Guide==

===Evaluation of the Class===

===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 used 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.

===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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T16:24:39Z

AMehra:

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

==Precis==
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. [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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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===

===Prof. Zittrain's Presentation===

===Class Discussion===

==Teacher's Guide==

===Evaluation of the Class===

===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 used 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.

===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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T16:19:12Z

AMehra: /* Guests */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

==Precis==
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. [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.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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]

==Teacher's Guide==

===Evaluation of the Class===

===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 used 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.

===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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-05-02T16:18:01Z

AMehra: /* Guests */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

{{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?

==Precis==
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. [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 Syracuse University [http://ischool.syr.edu School of Information Studies], where he teaches and does research on the political economy of communication and information.

==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===

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 [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.

*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:
**[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).

====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:

:''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/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.

*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'')=====
*[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]

==Teacher's Guide==

===Evaluation of the Class===

===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 used 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.

===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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-20T19:31:30Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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.

==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. (''LOOK HOW YOUNG HE IS!!!'')

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the kinds of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Please review the following sections.

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

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.

*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:
**[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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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'')====
*[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]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:49:54Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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.

==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 10 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. (''LOOK HOW YOUNG HE IS!!!'')

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the kinds of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Please review the following sections.

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

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.

*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:
**[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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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'')====
*[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]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:42:29Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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.

==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 10 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.

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the kinds of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Please review the following sections.

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

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.

*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:
**[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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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'')====
*[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]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:36:47Z

AMehra: /* Required Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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.

==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 10 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.

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the kinds of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Please review the following sections.

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

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.

*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:
**[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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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'')====
*[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]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:34:44Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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.

==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.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 10 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.

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the kinds of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Please review the following sections.

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

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.

*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:
**[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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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'')====
*[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]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:32:37Z

AMehra: /* ICANN's top-level domain name ("TLD") expansion */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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.

==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.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 10 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.

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the kinds of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Please review the following sections.

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

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.

*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:
**[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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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'')====
*[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]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:30:55Z

AMehra: /* Selected Readings (skim) */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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.

==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.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 10 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.

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the kinds of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Please review the following sections.

===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. 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.

*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:
**[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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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'')====
*[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]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:30:02Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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.

==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.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 10 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.

In addition, we've selected three current topics to provide some background on the kinds of issues that "Internet Governance" might touch on. Please review the following sections.

===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. 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.

*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:
**[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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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'')====
*[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 similarly negative reaction]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:22:03Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

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

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/1/9/4051237.html Prof. Mueller's "Top 10 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.

In addition, we've selected three current Internet governance topics

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

===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?

====Required Reading====
*[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 similarly negative reaction]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T23:20:09Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

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

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/1/9/4051237.html Prof. Mueller's "Top 10 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.

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

===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?

====Required Reading====
*[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 similarly negative reaction]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T01:50:25Z

AMehra: /* Required Reading */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

===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?

====Required Reading====
*[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 similarly negative reaction]

====Optional Reading====
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/1/9/4051237.html Prof. Mueller's "Top 10 Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009"]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T01:41:56Z

AMehra: /* Optional Reading */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

===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?

====Required Reading====
*[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 similarly negative reaction]

====Optional Reading====
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/1/9/4051237.html Prof. Mueller's "Top 10 Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009"]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T00:36:19Z

AMehra: /* Optional Reading */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

===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?

====Required Reading====
*[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 similarly negative reaction]

====Optional Reading====
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/1/9/4051237.html Prof. Mueller's "Top 10 Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T00:35:53Z

AMehra: /* Required Reading */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

===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?

====Required Reading====
*[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 similarly negative reaction]

====Optional Reading====
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/1/9/4051237.html Prof. Mueller's "Top 10 Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009]
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-13T00:33:46Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]

===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?

====Required Reading====
*[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 similarly negative reaction]

====Optional Reading====
*[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/1/9/4051237.html Prof. Mueller's "Top 10 Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009]
----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-12T22:56:01Z

AMehra: /* Required Reading */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-12T22:55:06Z

AMehra: /* The Internet Governance Forum */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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/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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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] (''skim'')

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]

''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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-12T22:47:24Z

AMehra: /* Precis */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]
''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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-12T22:47:02Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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. [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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

===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. 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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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).

===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:

:''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.

*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?

====Required Reading====
*[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.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]
''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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-12T22:40:41Z

AMehra:

Internet Governance Brainstorming

2009-04-12T22:34:04Z

AMehra:

==Brainstorming==

Much like open-source software,

:'''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)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

:'''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)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
: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)

=== International Regulation ===
*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.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He 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)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*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)

::'''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)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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 rights? And what, if any, regulation should the government enact to protect minors on the Internet, while also respecting their rights?

There are two traditional categories where minors' free speech rights have been restricted. The first is with respect to pornography, the second with respect to the school environment. These two areas raise different concerns.

'''[[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)

:'''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)

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

We have come to rely on the Internet for almost every aspect of our lives. If 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?

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
(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]]

:'''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 outage. We 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)

=== Internet as International Conflict Zone ===

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)

:'''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)

=== Internet as an Extension of National Infrastructure ===

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?

--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 23:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)

:'''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 us. Ramesh 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)

=====Case study: a look at the Comcast BitTorrent controversy=====
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:''
*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.

Beyond direct regulation, another possibility would be the creation of standards to allow private entities to provide effective content control. But 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?

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 issues. For 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.

''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===
*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.

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====

=====Case Study: 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.

''Issues to discuss:''
*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?
*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?
*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====

=====Case Study: 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:

:''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.

''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?
*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?

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-12T22:32:52Z

AMehra: /* Concrete Question of the Week */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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 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?

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====

=====Case Study: 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.

''Issues to discuss:''
*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?
*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?
*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====

=====Case Study: 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:

:''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.

''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?
*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?

==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?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==Session Design==

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 accomplishment and what is the current framework. 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.

==Readings==

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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/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.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]
''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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-05T19:29:25Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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 case 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.

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====

=====Case Study: 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.

''Issues to discuss:''
*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?
*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?
*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====

=====Case Study: 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:

:''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.

''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?
*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?

==Concrete Question of the Week==
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 solve those issues?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==Session Design==

The session will be designed to highlight the differing opinions on how the Internet should be regulated. The class will be divided into groups that will each be assigned a different interest. We will then conduct class as a discussion where each group will be expected to highlight its concerns and present its views within the discussion.

*'''Groups''': The class will be divided into 5 groups representing what we believe are five different interests: USA, the European Union, China, the Corporate world, and Africa. Each group will be provided with some background information which they should use as a starting point for research.
*'''Background Reading''': Background reading is short and intended to give a broad overview of the current issues up for discussion. The groups should keep the readings in mind when researching their parties' interests.
*'''Individual Research''': Groups will be expected to research the interests and values of their group. Groups should spend about 2-4 hours familiarizing themselves with the necessary information to engage in an informed discussion.
*'''Group Discussion''': Each group is expected to engage in the conversation, highlighting the issues each group feels is important. Through the discussion of one or more case study, we hope to better understand the issues and see where there may be tensions.
*'''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.

==Readings==

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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/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.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]
''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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-05T19:28:55Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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 case 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.

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====

=====Case Study: 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.

''Issues to discuss:''
*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?
*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?
*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====

=====Case Study: 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:

:''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.

''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?
*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?

==Concrete Question of the Week==
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 solve those issues?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==Session Design==

The session will be designed to highlight the differing opinions on how the Internet should be regulated. The class will be divided into groups that will each be assigned a different interest. We will then conduct class as a discussion where each group will be expected to highlight its concerns and present its views within the discussion.

*'''Groups''': The class will be divided into 5 groups representing what we believe are five different interests: USA, the European Union, China, the Corporate world, and Africa. Each group will be provided with some background information which they should use as a starting point for research.
*'''Background Reading''': Background reading is short and intended to give a broad overview of the current issues up for discussion. The groups should keep the readings in mind when researching their parties' interests.
*'''Individual Research''': Groups will be expected to research the interests and values of their group. Groups should spend about 2-4 hours familiarizing themselves with the necessary information to engage in an informed discussion.
*'''Group Discussion''': Each group is expected to engage in the conversation, highlighting the issues each group feels is important. Through the discussion of one or more case study, we hope to better understand the issues and see where there may be tensions.
*'''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.

==Readings==

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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/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.youtube.com/watch?v=NN95GE4mOIw] Intro video from JZ's 2004 iLaw Course]
''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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-05T02:05:15Z

AMehra: /* Guests */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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 case 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.

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====

=====Case Study: 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.

''Issues to discuss:''
*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?
*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?
*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====

=====Case Study: 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:

:''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.

''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?
*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?

==Concrete Question of the Week==
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 solve those issues?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].

==Session Design==

The session will be designed to highlight the differing opinions on how the Internet should be regulated. The class will be divided into groups that will each be assigned a different interest. We will then conduct class as a discussion where each group will be expected to highlight its concerns and present its views within the discussion.

*'''Groups''': The class will be divided into 5 groups representing what we believe are five different interests: USA, the European Union, China, the Corporate world, and Africa. Each group will be provided with some background information which they should use as a starting point for research.
*'''Background Reading''': Background reading is short and intended to give a broad overview of the current issues up for discussion. The groups should keep the readings in mind when researching their parties' interests.
*'''Individual Research''': Groups will be expected to research the interests and values of their group. Groups should spend about 2-4 hours familiarizing themselves with the necessary information to engage in an informed discussion.
*'''Group Discussion''': Each group is expected to engage in the conversation, highlighting the issues each group feels is important. Through the discussion of one or more case study, we hope to better understand the issues and see where there may be tensions.
*'''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.

==Readings==

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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/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]
''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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-05T02:04:56Z

AMehra: /* Readings */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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 case 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.

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====

=====Case Study: 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.

''Issues to discuss:''
*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?
*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?
*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====

=====Case Study: 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:

:''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.

''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?
*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?

==Concrete Question of the Week==
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 solve those issues?

==Guests==
*[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)

==Session Design==

The session will be designed to highlight the differing opinions on how the Internet should be regulated. The class will be divided into groups that will each be assigned a different interest. We will then conduct class as a discussion where each group will be expected to highlight its concerns and present its views within the discussion.

*'''Groups''': The class will be divided into 5 groups representing what we believe are five different interests: USA, the European Union, China, the Corporate world, and Africa. Each group will be provided with some background information which they should use as a starting point for research.
*'''Background Reading''': Background reading is short and intended to give a broad overview of the current issues up for discussion. The groups should keep the readings in mind when researching their parties' interests.
*'''Individual Research''': Groups will be expected to research the interests and values of their group. Groups should spend about 2-4 hours familiarizing themselves with the necessary information to engage in an informed discussion.
*'''Group Discussion''': Each group is expected to engage in the conversation, highlighting the issues each group feels is important. Through the discussion of one or more case study, we hope to better understand the issues and see where there may be tensions.
*'''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.

==Readings==

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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/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]
''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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

Internet Governance Brainstorming

2009-04-05T02:01:19Z

AMehra: New page: ==Brainstorming== Much like open-source software, :'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! JZ 15...

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-04-05T02:00:57Z

AMehra:

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
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 case 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.

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====

=====Case Study: 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.

''Issues to discuss:''
*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?
*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?
*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====

=====Case Study: 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:

:''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.

''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?
*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?

==Concrete Question of the Week==
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 solve those issues?

==Guests==
*[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)

==Session Design==

The session will be designed to highlight the differing opinions on how the Internet should be regulated. The class will be divided into groups that will each be assigned a different interest. We will then conduct class as a discussion where each group will be expected to highlight its concerns and present its views within the discussion.

*'''Groups''': The class will be divided into 5 groups representing what we believe are five different interests: USA, the European Union, China, the Corporate world, and Africa. Each group will be provided with some background information which they should use as a starting point for research.
*'''Background Reading''': Background reading is short and intended to give a broad overview of the current issues up for discussion. The groups should keep the readings in mind when researching their parties' interests.
*'''Individual Research''': Groups will be expected to research the interests and values of their group. Groups should spend about 2-4 hours familiarizing themselves with the necessary information to engage in an informed discussion.
*'''Group Discussion''': Each group is expected to engage in the conversation, highlighting the issues each group feels is important. Through the discussion of one or more case study, we hope to better understand the issues and see where there may be tensions.
*'''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.

==Readings==

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*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.

----

[[Internet_Governance_Brainstorming|Old discussion here]]

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

2009-03-02T01:59:02Z

AMehra: /* Tools and Examples */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mel]]''' - it's worth noting that we have a KSG student, an MBA student, and an engineer in our group, and no lawyers or law students, so expect this session to come from a slightly different perspective.

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

== Before class ==

To prepare before class, please do the following.

# Read the [[#Precis]], which will introduce you to the main topics of the session.
# Read and consider the [[#Core questions]] we will be discussing during the session.
# Read and complete the [[#Workshop prep]] exercise. This should take you no more than 20 minutes.
# Read the [[#Mandatory]] readings; there are 4 total; 2 are short, and 1 can be skimmed.

== Precis ==

Activism is "intentional action to bring about social or political change" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism]). In this sense, activist have used the web for mobilizing people for all kinds of social causes, ranging from the tremendous success of the Obama campaign's online efforts to post-election citizen journalism and [http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/ushahidi crisis mapping mash-ups] in Kenya to your basic online petition or full-scale and often illegal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism hacktivist] activities. New tools are emerging for coordinating concrete action and volunteering ([http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank], [http://www.thepoint.org The Point], [http://www.zoosa.org Zoosa]) as well as fundraising and matching donors and social entrepreneurs ([http://apps.facebook.com/causes/about Facebook Causes], [http://www.donorschoose.org DonorsChoose], [http://www.socialvibe.com Socialvibe]), and other tools not explicitly designed for social action in particular ([http://www.twitter.com Twitter], collaborative document editing, IMs and text messages) are being pressed into service by tech-savvy grassroots organizers, sometimes to great effect.

While online tools are being used by activists whose causes and organizations may have had long histories pre-internet, we also must consider internet activism in terms of new fields of action taken around issues of new issues of concern that the internet has given rise to -- see, for instance, Grey Tuesday, a day of coordinated electronic civil disobedience to distribute DJ Dangermouse's mashup, "Grey Album," or Berkman's own OpenNet Initiative which monitors and reports on internet filtering and surveillance practices by governments around the world.

Sandor Vegh, in his chapter of ''Cyberactivism'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayershas [http://books.google.com/books?id=KHCjMkNRAkYC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Classifying+Forms+of+Online+Activism:+The+Case+of+Cyberprotests+Against+the+World+Bank&source=bl&ots=NtXY2ND1Ma&sig=XnCYz7850aSl2nJZNmQ4NTIeRak&hl=en&ei=1C-eSdmNLZaitgff2bWGDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result suggests three categories] of "Cyberacticism":

{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
|-valign="top"
! Category || Uses || Examples || Tools
|-
| awareness/advocacy || Blogging, petitions || [http://www.peta.org PETA], [http://w2.eff.org/br/ Blue Ribbon Campaign] || Websites, mass mailings, podcasts, RSS
|-
| organization/mobilization || Campaigning, fundraising, volunteering, community building || [http://www.moveon.org Moveon], [http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/08/05/CU2005080501141.html?whichDay=1 Al Qaeda], Myanmar uprising || Websites, mass mailings, mobile applications, online/offline hybrids
|-
| direct online action/reaction || Electronic civil disobedience, hacktivism || [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_during_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war Cyberattacks during the 2008 South Ossetia war] || DDoS, website vandalizing, trojans, mass mailings
|}

While these categories may offer a useful initial framework, many activists leverage all of these categories of activism in their work.

== Core questions ==

Needless to say, there are any of a number of ways to tackle a topic of this breadth but here are just a few structural and tactical questions to consider while doing the readings for class:

1. An issue of tactics: What are the success factors of online activism tools? (And how much of the success of any given campaign can be attributed to the internet tools used as opposed to a superior ground operation or a more compelling issue/candidate?) Is there a generalizable model here? What are the parallels and differences with the way for-profit firms have tried to harness these tools? Further, as Ethan Zuckerman notes, "any sufficiently advanced read/write technology will get used for two purposes: pornography and activism. Porn is a weak test for the success of participatory media - it’s like tapping a mike and asking, “Is it on?” If you’re not getting porn in your system, it doesn’t work. Activism is a stronger test - if activists are using your tools, it’s a pretty good indication that your tools are useful and usable." What online technologies have yet to be fully exploited by activists and why?

2. How do we define and measure success of online activism? Do online tools for activists allow for one to feel simply satisfied with a lazier, shallow degree of involvement (the median earned by many Facebook causes prominently displayed on so many users' pages is under $50) or does it create new ladders of engagement? What is the meaning of your number of viewers, of addresses on your mailing list, or of Facebook friends for your cause? What is the fundamental difference between a computer mediated act of civil disobedience versus one offline?

3. Compared to traditional modes of activist engagement, digital tools change both the meaning and tactics of democratic participation. Still, we have to examine, who is in now and who is out now? Who has access and who still may not have it? How do old digital divides play out or new ones emerge? To what extent do these tools allow us to subvert hierarchies of power or to what extent do they create new hierarchies and gatekeepers? (i.e. Who participated by submitting questions to the YouTube Presidential debates in 2008? Given certain barriers to access, what voices or issues might not have been heard?)

4. Online activism often creates decentralized organizations, which act and react very differently than the centralized organizations most of us are used to, so both leveraging and counteracting distributed activist communities can be counterintuitive. What things can decentralized online movements do more easily than centralized (online or offline) ones, and what strategies might activists and/or their opponents do to take advantage of these tendencies to either promote or counteract a cause?

== Contributors ==

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/ Ethan Zuckerman], Berkman Center Fellow, Co-Founder of [http://www.globalvoicesonline.org GlobalVoicesOnline.org], providing both practical and theoretical expertise with focus on applications in the developing world.
* [http://www.nicco.org Nicco Mele], IOP Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, founder of [http://www.echoditto.com/ EchoDitto], former Internet Operations Director of Gov. Dean's presidential primary campaign in 2003

== Session design ==

=== Workshop prep ===

''To be done before class.''

During class, we will be splitting into 6 randomly assigned teams for a rocket pitch workshop session. Teams will be competing to create and pitch ideas for internet-based projects for various hypothetical clients, played (and judged) by the session team (Mel, Rainer, and Elana), the course professors, and our guests.

'''Assignment:''' Examine online tools (software programs and platforms) that have been or could be used for online activism. Come to class with a list of 5 tools or interesting causes/campaigns that you examined - at least one of them should be something new you've added to the list at [[#Tools]]. Each entry on the list should contain the following parts:

* Name of tool - http://link-to-the-tool-if-possible.com - 1-2 sentence description of what types of projects/demographics/causes this tool would be particularly suited to AND/OR a link to an example of this tool being used for a specific activism project.

'''Requirements:''' The [[#Tools]] section below has some ideas for starters, but you must add at least one new item to the list as part of your 5 items. Tools must be internet-based in some way, but do not necessarily need to be limited to personal computers; cellphone/SMS apps, location-based tags and artifacts that somehow link or point to online spaces, etc. are also valid. Custom-developed applications that were developed and deployed for a specific project are ok, even if they cannot be reused for future projects - they're great examples.

Non-mandatory but probably helpful: you can read about the [[#Workshop]] format for the exact times and materials you'll have available, as well as the [[#Judging]] criteria.

=== Activity intro (10 minutes) ===

We will first explain the ground rules of the rocket pitch workshop which will be held later in the session and introduce the 3 scenarios involved.

=== Guests present case studies (30 minutes) ===

Next, our guests will give short case study examples of projects they've worked on and tactics they've used. During this part of the session, students are encouraged to write down (on pieces of paper) questions they'd like to bring up, and to save those papers for the discussion after the workshop.

=== Workshop ===

''(50 minutes)''

You will be divided into 6 teams. Teams will roleplay the parts of teams assigned to create internet-based projects for various activism scenarios. Teams will compete to create the best 1-minute rocket pitch of their project idea. The 1-minute timing will be strict; we'll cut you off at 60 seconds.

* You get 30 seconds to set up and 1 minute to present.
* Each group gets 3 big sheets of paper ("slides") and a marker for each round. You do not have to use the paper. However, projector setup will count against your time...
* Groups can use any resources (including computers) and work anywhere they want.
* Your presentation can be and use any things or people you want.

* 20 minutes: First scenario prep
* 10 minutes: First scenario presentations and [[#Judging]]
* 10 minutes: Second scenario prep
* 10 minutes: Second scenario presentations and [[#Judging]]

=== Judging ===

''Judging is interspersed with the [[#Workshop]].''

Presentations will be judged on the following criteria, evenly weighted.

''Criteria are still subject to change, and final judging criteria will be announced at the beginning of the session, but this is the current draft.''

* '''Tactics:''' Is your strategy well-articulated? Can we envison how you will carry out your game plan, and do we believe it's probable that you will reach your goals with the resources and timeframe you've been allotted?
* '''Measurement:''' What is your goal? Have you defined what it would mean for your project to be successful, and how you will measure and determine your success?
* '''Analysis of competition:''' Did you articulate why your approach is better than others that might exist?
* '''Utilization of the Internet:''' Are you taking full advantage of the online medium? (Why would your project be more difficult/impossible offline?)
* '''Leveraging your audience:''' Did you articulate who you are trying to engage, and in what manner? Will your community be (or be working against one that is) centralized, decentralized, or hybrid - and why? If you are trying to build a community, how will you most effectively leverage the type of community you have chosen to build? If you are not trying to build a community, why not?
* '''Creativity:''' Are you using tools or processes in an unique way that nobody has tried before? Are you advocating a cause or reaching an audience not commonly addressed through this medium? Are you in some way doing something crazy and new?

Note that we are ''not'' judging you on how well you pitch the ''cause,'' only the project. The judges are assuming the roles of supporters of the cause who want to fund your project, so you can safely assume that the judges (1) know all about your cause and (2) are already completely convinced that it is the best thing in the world.

=== Discussion (30 minutes)===

Students are now encouraged to bring out the questions they had earlier; we'll use these as the basis for a followup discussion.

== Readings ==

=== Mandatory ===

* [http://www.articlearchives.com/law-legal-system/constitutional-law-freedom-press/1832458-1.html''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,''] by the law professor Seth Kreimer.
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/03/08/the-cute-cat-theory-talk-at-etech/ Ethan Zuckerman's Cute Cat Theory of Digital Activism] (This is available in .mp3 format for free in podcast section of the iTunes store --CKennedy)
* [http://publius.cc/2008/12/09/from-the-bottom-up-using-the-internet-to-mobilize-campaign-participation From the Bottom-Up: Using the Internet to Mobilize Campaign Participation] by Dana Fisher, a short article that compares the strategies of Obama and McCain's online campaigns. (skim)
* Summaries and selections from ''The Starfish and the Spider'' by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, focused on pages 133-158 on "taking on decentralization," which argues that conventional attack tactics fail against decentralized activism, and presents several strategies that can be used instead. Read the [http://magazine.redhat.com/2007/02/05/book-review-the-starfish-and-the-spider/ Red Hat Magazine review] by Jeff Mackanic and Greg DeKoenigsberg, which summarizes the main points, then see the [[Crib notes]] from p. 133-158 on attacking decentralization. (The entire book is worth reading as a framework for understanding decentralized movements.)
* [http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html "Power Laws, Web Logs and Inequality"] by Clay Shirky

=== Optional ===

* ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. (This book is difficult to get hold of, but good supplementary reading if you're interested and can procure a copy.)
* [http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/ Rebooting America: Ideas for Redesigning American Democracy for the Internet Age]
* http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/12/10/open-for-questions-participation-from-campaigning-to-governing/
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/the-new-organizers-part-1_b_132782.html The New Organizers: What's Really Behind Obama's Ground Game] from HuffPo.com
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25bloggers-t.html?fta=y "Revolution Facebook Style: Can social networking turn young Egyptians into a force for Democratic Change?"] from the New York Times
*[http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12815678 "Rioters of the World Unite: They have nothing to lose but their web cameras"] from the Economist. See Patrick Meier's critique of the piece [http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/snap-mobs-of-the-world-unite-a-better-taxonomy/ here.]
* [http://mobileactive.org/wireless-technology-social-change-11-case-studies "Wireless Technology for Social Change: Trends in NGO Mobile Use"]

== Tools and Examples ==

* [http://www.digiactive.org/wp-content/uploads/digiactive_facebook_activism.pdf DigiActive Introduction to Facebook Activism]
* [http://apps.facebook.com/causes/about Facebook Causes]
* [http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/ushahidi Crisis mapping mash-ups in Kenya]
* [http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank]
* [http://www.zoosa.org Zoosa]
* [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ Global Voices]
* [http://www.donorschoose.org DonorsChoose]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com Socialvibe]
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]
* [http://www.frontlinesms.com/ Frontline SMS]
* [http://discoverscholars.org/ DiscoverScholars]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com/ SocialVibe]
* [http://www.techsoup.org/index.cfm TechSoup]
* [http://mobileactive.org/ MobileActive]
* [http://theuptake.org/ TheUpTake], a citizen journalism site whose efforts are summarized [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UpTake here]. An example of their success in promoting political awareness is the coleman / franken recount and trials. [http://uptake-editorial.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/1694/ link]. (This is where we are supposed to put our one new entry before class right?)
* [http://freeconnie.com/ Free Connie]. A friend of mine from college, now at USC law, is defending a woman who suffered from BWS and has served her time in jail. With the help of another one of our friends, he put together this site for public activism on her case.
* [http://ipetitions.com/ iPetitions]
* [http://capitoladvantage.com/ Capitol Advantage] Leading provider of Internet tools for congressional communication and civic participation.
* [http://www2.democracyinaction.org/ DemocracyInAction] is a non-profit that provides a suite of tools for progressive organizations, including fundraising, communications, and contact management.
* [http://carrotmob.org/about/ Carrotmob]is the opposite of a boycott. Businesses compete with one another to see who can do the most good (locally sourced produce, green energy etc) and carrotmob organises a huge group of people to descend on the business and buy products "in order to reward whichever business made the strongest commitment to improve the world".
* [http://www.spot.us/ Spot.us] - community-funded journalism site, where freelance reporters publish proposals for local-interest stories that they want to write, and users contribute money to the proposals that interest them until there's enough for the story to be written.

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

2009-03-02T01:58:14Z

AMehra: /* Tools and Examples */