The New new new Thing:Internet Standards and Governance,      Definitions and Disciplines                                F...
USE OF THESE SLIDES§  First draft ‘provocation’§  Not to be cited – ever!§  Beginning not end of JRA4 standards journey...
WHY EXPLORING “INTERNET SCIENCE”?§    Internet development a societal and technological artefact§    To achieve a deeper...
NETWORK OF EXCELLENCE PARTNERS
NOE ACTIVITIES OVER THE PERIOD 2011-2015              Virtual communities                                                 ...
ESSEX INVOLVEMENT§    Leading JRA4: Governance, regulation, and standards       Ø    Particular interests:       Ø    I...
JRA4: GOVERNANCE, REGULATION, AND STANDARDSParticular legal interests:   Ø  Internet governance;         •  Hard law and ...
LAW AS A PROACTIVE ELEMENT IN INTERNET SCIENCE§  Regulation and governance central to Internet  policy   Ø  Well underst...
THE ‘NEW NEW NEW’ THING?§  Internet standards as a new paradigm,  Ø  based   on technocratic decision making  Ø  exempl...
REPOSITORY OF STANDARDS BODY CASE STUDIES§  To measure successful            governance design for    Internet standards,...
STANDARDS CASE STUDIESStandards          Case study	        Time            Authors	          Governance Innovation	  orga...
ALTERNATIVE MODEL OF ‘BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP’§  ‘New’ thing:   Ø  1990s   New Approach ETSI§  ‘New new’ thing   Ø  IE...
WHY IS STANDARD SETTING EXCLUDED FROM ECONOMICS?§  In both IETF and W3C      Ø  dominant  corporate interests are claime...
NEW PARADIGMS ARE SET AGAINST EXISTING BODIES§  General standards-setting bodies (ISO)§  International Organization for ...
INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION§    Commission électrotechnique internationale (CEI)§    non-profit, non-gover...
MODERNISATION OF ‘NEW’ MODELS§  Yet as faults are found in   Ø  IETF new new and   Ø  W3C ‘new new new’ models,   Ø  i...
THIS RAISES A SIGNIFICANT DESIGN QUESTION§  Is the new new model of IETF and W3C still fit  for purpose?  Ø  Can   they ...
CONCLUSION: EXPLANATORY POWER OF CASE STUDIES§  It is use cases that represent the ability of§  Internet Science to expl...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Chris Marsden, University of Essex (Plenary): Regulation, Standards, Governance – Definitions and Disciplines

1,089

Published on

Network of Excellence Internet Science Summer School. The theme of the summer school is "Internet Privacy and Identity, Trust and Reputation Mechanisms".
More information: http://www.internet-science.eu/

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,089
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chris Marsden, University of Essex (Plenary): Regulation, Standards, Governance – Definitions and Disciplines

  1. 1. The New new new Thing:Internet Standards and Governance, Definitions and Disciplines FIRST EINS SUMMER SCHOOL OXFORD AUGUST 10, 2012 Network of Excellence in FP7-ICT-2011.1.6 Internet Science 288021 EINS
  2. 2. USE OF THESE SLIDES§  First draft ‘provocation’§  Not to be cited – ever!§  Beginning not end of JRA4 standards journey§  Not to be attributed to JRA4 or to any consortium member§  Feel free to contact author at: cmars@essex.ac.uk
  3. 3. WHY EXPLORING “INTERNET SCIENCE”?§  Internet development a societal and technological artefact§  To achieve a deeper multidisciplinary understanding Ø  A starting point for a new Internet Science§  Expected outputs Ø  Supporting political choices set to reach Ø  economic, social and environmental objectives
  4. 4. NETWORK OF EXCELLENCE PARTNERS
  5. 5. NOE ACTIVITIES OVER THE PERIOD 2011-2015 Virtual communities ePresence Internet as critical infrastructure Facilitation of researcher Internet for sustainability mobility Dissemination & cooperation Governance, regulation, and standards Internet privacy, identity, trust and reputation Standardisation Joint courses, graduate and legislationTowards a Emergingtheory of theories and programmes, Evidence Internet design and experiment Summer science methodologies schools Open Calls Spreading Joint research Integration excellence
  6. 6. ESSEX INVOLVEMENT§  Leading JRA4: Governance, regulation, and standards Ø  Particular interests: Ø  Internet governance; Ø  Network neutrality; Ø  Co-regulation; Ø  Standard setting as alternate form of regulation (antitrust, IP control)§  Leading JRA6: Virtual communities Ø  Particular interest: Ø  Creation of control regimes – ‘virtual world owners’ Ø  Much useful background on WoW, SecondLife, MMPORGs Ø  Facebook makes it all very relevant to real world law
  7. 7. JRA4: GOVERNANCE, REGULATION, AND STANDARDSParticular legal interests: Ø  Internet governance; •  Hard law and soft norms Ø  Network neutrality; •  Important telecoms law issue in assigning liability and control Ø  Co-regulation •  Coordination, support, endorsement, roles of government§  Role of Western multinationals in e.g. Ø  Role of public and private actors, notably ISPs and other intermediaries Ø  Role of hardware/software manufacturers: NO DISCONNECT •  Export licences for surveillance technologies delivered to repressive regimes Ø  Standard setting as alternate form of regulation (antitrust, IP control)
  8. 8. LAW AS A PROACTIVE ELEMENT IN INTERNET SCIENCE§  Regulation and governance central to Internet policy Ø  Well understood by policy makers Ø  Legislative role – as well as juridical§  In standards: Ø  antitrust and Intellectual Property§  In virtual worlds: Ø  ‘constitution’ and legal framework
  9. 9. THE ‘NEW NEW NEW’ THING?§  Internet standards as a new paradigm, Ø  based on technocratic decision making Ø  exemplified in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Ø  with rough consensus and running code Ø  instead of kings and presidents. Ø  Leads to claims about ‘The Constitution of Cyberspace’ as if divorced from meatspace… •  When the pair are actually co-dependent
  10. 10. REPOSITORY OF STANDARDS BODY CASE STUDIES§  To measure successful governance design for Internet standards,§  living catalogue of standards bodies/functions Ø  both telecoms and Internet standards, Ø  but also the complex interplays and trade-offs Ø  between the various bodies and their design choices.§  Contrast is evident between Ø  e.g. IETF, ETSI and W3C models
  11. 11. STANDARDS CASE STUDIESStandards Case study   Time Authors   Governance Innovation  organisation   period  IETF   General 2006-7   Brown   ‘Rough consensus and constitution   running code’  ETSI   3G standards   1998-2000   Grindley, Weighted majority voting   Salant  W3C     2005-7   Marsden   ‘Enlightened dictator’  IEEE   802.11 (WiFi)   2000-9   Marsden/ Usurps HiperLAN standards   Croxford   Zevenbergen*  ITU-T   WCIT   2011-12   Governance reforms (emperor’s new clothes)  ISO   Java   1998-2000   McGowan   China v. Sun  ICANN   DNSSec   2009-10   Mueller   US Govt maintains control  3GPP   IP Multimedia 2000-5   Waclawsky, QoS   Marsden   Subsystem  
  12. 12. ALTERNATIVE MODEL OF ‘BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP’§  ‘New’ thing: Ø  1990s New Approach ETSI§  ‘New new’ thing Ø  IETF (since 1986!) rough consensus approach§  ‘New new new’ thing: Ø  W3C under Tim Berners-Lee§  Claims“sunk into corporatist capture”? Ø  Corporate membership at a fee Ø  OOXML, P3P, royalty-free issues
  13. 13. WHY IS STANDARD SETTING EXCLUDED FROM ECONOMICS?§  In both IETF and W3C Ø  dominant corporate interests are claimed to Ø  freeride and otherwise game the system for stockholders benefit Ø  e.g. W3C: OOXML and Microsoft, Ø  IETF: Cisco and multicasting§  This is perfectly rational economic behaviour – if true
  14. 14. NEW PARADIGMS ARE SET AGAINST EXISTING BODIES§  General standards-setting bodies (ISO)§  International Organization for Standardisation§  interesting corporate-state negotiation in Internet standards Ø  Sun, China and Java Ø  Microsoft and OOXML •  ECMA-376, ISO/IECs Joint Technical Committee 1: 29500:2008 Ø  McGowan: Third Way?§  Telecoms and ‘new’ approach§  European Telecoms Standards Institute ETSI Ø  claimed in 1990s to be a new method of standard setting Ø  Note critique of most controversial standards ‘state-firm diplomacy’ Ø  3G standards – Grindley/Waverman/Salant paper Ø  But US any better? Qualcomm military-industrial diplomacy
  15. 15. INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION§  Commission électrotechnique internationale (CEI)§  non-profit, non-governmental international standards organization Ø  power generation, transmission and distribution to Ø  home appliances and office equipment, semiconductors, fibre optics, batteries, solar energy, nanotechnology and marine energy as well as many others.§  The IEC inaugural meeting on 26 June 1906, Ø  began at the 1900 Paris International Electrical Congress, Ø  81 countries are members; 82 in the Affiliate Country Programme, which is not§  CISPR (Comité International Spécial des Perturbations Radioélectriques) International Special Committee on Radio Interference –founded by the IEC.§  ISO, ITU and IEEE cooperation agreement in 2002, Ø  amended in 2008 to include joint development work.§  ISO/IEC 26300, Ø  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0§  IEC is made up of national committees, and each NC represents its nations electrotechnical interests in the IEC. Ø  90% of those who prepare IEC standards work in industry.
  16. 16. MODERNISATION OF ‘NEW’ MODELS§  Yet as faults are found in Ø  IETF new new and Ø  W3C ‘new new new’ models, Ø  is modernisation creeping into the old new models? Ø  notably in the increased Ø  formal transparency and multistakeholder participation Ø  2012 by International Telecoms Union (ITU).§  ‘Old whine in new bottles’?
  17. 17. THIS RAISES A SIGNIFICANT DESIGN QUESTION§  Is the new new model of IETF and W3C still fit for purpose? Ø  Can they successfully [further] evolve?§  Does a new new new new model encompassing more formal user involvement Ø  offer more transparency or Ø  threaten to further ossify a standards design process Ø  that is already creaking under the weight of Ø  many more participants than originally intended?
  18. 18. CONCLUSION: EXPLANATORY POWER OF CASE STUDIES§  It is use cases that represent the ability of§  Internet Science to explain Ø  governance and regulation of the Internet as a whole Ø  but also of other rapidly developing technology-led sectors Ø  with a potential legitimacy gap between Ø  best practice design and socio-political trust in expert design.§  Essential governance questions will be identified throughout the duration of this task Ø  meaningful analysis based on developing methodologies.
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×