• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Chris Marsden, University of Essex (Plenary): Regulation, Standards, Governance – Definitions and Disciplines
 

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

on

  • 1,188 views

Network of Excellence Internet Science Summer School. The theme of the summer school is "Internet Privacy and Identity, Trust and Reputation Mechanisms". ...

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/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,188
Views on SlideShare
553
Embed Views
635

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

3 Embeds 635

http://www.internet-science.eu 614
http://internet-science.eu 20
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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

    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • NETWORK OF EXCELLENCE PARTNERS
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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)
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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  
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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’?
    • 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?
    • 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.