Search results

ABSTRACT The internet is probably the greatest technological revolution in recent history. The internet has modified human relations and a significant number of activities, including commercial transactions, among which e-commerce and advertising play a very important role. Power structures, including the governments of different states, have established various forms of regulation. Any unregulated global means of communication can pose a significant risk to any nation. Cyberspace in general and e-commerce in particular present various regulatory options.

This paper explores the development of Internet regulation policies worldwide since the birth of the World Wide Web, describes the advantages and disadvantages of the main filtering methods in use today, and presents two of the most important Internet Regulation Systems (IRS) implemented in authoritarian regimes and Western democracies around the globe. Moreover, the authors propose the conduction of well-designed surveys worldwide in order to measure Internet User's opinion and use such results as a starting point for developing a fair "Internet Regulation System" (fair IRS) in the future. Last, the authors introduce a new online tool for conducting related surveys, www.WebObserver.net project.

Abstract The concept of network neutrality, although disputed, is generally conceived as the need to ensure a fair use of the internet to all stakeholders. Its most widely defended interpretation postulates that putting hard constraints on how network operators control the data transferred is sufficient for an effective implementation of the concept. Except for security and technical management issues, network operators cannot discriminate against data based on their transmitter, receiver, content or a combination of these criteria. This essay argues that such a regulatory framework is not sufficient for a true democratic development of the internet. Through different examples, it will show that multiple biases exist in today's internet. It therefore defends an extension of the regulatory scope to other internet stakeholders and the adoption of new regulation mechanisms and new regulators. It proposes three regulation principles and discusses how regulation mechanisms in keeping with these principles can increase online neutrality and meet some of the current challenges of the internet. This essay does not claim to answer all the ongoing questions, nor does it claim that the different regulation mechanisms proposed are easy to implement. It must be seen as a contribution to the continuous debate regarding the balance which must be established between the freedom of all internet stakeholders and the regulations required to ensure a fair use of the internet for all.

Abstract The concept of network neutrality, although disputed, is generally conceived as the need to ensure a fair use of the internet to all stakeholders. Its most widely defended interpretation postulates that putting hard constraints on how network operators control the data transferred is sufficient for an effective implementation of the concept. Except for security and technical management issues, network operators cannot discriminate against data based on their transmitter, receiver, content or a combination of these criteria. This essay argues that such a regulatory framework is not sufficient for a true democratic development of the internet. Through different examples, it will show that multiple biases exist in today's internet. It therefore defends an extension of the regulatory scope to other internet stakeholders and the adoption of new regulation mechanisms and new regulators. It proposes three regulation principles and discusses how regulation mechanisms in keeping with these principles can increase online neutrality and meet some of the current challenges of the internet. This essay does not claim to answer all the ongoing questions, nor does it claim that the different regulation mechanisms proposed are easy to implement. It must be seen as a contribution to the continuous debate regarding the balance which must be established between the freedom of all internet stakeholders and the regulations required to ensure a fair use of the internet for all.

Recent laws in the US, along with the Digital Services Act (DSA), seek to provide "due process" for individual content moderation decisions. Due process, understandably enough, often contains a component of treating like cases alike. It seems to follow, then, that if two relevantly similar users are treated differently, there is a problem of inconsistency, and that problem might be addressed by requiring more "due process" in the forms of appeals and clear rules and explanations of those rules to offenders. But it is said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. In internet regulation, it is a damaging goal if taken as a mandate to make individual decisions uniformly consistent with each other.

AbstractDuring a chaotic time for most in which our virtual world, made possible through the internet and its affordances, Policy & Internet sought the voices of scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and higher degree researchers to rethink our internet, its policy and the surrounding communication technology within our contemporary society. One emerging and overarching theme became apparent as our network of global scholars provided their insights into the academic puzzle and broader societal impact surrounding the future of the internet. That is, an ambiguity. More specifically, ambiguity as the core consideration that acts as a critical and connective glue for which we can approach the research of the internet for the coming three to five years, and a way to connect universal elements which underpin our scholarship all at once.

Abstract
Regulators are confronted with the fact that with the rapid pace of change and innovation on the Internet, regulatory initiatives are often rendered irrelevant almost as soon as they are proposed. How can regulators craft a durable approach that can remain relevant in this fast-changing environment? The authors propose a framework of platforms that Internet Service Providers may deploy, and discuss the regulatory implications for each type of platform. They demonstrate the utility of their approach by applying their model to the current policy problems raised by specialized services, minimum quality regulations, and structural separation.

Abstract
Regulators are confronted with the fact that with the rapid pace of change and innovation on the Internet, regulatory initiatives are often rendered irrelevant almost as soon as they are proposed. How can regulators craft a durable approach that can remain relevant in this fast-changing environment? The authors propose a framework of platforms that Internet Service Providers may deploy, and discuss the regulatory implications for each type of platform. They demonstrate the utility of their approach by applying their model to the current policy problems raised by specialized services, minimum quality regulations, and structural separation.