[IRP] RAND report developing "Emerging values" [on the internet]

[Max Senges]

Hello IRPlers

The european branch of the RAND Think Tank has published a report
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2009/RAND_WR548.pdf>
  <goog_1266161764591>The Future of the Internet Economy (Dec.
2009)<goog_1266161764591><http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2009/RAND_WR548.pdf>
  <http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2009/RAND_WR548.pdf>which aims
to frame internet governance challenges. It was produced in cooperation with
the dutch Government and as preparation for an OECD conference.

Several positions are aligned with and in my view elaborate / examplify our
approach in terms of values & principles, so I thought I share some nuggets:

*Summary* (core message):

Keep the Internet available and open, by ensuring safe access and use -
primarily by
?light touch? measures aimed at raising awareness rather than coercive
intervention;
and by embracing the Better Regulation principles of minimal, flexible and
accountable regulation through appropriate self- and co-regulation, with
special
attention to issues of participation, transparency, compliance and control
of spill-over
(e.g. market distortions). Any residual adverse socio-political fallout
should be dealt
with through ?traditional? public policy measures.

Especially "CHAPTER 3 Emerging values: Redefining how people and
organisations interact" seems valuable input for our ongoing efforts to
define and formulate a (vales, principles and) rights based approach to
internet governance.

*.2 People trends: Being led by our kids and the empowerment of the *
*individual  *
The changing composition of the Internet user population is in particular,
driving the
emergence of interaction-intensive uses like social networking and User
Created Content
(UCC). Their uptake is dominated by those under 24 in particular, who have
grown up
with the Internet.4 These generations are shifting from being consumers of
?cool' [5] (passive)
media like television to ?hot? (active) games and interactive content
production &
exchange.

This Web 2.0 world empowers individuals and groups to create, influence,[6]
produce,
transact, collaborate, and communicate globally, making them masters of
their own
empires ? and therefore hard to steer or control by traditional mechanisms
within existing
institutions and jurisdictions.[7] Not for nothing did TIME Magazine
nominate the Internet
User ?you? (as in YouTube) as the personality of the year 20068. This power
?at the bottom?
steers activity towards places where self-organisation and expression, as
well as collaborative
participation, are facilitated. This can destabilise and disrupt established
public or private
institutions and business and/or governance models based on one-sided and
one-
dimensional views of interaction with individual customers, citizens,9
voters,10 patients,
employees,11 etc.

...
Figure 2.2 illustrates the correlation between age and the use of a number
of new
communication technologies. It also demonstrates that penetration differs
across
applications, as certain functionalities are easily embraced by older
generations for which
less of a digital divide is apparent. The gap seems to deepen with
applications and
functionalities that are more  interactive and more multi-media and ? as a
consequence- less
resembling of ?traditional? functions like mail and broadcast media.

....
Statements for discussion:
Security should be applied where it is most appropriate. The Internet can
be
compared to a street or other public space; it has some ground rules but
essentially
you enter at your own risk; whereas private networks and ?walled gardens? -
like
houses, banks and other private spaces - offer security and a safer
environment. In
the latter case, you trust the environment, in the former you trust the
people in it.

Security is achieved or undermined by allocating accountability,
responsibility and
liability for damage, and thus depends on who participates and what
incentives
they face. Cost, benefit and risk profiles differ across stakeholders; the
resulting
differences in willingness to pay for insurance and management of risk and
damage can be exploited for good or ill.

...

*2.6 Governance trends: accepting the global, multi facetted nature of *
*the Internet and dealing with failing jurisdictions and poor *
*enforcement*
*
*
*
National governments are loosing control over the behaviour of ?their?
citizens as the
definition of national jurisdictions and the rules of international private
and penal law are
not adjusted to the borderless Internet world. Enforcement of existing rules
and of new
measures based on traditional regulatory instruments is proving challenging
if not
impossible. When assessing the legal competence over virtual worlds another
dimension of
complexity is added.

It is safe to say that traditional regulatory and governance instruments
fail in the Internet
world, but that there are no proven alternatives yet. Nonetheless, the
Internet has given
rise to a wide variety of self- and co-regulatory schemes,19 which offer
potential advantages
of speed, adaptability, efficiency and effectiveness to the extent that they
are based on the
active participation of informed stakeholders with direct powers of
action. Compared
with
formal regulation, such arrangements can lead to greater commitment and buy-in
by
stakeholders, higher levels of compliance, reduced cost (both for the state
and in general),
flexibility in response to changing circumstances and challenges, greater
opportunities to
coordinate governance of inter-related issues and engage those best able to
inform policy,
ensure compliance, etc. Behind many of these advantages lies one that is
valued in its own
right; the engagement of specific forms of expertise and knowledge in the
regulatory process.
Finally, self- or co-regulation can enhance the impact and sustainability of
sector
governance.

19 DEFINITIONS
 Essentially, self-regulation involves collective governance by
non-government stakeholders, while co-
regulatory schemes involve government participation in the form of delegated
powers, state means of
enforcement of rules and/or a ?backstop? regulatory power in the event of
governance failure.

*
... Decisions need to be transparent and
have legitimacy beyond the members of the group. 21

... In all of this it must be made clear what the value is to the users
whose
concerns are at the heart of the Internet ? but situated at its edges.

....Other ways in which Governments can set the example is by recognising
the emergence of
new ?commons? and releasing public sector information as part of it, but
also making clear
the value of governance and preparing for the unknown.

Statements for discussion:
International governance is necessary to deal with global issues and
ensuring
effective functioning of the Internet, following principles of good
governance.
However, it is in its infancy, understaffed and facing an up-hill struggle
against
vested interests. It should be considered whether folding back current
initiatives
into existing multilateral governance structures could be effective.


*CHAPTER 3 Emerging values: Redefining how *
*people and organisations interact *
*... [max: i really like the way privacy is described, but the other values
are on-spot too]*
*3.1 To know and be known *
In the dichotomy of openness versus security it can be stated that users
want to be
?protected and not spied on?. The world of the Internet and particularly new
virtual worlds
like Second Life are the space of the people, where they decide to be
anonymous and/or
choose their identities. In this environment interference of government is
widely rejected as
overly intrusive and largely ineffective. On the other hand, the law
enforcement and
intelligence communities would like to access the exchange of data and
communication
and use modern profiling and search techniques in the fight against
organised crime and
international terrorism. A way forward is to create transparency in the way
data is used and
by whom and to ensure wider application of the right to consent. In
addition, adequate
measures should be in place to ensure that anonymity and thus privacy is
only broken
when sufficiently justified. In many ways this is comparable to the
limitations for police
forces to enter private homes, yet the key difference is that these
limitations are currently
very much bound to a clear local legal context, that differs between
countries, yet the
applicability of national law is only possible within the physical borders
of a nation. In the
Internet space, this is not evident.

Privacy is a topic of much discussion, with some claiming that it does not
exist in an
Internet age of full transparency and others stating that privacy protection
is the most
important condition to be fulfilled for the full exploitation of the
Internet?s potential.
Furthermore, it is clear that the concept of privacy as such is very much
dependent on
cultural stance and personal preferences. Breach of privacy can occur when
data on persons
are collected and used without a justified basis. In this it is important to
note that personal
data is not necessarily owned by the data subject although he or she should
be in a position
to control it. People can decide to trade personal data ? which is their
economic right - and
bear the consequences. Here education and awareness raising activities could
be considered
adequate policy responses. The danger is not so much the use of the data
itself, but the use
in different contexts, as the implications that are drawn from the data are
highly context
dependent.

There is a strong wish to ensure that someone?s privacy cannot be breached:
it is
commonly seen as a fundamental right. Therefore, use of data should only be
allowed for
the purpose it was collected for24. A tentative definition of privacy could
be: ?the right not
to be spied on and the right to keep secrets, and possibly even the right to
certain
anonymity.? We like to control how we present ourselves and to whom. We may
be very
open about certain aspects and decide to shield others; depending on our
objectives,
cultures, beliefs, present social environment etc. The fact that people want
to be unique
and even go as far as branding themselves as unique personalities on the
Internet, does not
imply ? even if someone ?bares all? - that the control over privacy is
forgone. Our identities
consist of different elements and we want to retain control over them.
People also have multiple identities, which they use in different contexts.
The Internet
environment and the services ? particularly eGovernment ? should be aware
and respectful
of this. People may be employee, employer, patient, citizen, etc. all at
once. When
representing the company someone may not want to do this in a private
capacity; also one
does not vote as an employee in general elections, but as a citizen with
equal rights.


....

*Governing the ungoverned *
... What is needed is a suitable ?sandbox? to allow
experimentation (Max comment: like the IGF!!) with new methods of governance
to proceed in parallel with effective
operation of ?legacy systems? until better approaches can be identified and
their risks
managed.


on the insufficient interfacing of ministries & public administration:
... The Internet?s development is of concern to a range of regulators
concerned with technologies (generally sector-specific regulators), economic
effects (often
competition authorities and trade ministries) and societal regulation
(education, health,
public safety, security, etc. ministries). The effects with which they are
concerned are far
more tightly interconnected in the Internet and in relation to affected
stakeholders than
the ministries themselves are ? a key challenge is thus an appropriate
balance between
competition (with all its diversity and churn) and co-operation.


Looking forward to your feedback

Best
Max
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100214/b943bea8/attachment-0001.htm>