Internet Law Program 2011 - User contributions [en]

Talk:The Global Internet

2011-09-09T20:11:07Z

Amandavaughn:

The Global Internet

Karissa Fleming and Amanda Vaughn

Globalization is the process of change that cuts through geographical layers. In this session, Professors Gasser and Burkert presented an overview of the problem of reconciling a global Internet with local norms and values, suggesting that governance of the Internet has progressed in three phases: the inter-local, the harmonization of the inter-local in an attempt to ease the tension between local laws and the global medium and, finally, the quest for global order.

In the inter-local phase, the Internet, as a disruptive technology, challenged incumbent players and business models, creating a “crisis” of the copyright industry. Incumbents eventually responded by activating the legal system, attempting to apply old, existing laws to the new phenomenon of the Internet. National courts produced numerous cases in their attempt to capture the Internet using existing legal norms. In addition, as cross-border transactions became available over the Internet, new jurisdictional questions arose concerning personal jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement as courts continued to apply national norms to global issues. Catherina Maracke shared her experiences as international director of Creative Commons, in which the organization has attempted to reconcile these problems by providing licenses that are accepted and recognized in many different jurisdictions. She left us with the question of whether or not we need more regulation or less to solve the problem.

In the harmonization phase, there are multiple approaches to easing the tension between local laws and the global nature of the Internet: top-down, centralized; top-down decentralized; bottom-up, centralized; or bottom-up, decentralized. Governments can attempt to implement a truly global internet law. For example, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy. There might also be attempts to harmonize on a more regional level. Floriana Fossato presented the Russian experience as an example of this attempt at harmonization. After entering a bilateral agreement with the US to reduce pirating, it had effects throughout the country, shutting down the pirating industry and thus reducing competition and raising prices. Fossato called for more cooperation and the formation of new spaces and interaction between citizens that will shape harmonization in a way that works for everyone.

Finally, in the global order phase, Susan Crawford discussed the battle over the Internet that is currently being waged between two visions – one in which governments are the only actors involved in governing the internet, the other a multi-stakeholder approach. She called for us to work for a multi-stakeholder approach and to encourage better funding and better tools for civil society actors attempting to be a part of the conversation. Harris Chen, a prosecutor in Taiwain, shared his opinion that the Internet existed as a very powerful tool for criminal investigation to be harnessed by governments

Questions we were left with afterward:

Do we need more or less regulation to solve the problems of a global internet?

How strong a rationale is crime prevention for restricting the internet, especially when considering that the point of the criminal law is arguably to enhance freedom?

What is the best way to ensure that interested parties are at the table to decide how the internet should be governed? What groups should and should not be included?

Talk:The Global Internet

2011-09-09T20:10:53Z

Amandavaughn:

The Global Internet

Karissa Fleming and Amanda Vaughn

Globalization is the process of change that cuts through geographical layers. In this session, Professors Gasser and Burkert presented an overview of the problem of reconciling a global Internet with local norms and values, suggesting that governance of the Internet has progressed in three phases: the inter-local, the harmonization of the inter-local in an attempt to ease the tension between local laws and the global medium and, finally, the quest for global order.

In the inter-local phase, the Internet, as a disruptive technology, challenged incumbent players and business models, creating a “crisis” of the copyright industry. Incumbents eventually responded by activating the legal system, attempting to apply old, existing laws to the new phenomenon of the Internet. National courts produced numerous cases in their attempt to capture the Internet using existing legal norms. In addition, as cross-border transactions became available over the Internet, new jurisdictional questions arose concerning personal jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement as courts continued to apply national norms to global issues. Catherina Maracke shared her experiences as international director of Creative Commons, in which the organization has attempted to reconcile these problems by providing licenses that are accepted and recognized in many different jurisdictions. She left us with the question of whether or not we need more regulation or less to solve the problem.

In the harmonization phase, there are multiple approaches to easing the tension between local laws and the global nature of the Internet: top-down, centralized; top-down decentralized; bottom-up, centralized; or bottom-up, decentralized. Governments can attempt to implement a truly global internet law. For example, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy. There might also be attempts to harmonize on a more regional level. Floriana Fossato presented the Russian experience as an example of this attempt at harmonization. After entering a bilateral agreement with the US to reduce pirating, it had effects throughout the country, shutting down the pirating industry and thus reducing competition and raising prices. Fossato called for more cooperation and the formation of new spaces and interaction between citizens that will shape harmonization in a way that works for everyone.

Finally, in the global order phase, Susan Crawford discussed the battle over the Internet that is currently being waged between two visions – one in which governments are the only actors involved in governing the internet, the other a multi-stakeholder approach. She called for us to work for a multi-stakeholder approach and to encourage better funding and better tools for civil society actors attempting to be a part of the conversation. Harris Chen, a prosecutor in Taiwain, shared his opinion that the Internet existed as a very powerful tool for criminal investigation to be harnessed by governments

Questions we were left with afterward: /p
Do we need more or less regulation to solve the problems of a global internet?
How strong a rationale is crime prevention for restricting the internet, especially when considering that the point of the criminal law is arguably to enhance freedom?

What is the best way to ensure that interested parties are at the table to decide how the internet should be governed? What groups should and should not be included?

Talk:Evening Events

2011-09-05T23:39:23Z

Amandavaughn: /* Sign-up for Poker with Charlie Nesson */

==Sign-up for Poker with Charlie Nesson==

Space is unlimited! Add name and email address below to sign-up.

# Amrit (adhir(at)jd13.law.harvard.edu)
# Mayo Fuster Morell (mayo.fuster(at)eui.eu) > don't have a clue about poker, but curious
# Breanne (bgilpatrick@jd12.law.harvard.edu)
# Amanda Vaughn, avaughn@jd13.law.harvard.edu
#
#
#
#

==Ideas for Food For Thought Dinners==
Add your ideas here!

==Food For Thought Dinner Sign-ups==

These dinners allow conference attendees to engage in self-organized informal, themed conversation with other conference participants. Since these dinners are self-organized, there is no limit to the number of dinners that can occur on Thursday evening. We have not yet made reservations for dinners at restaurants; so if any conference attendees are looking to initiate/host a dinner, you are responsible for organizing and making reservations and communications. Also, please note that dinner attendees are expected to pay their own dinner costs.

You may organize and sign-up for Food For Thought dinners below. All iLaw attendees are welcome to add their ideas for interesting topics or propose dinner locations.

Food For Thought dinners tend to work best when the group size is small enough to be intimate (around 8 people or so). For restaurants in Harvard Square, expect approximately a 10-minute walk from Austin. For restaurants in Porter Square, expect approximately a 15 to 20-minute walk from Austin.

===[http://www.citmedialaw.org/ Citizen Media Law Project], Temple Bar, [http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&q=temple+bar&near=Cambridge,+MA&fb=1&cid=0,0,13500899818381353596&sa=X&oi=local_result&resnum=1&ct=image 1688 Massachusetts Ave], 7p.m. - Mobile media and citizen journalism===

The CMLP will host a dinner at Temple Bar (1688 Massachusetts Ave.) on mobile media and citizen journalism, discussing recent events such as the BART phone blackout, arrests of citizens recording video in public (including the recent First Circuit decision in ''Glik v. Cunniffe''), and libel-by-tweet.

''Sign-up List'':

1. [http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/asellars Andy Sellars, Berkman Fellow]

2. [http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes, Berkman Fellow]

3. Allison Trzop

4. Gita Srivastava

5. Esther Lim

6. Lauren Henry

7. Frank Sabatini

=== [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber Peter Suber], [http://www.casablanca-restaurant.com/ Casablanca], [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Casablanca,+40+Brattle+Street,+Cambridge,+MA+02138&aq=0&sll=42.373676,-71.121272&sspn=0.010431,0.016007&vpsrc=0&g=40+brattle+street+cambridge,+ma+02138&ie=UTF8&hq=Casablanca,&hnear=40+Brattle+St,+Cambridge,+Massachusetts+02138&ll=42.373589,-71.12139&spn=0.010431,0.016007&z=16 40 Brattle Street], 7p.m. - Open Access to Research ===

''Sign-up List'':

1. [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber Peter Suber, Berkman Fellow]

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===Peer Production and Online Cooperation Research (Aaron Shaw and many others) Restaurant & Location t.b.d., 7p.m.===

Come join a group of Berkman Fellows and friends engaged in research into various aspects of peer production and online cooperation. Among those planning to attend are [http://mako.cc Mako Hill], [http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/degrees/gradprogram/sjd/sjd-current-students/jennifer-shkabatur.html Jennifer Shkabatur], [http://www.mit.edu/~amonroy/ Andres Monroy], [http://aaronshaw.org Aaron Shaw] and [http://www.onlinecreation.info Mayo Fuster Morell].

''Sign-up List'':

1. Mayo Fuster Morell

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 4] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 5] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 6] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 7] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Talk:Student Projects

2011-08-27T16:32:59Z

Amandavaughn: /* Options A, B, D */

==SIGN-UP Sheet for Student Projects==

===Options A, B, D===

For students who wish to sign up for Options A, B, or D, please include your first and last name, and your selected assignment.

'''Note for students choosing Option A, please specify a session

* Ryan Rippel, Option A -- For Online Liberty and FOE, or Exploring the Arab Spring
* Jason Gross, Option A -- For Digital Libraries, Archives, and Rights Registries
* Andrew Crocker, Michael Hoven, Nathan Lovejoy, and Sunshine Yin (All Option A) -- For Privacy
* Joel Knopf, Rachel Krol, Anayansi Rodriguez, Andrew Rubenstein, Taz Shahabuddin (All Option A) -- Cooperation
* Amanda Vaughn, Option A -- The Global Internet
*
*

===Option C===

Due to time constraints, Option C is available to a limited number (10) of groups on a first-come first-served basis. Students who select this option are encouraged to work in groups, each group will be given approximately 5-10 minutes of presentation time.

For students who select this option, please include your first and last name, as well as the names of any additional group members.

1. Ivar Hartmann

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.