[governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation

Jeffrey A. Williams jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Sun Sep 7 10:20:53 EDT 2008 

Johathan and all,

  My response is interspersed below...

Jonathan Cave wrote:

> Thanks for this.
>
> Sorry for the language - occupational hazard. I'm not sure what you
> are saying - it seems that you see problems with any form of
> governance per se with the possible exception of direct democracy.
> Even so, some arrangements work better than others in reconciling and
> advancing collective and individual interest (and the many overlapping
> group interests that come and go in between these extremes). The final
> report also draws attention to forces that can restrain both the
> internal weaknesses of these organisations and their vulnerability to
> capture, corruption or irrelevance. Two are competition among
> different (self-, co-, and formal) regulatory bodies and informed
> choice (to participate and/or comply).

  No appology necessary.  I had already replyed in answer to the
"informed Choice" aspect in an earlier reply off list.

>
>
> There's lots of self-reg around outside the ICT domain - e.g.
> medicine, financial services, law, accountancy, etc. Not all of these
> fail, and not all the time.

I disagree.  All fail at one time or another for vrious reasons.  Recent
history has shown us all such quite,
and sometimes painfully clearly.

>
>
> Of course, it may be that your objection is not to the "regulation"
> part but the "self" part. "We the people" seems to turn anything the
> (US) government does into 'self' regulation - except when it (or its
> 'self-regulatory' dependent bodies - I name no names) tries to
> regulate beyond its borders.
> So, could you be a bit more specific about what you object to:
>
>    * regulation in principle
>
  I do not object to regulation in principal.

>    *
>    * regulation by an industry group of its own members' actions
>      (codes of conduct)
>
  I also do not object to regulation by an industry group as long as
there is adaquate oversight, and
that it's members customers are part of the determining process.

>    *
>    * regulation by an industry group of other members of the industry
>      (standards)
>
  I am very much in favor of standards per se.

>    *
>    * regulation by an industry of others' actions (e.g. insurance
>      companies' 'self-regulation' of claimants and policyholders)
>
  I amd NOT in favor of industry regulating others actions if others are
it's customers AND those customers
are not an intragal part of the regulation process.

>    *
>    * regulation by a multistakeholder forum
>
  This is unclear to me.  WHOM are you referring to exactly?

>    *
>    * 'walled garden' controls placed on subscribers and affiliated
>      content providers by vertically-integrated ISPs
>
  I believe your are referring to TOS'es?  If not, than again I am not
clear on what your are actually asking
here.

>    *
>    * etrc.?
>
> Thanks,
>
> J.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
>
>
> At 00:47 07/09/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
>
>> Ecase and all,
>>
>>   Good political language used in your response here.  But hardly
>> clarifies my concern and other remarks to the extent of what and
>> how individuals would be effected or otherwise required to
>> comply.  Ergo, more general language would be preferrable,
>> and yet again I still fully assert that self regulation or
>> co-regulation
>> doesn't work, and never has for any significant period of time.
>>
>>   Although I prefer self regulation of an individual basis, I
>> dispise
>> it on a collective basis or organizational basis unless of course
>> I personally agree with whatever regulation that may apply!  >:)
>>
>>   Governments as you know from your own countries history,
>> as with mine, rarely always adhere to their own regulations, and
>> in some instances some certain exepmtions to such regulation is
>> granted or otherwise "Understood".  Same is even more true for
>> NGO's or other advocacy oriented groups.
>>
>> ecsae at mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> > Two comments, if I may: the purpose of the study was to help the
>> EC to take self- and co-reg into account in future ex ante
>> evaluation, impact assessment and policy formation, not to
>> comprehensively survey or evaluate the status quo, so ITU and other
>> specific stakeholders - even important ones - are not all there. The
>> intent was rather to use the cases to indicate the range of
>> initiatives and the classes of things the EC should consider.
>> >
>> > Second, we strongly support wide partcipation and the need for
>> standing and voice to encourage useful engagement, but recognise
>> both the tension between wide participation and the efficacy of the
>> organisation (relevance, coherence and levels of compliance) and the
>> potential of such platforms to encourage strategic or collusive
>> behaviour, to further hidden agendas or to use self-reg to create
>> "Potemkin regulators" in order to pre-empt real action -
>> intentionally or otherwise.
>> >
>> > J.
>> >
>> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
>> >
>> > Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:40:25
>> > To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation
>> >
>> > Hakikur and all,
>> >
>> >   Institutions are often times out of touch with users.  Self
>> regulation
>> > or Co-regutlation if in order to be reflective, effective, and
>> useful
>> > must have at it's base, the approval of individual users.
>> Therefore
>> > individual users, must have a direct input and determination of
>> the
>> > process for developing such regimes or whatever regulation
>> policies
>> > are to be set, or otherwise imposed.  The will of the governed
>> must
>> > prevail.
>> >
>> > Hakikur Rahman wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dear Adam,
>> > >
>> > > Thank you for sharing an important document with the list. As a
>> > > researcher in this field, I find it valuable. However, regarding
>>
>> > > infrastructure and standards setting I do not see much of ITU's
>> role
>> > > in the case study. Perhaps, I may have missed it, or the case
>> studies
>> > > included only the mentioned institutions.
>> > >
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Hakik
>> > >
>> > > At 07:47 PM 9/5/2008, Adam Peake wrote:
>> > > >Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > >The European Commission recently published a study assessing
>> the
>> > > >efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and
>> > > >co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe
>> (Chris
>> > > >Marsden < http://chrismarsden.blogspot.com/>)
>> > > >
>> > > >The study is available from European Commission
>> > > ><
>> http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/studies/s2006_05/index_en.htm
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that
>> > > >examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory
>> > > >institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer
>>
>> > > >analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21
>>
>> > > >short case studies. Case studies were presented in four
>> groupings:
>> > > >
>> > > >Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF,
>> W3C, ICRA)
>> > > >
>> > > >Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM,
>> FSM)
>> > > >
>> > > >Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD)
>>
>> > > >
>> > > >Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons,
>> Social
>> > > >Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF)
>> > > >
>> > > >Total of all phases about 1300 pages.
>> > > >
>> > > >A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and
>> > > >co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and
>>
>> > > >dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic
>> principle.
>> > > >
>> > > >Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago
>> (3rd qtr 2007).
>> > > >
>> > > >Adam
>> > > >____________________________________________________________
>> > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > > >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> > > >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> > > >
>> > > >For all list information and functions, see:
>> > > >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> > >
>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> > >
>> > > For all list information and functions, see:
>> > >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders
>> strong!)
>> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>> >    Abraham Lincoln
>> >
>> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what
>> is
>> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>> >
>> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
>>
>> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>> > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>> > ===============================================================
>> > Updated 1/26/04
>> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
>> IDNS.
>> > div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
>> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
>> > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
>> > My Phone: 214-244-4827
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >
>> > For all list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Semper Fi,
>>
>> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders
>> strong!)
>> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>>    Abraham Lincoln
>>
>> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
>> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>>
>> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
>> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>> ===============================================================
>> Updated 1/26/04
>> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
>> div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
>> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
>> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
>> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list