永恆交界處

[碩士留學] [S1B1] Internet Governance

第一個Block第二門課是Internet Governance,由Mr.dr. B.W. Schermer授課,Prof. Schermer是阿姆斯特丹一間法律諮詢事務所的合夥人,所以他算是0.2-0.4合聘這樣,這堂課我收穫很多,也認為非常實用。

收穫度:★★★★★
負重比:★★☆☆☆

授課大綱點這

首先,這堂課前兩週基本上都在介紹網際網路概論,對於法學院學生來講基本上會有點陌生,但對我來講就其實在複習我大二還大三上過的課程的內容。所以我上面寫的負重比是建立在我有輔修資管上,所以我把準備考試的精神都放在case law而不是技術上面。

占分比是:團體報告40%、期末考試60%

這門課指定閱讀有一些技術文件,不用全部搞懂。幾個大觀念懂就好,因為只會以選擇題的方式出題。

對我來講這門課收益很多,讓我以全新不同的面貌學習到網路,更別提考試出題靈活、團體報告實用(撰寫政策文件)、實際上在會議上勾心鬥角。


期末考的出法如下

選擇題:

第1種:

敘述I : OOOO
敘述II : XXXX

A. 兩者均為真 B. I為真II為否 C. II為真I為否 D. 均為否。

第2種:真正意義上的選擇題

請問瀏覽網際網路時,通常是使用在TCP/IP的哪一個層面

A. 應用層 B. 傳輸層 C.物理層 D. 網路層

其餘會有一些申論,比如說「為何網際網路無法治理」、「ICANN為何那麼重要以至於每次討論網際網路治理時都會被提到」。

一定會有一題實例題,今年的實例題還蠻好笑的,但其實就是要引用上課提到的指令、規則、判決去回答。這門課允許攜帶法條,不用全印,印你覺得重要的就好。


期末報告是模擬IGF論壇,基本上會被分配到各個利益集團,有:美國、歐盟、開發中國家集團、極權國家集團、商業公司集團、技術組織集團、自由公民集團等七個,每個集團有公開的目標與隱藏的目標(Public agenda and Hidden agenda),你要跟你的組員在政策文件上達到這些目標,也可以事先私底下去試探各個組別。然後最後在辯論跟達成共識的時候你會發現,根本沒辦法達成共識,因為這個七組的隱藏目標是全部互相衝突的。

但是這個模擬論壇真的很好玩。


接下來是最愛的指定閱讀清單,請注意,有些指定閱讀包含課前影片,而為非公開,所以我不會貼在這邊。基本上就是課堂上的導論,讓你對那個技術了解更多一點。

Week1

Introduction

Short description of the topic:

Introduction to the regulation of the Internet and digital technologies. In this seminar we will discuss the impact of digital technologies in general and the internet in particular on our society. We will discuss how the internet and other technologies are treated from the perspective of governance and regulation. Furthermore, the difference between regulation of technology, regulation of technology-mediated behaviour and regulation by technology will be discussed.

Required reading:

  • Schermer, B. W. & Lodder, A. R. (2014), Internet Governance, (English version)
  • Glen, C. (2017) Controlling Cyberspace: The Politics of Internet Governance and Regulation. p. 1-7
  • Advisory Council on International Affairs (2020),Regulating Online Content, Towards a Recalibration of the Netherlands’ Internet Policy, Advisory Report 113, 24 June 2020, Chapter 1

Recommended reading:

  • Broeders, D. (2015), The public core of the Internet, Dutch Scientific Council on Government Policy (WRR).
  • HM Government (2019), Online Harms White Paper,

Internet architecture

Short description of the topic:

An overview of the history of the Internet key technological concepts, standards and protocols (e.g. TCP/IP, BGP, HTTP) underpinning the internet will be given. The relevance of the Internet’s design principles, technological concepts, standards and protocol for governance and regulation will be given. Finally, we will look at the Internet of Things.

Required reading:

  • Glen, C. (2017) Controlling Cyberspace: The Politics of Internet Governance and Regulation. p. 7-11
  • Advisory Council on International Affairs (2020),Regulating Online Content, Towards a Recalibration of the Netherlands’ Internet Policy, Advisory Report 113, 24 June 2020, Chapter 2
  • IETF RFC 971: Internet Protocol, pp. 1-15
  • IETF RFC 973: Transmission Control Protocol, pp. 1-15
  • Description of networking:
  • Description of BGP:
  • Internet Society, A brief history of the Internet

Recommended reading:

  • RFC 1180: A TCP/IP tutorial
  • How does the Internet work?
  • ICANN (2010), Beginner’s guide to Internet Protocol (IP) addresses,
  • Denardis, L. (2014), The Global War for Internet Governance, New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 63-84, 107-131

Week 2

Key Internet functions and resources

Short description of the topic:

In this seminar we will continue discuss the Internet ecosystem. In particular we will discuss several critical Internet functions and systems (e.g. IP-allocation and the DNS system) and the players in the global Internet ecosystem that perform key roles in administering these and other functions (e.g. IANA / ICANN). We will also discuss what the relation between these organisations and national states is.

Required reading:

  • Glen, C. (2017) Controlling Cyberspace: The Politics of Internet Governance and Regulation. p. 22-35
  • Advisory Council on International Affairs (2020),Regulating Online Content, Towards a Recalibration of the Netherlands’ Internet Policy, Advisory Report 113, 24 June 2020, Chapter 2
  • ICANN (2013), Beginner’s guide to participating in ICANN
  • IETF RFC 1034, Domain Names: Concepts and Facilities, p. 1-7
  • IETF RFC 1035, Domain Names: Concepts and Facilities, p. 1-4

Recommended reading:

  • Denardis, L. (2014), The Global War for Internet Governance, New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 1-84
  • Broeders, D. (2015), The public core of the Internet, Dutch Scientific Council on Government Policy (WRR).

Regulatory challenges

Short description of the topic:

In this seminar we will discuss the regulation of behaviour on the Internet and what challenges the internet as a ‘public cyberspace’ poses for effective regulation. This seminar will build on the content and discussion of class 1.

Required reading:

  • Lessig, L. (2006), Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace: V2, New York: Basic Book, p. 9-60
  • Broeders, D. (2015), The public core of the Internet, Dutch Scientific Council on Government Policy (WRR).
  • Advisory Council on International Affairs (2020),Regulating Online Content, Towards a Recalibration of the Netherlands’ Internet Policy, Advisory Report 113, 24 June 2020, Chapter 4

Week 3

The role of providers and Internet platforms

Short description of the topic:

In this seminar we will discuss the role of internet providers and platforms in regulating online behaviour and content. We will discuss the diversification of intermediaries from the traditional ISPs (access, hosting) towards platforms and (closed) ecosystems. We will examine how this affects users and the possibilities and challenges for regulation.

Required reading:

  • Glen, C. (2017) Controlling Cyberspace: The Politics of Internet Governance and Regulation. chapter 7
  • Sartor, G. (2017), Providers Liability: From the eCommerce Directive to the future
  • Communication on tackling illegal content online

ECJ Case Law

  • L’oreal v. eBay
  • Promusicae v. Telefonica
  • Sabam v. Netlog
  • Sabam v. Scarlet
  • TeleKabel Wien UPC v. Constantin Films (Kino.to)
  • Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland
  • Frank Peterson v. Google

EctHr case law

  • Delfi v. Estonia
  • MTE and Index.hu v. Hungary

Legislation

  • Directive 2000/31/EC
  • Directive 2001/29/EC
  • Directive 2004/48/EC
  • Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online
  • Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC

Recommended reading:

  • HM Government (2019), Online Harms White Paper,
  • Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González, case C131/12, 13 May 2014
  • Denardis, L. (2014), The Global War for Internet Governance, New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 153-173
  • Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act)

Week 4

Internet governance in a global perspective

Solum 2014, Models of Internet Governance

Short description of the topic:

Building on the knowledge acquired in the past few weeks we will discuss how Internet governance is organised in a global context. In particular the development of transnational internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet Governance Forum is discussed.

Required reading:

  • Advisory Council on International Affairs (2020),Regulating Online Content, Towards a Recalibration of the Netherlands’ Internet Policy, Advisory Report 113, 24 June 2020, p. 28-33; 44-46
  • Broeders, D. (2015), The public core of the Internet, Dutch Scientific Council on Government Policy (WRR).
  • Solum, L. B. (2014), Models of Internet Governance, University of Illinois, Law & Economics Research Paper, LE08-027

Recommended reading:

  • Stacie Hoffmann , Dominique Lazanski & Emily Taylor (2020) Standardising the splinternet: how China’s technical standards could fragment the internet, Journal of Cyber Policy, 5:2, 239-264, Via: https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1805482
  • Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance 2005
  • Tunis Agenda for the Information Society 2005 
x Logo: Shield Security
This Site Is Protected By
Shield Security