sessions 4 + 5. internet governance

Sessions 4 and 5 look at the internet, its origin, salient technological features and its legal implications. We shall talk about whether and how the internet should and could be regulated. An essential focus of our analysis will be on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Reading materials
On the Nature and Origins of the Internet, excerpts from the US Supreme Court judgment, ACLU v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824 (1996)
Goldsmith and Wu, Who Controls the Internet?, chapter 1
Goldsmith and Wu, Who Controls the Internet?, chapter 3
Goldsmith and Wu, Who Controls the Internet?, chapter 4
Goldsmith and Wu, Who Controls the Internet?, chapter 5

Note: While the readings for this session may appear at first sight more than the usual amount, the chapters of Who Controls the Internet? are in fact popular reading, relative concise and easily digestible. They are also a good preparation for the interactive session on cyber-regulation that follows.

Here are some useful links related to ICANN and Internet governance:
http://www.icann.org/
http://www.intgovforum.org/
http://www.internetgovernance.org/

session 6. cyber-regulation.

This session is going to diverge from the classic ex cathedra lecture and offer a platform for some debate. The core question that will be discussed is that of whether cyberspace should and can be regulated? Is cyberspace something profoundly different that does not allow conventional modes of state regulation, or is it just another medium where state sovereignty is asserted? Answers to these and more questions will be given during the interactive session, which is structured as a 'moot court' and invites verbal fight.

The interactive session will be organized in the following way:

We will have two parties arguing against each other.

Each group will have 15 minutes to present its arguments. Each group will then have 5 minutes to criticize the arguments of the other party. 5 subsequent minutes will be given for a rebuttal. You can decide among yourselves who will be the speaker(s) of the group. One idea will be that each person presents one or two arguments so that the burden is equally distributed.

In order to provide the opportunity for the other party to prepare its counter-arguments, it would be necessary that you send me a short list of your main points (no more than than a single page; key word mode) at the latest on Tuesday. I will forward this to the other team.

The persons not participating in the session will form a jury and will in the end of the debate judge who the 'winning' party is. I would intervene in matters of procedure and when necessary to spur the discussion.

As announced at the outset of the course, this participation will be assessed and constitutes 30% of your final grade. Criteria for the assessment will be the use and structure of the arguments, their relevance to the particular question asked and to the defending position. Reference to topics we already discussed or original ideas will be additionally rewarded.

Here is the initial package to prepare. It combines pro and counter arguments, which will also help you anticipate the argumentation of the opposing party. We have already discussed some additional arguments during the final two sessions.
cyberlaw 1
cyberlaw 2
cyberlaw 3

These materials are abridged versions of the articles. The full versions of David G. Post can be found here and some of those of Jack L. Goldsmith here (these are however by no means compulsory reading).

You may use some of the reasoning and examples given in chapters of Who Controls the Internet?, which formed part of your reading materials last week.

Good luck for the preparations !

session 6. cyber-regulation.

This session is going to diverge from the classic ex cathedra lecture and offer a platform for some debate. The core question that will be discussed is that of whether cyberspace should and can be regulated? Is cyberspace something profoundly different that does not allow conventional modes of state regulation, or is it just another medium where state sovereignty is asserted? Answers to these and more questions will be given during the interactive session, which is structured as a 'moot court' and invites verbal fight.

The interactive session will be organiszd in the following way:

We will have two parties arguing against each other.

Each group will have 15 minutes to present its arguments. Each group will then have 5 minutes to criticize the arguments of the other party. 5 subsequent minutes will be given for a rebuttal. You can decide among yourselves who will be the speaker(s) of the group. One idea will be that each person presents one or two arguments so that the burden is equally distributed.

In order to provide the opportunity for the other party to prepare its counter-arguments, it would be necessary that you send me or Tobias a short list of your main points (no more than 5-10 arguments put on no more than a single page; key word mode) at the latest on Monday. I will forward this to the other team.

The persons not participating in the session will form a jury and will in the end of the debate judge who the 'winning' party is. I would intervene in matters of procedure and when necessary to spur the discussion.

As announced at the outset of the course, this participation will be assessed and constitutes 30% of your final grade. Criteria for the assessment will be the use and structure of the arguments, their relevance to the particular question asked and to the defending position. Reference to topics we already discussed or original ideas will be additionally rewarded.

Here is the initial package to prepare. It combines pro and counter arguments, which will also help you anticipate the argumentation of the opposing party.
cyberlaw 1
cyberlaw 2
cyberlaw 3

These materials are abridged versions of the articles. The full versions of David G. Post can be found here and some of those of Jack L. Goldsmith here (these are however by no means compulsory reading).

You may use some of the reasoning and examples given in chapters of Who Controls the Internet?, which formed part of your reading materials last week.

Good luck for the preparations !

Update 31 March: Thanks so much for the excellent presentations! Both team did a superb job.

Here are my slides meant to help and structure the underlying questions asked.

sessions 4 + 5. the internet and internet governance.

Sessions 4 and 5 look at the internet, its origin, salient technological features and its legal implications. We shall talk about whether and how the internet should and could be regulated. An essential focus of our analysis will be on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Reading materials
On the Nature and Origins of the Internet, excerpts from the US Supreme Court judgment, ACLU v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824 (1996)
Goldsmith and Wu, Who Controls the Internet?, chapter 1
Goldsmith and Wu, Who Controls the Internet?, chapter 3
Goldsmith and Wu, Who Controls the Internet?, chapter 4
Goldsmith and Wu, Who Controls the Internet?, chapter 5

Note: While the readings for this session may appear at first sight more than the usual amount, the chapters of Who Controls the Internet? are in fact popular reading, relative concise and easily digestible. They are also a good preparation for the interactive session on cyber-regulation that follows.

Optional: 
The Economist, The Internet at Forty

The Guardian, People's History of the Internet (a timeline presentation)
The Economist, ICANN be Independent
Mueller, Governments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime

Here are some useful links related to ICANN and Internet governance:
http://www.icann.org/
http://www.intgovforum.org/
http://www.internetgovernance.org/

Something recent and interesting now that the web turns 25.

The slides for session 4 are here.

The slides for session 5 are here.

session 5. cyber-regulation.

This session is going to diverge from the classic ex cathedra lecture and offer a platform for some debate. The core question that will be discussed is that of whether cyberspace should and can be regulated? Is cyberspace something profoundly different that does not allow conventional modes of state regulation, or is it just another medium where state sovereignty is asserted? Answers to these and more questions will be given during the interactive session, which is structured as a 'moot court' and invites verbal fight.

The interactive session will be organised in the following way: We will have two parties arguing against each other.

Each group will have 15 minutes to present its arguments. Each group will then have 5 minutes to criticise the arguments of the other party. 5 subsequent minutes will be given for a rebuttal. You can decide among yourselves who will be the speaker(s) of the group. One idea will be that each person presents one or two arguments so that the burden is equally distributed.

In order to provide the opportunity for the other party to prepare its counter-arguments, it would be necessary that you send me a short list of your main points (no more than 5-10 arguments put on no more than a single page) at the latest on Monday. I will forward this to the other team.
The persons not participating in the session will form a jury and will in the end of the debate judge who the 'winning' party is. I would intervene in matters of procedure and when necessary to spur the discussion.

As announced at the outset of the course, this participation will be assessed and constitutes 30% of your final grade. Criteria for the assessment will be the use and structure of the arguments, their relevance to the particular question asked and to the defending position. Reference to topics we already discussed or original ideas will be additionally rewarded.

Here is the initial package to prepare. It combines pro and counter arguments, which will also help you anticipate the argumentation of the opposing party.
cyberlaw excerpts

These materials are abridged versions of the articles. The full versions of David G. Post can be found here and some of those of Jack L. Goldsmith here (these are however by no means compulsory reading).

You may use some of the reasoning and examples given in chapters of Who Controls the Internet?, which formed part of your reading materials last week.

Update 23 October: Thanks so much for your excellent presentations ! Here are the follow-up slides of session 5.

session 5. cyber-regulation

This session is going to diverge from the classic ex cathedra lecture and offer a platform for some debate. The core question that will be discussed is that of whether cyberspace should and can be regulated? Is cyberspace something profoundly different that does not allow conventional modes of state regulation, or is it just another medium where state sovereignty is asserted? Answers to these and more questions will be given during the interactive session, which is structured as a 'moot court' and invites verbal fight.

The interactive session will be organised in the following way: We will have two parties arguing against each other.

Each group will have 15 minutes to present its arguments. Each group will then have 5 minutes to criticise the arguments of the other party. 5 subsequent minutes will be given for a rebuttal. You can decide among yourselves who will be the speaker(s) of the group. One idea will be that each person presents one or two arguments so that the burden is equally distributed.

In order to provide the opportunity for the other party to prepare its counter-arguments, it would be necessary that you send me a short list of your main points (no more than 5-10 arguments put on no more than a single page) at the latest on Monday. I will forward this to the other team.
The persons not participating in the session will form a jury and will in the end of the debate judge who the 'winning' party is. I would intervene in matters of procedure and when necessary to spur the discussion.
As announced at the outset of the course, this participation will be assessed and constitutes 30% of your final grade. Criteria for the assessment will be the use and structure of the arguments, their relevance to the particular question asked and to the defending position. Reference to topics we already discussed or original ideas will be additionally rewarded.

Here is the initial package to prepare. It combines pro and con arguments, which will also help you anticipate the argumentation of the opposing party.
cyberlaw excerpts

These materials are abridged versions of the articles. The full versions of David G. Post can be found here and some of those of Jack L. Goldsmith here (these are however by no means compulsory reading).

You may use some of the reasoning and examples given in chapters 4 & 5 of Who Controls the Internet?, which formed part of your reading materials last week.

Here are the slides of session 5 (which as for all interactive sessions will only be uploaded after the session took place).

session 5. cyber-regulation

This session is going to diverge from the classic ex cathedra lecture and offer a platform for some debate. The core question that will be discussed is that of whether cyberspace should and can be regulated? Is cyberspace something profoundly different that does not allow conventional modes of state regulation, or is it just another medium where state sovereignty is asserted?

Answers to these and more questions will be given during the interactive session, which is structured as a 'moot court' and invites verbal fight.

The interactive session will be organised in the following way:
We will have two parties arguing against each other. Each group will have 15 minutes to present its arguments. Each group will then have 5 minutes to criticise the arguments of the other party. 5 subsequent minutes will be given for a rebuttal. You can decide among yourselves who will be the speaker(s) of the group. One idea will be that each person presents one or two arguments so that the burden is equally distributed.
In order to provide the opportunity for the other party to prepare its counter-arguments, it would be necessary that you send me a short list of your main points (no more than 5-10 arguments put on no more than a single page) at the latest on Monday. I will forward this to the other team.
The persons not participating in the session will form a jury and will in the end of the debate judge who the 'winning' party is. I would intervene in matters of procedure and when necessary to spur the discussion.

As announced at the outset of the course, this participation will be assessed and constitutes 30% of your final grade. Criteria for the assessment will be the use and structure of the arguments, their relevance to the particular question asked and to the defending position. Reference to topics we already discussed or original ideas will be additionally rewarded.

Here is the initial package to prepare. It combines pro and con arguments, which will also help you anticipate the argumentation of the opposing party.
cyberlaw 1
cyberlaw 2
cyberlaw 3

These materials are abridged versions of the articles. The full versions of David G. Post can be found here and some of those of Jack L. Goldsmith here (these are however by no means compulsory reading).
You may use some of the reasoning and examples given in chapters 4 & 5 of Who Controls the Internet?, which formed part of your reading materials last week.