Designing a Coherent Framework for the Regulation of Internet Content
Against the backdrop of transforming patterns of content production, dissemination and use, as well as the changed governance landscape in the Internet age, this paper seeks to emphasize the point that media can no longer be taken as a self-contained policy domain reserved for the nation state. It raises awareness of the necessity for a broader understanding of the relevant societal and governance processes and sketches the new challenge to ensure a coherent regulatory framework for Internet content. In this sense, the paper seeks to address the question of appropriate forms of regulating Internet content and pleads for a recalibrated action in the domain of global media law and policy, in particular with regard to network neutrality and Internet filtering.
Internet Governance Is Our Shared Responsibility
This essay looks at the the different roles that multistakeholder institutions play in the Internet governance ecosystem. We propose a model for thinking of Internet governance within the context of the Internet's layered model. We use the example of the negotiations in Dubai in 2012 at the World Conference on International Telecommunications as an illustration for why it is important for different institutions within the governance system to focus on their respective areas of expertise (e.g., the ITU, ICANN, and IGF). Several areas of conflict (a "tussle") are reviewed, such as the desire to promote more broadband infrastructure, a topic that is in the remit of the International Telecommunications Union, but also the recurring desire of countries like Russia and China to use the ITU to regulate content and restrict free expression on the Internet through onerous cybersecurity and spam provisions. We conclude that it is folly to try and regulate all these areas through an international treaty, and encourage further development of mechanisms for global debate like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
Continuity, Legitimacy, and Agricultural Development: Conclusions
This chapter aims at bringing together the principal conclusions of the volume, emphasising some particular aspects and questions. Policy continuity in relation to the late 1980s was rightly defined by the Aylwin government policymakers as an essential instrument for further agricultural growth. But in a democratic environment the Aylwin policies, in part precisely because of their strong element of continuity, could be implemented only if they were perceived as legitimate by the majority of the rural population, and by the poor in particular. This means that substantial improvements in agricultural income distribution, and in the quantity and quality of the social services provided to the rural poor, were unavoidable. In order to achieve legitimacy it was, and is, necessary to introduce changes. A lucid, creative combination of continuity and change was the only guarantee of success for the Aylwin policies, and for those of future democratic administrations. Continuity and legitimacy are the fundamental pillars for democratic agricultural development.