Home   |   About ILPF   |   Who is the ILPF   |   Join ILPF   |   Working Groups   |   News   |   Members Only   |   Contact Us
Member LoginMember Login

Content Liability
Electronic Authentication
Jurisdiction
Security and Privacy
Self Regulation
Spam
Working Groups

Bibliography of Internet Self Regulation

Introduction

This bibliography of Internet self regulation was born of many discussions, arguments, and debates about regulating the Internet. In these discussions, it was clear that people were using key terms such as "Internet," "regulation," and most of all "self-regulation," in a variety of different ways, many of them confusing and inconsistent.  The recurrent mantra was that, "the Internet should not be regulated by the government, but should be self-regulated instead."  Everyone  was talking about self-regulation as the obviously preferable alternative to government regulation, but as far as was evident from these discussions, "self-regulation" equaled lack of government regulation.  But no affirmative definition or description of self-regulation seemed forthcoming.  What is self-regulation of the Internet?  What does this look like?  Who is the "self" that is regulating itself?  What are the mechanisms by which the self regulates itself?  Aren't both national and international governments already regulating the Internet? Are we talking about virtual communities? Filtering software?  Does self-regulation really mean no regulation?  And just what does it mean to "regulate" something?  Does it mean to make laws? Enforce them? Punish people?  Who is going to do it? And what part of the Internet are we regulating? The World Wide Web?  E-mail?  Ftp?  The architecture of the Internet itself? Or just what people do when they are logged on?

All these questions plague the debate surrounding Internet regulation.  This bibliography is the starting place for answering these questions.  It is an attempt to see what has been written about both Internet and self regulation, and find some sensible structure amongst the chaos.  It will be updated on a weekly basis with new cites and a constantly evolving structure.

Central Theme

The following outline reflects the categories and sub-categories created to sort out different aspects of the regulatory landscape. The basic theme of the outline is that there are regulatory MECHANISMS, SOURCES OF LAW, and regulatory MODELS.

  • MECHANISMS are such things as self-help and the market. They are things that control people's behavior according to a rationale, they are means of regulating. In traditional terms, they would be the adjudicative and enforcement bodies, the police and the courts.
  • SOURCES OF LAW are the rationale's that direct the implementation of the mechanisms, they give authority and reason to the mechanisms. Traditional examples include statues, regulations, and caselaw.
  • MODELS are combinations of mechanisms and sources of law organized according to a theory. So MECHANISM + SOURCE OF LAW + THEORY = MODEL.
The bibliographic references are not in standard bibliographic format, but are formatted according to the 16th ed. of the Blue Book. The majority of the bibliography explores both existing and proposed mechanisms and sources of law. At the end is a section describing different models built out of combinations of mechanisms and sources of law. Hopefully, this organizational structure, of combining mechanisms and sources of law into models, can provide terminology for consistent discussions about Internet regulation. Please remember that it is a work in progress, constantly being updated and expanded as new pieces are written and the debate on Internet regulation and the possibilities of self-regulation mature.

Organization

GENERAL PERSPECTIVES

It seems that at a general level, most people's perspectives on Internet regulation can be categorized according to three views: existing means of regulation are fine, existing means of regulation are not fine and we should find other means of regulation, or, it doesn't matter who or how someone regulates, there shouldn't be any regulation at all.

I. Existing Laws and/or Lawmaking Systems are Sufficient
II. Existing Laws and Methods of Lawmaking are Inadequate; New Models Must be Developed
III. No Regulation, Leave it alone

TRADITIONAL, SOVEREIGN, NATION-STATE REGULATION

In order to understand what is wrong with present means of regulating the Internet, it is first important to understand what those present means are. How do nations presently regulate the Internet? Being familiar with the present regulatory context is also essential to understanding the context in which self-regulation of the Internet is proposed. It may seem like a lot of space to commit to surveying state regulations, but their importance in creating the legal landscape for self regulation cannot be overstated.

I.  National Governments

    A. United States
        1. Federal
            a. United States Constitution
            b. Executive Branch
                i. White House
                ii. Agencies and Agency Regulation
            c. Legislative Branch
                i. Statutes
                      A. CDA
                      B. ECPA
                      C. Continuing Legislative Efforts
            d. Judicial Branch
                i. Common Law
        2. States
            a. Arizona
            b. California
            c. Connecticut
            d. Georgia
            e. Florida
            f.  Minnesota
            g. New Mexico
            h. Nevada
            i.  New York
            j   Oklahoma
            k. South Carolina
            l.  Virginia
            m.Washington

    B. Foreign Governments

Survey of Sovereign Nation State Internet Regulations

        1. Canada
        2. UK
        3. European Union
        4. France
        5. Germany
        6. Australia
        7. Switzerland
        8. Malaysia
        9. Taiwan

II. International Regulations

    One response to the global complications of the Internet is to logically declare that a global problem requires a global solution.  There are two basic ways of thinking of a global solution among nation states: either have a series of treaties between them all, or get them to create a global body like the WTO to deal with the Internet.

    A. Supra-National Bodies
        1. Global Forum or Lawmaking Body
        2. Regional, Supranational Bodies, the EU Model
            a. OECD
 
    B. International Law
       1. Multi-lateral Treaty Paradigm

THE FREE MARKET

I.   Private Property
II.  Let the Market Create Technical Standards and Solutions
    A.  Filtering Technology
        1. International Industry Efforts
            a.  UK
        2. PICS
        3. RSACi
    B. Digital Signatures
    C. Free Market in Rule Sets

SELF-REGULATION

I. Possible Presumptions
    A. Cyberspace Sovereignty

II. Mechanisms of Self-Regulation

I've organized the self-regulation literature according to different possible conceptions of the self.  This should help answer the fundamental question of who should regulate the Internet.
 
    A. “Self” as Individual User
        1. Self-Help
        2. Formal Private Contracts – the Contract Paradigm
            a. Access Provider Rules
            b. On-line Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
                i. Virtual Magistrate
                ii. ADR
 
    B. “Self” as Social Body or Culture
        1. Informal Social Control
        2. Virtual Communities
            General Descriptions and Discussions
            Critical Perspective on Virtual Communities
        3. Netiquette
            The Spamming Lawyers Incident
        4. The Demos
 
    C. "Self" as Industry and Commerce
        1. General Descriptions
        2. Trade Associations Unique to the Internet
        3. Self Regulation by Real World Trades
            a.  Movies
            b. Advertising
                In Cyberspace
            c. Attorneys
            d. Broadcasting
                Television
            e. Auto repair
            f.  Commodity Exchanges
            g.  Corporations
            h. Environmental Responsibility
        4. The Idea of Lex Mercatoria
        5. The UCC
            a. Article 2B
 
D. “Self” as the Internet Itself
        1.  Internet Standards Setting Organizations
 
III. Models of Self- Regulation
 
    A. Decentralized, Emergent Law  
    B. New Paradigms to address virtual vices

IV.  Problems with Self-Regulation

 
Bibliography of Self-Regulation

GENERAL PERSPECTIVES

Existing Laws and/or Lawmaking Systems are Sufficient

Donald T. Stepka, Obscenity On-Line: a Transactional Approach to Computer Transfers of Potentially Obscene Material, Note http://www.law.cornell.edu/clr/905.html (visited 3/5/98) (concluding that existing law is adequate for deciding the usual on-line obscenity cases).

Dee Pridgen, How Will Consumers Be Protected On The Information Superhighway?, 32 Land & Water L. Rev. 237, 247 (1997) (because there is no legal obstacle to the application of existing consumer protection laws in cyberspace, at least to the category of "domestic" cyberspace transactions, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general could readily reach out to regulate domestic commercial transactions).

Cass R. Sunstein, Constitutional Caution, 1996 U. Chi. Legal F. 361 (1996) (Although constitutional lawyers should be cautious, there is still a role for them. "[i]n [] period[s] of rapid change and technological uncertainty, in which those schooled in law are likely to be ignorant, there is much room for tentative, narrow judgments.")

Dennis W. Moore Jr., Regulation of the Internet and Internet Telephony Through the Imposition of Access Charges, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 183 (1997) (existing laws and regulations are sufficient; no new regulations).

William S. Byassee,  Jurisdiction of Cyberspace: Applying Real World Precedent to the Virtual Community, 30 Wake Forest L. Rev. 197 (1995) (existing laws are inadequate; but the methods are sound, so we just need new laws).

Existing Laws and Methods of Lawmaking are Inadequate; New Models Must be Developed

D. James Nahikian, Learning To Love "The Ultimate Peripheral"—Virtual Vices Like "Cyberprostitution" Suggest A New Paradigm To Regulate Online Expression, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 779, 782-83 (1996) ("...this Comment demonstrates how Internet technology is creating a new set of moral dilemmas that render Congress and the courts ill-equipped to respond through traditional regulation.")

Dawn L. Johnson, It’s 1996: Do You Know Where Your Cyberkids Are? Captive Audiences And Content Regulation On The Internet, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 51 (1996) ("...the legislature is not the appropriate entity to regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech transmitted by users of this rapidly developing communications medium.”).

Johnson, David R. and Post, David G., Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367 (1996) (efforts to control the flow of electronic information across physical borders are likely to prove futile).  http://www.cli.org/X0025_LBFIN.html (visited 3/6/98).

Robert W. Peters, There Is a Need to Regulate Indecency on the Internet, 6 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 363, 363-64 (1997) (both laws like the CDA and screening technology are needed to protect the right to live and raise children in a decent
society).

No Regulation, Leave it alone

John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace <http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow
/barlow_0296.declaration> ("Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind....  I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.").

Jason Kay, Sexuality, Live Without A Net: Regulating Obscenity And Indecency On The Global Network, 4 S. Cal. Interdisciplinary L.J. 355, 387 (1995) ("Because government regulation has been unsuccessful, and self-regulation has succeeded, the Internet should continue to be allowed to regulate itself.")

Keith J. Epstein and Bill Tancer, Enforcement of Use Limitations By Internet Services Providers: "How To Stop That Hacker, Cracker, Spammer, Spoofer, Flamer, Bomber", 9 Hastings Comm/Ent L.J. 661, 664 (1997) (Existing Laws and Methods of Lawmaking are Inadequate; The Internet should be self-regulated).

TRADITIONAL, SOVEREIGN, NATION STATE REGULATION

Stephan Wilske & Teresa Schiller, International Jurisdiction In Cyberspace: Which States May Regulate The Internet?, 50 Fed. Comm. L.J. 117, 125 (1997) (showing that States are not impressed by an alleged "independence from geographical constraints" resulting from the "electronic nature of the message transmission" or by a presumed failure of "territorially-based laws" to reach persons "whose geographical jurisdictions span legal jurisdictions," and that there is little hope that States will respect the "independence of cyberspace").

I. National Governments

A. United States

1.  Federal

Nicholas W. Allard & David A. Kass, Law and Order in Cyberspace: Washington Report, 19 Hastings Comm/Ent L.J. 563 (1997).

a.  United States Constitution

Lawrence Lessig,  Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace 45 Emory L.J. 869 (1996) ("...we might describe the problem of cyberspace for constitutional law like this: That it leaves us without constraint enough; that we are, vis-a-vis the laws of nature in this new space, gods; and that the problem with being gods is that we must choose. These choices will be choices of
great moment; they will raise contested values; they will be of great constitutional significance; but they will be made by an institution that is, as it were, allergic to such choice. They will be made, by a Court, pretending that in making its decisions, it is following the choice of others--of the people, of "we the people," who in truth have not yet confronted the constitutional choices that must be made.").

b.  Executive Branch

i. White House

White House, Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/Commerce/

U.S. President calls for Ban on New Taxes on the Internet, http://www.isoc.org/internet/news/no-taxes.shtml

Stuart Elliott, Clinton Adviser Urges Self-Regulation in Cyberspace, New York Times, Cybertimes, November 4, 1997.

1997 FT Asia Intelligence Wire, US framework for local e-commerce (HL), 1997 COMPUTIMES, The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, June 30, 1997.

Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) ("The White House formed the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) to articulate and implement the Administration's vision for the National Information Infrastructure (NII). The task force consists of high-level representatives of the Federal agencies that play a major role in the development and application of information and telecommunications technologies.").  http://iitf.doc.gov/

ii.  Agencies and Agency Regulations

Douglas C. Michael, Federal Agency Use of Audited Self-Regulation As a Regulatory Technique, 47 Admin. L. Rev. 171 (1995).

Department of Commerce

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)   (" The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is the Executive Branch's principal voice on domestic and international telecommunications and information technology issues. NTIA works to spur innovation, encourage competition, help create jobs and provide consumers with more choices and better quality telecommunications products and services at lower prices.")

Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule, Federal Register: February 20, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 34) Page 8825-8833,  15 CFR Chapter XXIII.

PRIVACY AND THE NII: Safeguarding Telecommunications Related Personal Information", www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/privwhitepaper.html.

Department of Health and Human Services

    FDA

Marc J. Scheineson, Legal Overview of Likely FDA Regulation of Internet Promotion, 51 Food & Drug L.J. 697, 698 (1996).

Independent Agencies

FCC

Henry E. Crawford, Internet Calling: FCC Jurisdiction over Internet Telephony, 5 CommLaw Conspectus 43 (1997).

Dennis W. Moore Jr., Regulation of the Internet and Internet Telephony Through the Imposition of Access Charges, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 183 (1997).

FTC

Examples of how the FTC is regulating Cyberspace and the types of problems they are addressing:

Federal Trade Commission, FTC Halts Internet Auction House Scam, April 13, 1998
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9804/hare.htm

Federal Trade Commission, FTC Halts Internet Business Opportunity Scam Agency Alleges Earnings Claims Are False, April 6, 1998, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9804/inet.htm

Federal Trade Commission, FTC Sues Spammer: Alleges Business Opportunity Falsely Promoted in Unsolicited Commercial, March 4, 1998  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9803/ibb.htm

Federal Trade Commission, Online Scams: Road Hazards on the Information Superhighway, found at <http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/online/pothole.htm>.

Federal Trade Commission, Cybershopping: Protecting Yourself When Buying Online, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/online/cybersho.htm

Federal Trade Commission, Internet Marketers of Credit Repair Program to Pay $17,500 in Redress Under Settlement with FTC, March 20, 1996, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9603/consum.htm

Federal Trade Commission, FTC Tackles Fraud on the Information Superhighway, Charges Nine On-Line Scammers, (last modified Mar. 14, 1996) http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9603/netsc.htm

SEC

Dominic Bencivenga, SEC's Brave New World; Confronting Regulation Issues in the Internet Era,  New York Law Journal March 14, 1996.

Christina K. McGlosson, Who Needs Wall Street? The Dilemma of Regulating Securities Trading in Cyberspace, 5 CommLaw Conspectus 305 (1997).

c.  Legislative Branch

i. Statutes

A. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) 18 U.S.C. s 2702
B. Communications Decency Act (CDA)

General Discussion

Akdeniz Y ‘The Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet’, 1997 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT).http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/ paragraph 5.4.

Pro

Cathleen A. Cleaver, Cyberchaos v. Ordered Liberty: Protecting Children From Pornography On The Internet, 1 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 61 (1997) (argues (before ACLU v. Reno) that the CDA's indecency provisions satisfy the least restrictive means test, are neither vague nor overbroad, and are technologically feasible.").

C. Pending Legislation

i. Sen. Coats' Net Censorship Bill (introduced 11/97) ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt

ii. Sen. McCain's  bill to condition Internet funding for libraries and schools on use of blocking and filtering programs (introduced 2/98) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.1619:

For a continuous update, check the ACLU page at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html

d. Judicial Branch

i. Common Law

See U.S. Court Cases Related to the Internet: Updated Weekly at http://www.perkinscoie.com/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/netcase.nfo? (compilation of cases that address specific issues of Internet-related law, or that reach decisions that, although not directly related to the Internet, have significant implications for Internet legal issues, together with a brief synopsis of each.).

2. States

Pamela Mendels,  States Jump Into Internet Legislation, New York Times, Cybertimes, July 19, 1996

For a list of state regulations considered censorship by the ACLU see http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/censor/stbills.html

The Role of State Regulation and Concerns About Federalism in Cyberspace

Victoria A. Ramundo, The Convergence of Telecommunications Technology and Providers: the Evolving State Role in Telecommunications Regulation, 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 35 (1996).

H. Joseph Hameline and William Miles, The Dormant Commerce Clause Meets The Internet, 41-OCT B. B.J. 8 (1997) ("Whether state regulators pass new laws directed at the Internet or decide to enforce existing laws online, they will encounter resistance from the Internet community. As foreshadowed by the New York opinion, [American Library Assoc. v. Pataki, at the ACLU home page] the dormant Commerce Clause may become the weapon of choice to resist both intended and unintended advances by state regulators into the near-borderless Internet community.").

Dan L. Burk, Federalism In Cyberspace, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 1095, 1134 (1996) (showing that the Due Process Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause function as a significant check to individual states' regulation of Internet activity).

Arizona

Digital Signature Law 1996 Arizona Session Laws 213. (sect. 41-121):
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/42leg/2r/laws/0213.htm

California

Proposed Digital Signature Regulations for California

California Government Code Section 16.5 (1995)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1551-1600/ab_1577_bill_
951004_chaptered.html

Commentary on California Digital Signature Act:
http://www.gcwf.com/articles\cdsa.htm

Digital Signature Regulations:
http://www.softwareIndustry.org/coalition/ca-dig-sig-4-22.html
http://www.softwareIndustry.org/issues/1digsig.html#sl

Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code S 17538 (granting consumers a variety of protections and rights when buying goods over the Internet.)

    Timothy Huber, California: Legislature Ponders Consumer Safety Net For 'Net Fraud Victims,  5-24-96 West's Legal News 4781, 1996 WL 282954.
    West's Legal News Staff, California: Governor Signs Bill to Regulate Sale of Goods on Internet, 9-30-96 West's Legal News 10295, 1996 WL 548469.
Cal.Educ.Code S 51870.5 (Requires schools to adopt an Internet access policy regarding student access to sites with material that is harmful to minors.) See Cal Penal Code S 313 for definition of harmful material. ( "Harmful matter" means matter, taken as a whole, which to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, and is matter which, taken as a whole, depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.... When it appears from the nature of the matter or the circumstances of its dissemination, distribution or exhibition that it is designed for clearly defined deviant sexual groups, the appeal of the matter shall be judged with reference to its intended recipient group.")

Cal.Educ.Code S 11603.1 (Requires a description of Internet access by pupils in order to get technology grants.)

Cal.Gov.Code S 8330-31 ("Citizen Complaint Act of 1997,"  requiring all state agencies that have Internet websites to make complaint forms available

Cal.Penal Code S 288.2 (making criminal the act of knowingly sending harmful matter (as defined in Section 313) to a minor through the Internet, "with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of that person or of a minor, and with the intent, or for the purpose of seducing a minor...").
 
Other CA statutes concerning the Internet generally deal with requiring or allowing certain government information, such as licensing or class action information, to be posted on the Internet. See Cal Bus. & Prof. Code S27 (requiring that licensing informaiton be posted); Cal Bus. & Prof. Code S2027 (posting of medical licenses); Cal.Educ.Code S 35258 (requring that information regarding School Accountability Report Cards be posted); Cal.Educ.Code S 60630 (requiring the Superintendent of School's report to be posted); Cal.Gov.Code S 11018.5 (requiring real estate licenses to be posted); Cal.Gov.Code S 11340.1-44 (requiring state agencies to post a complpete version of the California Code of Regulations); Cal.Gov.Code S 84601-609(requring that disclosure statements and reports required by the Political Reform Act to be filed placed on the Internet); Ann.Cal.Penal Code S 14201.6 (creating a publicly accessible computer internet directory of information relating to persons with outstadning violent felony warrants, missing children, and unsolved homicides); Cal.Un.Ins.Code S 17002 (creating an Internet clearinghouse for information on jobs for California unemplyment recipients); Cal.Vehicle Code S 1656.4 (requiring the posting of certain information to assist consumers who plan to purchase a vehicle or who have purchased a vehicle); Cal.Water Code S 13181 (requiring the posting of information on water quality).

Pending Bills

Electronic Filing Disclosure Act:
1997 California Senate Bill 49

Campaign and Lobbying Electronic Disclosure Act of 1997:
1997 California Senate Bill 7

Connecticut

Conn. Gen .Stat .S 53a-183 (1995) ("Creates criminal liability for sending an online message "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person.")
 
Other CT statutes concerning the Internet generally deal with requiring or allowing certain information to be posted on the Internet. See Conn. Gen .Stat .S  3-37, 3-66a  (requiring posting of the report of the treasurer).

Florida

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/

Fla. Stat. Ann. S 775.21 (requiring law enforcement to notify the public by Internet of sex predators in the neighborhoods).

Fla. Stat. Ann. S 847.0135 (amends existing child porn law to hold owners or operators of computer online services explicitly liable for permitting subscribers to violate the law).

Georgia

Ga Code Ann. 7-1-61  (giving the Department of Banking and Finance the power to regulate online banking)

Ga Code Ann. 10-1-393.5 (regulating telemarketing and commercial internet activities.).

Ga Code Ann.16-9-93.1 (criminalized the use of pseudonyms on the Net, and prohibits unauthorized links to web site with trade names or  logos. Permanently enjoined in ACLU v. Miller, 977 F.Supp. 1228 (1997).

    Pamela Mendels,  ACLU Fights Georgia Internet Fraud Law,  New York Times Cybertimes, July 19, 1996
    Andrews Publication, Judges in NY, GA Striek Down State Internet Regulations, 1997 Andrews Computer & Online Indus. Litig. Rep. 24417.
b. Minnesota

Minn. Stat. S243.055. (enabling prison commissioner to restrict parolee's Internet access or computer use).

New Mexico

Senate Bill 127, enacted 3/98. Criminalizes the transmission of communications that depict "nudity, sexual intercourse or any other sexual conduct." The ACLU has vowed to file a legal challenge to the law before it  becomes effective on 7/1/98.

Nevada

Senate Bill 13, enacted 7/97. Creates an action for civil damages against persons who transmit unsolicited
advertising over the Internet.New York

New York

N. Y. Penal Law S 235.21(3) (criminalizing the transmission of "indecent" materials to minors). Overturned, in ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp. 160 (1997).

Oklahoma

Okla.Stat. tit 17 S 139.108 (Oklahoma Telecommunications Act of 1997, regulating Internet service providers from anticompetitive pricing and unfair commercialpractices).

South Carolina

Christy Tinnes, Digital Signatures Come to South Carolina: The Proposed Digital Signature Act of 1997,
48 S.C. L. Rev. 427 (1997).

Virginia

Va.Code S 2.1-804 (prohibiting any government employee from using state-owned computer systems to send or access sexually explicit material). Overturned, in Urofsky v. Allen,1998 WL 86587 (E.D.Va.)

     Andrews Computer & Online Industry Litigation Reporter,  Proffesors Say VA Law is Unconstitutional Prior Restraint,  July 1, 1997 Andrews Computer & Online Indus. Litig. Rep. 24418.
Washington

Mike Rodin, Digital Signatures - Get Ready ‘Cause Here They Come

434-200 WAC, Proposed Rules for Implementation of the Washington Electronic Authentication Act As filed with the Office of the Code Reviseron October 1, 1997.

B. Foreign Governments

Survey of Sovereign Nation State Internet Regulations

Amy Knoll, Any Which way but Loose: Nations Regulate the Internet, 4 Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 275, Summer 1996, 4 Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 275.

Human Rights Watch Report (1996) "Silencing The Net: The Threat to Freedom of Expression On-line" [1996] Monitors: A Journal of Human Rights and Technology 8 (2), at <http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~monitors/>

1. Canada

Information Highway Advisory Council, Preparing Canada for a Digital World, Final Report of The Information
Highway Advisory Council at http://www.cbsc.org/ontario/bis/1393.html,

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ih01650e.html

Information Highway Advisory Council, http://www.cbsc.org/ontario/bis/1393.html

Internet Content-Related Liability Study, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03117e.html#TOC

2. UK

Akdeniz Y ‘The Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet’, 1997 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT).

http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/ paragraph 5.2.

House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology (1996) "Information Society: Agenda for Action in the UK", Session 1995-96, 5th Report, London: HMSO, 23 July 1996, available at <http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199596/ldselect
/inforsoc/inforsoc.htm
>.

 
European Union

Akdeniz Y ‘The Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet’, 1997 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/ paragraph 5.3.

European Commission (Communication) (1996) Communication to the European Parliament, The Council, The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet, Com (96) 487, Brussels, 16 October 1996. An on-line copy is available at <http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/content.html>

European Commission (Green Paper) (1996) Green Paper on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity in Audovisual and Information Services, Brussels, 16 October 1996. An on-line copy is available at <http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/content.html>

European Commission Working Party Report (1996) 'Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet' at <http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/wpen.html>

http://www2.echo.lu/best_use/best_use.html

France

Code de l'Internet

French initiative in OECD

Décisions du Conseil Constitutionnel concernant la loi relative à l'entreprise nationale France Télécom et la loi de réglementation des télécommunications

Mission interministerielle sur l'Internet présidée par Madame Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin
Synthèse | Rapport intégral (sauf annexes)

Pour une intégration sereine et un développement harmonieux d'Internet dans la société française

Rapport de l'AUI

Diffusion illicite sur internet Alain Bensoussan

Germany

Informations- und Kommunikationsdienste-Gesetz - Teledienstegesetz Referentenentwurf - civil service draft bill

Radikal case Internet Content Task Force (ICTF) Press Release- Michael Schneider, eco e.V.

 Background behind Internet Media Council and Internet Content Task Force, http://www.anwalt.de/ictf/e_intro1.htm

 Australia

On-Line Services - Report to the Minister for Communications and the Arts

Electronic Frontier Australia ('EFA') (1997) "Media Release: Internet Labelling System Condemned", 1997, 9 February, at <http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR970209.html>

Switzerland

Internet und Recht Herbert Burkert

INTERNET - A new medium: new legal issues Recommendations for Access Providers FR DE Report (two annexes exist only in DE) FR DE Report of a Swiss Federal Government Working Party on legal issues and the Internet

Malaysia

1997 New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, Bill to prevent misuse of multimedia services,  New Straits Times, May 29, 1997.

1997 New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, Cyberlaw conference to be held on May 13, New Straits Times, April 23, 1997.

1997 New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, Government to be proactive in formulating cyberlaws, New Straits Times, April 26, 1997.

1997 FT Asia Intelligence Wire, Cyberlaws provide legal framework, 1997 COMPUTIMES (MALAYSIA), March 31, 1997.

Zulkifli Othman, Pikom: Cyber laws will provide clarity, 1997 New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, Business Times, March 28, 1997.

Ferina Manecksha,  : Adopting digital signatures in local banking industry, Copyright 1997 COMPUTIMES, The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, August 21, 1997.

Taiwan

George C.C. Chen,  Electronic Commerce On The Internet: Legal Developments In Taiwan, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 77 (1997).

 II. International Regulations

A. Supra-National Bodies

1. Global Forum or Lawmaking Body

Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, 41 Vill. L. Rev. 1, 100-01(1996) (discussing the idea of a "United States District Court for the District of Cyberspace," which would have jurisdiction for all claims arising in cyberspace
over anyone entering cyberspace.).

Barbara Cohen, A Proposed Regime for Copyright Protection on the Internet,  22 Brook. J. Int'l L. 401 (1996) (advocating the creation of International Copyright Collection Agencies to handle global licensing issues).

1997 New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, Call for international cybercourt,  New Straits Times, July 4, 1997.

2. Regional, Supranational Bodies, the EU Model

Patrick G. Crago, Fundamental Rights on the Infobahn: Regulating the Delivery of Internet Related Services Within the European Union, 20 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 467, 471 (1997) (proposing that supranational solutions, using the EU as a model, are the most appropriate responses to the problems surrounding regulation of the Internet).

OECD

The OECD is an "intergovernmental organisation whose purpose is to provide its 29 Member countries with a forum in which governments can compare their experiences, discuss the problems they share and seek solutions which can then be applied within their own national contexts."

http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/index.htm

Proposition française présentée à l'OCDE pour une Charte de coopération internationale sur INTERNET 23 octobre 1996

B. International Law

Carol Coulter, International 'cyberlaw' needed, says Rabbitte, The Irish Times, City Edition, September 4, 1996.

1. Multi-lateral Treaty Paradigm

Jonathan I. Edelstein, Anonymity And International Law Enforcement In Cyberspace, 7 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 231, 242 (1996) (concluding that "an international convention concerning law enforcementon the Internet is necessary, and that national governments can strengthen their legal positions in the interim by establishing mutual legal assistance treaties ("MLATs")with nations which pose problems to law enforcement in cyberspace.”).

THE FREE MARKET

Peter P. Swire, Markets, Self-Regulation, and Government Enforcement in the Protection of Personal Information http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (visited 3/5/98).

John K. Halvey, The Virtual Marketplace, 45 Emory L.J. 959 (1996).

I.  Ad-Hocracies of the Software Industry

Gary Chapman, Cyberculture Digital Nation Ad-Hocracies Fill Void Left by Government, 3/9/98 L.A. Times D3
1998 WL 2406275,

II. Private Property

Harold Smith Reeves,  Property in Cyberspace, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 761 (1996).

John O. McGinnis, The Once and Future Property-Based Vision of the First Amendment, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 49 (1996).

Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Property and Innovation in the Global Information Infrastructure, 996 U. Chi. Legal F. 261 (1996).

Trotter Hardy,  Property (and Copyright) in Cyberspace, 1996 U. Chi. Legal F. 217 (1996).
 
III. Let the Market Create Technical Standards and Solutions

James Nahikian, Learning To Love "The Ultimate Peripheral"—Virtual Vices Like "Cyberprostitution" Suggest A New Paradigm To Regulate Online Expression, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 779, 782-83 (1996)

A. Filtering Technology

Dawn L. Johnson, It’s 1996: Do You Know Where Your Cyberkids Are? Captive Audiences And Content Regulation On The Internet, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 51, 86 (1996).

1. International Industry Efforts

a. UK

R3 Safety-Net Rating Reporting Responsibility For Child Pornography & Illegal Material on the Internet An Industry proposal Adopted and Recommended by Executive Committee of ISPA - Internet Services Providers Association, LINX - London Internet Exchange The Safety-Net Foundation 23 September 1996 http://www.dti.gov.uk/safety-net/r3.htm (visited 3/6/98).

2. PICS

Amy Harmon, Rules for Filtering Web Content Cause Dispute, New York Times, Cybertimes, January 19, 1998

Ari Staiman,  Shielding Internet Users From Undesirable Content: the Advantages of a PICs Based Rating System
20 Fordham Int'l L.J. 866 (1997).

Jonathan Weinberg, Rating The Net, 19 Hastings Comm/Ent L.J. 453 (1997) http://www.msen.com/~weinberg/rating.htm (visited 3/5/98).

Lawrence Lessig, Tyranny in the Infrastructure: The CDA was bad - but PICS may be worse. http://www.wired.com/wired/5.07/cyber_rights.html (visited 3/5/98)

Paul Resnick, PICS, Censorship, & Intellectual Freedom FAQ, http://www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/pics/intfree/FAQ.htm (visited 3/5/98).

W3C: http://www.w3.org/PICS/iacwcv2.htm

Akdeniz Y ‘The Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on theInternet’ , 1997 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/ paragraph 5.5.

Ratings - Farenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/burning.html

Robin Whittle, 'Internet censorship, access control and content regulation' at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~firstpr/contreg/ for an explanation of the PICS system and how it works.

Critique of PICS by The Campaign for Internet Freedom, 'Frequently Asked Questions about PICS and Censorship' at http://www.netfreedom.org/uk/faq.html.

3. RSACi

RSACi's Mission

B. Digital Signatures

Digital Signature Resource Center, at http://www.perkinscoie.com/resource/ecomm/digsig/digsig.htm

Philip S. Corwin,  The Virtual Dotted Line:  Understanding Digital Signatures, 16 NO. 4 Banking Pol'y Rep. 1 (1997).
 
Angela Adasme, Regulation of Electronic Commerce: Digital Signature Laws in the US And EU, at
http://cobra.law.miami.edu/~aa6501/index.html

Richard L. Field, Digital Signatures: Verifying Internet Business Transactions, 471 PLI/Pat 721 (1997).

Maureen S. Dorney, Digital Signature Legislation, 491 PLI/Pat 141 (1997).
 

IV. Free Market in Rule Sets

David G. Post, Anarchy, State, and the Internet: An Essay on Law-Making in Cyberspace, 1995 J. ONLINE L. art. 3, par. ___.]

SELF-REGULATION

I. Possible Presumptions

A. Cyberspace Sovereignty

Johnson, David R. and Post, David G., Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367 (1996) http://www.cli.org/X0025_LBFIN.html (visited 3/6/98) ( "David Johnson and David Post argue that Cyberspace requires a system of rules quite distinct from the laws that regulate physical, geographically-defined territories. Cyberspace challenges the law's traditional reliance on territorial borders; it is a "space" bounded by screens and passwords rather than physical markers. Professors Johnson and Post illustrate how "taking Cyberspace seriously" as a unique place can lead to the development of both clear rules for online transactions and effective legal institutions.").

Timothy S. Wu, Cyberspace Sovereignty? -- The Internet And The International System, 10 Harv. J. Law & Tec 647, 649 (1997) (Arguing that Johnson and Post's descriptive assumptions -- that the "territorial" powers of the world will, or already do, respect an emergent cyberspace sovereignty, and that state regulation of the Internet will be impossible or futile --are incorrect. Wu feels that "Internet regulation, although difficult, is possible and stands to become increasingly so regardless of its desirability on normative grounds.").

Stephan Wilske & Teresa Schiller, International Jurisdiction In Cyberspace: Which States May Regulate The Internet?, 50 Fed. Comm. L.J. 117, 125 (1997) (The focus of this analysis is to show that States are not impressed by an alleged "independence from geographical constraints" resulting from the "electronic nature of the message transmission" or by a presumed failure of "territorially-based laws" to reach persons "whose geographical jurisdictions span legal jurisdictions."
International law allows many more States to exercise jurisdiction than a Netizen might be aware. And there is little hope that States will respect the "independence of cyberspace.").
 

II. Mechanisms of Self-Regulation

A. "Self" as Individual User

1. Self-Help

Trotter Hardy, The Proper Legal Regime for "Cyberspace," 55 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 993 (1994) ("The lowest level of self-help is unilateral action by an individual. We might capture the sense of this measure with the phrase "if you don't like it, don't
do it."")..

Dee Pridgen, How Will Consumers Be Protected On The Information Superhighway?, 32 Land & Water L. Rev. 237, 253 (1997) ("The final avenue for consumer protection on the information superhighway is consumer self-help. Many Internet users oppose any and all government regulations of cyberspace. Some may call it anarchy, but Internet users label themselves "netizens," citizens of the Internet world, who agree to abide by their own self- imposed rules of "netiquette."")

Jason Kay, Sexuality, Live Without a Net: Regulating Obscenity and Indecency on the Global Network, 4 S. Cal. Interdisciplinary L.J. 355, 386 (1995) ("The second system of self-regulation of the Net is the self-restricted
channeling of sexually explicit material.  For example, people generally limit their discussions of sex to the appropriate groups in the alt.sex hierarchy. Those violating this custom get flamed, and if the newsgroup that they post to is "moderated," the messages will be removed.  Those people not wanting sexually explicit news do not have to subscribe to alt.sex or read the messages posted there.").

2. Formal Private Contracts – the Contract Paradigm

Trotter Hardy, The Proper Legal Regime for "Cyberspace," 55 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 993 (1994) ((“Can we identify in general the situations in cyberspace for which contracts are an appropriate response? We know that parties who deal with each other in
regard to transactions that have high value to the participants, relative to the costs of the transaction, can be expected to form their own contracts. The Coase theorem, moreover, tells us that in such circumstances, the parties will reach an economically efficient result. In the absence of some compelling contrary social policy or significant detrimental effects to parties external to
the contract, then, there is good reason to allow parties in cyberspace to form their own contracts to their own mutual agreement.”).

Peter P. Swire, Cyberbanking and Privacy: The Contracts Model http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (visited 3/5/98).

Robert L. Dunne, Deterring Unauthorized Access to Computers: Controlling Behavior in Cyberspace through a Contract Law Paradigm, 35 Jurimetrics J 1-15 (1994).

Fred M. Greguras, et al., Electronic Commerce: Online Contract Issues, Practicing Law Institute, Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series, 452 PLI/Pat. 11 (Sept. 1996).

Raymond T. Nimmer, Selling Product Online: Issues In Electronic Contracting, 467 PLI/Pat 823 (1997).

Lee Tien & Charles J. Miller, Enforcing Electronic Contracts, : 452 PLI/Pat 339 (1996).

a. Access Provider Rules

Keith J. Epstein and Bill Tancer, Enforcement of Use Limitations By Internet Services Providers: "How To Stop That Hacker, Cracker, Spammer, Spoofer, Flamer, Bomber", 9 Hastings Comm/Ent L.J. 661, 676 (1997).

David A. Gottardo, Commercialism and the Downfall of Internet Self Governance: an Application of Antitrust Law, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 125, 132 (1997).

b. On-line Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Online Ombuds Office

University of Maryland Family Law Project

i. Virtual Magistrate

Robert Gellman, A Brief History of the Virtual Magistrate Project: The Early Months, 44 La. B.J. 430 (1997)

American Arbitration Association Inc., AAA Administers Pilot Project: ‘Virtual Magistrates’ Arbitrate Computer Disputes, 51-SEP Disp. Resol. J. 6) (1997).

ii. ADR

Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, 41 Vill. L. Rev. 1, 93-94 (1996).

E. Casey Lide, ADR And Cyberspace: The Role Of Alternative Dispute Resolution In Online Commerce, Intellectual Property And Defamation, 12 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 193 (1996).

George H. Friedman, Internet & Alternate Dispute Resolution: A Match Made In Cyperspace, 2 NO. 9 Multimedia Strategist 6 (1996).

George H. Friedman, Alternative Dispute Resolution And Emerging Online Technologies: Challenges And Opportunities, 19 Hastings Comm/Ent L.J. 695 (1997).

Robert J. Ambrogi, Cyberspace Becomes Forum For Resolving Disputes, 40-JUL Res Gestae 28 (1996).

M. Ethan Katsh, Dispute Resolution In Cyberspace, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 953 (1996).

Steven A. McAuley, The Federal Government Giveth And Taketh Away: How Nsi’s Domain Name Dispute Policy (Revision 02) Usurps A Domain Name Owner’s Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 547 (1997).

Frank A. Cona, Application Of Online Systems In Alternative Dispute Resolution, 45 Buff. L. Rev. 975 (1997).

"Self" as Social Body or Culture

Roger Clarke, Encouraging Cyberculture, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/EncoCyberCulture.html

1. Informal Social Control

Peter Kollock & Marc Smith, Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities (visited May 1, 1996) <http:// www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/csoc/vcommons.htm>

David Jacobson, Contexts and Cues in Cyberspace: The Pragmatics of Naming in Text-Based Virtual Realities, 52 J. of Anthropological Research 461 (1996).

Richard H. McAdams, The Origin, Development, And Regulation of Norms, 96 Mich. L. Rev. 338 (1997).

2. Virtual Communities

Henry H. Perritt, Jr., President Clinton's National Information Infrastructure Initiative: Community Regained?, 69 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 991 (1994).
 
Barry Wellman, et al., Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and the Virtual Community, 22 Amer. Rev. Soc. 213 (1996)

Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community, (1993).  Available Online at http://www.well.com/user/hlr/vcbook/index.html.

Conference in Sydney on 'Creative Collaboration in Virtual Communities'. http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc/conferences/VC97

William S. Byassee,  Jurisdiction of Cyberspace: Applying Real World Precedent to the Virtual Community
30 Wake Forest L. Rev. 197 (1995).

Henry H. Perritt, Jr.,  Dispute Resolution In Electronic Network Communities, 38 Vill. L. Rev. 349  (1993).

Patrick T. Egan, Virtual Community Standards: Should Obscenity Law Recognize the Contemporary Community Standard of Cyberspace?, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 117 (1996).

General Descriptions and Discussions

Pavel Curtis, MUDding: Social Phenomenon in Text-Based Virtual Realities, in High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace 347 (Peter Ludlow ed. 1996).

Julian Dibbell, A Rape in Cyberspace; or How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a cast of Dozens Turned a Database into a Society, in High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace 375 (Peter Ludlow ed. 1996).

Elizabeth M. Reid, Communication and Community on Internet relay Chat: Constructing Communities, in High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace 397 (Peter Ludlow ed. 1996).

Critical Perspective on Virtual Communities

humdog, pandora’s vox: on community in cyberspace, in High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace 397 (Peter Ludlow ed. 1996).

James DiGiovanna, Losing Your Voice on the Internet, in High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace 397 (Peter Ludlow ed. 1996).

3. Netiquette

Amy Knoll, Any Which Way But Loose: Nations Regulate The Internet, 4 Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 275, 278 (1996).

Roger Clarke, Net-Ethiquette Mini Case Studies of Dysfunctional Human Behaviour on the Net http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/Netethiquettecases.html (visited 3/6/98).

George McMurdo, Netiquette for Networkers, 21 J. Info. Science 305 (1995) (discussing the basic commandments, suggestions, and rules for behavior in cyberspace)

Susan B. Ross, Department: Technology & Law: Netiquette: Etiquette Over The Abn And The Internet, 33 AZ Attorney 13 (1996).  http://www.fau.edu/rinaldi/ netiquette.html and http://www.netwelcome.com/index.html.

Jason Kay, Sexuality, Live Without A Net: Regulating Obscenity And Indecency On The Global Network, 4 S. Cal. Interdisciplinary L.J. 355, 385 (1995).

The Spamming Lawyers Incident

Dee Pridgen, How Will Consumers Be Protected On The Information Superhighway?, 32 Land & Water L. Rev. 237, 240 (1997).

Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons, No Regulation, Government Regulation, or Self-Regulation: Social Enforcement or Social Contracting For Governance in Cyberspace, 6 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 475, 511-12 (1997)

Jared Sandberg, Lawyers Whose Ads Crashed the Internet Help You Do it too; New Effort to Push Envelope Spooks Many Who Fear Junk Mail in Cyberspace, Wall  St. J., May 9, 1994, at B2, available in 1994 WL-WSJ 293112.

4. The Demos

Niva Elkin-Koren, Cyberlaw And Social Change: A Democratic Approach To Copyright Law In Cyberspace, 14 Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ 215 (1996).

C. "Self" as Industry and Commerce

Douglas C. Michael, Federal Agency Use of Audited Self-Regulation As a Regulatory Technique, 47 Admin. L. Rev. 171 (1995).

General Descriptions of Trade and Industry Associations

Jeffrey A. Jacobs, Comparing Regulatory Models -- Self-Regulation vs. Government Regulation: The Contrast Between the Regulation of Motion Pictures and Broadcasting May Have Implications for Internet Regulation, 1 J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 4 <http://journal.law.ufl.edu/~techlaw/1/jacobs.html> (1996).

John Ellmore, Broadcasting Law and Regulation (1982) ("As the history of mass media reveals, members of professions or trades are often instrumental in developing self-regulatory codes.")

David A. Gottardo, Commercialism and the Downfall of Internet Self Governance: An Application of Antitrust Law, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 125, (1997).

Dawn L. Johnson, It’s 1996: Do You Know Where Your Cyberkids Are? Captive Audiences And Content Regulation On The Internet, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 51 (1996)

George P. Lamb & Carrington Shields, Trade Association Law And Practice (1971)

Tedd Blecher, Product Standards and Certification Programs, 46 Brook. L. Rev. 223, 223 (1980).

Trade Associations on the Internet

Internet Watch Foundation ('IWF') now have an e-mail, telephone and fax hot-line and on-line users are able to report materials related to child pornography and other obscene materials. (See http://www.internetwatch.org.uk/hotline/)

Internet Local Advertising and Commerce Association ("ILAC")

Internet Services Association

Better Business Bureau ("BBB") "BBBOnline,"

Consumer Bankers Association,

Direct Marketing Association

IPWG ("IPWG is an informal organization of public interest organizations and private industry engaged in commerce and communication on the Internet.")

TRUSTe ("TRUSTe's mission is to "establish trust and confidence in electronic transactions." TRUSTe seeks to promote the adoption of electronic commerce by providing users with a trusted privacy mark (or brand).")

Analogous Self Regulation Associations in the Real World

a. Movies

Edward de Grazia & Roger K. Newman, Banned Films 3 (1982)

b. Advertising

International Advertising Association

Jean J. Boddewyn, Global Perspectives on Advertising Self-Regulation: Principles and Practices in Thirty-Eight Countries, Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books, 1992, 234 Pp.

Ad Self-Reg Efforts Hit the Internet; Smoking Cessation/Dietary Supplement Cited, 445 FTC:WATCH at 12 (Nov. 20, 1995). (Discussing efforts of The major self-regulatory body for commercial advertising, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.)

Mitchel L. Winick, Debra Thomas Graves, and Christy Crase, Attorney Advertising on the Internet: From Arizona to Texas--Regulating Speech on the Cyber-Frontier, 27 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 1487 (1996).

William Sloan Coats and Heather D. Rafter, From Stoning to Spamming: Regulation of Advertising on the Internet, 1003 PLI/Corp 93 (1997).

Stuart Elliott, Clinton Adviser Urges Self-Regulation in Cyberspace, New York Times, Cybertimes, November 4, 1997. (Ira Magaziner talking about the need for advertisers to regulate themselves on the Net.).

Westlaw Law Practice Index, Self-Regulation: Neutral Forum For Advertisers, 10 Alternatives to High Cost Litig. 69 (1992).

Thomas W. Reader, Is Self-Regulation The Best Option for the Advertising Industry in the European  Union?  An Argument for the Harmonization of Advertising Laws Through the Continued Use of Directives, 16 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. 181 (1995).

Allen H. Gerstein & Michael R. Graham,  An Introduction to False Advertising Law and Industry Self-Regulation, SA71 ALI-ABA 239 (1996).

Debra E. Goldstein, Industry Self-Regulation of Advertising National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. Cases, Trends and Outlook for the Future, 954 PLI/Corp 19 (1996).

Andrea Levine & Elizabeth Lascoutx, Self-Regulation of Advertising; A. Nad Case Reports; B. Self-Regulatory Guidelines for Children's Advertising, 1010 PLI/Corp 35( 1997).

In Cyberspace

Leonard R. Stein, Industry Self-Regulation of Advertising in Cyberspace, 1010 PLI/Corp 85 (1997).

c. Attorneys

Allen Blumenthal, Attorney Self-Regulation, Consumer Protection, and the Future of the Legal Profession, 3-WTR Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 6 (1994).

Thomas K. Byerley, Lawyer Self-Regulation and the Client Protection Fund, 75 Mich. B.J. 538 (1996).
 
William T. Gallagher, Ideologies of Professionalism and the Politics of Self-Regulation in the California State Bar, 22 Pepp. L. Rev. 485 (1995).
 

d.  Broadcasting

    i.  Television

Bernd-Peter Lange & Runar Woldt, The European Interest In The American Experience In Self-Regulation, 13 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 657 (1995).

Mark M. MacCarthy, Broadcast Self-Regulation: the Nab Codes, Family Viewing Hour, and Television Violence, 13 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 667 (1995).
 
e.  Automotive Repair Industry

Lawrence M. Hecker & Anthony J. Celebrezze Jr., The Motorist Assurance Program: Automotive Repair Industry Self-Regulation, 1995-SEP NAAG Consumer Protection Rep. 1 (1995).

f. Commodity Exchanges

Jerry W. Markham, Commodities Regulation:  Fraud, Manipulation & Other Claims Part VII CFTC and Exchange Investigations and Disciplinary Proceedings, Chapter 26 Disciplinary Actions by Exchanges and the NFA, s 26.01  THE ROLE OF SELF-REGULATION, CB SEC13 s 26.01. & s 26.03  CFTC DEFERENCE TO SELF-REGULATION
 
g. Corporations

Robert J. Bush, Stimulating Corporate Self-Regulation--The Corporate Self-Evaluative Privilge: Paradigmatic Preferentialism or Pragmatic Panacea, 87 Nw. U. L. Rev. 597 (1993).

h. Environmental Responsibility

Eric Bregman & Arthur Jacobson, Environmental Performance Review: Self-Regulation In Environmental Law,  16 Cardozo L. Rev. 465 (1994).

2. Lex Mercatoria

Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, 41 Vill. L. Rev. 1, 103-04 (1996).

Leon E. Trakman, the Law Merchant: The Evolution of Commercial Law 11-12 (1983)

Bruce L. Benson, The Spontaneous Evolution of Commercial Law, 55 Southern Econ. J. 644, 646-47 (1989).

Johnson, David R. and Post, David G., Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367 (1996) http://www.cli.org/X0025_LBFIN.html (visited 3/6/98).

David G. Post, Anarchy, State, and the Internet: An Essay on Law-Making in Cyberspace, 1995 J. Online L. art. 3, 46-69 http://www.law.cornell.edu/jol/jol.table.html,

Paul R. Milgrom, Douglass C. North, and Barry R. Weingast, the Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs, 2 Econ. & Pol. 1 (1990)

3. UCC

a. Article 2B

Raymond T. Nimmer. Article 2b: UCC In The Information Age,  490 PLI/Pat 309 (1997)(general overview of the draft as a commercial, rather than a regulatory statute; includes summary of 2B as it relates to Internet and electronic commerce issues).
 

D. "Self" as Internet Itself

1. Internet Standards Setting Organizations

W3C: http://www.w3.org/PICS/iacwcv2.htm

Platform for Privacy Preference Project (P3P)

Joseph M. Reagle Jr., P3P and Privacy on the Web FAQ Version: 1.0, August 4, 1997. http://www.w3.org/P3P/P3PFAQ.html

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) (The IETF is the protocol engineering and development arm of the Internet.)

Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
The IAB is responsible for defining the overall architecture of the Internet, providing guidance and broad direction to the IETF. The IAB also serves as the technology advisory group to the Internet Society, and oversees a number of critical activities in
support of the Internet.

The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
The IESG is responsible for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet standards process. As part of the ISOC, it administers the process according to the rules and procedures which have been ratified by the ISOC Trustees. The IESG is
directly responsible for the actions associated with entry into and movement along the Internet "standards track," including final approval of specifications as Internet Standards.

Internet Society (ISOC)
The Internet Society is a professional membership organization of Internet experts that comments on policies and practices and oversees a number of other boards and task forces dealing with network policy issues.

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Based at the Univeristy of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute, IANA is in charge of all "unique parameters" on the Internet, including IP (Internet Protocol) addresses. Each domain name is associated with a unique IP address, a numerical
name consisiting of four blocks of up to three digits each, e.g. 204.146.46.8, which systems use to direct information through the network.
 
 
 

III. Models of Self- Regulation

A. Decentralized, Emergent Law

David R. Johnson & David G. Post, The New ‘Civic Virtue’ of the Internet

David R. Johnson & David G. Post And How Shall the Net Be Governed? A Meditation on the Relative Virtues of Decentralized, Emergent Law

David R. Johnson, The Price of Netizenship

Johnson’s sources:

ROBERT C. ELLICKSON, ORDER WITHOUT LAW: HOW NEIGHBORS SETTLE DISPUTES 137-47 (1991);

Robert D. Cooter, Decentralized Law for a Complex Economy, 23 SW. U. L. REV. 443 (1994);

Robert D. Cooter, Structural Adjudication and the New Law Merchant: A Model of Decentralized Law, 14 INT. J. LAW &AMP; ECON. 215 (1994).

B. New Paradigms to address virtual vices

James Nahikian, Learning To Love "The Ultimate Peripheral"—Virtual Vices Like "Cyberprostitution" Suggest A New Paradigm To Regulate Online Expression, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 779, 782-83 (1996)

Akdeniz Y ‘The Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on theInternet’, 1997 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/

Peter P. Swire, Markets, Self-Regulation, and Government Enforcement in the Protection of Personal Information http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (visited 3/5/98).

IV. Problems with Self-Regulation

Antitrust

David A. Gottardo, Commercialism and the Downfall of Internet Self Governance: an Application of Antitrust Law, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 125, 129-30 (1997).

Federal Trade Commission,  Self-Regulation and Antitrust: FTC Chairman Lays out How Self-Regulatory Efforts Can Avoid Antitrust Challenge,  February 18, 1998  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9802/selfreg.htm

Other

John Goldring, Netting the Cybershark:  Consumer Protection, Cyberspace, the Nation-State, and Democracy in Borders in Cyberspace 322 (Brian Kahin and Charles Nesson eds. 1997) (Self imposed regulations are only effective if poeple follow them. Predators, by definition, do not follow the rules.  Also, the lex mercatoria, and other contractually based methods of self-regulation depend on an existing legal system to undergird their agreements.  Without resort to the legal system, why should they honor their contracts?)

Rule
Home   |   About ILPF   |   Who is the ILPF   |   Join ILPF   |   Working Groups   |   News   |   Members Only   |   Contact Us
Copyright © 2001-2005 Internet Law & Policy Forum, Inc. All rights reserved.Privacy Policy