BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//wp-events-plugin.com//7.2.3.1//EN TZID:Europe/Berlin X-WR-TIMEZONE:Europe/Berlin BEGIN:VEVENT UID:67@hiig.de DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20131123T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20131123T133000 DTSTAMP:20140124T143536Z URL:https://www.hiig.de/en/events/noc-regional-conference-germany-2013/ SUMMARY:NoC Regional Conference Germany 2013 DESCRIPTION:Global Network of Interdisciplinary Internet &\; Society Res earch Centers Events Series\nThis event was part of the meeting on Chance s and Risks of Social Participation\nDownload the NoC Working Sessions Sum mary: PDF\n\nGo to\nSession 1: Publication in the Field of Internet and S ociety\nSession 2: Online Intermediaries\nSession 3: Internet Governance\n Session 1: Publication in the Field of Internet and Society\nThis first wo rking session of the day focused on garnering innovative ideas and laying the foundation for future co-operation around joint publication activities within the NoC. Specifically\, this session targeted the following questi ons: Is there a need for a new publication on Internet &\; society? If yes: Which distinguishing factors should such a publication have? Might ne w and emerging forms of publication\, for instance those involving collabo rative drafting processes\, provide a way forward? Already-existing public ation outlets such as blogs worked on by the NoC community were taken into account\, leading the way towards further collaboration within the NoC in the future.\nThe discussion was first led by Juan Carlos de Martin of NEX A Center di Torino\, who referred to the potentially changing role of jour nals in the Internet age. Journals have traditionally been a forum for int ellectual discovery and scrutiny. They are also crucial to discipline buil ding\, as they allow for evaluation by the academic community itself\, and are being evaluated by the outside\, at the same time as showcasing disci plines and sub-disciplines. However\, most journals are not accessible bey ond the academic sphere. A question to ask is therefore how to make journa ls more accessible to the general public. There is also an issue of time l ag. Do we therefore need a new Journal around Internet &\; society\, or is what we are looking for already out there?\nParticipants agreed that i n furthering Internet &\; society research in general\, collaboration b etween disciplines is key. While participants remain undecided on the need to establish a new Internet &\; society discipline\, participants agre ed that the landscape of Internet &\; society journals remains limited. One successful example of a high-level multi-disciplinary journal focusin g on Internet &\; society issues is the Policy &\; Internet Journal\ , which focuses on the relationship between policy and the Internet. Anoth er Journal mentioned was New Media &\; Society. The perceived lack in I nternet &\; society publication outlets might furthermore be at least p artially closed by establishing a blog aggregator and cross-posting to int eresting Internet &\; society research. Discussion showed\, however\, t hat further exploration of already-existing and potentially new publicatio n outlets within the field of Internet &\; society might be necessary. It was mentioned that Internet studies are currently very phenomenon-drive n\, whereas it would be desirable to promote substantive research involvin g a commitment of time and effort. A tool or platform that stimulated such rigorous research on Internet &\; society would be seen a valuable add ition to the publication landscape. Furthermore\, participants criticized the lack of a forum that addresses methodological issues\, for instance. A low threshold for understanding multidisciplinary research in the field i s missing.\nA highly relevant question with regard to a possible involveme nt in Internet &\; society debates is that of the targeted community. M eeting participants voiced the desire to target both academic and wider au diences. Others raised the concern that bridging the divide of being a pub lic intellectual and an academic scholar may easily fail a publication. Pe rhaps the NoC might therefore focus more on providing a public-facing publ ication outlet. This might provide an opportunity to explore more innovati ve formats aimed specifically at an online audience\, involving collaborat ive writing\, for instance. A blog aggregator might also be feasible. Key questions would be what would make a new publication format unique and dif ferent? What could an innovative business model for an open access journal look like? Perhaps the goal would be not to form a new journal\, but to f orm strategic synergies and plan to publicize purposefully in already-exis ting publications.\nAs a practical contribution to the discussions around publication in the field of Internet &\; society\, editor Frédéric Du bois introduced the Internet Policy Review\, an open-access journal about Internet regulation in Europe that has been initiated by the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet &\; Society (HIIG). The Internet Polic y Review tracks public regulatory changes as well as private policy develo pments which are expected to have long lasting impacts on European societi es. The journal’s online platform (policyreview.info) offers peer-review ed short-form papers and essays\, as well as news and commentary on Intern et governance aimed at academics\, civil society advocates\, entrepreneurs \, the media and public policy makers alike. The presentation sought to gi ve a brief introduction and outline of activities for 2014 before highligh ting existing collaborations with researchers of the NoC and outlining opp ortunities to come.\nAs a publication outlet\, the Internet Policy Review faces many of the questions addressed above. Hybridity is its defining asp ect\, it being both academic and public-facing\, with scholarly and popula r accessibility presented side-by-side. As such\, it has a blog-aspect and is trying to match the speed of Internet-related developments with a revi ew process. Going into an opinion and commentary direction\, it is not an established journal but rather a place where preliminary research can be s howcased with appreciated peer review. Its thematic focus is currently Eur opean policy-oriented\, with contributions also from other NoC centers. Th e Internet Policy Review team is currently exploring collaborations with j ournalists on news\, and has found the combination of journalistic news an d academic approach successful. Going forward\, the IPR team is reflecting on where it may land within the Internet &\; society landscape\, thus not only looking for collaborating with NoC participants interested in con tributing to the IPR\, but also eager to contribute to the discussion arou nd NoC publication activity in the future.\nIn conclusion\, meeting partic ipants agreed to follow up on the idea of a blog aggregator\, and to estab lish a working group strategically working on the idea of a novel publicat ion forward. It was therefore decided to set up a mailing list (publicatio ns@networkofcenters.org) for operators of publication outlets at an operat ional level. All interested NoC participants are welcome to propose people who should be on this mailing list\, via which we hope that the conversat ion around publications within the NoC context may evolve over the coming months.\n\nSession 2: Online Intermediaries\nNoC Joint Research Project on Online Intermediaries - Current Status and Possibilities for Collaboratio n\nUrs Gasser and Wolfgang Schulz\nBuilding on previous conversations at N oC regional events\, Urs Gasser of the Berkman Center for Internet &\; Society at Harvard University\, and Wolfgang Schulz of the Alexander von H umboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) gave an update on the cu rrent status of the first NoC joint research project on online intermediar ies: Intermediaries in various forms – meta media such as search engines as well as user generated platforms\, app stores and microblogs – play an essential role in opening up the potential of the Internet and capitali zing on its generativity. At the same time\, intermediaries are increasing ly powerful institutions that shape the public networked sphere and someti mes develop significant market power. Pursuing a variety of objectives\, g overnments around the world have developed legal regimes aimed at governin g online intermediaries\, often using liability mechanisms as the means of regulation.\nPrevious conversations amongst NoC participants showed stead y progress of the intermediaries discussion\, resulting in (1) a concerted research effort around the question of how different liability regimes mi ght best be mapped\, what practices can be used going forward\, and which methodology might be applicable to case studies\; (2) a plan to explore li ability and responsibility of online intermediaries from a regional perspe ctive\, focusing on Brazil\, India\, Vietnam and Turkey\, for instance\; ( 3) an effort of looking into the regulation of online intermediaries.\nIss ues addressed in outlining this joint research project included determinin g the appropriate level of detail of the underlying methodological questio ns. In order to make results comparable to an appropriate extent\, Urs Gas ser and Wolfgang Schulz outlined a set of guiding questions. In addition t o country studies – i.e. for Brazil and India – a selection of case st udies\, focusing e.g. on eBay in Turkey and social media providers in Viet nam\, will deliver deep dives. The latter promise to deliver highly intere sting results with regard to the impact of responsibility and liability re gimes on business models. It is hoped that overall and moving forward\, th is research project will be a truly collaborative effort leading to a repo sitory on intermediary-related issues. An ambitious white paper of policy recommendations and use case examples will ideally form the result of this collaborative effort. Next conversation will happen in April 2014\, where case study authors will discuss their work in a NoC working meeting.\nThe Internet &\; Jurisdiction Project Database\, introduced by Paul Fehlin ger\, could potentially contribute to an overview over existing jurisdicti ons by collecting case studies using a social sciences approach. Within th e Internet &\; Jurisdiction project database\, over 800 cases\, many of which focus on intermediary liability\, have been collected since 2012. A crowd-based filter is being used to identify the top 20 cases of the prev ious month\, for instance. Thus\, the project aims to provide a global ove rview on Internet &\; Jurisdiction. In order to further explore possibi lities for collaboration with the NoC\, a learning call will be scheduled likely for January 2014.\nYasin Beceni and Nilay Erdem of BTS Partners\, a leading ICT law firm in Turkey\, further elaborated on the deep dive case study approach of the joint research project by outlining their case stud y on eBay and Turkey. Within the last 10 years\, the ICT sector has become one of the flagship industries in Turkey. However\, the Turkish legal sys tem – which has been mostly transposed from Germany and Switzerland – sees highly excessive demands from the Turkish government to get user info rmation from intermediaries on all kinds of interaction. eBay has entered the Turkish market 2\,5 years ago. Given that Turkey has no clear regulati on for online intermediaries\, the Turkish government has been demanding u ser information also from eBay. Online intermediaries are deemed hosting p roviders not liable for the content on the platform\, but if they are noti fied about questionable content\, they must remove it. The case study on T urkey and ebay promises highly interesting results with regard to the effe ct of unclear liability regimes on business innovation.\n\nPresentation: I ntermediary Liability and Privacy Protection\nJef Ausloos and Aleksandra K uczerawy\nThe discussion around online intermediaries was further elaborat ed by a presentation by Jef Ausloos and Aleksandra Kuczerawy of KU Leuven. The slides to this presentation may be found here. Current research on in termediary liability covers a variety of issues. The growing role of inter mediaries has led European policy makers to take a horizontal approach\, e xonerating intermediaries (under certain conditions)\, regardless of the n ature of potential accusations. It might therefore seem surprising to see that the eCommerce Directive specifically states that its liability exempt ions do not apply in a data protection context (art. 1(5)(b)). Unlike othe r issues (such as copyright or freedom of expression)\, the interaction be tween privacy/data protection and intermediary liability has not been thor oughly investigated yet. Many factors have contributed to the growing rele vance of Internet intermediaries as ‘Information Gatekeepers’ and shor tcuts to the protection of privacy and personal data. It has been demonstr ated that – in practice – it is often very hard for an individual to i dentify the original uploader/publisher that is responsible for a privacy/ data protection harm (whether related to defamatory\, sensitive or other p ersonal information). Trends in copyright enforcement over the past decade have demonstrated the appeal of intermediaries as large\, centralized poi nts of control through which redress can be sought (e.g. takedown or acces s restriction). Little research has been done\, however\, on the role of t hese intermediaries in a privacy and data protection context. Many importa nt questions\, such as under what circumstances they can(not) be held liab le for taking actions with regard to personal data\, still remain unanswer ed. The inherent cross-border nature of these issues\, as well as the pres ence of – often widely diverging – approaches to privacy and data prot ection in different jurisdictions\, also highlights the importance for mor e globally coordinated/oriented research.\nCiting a concrete example\, the Google vs. Spain case (a paper by Jef and Aleksandra is available here) s et the stage\, and was used to demonstrate the interaction between data pr otection\, freedom of expression\, and intermediary liability. Intermediar ies do not need to monitor content\, but they do exert a certain level of care\, for instance in the case of child pornography. This again raises de finitional issues in a transnational context: what is qualified as child p ornography in one country may be considered harmless in other jurisdiction s. Key questions within the Google vs. Spain case concern online reputatio n management through intermediaries\; the distinction between the activiti es of intermediaries and those of original publishers\; and the relationsh ip\, in a European context\, between the eCommerce and Data Protection Dir ectives. Is there a right to erasure\, and if yes\, where are the boundari es to the protection of freedom of expression? Where are the intermediary liability exemptions? The regulatory framework in the EU is complicated as the eCommerce Directive pursues a horizontal approach at the same time as exempting anything that is dealt with in the Data Protection Directive. A nything not under such an exemption is implementable by the particular cou ntry. As policy-makers are not always on the same line\, this creates conf usion with regard to the relationship between these two directives. The im plementation of notice and take-down safeguards is not the same across Eur ope\, for instance. Intermediaries tend to have no incentives to keep cont ent up. Should the law provide for such incentive?\nNoC participants point ed to the functions-based role of regulation that only becomes content bas ed when the intermediary itself provides content. These are the cases wher e regulations overlap\, and where conflicts arise. This argument was menti oned to underline concern about the future of function-based regulation. S ubsequently\, the question was raised where intermediaries become so invol ved with their content that they have responsibilities. On the other hand\ , intermediaries should not only be considered at the applications level\, but also from an infrastructure perspective. What\, for instance\, about prioritizing certain data? Which role does software-defined decision-makin g play in this debate? Citing the system of torts in Latin America as an e xample\, participants referred to an evolvement in legal debate. One key a rgument exempting ISP’s from liability is referring to the content in qu estion having been uploaded by a third party. Judges have now started argu ing that the third-party liability argument does not hold because other in termediaries have removed similar content in the past.\nThe lack of any em pirical foundation for making policy recommendations was mentioned as a ke y challenge to be addressed by the NoC. The hope was expressed that the fi rst joint research project on online intermediaries might contribute to a foundational layer\, helping to make informed decisions.  This was said t o be all the more relevant because data protection cases often-times do no t go to court. Going forward\, attention should address not only problems regarding intermediaries\, but also the ecosystem being created around the m. If Google implements an algorithm to automatically take down child porn ography content\, for instance\, why should this approach not be taken by other intermediaries?\n\nSession 3: Internet Governance\nProject Idea and Proposal: Multistakeholder Models for Internet Governance\nUrs Gasser & \; Dana Walters\nThis third discussion of the day focused on Internet gove rnance. Urs Gasser and Dana Walters of the Berkman Center for Internet &am p\; Society at Harvard University proposed a project idea on multistakehol der models for Internet governance\, based on the recognition in the Inter net community that more needs to be done to address Internet governance\, and the creation of a multistakeholder body\, which would not replace ICAN N or the Americans\, but give voice to and address the concerns of the dev eloping world. NoC participants discussed what could be a meaningful contr ibution of the NoC to the current debate about multistakeholder models for Internet governance. Should the NoC be involved in Internet governance di scussions or not? What could be different modes of engagement?\nIn explori ng the need for an involvement of the NoC in Internet governance debates\, participants criticized a lack of substantial debate around Internet gove rnance in currently established forums. Whereas some participants stressed the wish to be involved in academic debates\, they would prefer to do so in an academic\, not a political space. Here\, the NoC might potentially c lose a significant gap.\nA concrete opportunity to get involved is posed b y the multistakeholder governance forum that will take place in Sao Paolo in April 2014. It might be possible for the NoC to utilize different low-l evel channels to provide analysis without over-exerting ourselves. The tim e might be right not to come up with analysis or a set of suggestions\, bu t to condense reports. A possible contribution could be i.e. a document of etiquette that sets criteria for Internet policy. Take stock and work to measure. It might also be possible to lay out different scenarios for the future that could be used by governments and other actors as a basis for d iscussion. The Red Cross was cited as an interesting potential model for I CANN. Participants suggested looking at the Red Cross model as well as oth er models in order to evaluate different forms of governance. Indeed\, par ticipants agreed that efforts towards identifying benchmarks should be und ertaken.\nIn exploring different models\, participants suggested building up on previous discussions\, e.g. undertaken in the context of the World S ummit on Information Society in 2004-2005. The 2005 report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) provided\, a definition (the first) of Internet governance\, proposed to establish the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\, and\, under the header “global public policy and oversight” ( starting on p. 23)\, spelled out and listed different models for more legi timate Internet governance.\nIn conclusion\, participants agreed that the NoC should get involved in the exploration of new multistakeholder Interne t governance models. As a concrete next step\, the NoC will consider organ izing a side-event to the upcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Sao Paolo\, Brazil\, in April 2014.\n\nPr esentation: Governance Applied to the Digital Environment\n- Elements of D irection\, Control\, and Power over Collective Processes Online\nMayo Fust er Morell\nA presentation by Mayo Fuster Morell\, Director of the Commons Research Program (igopnet.cc) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona\, on “what is meant by governance when applied to the digital environment? ” formed the conclusion of the day: Previous analysis and research of th e governance of collective action in the digital environment has been base d on analyzing specific governance aspects. However\, the literature on th e subject is lacking a comprehensive and holistic view of what governance means when applied to collective action online. The presentation provided a set of dimensions that define the governance of collective action online . The analysis used builds upon the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework for the study of the governance of natural commons develo ped by Elinor Ostrom school\, by providing an adaptation of the IAD framew ork to the study of digital commons. The empirical analysis to illustrate the presentation referred to the specific case of common-based peer produc tion of collaborative communities online (communities of individuals that mainly interact via a platform of online participation\, with the goal of building and sharing a common-pool resource). The empirical data was drawn from a statistical analysis of 50 cases and a four case study-comparison of governance models (Wikipedia\, Flickr\, Wikihow\, and Openesf).\nThe pr esentation\, which is accessible online\, entailed a call to NoC participa nts to engage in a collaborative effort to develop a common holistic frame work of analysis of the governance of collective action in the digital env ironment. The effort\, which will be supported by an FP7 European Research Grant\, will involve the statistical analysis of 300 case studies\, as we ll as a case study comparison. More information about the project may be f ound on www.p2pvalue.eu. Interested parties are invited to contact Mayo Fu ster Morell directly (mayo.fuster@eui.eu).\n\nConference Venue\nHumboldt U niversität zu Berlin\nRoom E25\nUnter den Linden 9\, 10117 Berlin\nGerm any CATEGORIES:Netzwerken LOCATION:Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin | Room E25\, Unter den Linden 9 \ , Berlin\, 10117\, Germany X-APPLE-STRUCTURED-LOCATION;VALUE=URI;X-ADDRESS= Unter den Linden 9 \, Berl in\, 10117\, Germany;X-APPLE-RADIUS=100;X-TITLE=Humboldt-Universität zu B erlin | Room E25:geo:0,0 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Berlin X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Berlin BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20131027T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE END:VCALENDAR