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:75@hiig.de DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20131123T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20131123T133000 DTSTAMP:20180914T075242Z URL:https://www.hiig.de/events/noc-regional-conference-germany-2013-2/ SUMMARY:NoC Konferenz Deutschland 2013 DESCRIPTION:Veranstaltungsreihe des Global Network of Interdisciplinary Int ernet &\; Society Research Centers\nDiese Veranstaltung fand im Rahmen der Thementagung Chancen und Risiken Sozialer Partizipation statt.\nIm Fo lgenden finden Sie die englische Zusammenfassung der NoC Working Sessions\ , die wir Ihnen auch als PDF zum Download zur Verfügung stellen.\n\nInhal t\nSession 1: Publication in the Field of Internet and Society\nSession 2: Online Intermediaries\nSession 3: Internet Governance\nSession 1: Publica tion in the Field of Internet and Society\nThis first working session of t he day focused on garnering innovative ideas and laying the foundation for future co-operation around joint publication activities within the NoC. S pecifically\, this session targeted the following questions: Is there a ne ed for a new publication on Internet &\; society? If yes: Which disting uishing factors should such a publication have? Might new and emerging for ms of publication\, for instance those involving collaborative drafting pr ocesses\, provide a way forward? Already-existing publication 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 NEXA Center di Torino \, who referred to the potentially changing role of journals in the Intern et age. Journals have traditionally been a forum for intellectual discover y and scrutiny. They are also crucial to discipline building\, as they all ow for evaluation by the academic community itself\, and are being evaluat ed by the outside\, at the same time as showcasing disciplines and sub-dis ciplines. However\, most journals are not accessible beyond the academic s phere. A question to ask is therefore how to make journals more accessible to the general public. There is also an issue of time lag. Do we therefor e need a new Journal around Internet &\; society\, or is what we are lo oking for already out there?\nParticipants agreed that in furthering Inter net &\; society research in general\, collaboration between disciplines is key. While participants remain undecided on the need to establish a ne w Internet &\; society discipline\, participants agreed that the landsc ape of Internet &\; society journals remains limited. One successful ex ample of a high-level multi-disciplinary journal focusing on Internet & \; society issues is the Policy &\; Internet Journal\, which focuses on the relationship between policy and the Internet. Another Journal mention ed was New Media &\; Society. The perceived lack in Internet &\; soc iety publication outlets might furthermore be at least partially closed by establishing a blog aggregator and cross-posting to interesting Internet &\; society research. Discussion showed\, however\, that further explor ation of already-existing and potentially new publication outlets within t he field of Internet &\; society might be necessary. It was mentioned t hat Internet studies are currently very phenomenon-driven\, whereas it wou ld be desirable to promote substantive research involving a commitment of time and effort. A tool or platform that stimulated such rigorous research on Internet &\; society would be seen a valuable addition to the publi cation landscape. Furthermore\, participants criticized the lack of a foru m that addresses methodological issues\, for instance. A low threshold for understanding multidisciplinary research in the field is missing.\nA high ly relevant question with regard to a possible involvement in Internet &am p\; society debates is that of the targeted community. Meeting participant s voiced the desire to target both academic and wider audiences. Others ra ised the concern that bridging the divide of being a public intellectual a nd an academic scholar may easily fail a publication. Perhaps the NoC migh t therefore focus more on providing a public-facing publication outlet. Th is might provide an opportunity to explore more innovative formats aimed s pecifically at an online audience\, involving collaborative writing\, for instance. A blog aggregator might also be feasible. Key questions would be what would make a new publication format unique and different? What could an innovative business model for an open access journal look like? Perhap s the goal would be not to form a new journal\, but to form strategic syne rgies and plan to publicize purposefully in already-existing publications. \nAs a practical contribution to the discussions around publication in the field of Internet &\; society\, editor Frédéric Dubois introduced th e Internet Policy Review\, an open-access journal about Internet regulatio n in Europe that has been initiated by the Alexander von Humboldt Institut e for Internet &\; Society (HIIG). The Internet Policy Review tracks pu blic regulatory changes as well as private policy developments which are e xpected to have long lasting impacts on European societies. The journal’ s online platform (policyreview.info) offers peer-reviewed short-form pape rs and essays\, as well as news and commentary on Internet governance aime d at academics\, civil society advocates\, entrepreneurs\, the media and p ublic policy makers alike. The presentation sought to give a brief introdu ction and outline of activities for 2014 before highlighting existing coll aborations with researchers of the NoC and outlining opportunities to come .\nAs a publication outlet\, the Internet Policy Review faces many of the questions addressed above. Hybridity is its defining aspect\, it being bot h academic and public-facing\, with scholarly and popular accessibility pr esented side-by-side. As such\, it has a blog-aspect and is trying to matc h the speed of Internet-related developments with a review process. Going into an opinion and commentary direction\, it is not an established journa l but rather a place where preliminary research can be showcased with appr eciated peer review. Its thematic focus is currently European policy-orien ted\, with contributions also from other NoC centers. The Internet Policy Review team is currently exploring collaborations with journalists on news \, and has found the combination of journalistic news and academic approac h successful. Going forward\, the IPR team is reflecting on where it may l and within the Internet &\; society landscape\, thus not only looking f or collaborating with NoC participants interested in contributing to the I PR\, but also eager to contribute to the discussion around NoC publication activity in the future.\nIn conclusion\, meeting participants agreed to f ollow up on the idea of a blog aggregator\, and to establish a working gro up strategically working on the idea of a novel publication forward. It wa s therefore decided to set up a mailing list (publications@networkofcenter s.org) for operators of publication outlets at an operational level. All i nterested NoC participants are welcome to propose people who should be on this mailing list\, via which we hope that the conversation around publica tions within the NoC context may evolve over the coming months.\n\nSession 2: Online Intermediaries\nNoC Joint Research Project on Online Intermedia ries - Current Status and Possibilities for Collaboration\nUrs Gasser and Wolfgang Schulz\nBuilding on previous conversations at NoC regional events \, Urs Gasser of the Berkman Center for Internet &\; Society at Harvard University\, and Wolfgang Schulz of the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) gave an update on the current status of th e first NoC joint research project on online intermediaries: Intermediarie s in various forms – meta media such as search engines as well as user g enerated platforms\, app stores and microblogs – play an essential role in opening up the potential of the Internet and capitalizing on its genera tivity. At the same time\, intermediaries are increasingly powerful instit utions that shape the public networked sphere and sometimes develop signif icant market power. Pursuing a variety of objectives\, governments around the world have developed legal regimes aimed at governing online intermedi aries\, often using liability mechanisms as the means of regulation.\nPrev ious conversations amongst NoC participants showed steady progress of the intermediaries discussion\, resulting in (1) a concerted research effort a round the question of how different liability regimes might best be mapped \, what practices can be used going forward\, and which methodology might be applicable to case studies\; (2) a plan to explore liability and respon sibility of online intermediaries from a regional perspective\, focusing o n Brazil\, India\, Vietnam and Turkey\, for instance\; (3) an effort of lo oking into the regulation of online intermediaries.\nIssues addressed in o utlining this joint research project included determining the appropriate level of detail of the underlying methodological questions. In order to ma ke results comparable to an appropriate extent\, Urs Gasser and Wolfgang S chulz outlined a set of guiding questions. In addition to country studies – i.e. for Brazil and India – a selection of case studies\, focusing e .g. on eBay in Turkey and social media providers in Vietnam\, will deliver deep dives. The latter promise to deliver highly interesting results with regard to the impact of responsibility and liability regimes on business models. It is hoped that overall and moving forward\, this research projec t will be a truly collaborative effort leading to a repository on intermed iary-related issues. An ambitious white paper of policy recommendations an d use case examples will ideally form the result of this collaborative eff ort. Next conversation will happen in April 2014\, where case study author s will discuss their work in a NoC working meeting.\nThe Internet &\; J urisdiction Project Database\, introduced by Paul Fehlinger\, could potent ially contribute to an overview over existing jurisdictions by collecting case studies using a social sciences approach. Within the Internet &\; Jurisdiction project database\, over 800 cases\, many of which focus on in termediary liability\, have been collected since 2012. A crowd-based filte r is being used to identify the top 20 cases of the previous month\, for i nstance. Thus\, the project aims to provide a global overview on Internet &\; Jurisdiction. In order to further explore possibilities for collabo ration 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 f irm in Turkey\, further elaborated on the deep dive case study approach of the joint research project by outlining their case study on eBay and Turk ey. Within the last 10 years\, the ICT sector has become one of the flagsh ip industries in Turkey. However\, the Turkish legal system – which has been mostly transposed from Germany and Switzerland – sees highly excess ive demands from the Turkish government to get user information from inter mediaries on all kinds of interaction. eBay has entered the Turkish market 2\,5 years ago. Given that Turkey has no clear regulation for online inte rmediaries\, the Turkish government has been demanding user information al so from eBay. Online intermediaries are deemed hosting providers not liabl e for the content on the platform\, but if they are notified about questio nable content\, they must remove it. The case study on Turkey and ebay pro mises highly interesting results with regard to the effect of unclear liab ility regimes on business innovation.\n\nPresentation: Intermediary Liabil ity and Privacy Protection\nJef Ausloos and Aleksandra Kuczerawy\nThe disc ussion around online intermediaries was further elaborated by a presentati on by Jef Ausloos and Aleksandra Kuczerawy of KU Leuven. The slides to thi s presentation may be found here. Current research on intermediary liabili ty covers a variety of issues. The growing role of intermediaries has led European policy makers to take a horizontal approach\, exonerating interme diaries (under certain conditions)\, regardless of the nature of potential accusations. It might therefore seem surprising to see that the eCommerce Directive specifically states that its liability exemptions do not apply in a data protection context (art. 1(5)(b)). Unlike other issues (such as copyright or freedom of expression)\, the interaction between privacy/data protection and intermediary liability has not been thoroughly investigate d yet. Many factors have contributed to the growing relevance of Internet intermediaries as ‘Information Gatekeepers’ and shortcuts to the prote ction of privacy and personal data. It has been demonstrated that – in p ractice – it is often very hard for an individual to identify the origin al uploader/publisher that is responsible for a privacy/data protection ha rm (whether related to defamatory\, sensitive or other personal informatio n). Trends in copyright enforcement over the past decade have demonstrated the appeal of intermediaries as large\, centralized points of control thr ough which redress can be sought (e.g. takedown or access restriction). Li ttle research has been done\, however\, on the role of these intermediarie s in a privacy and data protection context. Many important questions\, suc h as under what circumstances they can(not) be held liable for taking acti ons with regard to personal data\, still remain unanswered. The inherent c ross-border nature of these issues\, as well as the presence of – often widely diverging – approaches to privacy and data protection in differen t jurisdictions\, also highlights the importance for more globally coordin ated/oriented research.\nCiting a concrete example\, the Google vs. Spain case (a paper by Jef and Aleksandra is available here) set the stage\, and was used to demonstrate the interaction between data protection\, freedom of expression\, and intermediary liability. Intermediaries do not need to monitor content\, but they do exert a certain level of care\, for instanc e in the case of child pornography. This again raises definitional issues in a transnational context: what is qualified as child pornography in one country may be considered harmless in other jurisdictions. Key questions w ithin the Google vs. Spain case concern online reputation management throu gh intermediaries\; the distinction between the activities of intermediari es and those of original publishers\; and the relationship\, in a European context\, between the eCommerce and Data Protection Directives. Is there a right to erasure\, and if yes\, where are the boundaries to the protecti on of freedom of expression? Where are the intermediary liability exemptio ns? The regulatory framework in the EU is complicated as the eCommerce Dir ective pursues a horizontal approach at the same time as exempting anythin g that is dealt with in the Data Protection Directive. Anything not under such an exemption is implementable by the particular country. As policy-ma kers are not always on the same line\, this creates confusion with regard to the relationship between these two directives. The implementation of no tice and take-down safeguards is not the same across Europe\, for instance . Intermediaries tend to have no incentives to keep content up. Should the law provide for such incentive?\nNoC participants pointed to the function s-based role of regulation that only becomes content based when the interm ediary itself provides content. These are the cases where regulations over lap\, and where conflicts arise. This argument was mentioned to underline concern about the future of function-based regulation. Subsequently\, the question was raised where intermediaries become so involved with their con tent that they have responsibilities. On the other hand\, intermediaries s hould not only be considered at the applications level\, but also from an infrastructure perspective. What\, for instance\, about prioritizing certa in data? Which role does software-defined decision-making play in this deb ate? Citing the system of torts in Latin America as an example\, participa nts referred to an evolvement in legal debate. One key argument exempting ISP’s from liability is referring to the content in question having been uploaded by a third party. Judges have now started arguing that the third -party liability argument does not hold because other intermediaries have removed similar content in the past.\nThe lack of any empirical foundation for making policy recommendations was mentioned as a key challenge to be addressed by the NoC. The hope was expressed that the first joint research project on online intermediaries might contribute to a foundational layer \, helping to make informed decisions.  This was said to be all the more relevant because data protection cases often-times do not go to court. Goi ng forward\, attention should address not only problems regarding intermed iaries\, but also the ecosystem being created around them. If Google imple ments an algorithm to automatically take down child pornography content\, for instance\, why should this approach not be taken by other intermediari es?\n\nSession 3: Internet Governance\nProject Idea and Proposal: Multista keholder Models for Internet Governance\nUrs Gasser &\; Dana Walters\nT his third discussion of the day focused on Internet governance. Urs Gasser and Dana Walters of the Berkman Center for Internet &\; Society at Har vard University proposed a project idea on multistakeholder models for Int ernet governance\, based on the recognition in the Internet community that more needs to be done to address Internet governance\, and the creation o f a multistakeholder body\, which would not replace ICANN or the Americans \, but give voice to and address the concerns of the developing world. NoC participants discussed what could be a meaningful contribution of the NoC to the current debate about multistakeholder models for Internet governan ce. Should the NoC be involved in Internet governance discussions or not? What could be different modes of engagement?\nIn exploring the need for an involvement of the NoC in Internet governance debates\, participants crit icized a lack of substantial debate around Internet governance in currentl y established forums. Whereas some participants stressed the wish to be in volved in academic debates\, they would prefer to do so in an academic\, n ot a political space. Here\, the NoC might potentially close a significant gap.\nA concrete opportunity to get involved is posed by the multistakeho lder governance forum that will take place in Sao Paolo in April 2014. It might be possible for the NoC to utilize different low-level channels to p rovide analysis without over-exerting ourselves. The time might be right n ot to come up with analysis or a set of suggestions\, but to condense repo rts. A possible contribution could be i.e. a document of etiquette that se ts 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 discussion. The Red Cross was cited as an interesting potential model for ICANN. Participants suggested looking at the Red Cross model as well as other models in order to evaluate different forms of governance. Indeed\, participants agreed t hat efforts towards identifying benchmarks should be undertaken.\nIn explo ring different models\, participants suggested building up on previous dis cussions\, e.g. undertaken in the context of the World Summit on Informati on Society in 2004-2005. The 2005 report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) provided\, a definition (the first) of Internet governan ce\, proposed to establish the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\, and\, und er the header “global public policy and oversight” (starting on p. 23) \, spelled out and listed different models for more legitimate Internet go vernance.\nIn conclusion\, participants agreed that the NoC should get inv olved in the exploration of new multistakeholder Internet governance model s. As a concrete next step\, the NoC will consider organizing a side-event to the upcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Sao Paolo\, Brazil\, in April 2014.\n\nPresentation: Govern ance Applied to the Digital Environment\n- Elements of Direction\, Control \, and Power over Collective Processes Online\nMayo Fuster Morell\nA prese ntation by Mayo Fuster Morell\, Director of the Commons Research Program ( igopnet.cc) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona\, on “what is mean t by governance when applied to the digital environment?” formed the con clusion of the day: Previous analysis and research of the governance of co llective action in the digital environment has been based on analyzing spe cific governance aspects. However\, the literature on the subject is lacki ng a comprehensive and holistic view of what governance means when applied to collective action online. The presentation provided a set of dimension s that define the governance of collective action online. The analysis use d builds upon the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework f or the study of the governance of natural commons developed by Elinor Ostr om school\, by providing an adaptation of the IAD framework to the study o f digital commons. The empirical analysis to illustrate the presentation r eferred to the specific case of common-based peer production of collaborat ive communities online (communities of individuals that mainly interact vi a a platform of online participation\, with the goal of building and shari ng a common-pool resource). The empirical data was drawn from a statistica l analysis of 50 cases and a four case study-comparison of governance mode ls (Wikipedia\, Flickr\, Wikihow\, and Openesf).\nThe presentation\, which is accessible online\, entailed a call to NoC participants to engage in a collaborative effort to develop a common holistic framework of analysis o f the governance of collective action in the digital environment. The effo rt\, which will be supported by an FP7 European Research Grant\, will invo lve the statistical analysis of 300 case studies\, as well as a case study comparison. More information about the project may be found on www.p2pval ue.eu. Interested parties are invited to contact Mayo Fuster Morell direct ly (mayo.fuster@eui.eu).\n\nConference Venue\nHumboldt Universität zu Be rlin\nRoom E25\nUnter den Linden 9\, 10117 Berlin\nGermany CATEGORIES:Netzwerken LOCATION:Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin | Room E25\, Unter den Linden 9 \ , Berlin\, 10117\, Deutschland X-APPLE-STRUCTURED-LOCATION;VALUE=URI;X-ADDRESS= Unter den Linden 9 \, Berl in\, 10117\, Deutschland;X-APPLE-RADIUS=100;X-TITLE=Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin | 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