The limits of co-regulation: tax avoidance and Big Banks

So Boy George tries to persuade banks to take a bath - and they essentially told him to get lost (except 4 that he owns). Now he must have come back with some bribes because 15 of them are playing ball: "Osborne is stepping back from plans, initiated by the Labour government, to demand that bankers disclose how many of their employees earn more than £500,000 a year." Is this what you would call a voluntary Code of Practice? Not in my book...

Social Networking Bill of Rights?

It'll be a bit difficult in the States as Facebook is governed by contract not privacy law, but Europe offers more hope of some regulation of Mr Zuckerberg's universe.

Self- or co-regulation for UK ISPs?

Adjournment debate in Parliament - with a very interesting intervention about coding of mobile content. Minister Vaizey (yes, that one) stated: "I mentioned this during my speech on net neutrality last week-that they can manage the traffic that crosses their network in order to give their consumers a good service... It seems to me that, given that rights holders are fully aware of the websites that are distributing their content illegally, ISPs could do more in that regard."

96,000 word book finally delivered! Cambridge University Press next year

Internet co-regulation!

Chapter 1: States, the Internet and legitimacy of co-regulation 15.6

Chapter 2: Reflexive co-regulation and the Internet 11.5

Chapter 3: Self-organization and social networks 12.3

39.4

Chapter 4: Self-regulation and standards 11.8

Chapter 5: Co-regulation and medium law 13.8

Chapter 6: Privatized censorship: ISPs and co-regulation 13.5

39.1

Chapter 7: Of governance and governments: roots of all nets? 8.4

Chapter 8: Intelligent governance: the role of governments in co-regulation 9.1

17.5

96.000k

China and Google: a neo-imperialist clash of information cultures?

Interesting Chinese-American perspective on why Google just didn't work in China.

How Internet law is taught in the US

Eric Goldman's course outline and explanation is a great starting point for those interested in US law affecting the Internet.

How do stakeholders play a role in ICANN 'self-regulation'?

ICANN wants to be judged as a voluntary contributions-type charity - odd as it charges registries a compulsory charge, which surely makes its position that of having its cake and eating it. Mandatory charges mark out a sovereign regulator - which supposes an administrative law standard of care. Perhaps it would prefer those contributions to be voluntary in future??!!
To reinforce the administrative law point, Neelie Kroes has expressed 'The need for accountability in Internet governance':
"I trust that by opening a dialogue with the wider public - whether you are a private or public sector stakeholder - you will find new and better ways to reinforce your structures and decision-making processes. The same applies for the Internet Governance Forum : this multi-stakeholder approach has proved successful ; it must continue and evolve to serve the purposes of the Tunis Agenda... when freedom of speech and human rights on the internet are at stake, it is not just public authorities that have a role to play... We need rules that make the decisions accountable, transparent and efficient; and that guarantee a mutual respect for the common good. Nowadays, how could any organisation with global responsibilities not be accountable to all of us? In this respect, just like the EU welcomed the openings made in the Affirmation of Commitment last year, I am hopeful that the expiry of the IANA contract next year will be turned into an opportunity for more international cooperation serving the global public interest."