Subscribe: Center for Internet and Society - infrastructure
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/744/feed
Preview: Center for Internet and Society - infrastructure

Center for Internet and Society - infrastructure





 



The Internet Ecosystem & ICANN

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:34:29 +0000

April 29, 2013 12:50 pm to 2:00 pm CIS Brown Bag Lunch with Steve Sheng The Internet Ecosystem is made up of a number of organizations and processes that shape the coordination and management of the global Internet and enable its overall functioning. These organizations include: technology and engineering organizations, network operators, resource management organizations, users, educators and policy-makers. These organizations have demonstrated, established roles in administering the Internet’s technical infrastructure. These technologies, resources and services are all highly interdependent and require a significant amount of coordination. That coordination has allowed the growth and stability of the Internet. As one of these organizations, ICANN is responsible for the protocols and standards that ensure basic communications and for the resources that direct those communications around the Internet as well as a coordination role of the Internet’s Naming system. In this talk, Steve Sheng will discuss ICANN's role, remit, recent initiatives, and current hot issues. Steve Sheng is a technology policy researcher at Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and a Non-Residential Fellow at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. Steve has done research on a variety of issues at the intersection of technology and policy. His current research focuses on a range of technical and policy topics related to the Internet’s Identifier system. Steve holds a PhD in Engineering & Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon where he studied online security as a member of the Cylab Usable Privacy and Security (CUPS) research laboratory. His findings have been featured in media outlets such as the Associated Press, Ars Technica, and Network World. The software artifacts Steve designed protect Internet users world wide from phishing and other social engineering attacks. Location:  Stanford Law School, Room 230 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA See map: Google Maps Focus Area: Architecture and Public PolicyPrivacyPeople: Steve ShengRelated Terms: icanninfrastructure[...]



Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources - Brett Frischmann (Audio)

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:04:31 +0000

Download audio from iTunes or download mp3 directly from CIS.
Watch video from the Infrastructure talk.

(image)

Brett Frischmann discussed the social value of shared infrastructures— including roads, our natural environment, and the Internet—and he explained why we can no longer afford to take these resources for granted.

Frischmann's book is a major contribution to many ongoing public policy debates. It has received strong reviews from experts in many different fields, including leading economists, political scientists and legal scholars. According to the late Elinor Ostrom, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, Frischmann's "extraordinary book" provides "essential guidance for the analysis of diverse types of infrastructure resources and how policies affect the effectiveness, efficiency, fairness, and sustainability of outcomes." Edella Schlager's review in Science magazine argues that "With its many fresh ideas, Infrastructure itself is likely to generate social value through additional research and the creation of innovative policies."
 
Brett M. Frischmann is Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, where he teaches intellectual property and Internet law. He is currently the Director of Cardozo's IP and Information Law Program and is an Affiliate Scholar of the Center for Internet and Society.
 



Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources - Brett Frischmann (Video)

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:56:05 +0000

allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ASnvCWlGZaI" width="640">

Download audio from Infrastructure talk.

Brett Frischmann discussed the social value of shared infrastructures— including roads, our natural environment, and the Internet—and he explained why we can no longer afford to take these resources for granted.

Frischmann's book is a major contribution to many ongoing public policy debates. It has received strong reviews from experts in many different fields, including leading economists, political scientists and legal scholars. According to the late Elinor Ostrom, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, Frischmann's "extraordinary book" provides "essential guidance for the analysis of diverse types of infrastructure resources and how policies affect the effectiveness, efficiency, fairness, and sustainability of outcomes." Edella Schlager's review in Science magazine argues that "With its many fresh ideas, Infrastructure itself is likely to generate social value through additional research and the creation of innovative policies."
 
Brett M. Frischmann is Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, where he teaches intellectual property and Internet law. He is currently the Director of Cardozo's IP and Information Law Program and is an Affiliate Scholar of the Center for Internet and Society.
 



One more principle: Nondiscrimination

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:22:33 +0000

This is my second post over at Concurring Opinions for the symposium on Marvin Ammori’s Free Speech Architecture article.

There is one principle that I would add to the five principles that Marvin examines in the article:  nondiscrimination.  It seems to me that across public and private, physical and virtual ”space” contexts (and judicial opinions), one persistent principle is that nondiscriminatory approaches to sustaining spaces, platforms, … infrastructures are presumptively legit and normatively attractive — whether government efforts to “sustain” involve public provisioning, subsidization or regulation.

I recognize that this might seem to tread too close to the negative liberty / anti-censorship model, but in my view, it helps connect the anti-censorship model with the pro-architecture model.  We should worry when government micro-manages speech and chooses winners and losers, but macro-managing/structuring the speech environment is unavoidable.  A nondiscrimination principle guides the latter (macro-management) to avoid the former (micro-management).

This sixth principle is implicit is the other five that Marvin discusses.  It’s not articulated as a stand-alone principle, uniform across situations, or even defined completely.  Nonetheless, nondiscrimination of *some* sort is part of the spatial analysis for each principle. For example, in the paper, when Marvin discusses designated public spaces, he says that government can designate spaces–so long as it does so in a nondiscriminatory way. The nondiscrimination principle here is limited: government cannot discriminate based on the limited notion of “content.”  Another example is limited public forums where government cannot discriminate on viewpoint, but can set aside a forum for particular speakers based on the expected content (say students / educational content).  There are other examples that Marvin explores in the paper.  In my view, there is something fundamental about nondiscrimnation and the functional role that it plays that warrants further attention.

Frankly, the idea of a nondiscrimination principle connects with my own ideas about the First Amendment being aimed at sustaining infrastructure commons and the many different types of spillovers from speech–or more broadly, sustaining a spillover-rich cultural environment;  I explored those ideas in an essay and I expand on them in the book.   It is important to make clear that government support for infrastructure commons — whether by direct provisioning or by common carrier style regulation — lessens pressure on both governments and markets to pick winners and losers in the speech marketplace/environment, and as Marvin argues, that is something that is and ought to be fundamental or core in any FA model.

Also, cross-posted at madisonian.net.

Related Topics: 



Thoughts on Ammori's Free Speech Architecture and the Golan decision

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:05:00 +0000

This post is cross-posted at Concurring Opinions, which is having a blog symposium on Marvin Ammori's excellent article on First Amendment Architecture. Next week, the Stanford Technology Law Review is holding its “First Amendment Challenges in the Digital Age” conference and one of the panels also will center on the piece. So it is getting a lot of attention! ... Thank you to Marvin for an excellent article to read and discuss, and thank you Concurring Opinions for providing a public forum for our discussion. In the article, the critical approach that Marvin takes to challenge the “standard” model of the First Amendment is really interesting. He claims that the standard model of the First Amendment focuses on preserving speakers' freedom by restricting government action and leaves any affirmative obligations for government to sustain open public spaces to a patchwork of exceptions lacking any coherent theory or principles. A significant consequence of this model is that open public spaces for speech—I want to substitute “infrastructure” for “spaces”--are marginalized and taken for granted. My forthcoming book—Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources--explains why such marginalization occurs in this and various other contexts and develops a theory to support the exceptions. But I'll leave those thoughts aside for now and perhaps explore them in another post. And I'll leave it to the First Amendment scholars to debate Marvin's claim about what is the standard model for the First Amendment. Instead, I would like to point out how a similar (maybe the same) problem can be seen in the Supreme Court's most recent copyright opinion. In Golan v. Holder , Justice Ginsburg marginalizes the public domain in a startlingly fashion. Since it is a copyright case, the "model" is flipped around: government is empowered to grant exclusive rights (and restrict some speakers' freedom) and any restrictions on the government's power to do so is limited to narrow exceptions, i.e., the idea-expression distinction and fair use. A central argument in the case was that the public domain itself is another restriction. The public domain is not expressly mentioned in the IP Clause of the Constitution, but arguably, it is implicit throughout (Progress in Science and the Useful Arts, Limited Times). Besides, the public domain is inescapably part of the reality that we stand on the shoulders of generations of giants. Most copyright scholars believed that Congress could not grant copyright to works in the public domain (and probably thought that the issue raised in the case – involving restoration for foreign works that had not been granted copyright protection in the U.S -- presented an exceptional situation that might be dealt with as such). But the Court declined to rule narrowly and firmly rejected the argument that “the Constitution renders the public domain largely untouchable by Congress.” In the end, Congress appears to have incredibly broad latitude to exercise its power, limited only by the need to preserve the “traditional contours.” Of course, it is much more troublesome that the Supreme Court (rather than scholars interpreting Supreme Court cases) has adopted a flawed conceptual model that marginalizes basic public infrastructure. We're stuck with it. Focus Areas: Architecture and Public PolicyCopyright and Fair UseRelated Topics: infrastructureIntellectual PropertyFree Speech[...]