A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PROCESS 20122012 IN RETROSPECT INTERNET & JURISDICTION PROJECT CASE COLLECTION VOLUME 1 I N T E R N E T & MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE JURISDICTION INTERNET & JURISDICTIONMore information PROJECT AT about OBSERVATORY the Internet & Jurisdiction Project at: www.internetjurisdiction.net 1 k eepin g trac k O f trends twitter:www.internetjurisdiction.net @IJurisdiction TO S TAY UP-TO-DATE ON THE INTERNET & JURISDICTION PROJECT AND THE LATEST TRENDS W I T H R E g A R D TO T H E TENSION BETWEEN THE CROSS-BORDER INTERNET AND NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS, SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER AT WWW.INTERNETJURISDICTION.NET A N D f OLLOW @IJURISDICTION ON TWITTER. 2012 IN RETROSPECT The Internet & Jurisdiction Project is an evidence- based global multi-stakeholder dialogue process. To inform its participants about emerging trends and high-level patterns, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project detected, curated and categorized over 420 cases around the world in a dedicated data- base between February and December 2012. They crowd-curation show the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet with its transnational online spaces and the patchwork of geographically defined national jurisdictions. spotlIghT I & J DATABASE WITH The Internet & Jurisdiction Observatory supports CATEgORIZED CASES the Internet & Jurisdiction Project team in keeping track of the latest trends around the globe. This interdisciplinary network of selected international experts crowd-ranks every month all collected crowd-ranking cases in the Internet & Jurisdiction database via a progressive filtering process. The 20 most impor- tant cases are showcased in the monthly Internet & Jurisdiction Project newsletter Retrospect with retrospect concise summaries and links to relevant back- MONTHLY NEWSLETTER WITH TOP 20 CASES ground information. The case collection ”2012 in Retrospect“ is a com- pilation of 220 selected cases. It provides a review dialogue + analysis of crucial dynamics to stimulate discussions and trigger research. Synthesis REgULAR REPORTS ON LATEST TRENDS AND INSIgHTS FACILITATION TEAM ABOUT The Internet & Jurisdiction Project facili- tates a global multi-stakeholder dialogue process to address the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and Bertrand de geographically defined national jurisdic- LA CHAPELLE tions. It provides a neutral platform for Director international organizations, states, business [email protected] and civil society to discuss the elaboration of a transnational due process framework to handle the digital coexistence of diverse national laws in shared cross-border online spaces. Since its launch in January 2012, the Paul Internet & Jurisdiction Project has involved FEHLINGER more than 80 entities in its dialogue process. Manager [email protected] INTERNET & JURISDICTION OBSERVATORY 32 selected international Experts from 26 different institutions in 13 countries are part Of the internet & jurisdiction observatory. the interdisciplinary network is composed Of respected senior Experts while leaving room for emerging talents. Séverine Robert J. Michael ARSÈNE CURRIE GEIST French Center for Research on Dalhousie University, Law & University of Ottawa, Canada Contemporary China, Hong Kong Technology Institute, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Canada @severinearsene @CdnTechLaw @mgeist Chinmayi William H. ARUN DUTTON Nicolas JONDET National Law University New University of Oxford, Delhi, Centre for Communication Oxford Internet Institute, UK University of Edinburgh, Governance, India Edinburgh Law School, UK @BiIIDutton @chinmayiarun @NicolasJondet Lilian Francis Augusto EDWARDS Matthias C. MEDEIROS KETTEMANN University of Strathclyde, Centre University of Oslo, Norwegian for Internet Law and Policy, UK University of Frankfurt/Main, Research Center for Computers Cluster of Excellence “The @lilianedwards and Law, Norway Formation of Normative Orders”, Germany @francisaugusto Giancarlo @MCKettemann FROSIO Ian Stanford University, Center BROWN Kathryn for Internet and Society, USA KLEIMAN Oxford University, @GCFrosio Oxford Internet Institute & Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Cyber Security Center, UK Heald & Hildreth PLC, USA @IanBrownOII Urs @KleimK GASSER Harvard University, Berkman Lee Wolfgang Center for Internet and Society & BYGRAVE KLEINWÄCHTER Harvard Law School, USA University of Oslo, Norwegian Department for Media and @ugasser Research Center for Computers Information Sciences, Unversity and Law, Norway of Aarhus, Denmark 4 OBSERVATORY Konstantinos Carlos Affonso Lachlan KOMAITIS PEREIRA DE SOUZA URQUHART Internet Society, Switzerland Rio de Janeiro Institute for University of Nottingham, Technology and Society & Rio de Mixed Reality Lab, UK @kkomaitis Janeiro State University, Brazil @mooseabyte @caffsouza Joanna KULESZA Joana Theresa VARON FERRAZ University of Lodz, Department SCASSA for International Law and Interna- Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Center tional Relations, Poland University of Ottawa, Canada for Technology and Society, Research Chair in Information Brazil @KuleszaJ Law, Canada @joana_varon @TeresaScassa Sarah LOGAN Rolf H. Thomas WEBER Australian National University, SCHULTZ School of International and Po- University of Zurich, Center for litical Studies, Australia Graduate Institute of Interna- Information and Communication tional and Development Studies, Law, Switzerland @circt International Law Department, Switzerland Tobias Bendert MAHLER ZEVENBERGEN Wolfgang Oxford University, Oxford University of Oslo, Norwegian SCHULZ Internet Institute, UK Research Center for Computers Humboldt Institute for and Law, Norway @benzevenbergen Internet and Society, Germany @tomahler @WWSchulz Nicolo Francesca ZINGALES Dan MUSIANI University of Tilburg, Department SVANTESSON of European and International Mines ParisTech, Center for the Bond University, Centre for Public Law, Netherlands Sociology of Innovation, France Commercial Law, Australia @TechJust @franmusiani Tatiana Nicolas TROPINA VON ZUR MÜHLEN Max Planck Institute for Foreign Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, and International Criminal Law, Germany Germany @gap_the_mind 5 CONTENT FEBRUARY 8 MARCH 12 APRIL 17 MAY 22 JUNE 27 JULY 32 AUGUST 37 SEPTEMBER 42 OCTOBER 47 NOVEMBER 52 DECEMBER 57 7 FEBRUARY 1. ACTA faces controversy 3. US Administration publishes in Europe over anti-piracy Privacy Bill of Rights white provisions paper The yet not ratified Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement1 In an effort to strengthen consumer protection in the (ACTA) between 31 states encountered significant public Internet economy, the White House published a blueprint protest2 in Europe. As a reaction, the European Parlia- for a Privacy Bill of Rights16 on February 23, 2012. The ment rapporteur3 stepped down from office and several white paper suggests seven core principles17 and foresees European countries4 suspended their ratification process. to draft industry standards in a dialogue with stakehold- The European Commission asked the European Court of ers, which are likely to effect global privacy standards of Justice5 to rule on the legality of ACTA in the EU’s jurisdic- US based Internet platforms. These would be enforceable tion. Another international trade agreement, the Trans-Pa- by the Federal Trade Commission. In order to guarantee cific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), currently negotiated6 the “international interoperability” of privacy laws across between nine countries, will equally include provisions7 different jurisdictions, the proposed framework empha- against online piracy. sizes mutual recognition, multi-stakeholder dialogue and regulation through codes of conduct, as well as cross-bor- Read further: der enforcement cooperation. Parallel to the publication European Parliament: Public ACTA Discussion8 of the blueprint, two coalitions of Internet companies an- European Commission: 10 Myths about ACTA9 nounced the introduction of a “No Track” browser button Radio Netherlands Worldwide: Loosen up copyright law, and standard privacy policies for mobile apps19. says Dutch government10 Read further: 2. Defamation trial to decide The White House: Obama Administration Unveils Blueprint whether Twitter is A publisher for a “Privacy Bill of Rights” to Protect Consumers Online20 in Australia’S jurisdiction The Washington Post: “Privacy bill of rights”: Advocacy groups, industry weigh in21 Twitter, incorporated in the US, is sued for the first The Economist: Online Privacy in America – Rights and time under Australian law for defamation11. The plaintiff Wrongs22 argues that Twitter is a publisher and therefore liable for retweets of an original tweet. The case recalls the Gutnick 4. US authorities seize foreign v. Dow Jones12 ruling of 2002, in which US based publisher .com gambling site registered Dow Jones was held liable for defamation of the Austra- lian businessman Joseph Gutnick under Australian law. in Canada via VeriSign Under US jurisdiction, Section 230 of the US Communica- After an indictment23 by prosecutors of the US state tions Decency Act guarantees online publishers immunity Maryland, the Department of Homeland Security shut of defamation charges for user-generated content. down the gambling website bodog.com, which was regis- tered with the Canadian registrar DomainClip and oper- Read further: ated by non-US citizens. The District Court of Maryland CNET: Is Twitter liable for defamation13 ordered VeriSign24, subject to US jurisdiction, to