Options for and Effectiveness of Internet Self- and Co-Regulation Phase 2: Case Study Report
Prepared for European Commission DG Information Society & Media
362 Pages Posted: 13 Oct 2008 Last revised: 23 Dec 2013
Date Written: January 15, 2008
This Phase 2 Report is a deliverable element of the study being conducted by a team led by RAND Europe into 'Options for and Effectiveness of Internet Self- and Co-Regulation'. The main objective of the study is to assist the Commission in development of a coherent and effective approach to future self- and co-regulation initiatives in the Information Society beyond 2007. In this report, we detail the Phase 2 work.
In Phase 2, we assess 21 case studies, and in our further analysis in Phase 3 we will synthesise these findings with other approaches designed to provide gap analysis and reveal emerging and developing areas of regulatory concern. In Phase 1 we mapped existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory institutions, against a series of case studies and other approaches designed to reveal emerging and developing areas of regulatory concern. There is substantial state of the art in this area and our aim was limited to reviewing, updating and amending where necessary this 'state of the art'.
This report consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 explains the choice of specific SROs for the Phase 2 focussed evaluations, and the methodology we adopt (as in the Inception Report). We set the examples against a common set of criteria, and selected and tabulated against these criteria. The substantive Chapters 2-5 contain case studies arranged by four categories: infrastructure and critical resources (Chapter 2); issues affecting content rating (Chapter 3), Internet filtering and reporting of illegal content (Chapter 4); issues that are emerging (Chapter 5). This provides the basis for examination of standards, infrastructure, ISP self-regulation, mass media content, and user-derived content. It also provides the framework to examine personal Internet security, DRM and e-commerce standards. Finally, Chapter 6 details the comparative analysis across case studies, in order to develop patterns, especially with regard to the dynamic evolution of case studies identified in the study period June-September 2007. Further gap analysis bridges the Phase 1 mapping exercise, and Phase 2 detailed examination of a representative and strategically chosen universe of case studies, is to identify the continually emerging environment for new topics and/or sectoral areas of regulatory and/or legislative interest. This concise gap analysis provides the background for the final report explanation of potential areas for further research. In the final section, we detail the work to be undertaken subsequently to complete the study. Appendix 1 details the schedule of interviews and other discussions conducted with stakeholders and experts. Appendix 2 details web survey responses.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation