The Internet community is left mostly to its own devices when it
comes to regulation as it is a relatively new medium
For such a commercially significant medium, the Internet is
surprisingly chaotic. Compared to most industries, regulation of
the Internet is minimal. The main reasons for such a lack of
regulation is the need for growth and the immaturity of the medium
- the Internet has only been commercially important for the past
five years. The US government, for example, opposed the imposition
of taxes for online business on the grounds that it would stifle
the growth that e-commerce needs at this early stage.
Nevertheless, there are some organisations that do contribute to
standardising the Internet and protecting users from those people
that try to misuse it. One of the most important issues for the
Internet community is to support diversity while at the same time
ensuring that the underlying technology is standardised enough to
present a universally available experience.
There are two main parties responsible for standardisation:
- The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is responsible for
working on some of the underlying communications technologies used
on the Internet. For example, it has been working on quality of
service standards that will enable data, such as voice and video,
to be delivered more reliably.
- The World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C) handles the software side
of things. The group is responsible for ratifying and maintaining
the XML standard and associated technology definitions, for
example. W3C, which was set up in 1994, was responsible for
defining HTML, the basic language in which Web pages are
written.
While the consortium is also interested in exploring legal and
commercial issues raised by the Internet, it stops short of
defining legal standards or governing the type of content that can
be displayed. Nevertheless, it has been active in producing
technologies that help content providers regulate their own
sites.
Content checks
The Platform for Internet Content Selection (Pics) content was
designed as a label management system, enabling content providers
to clearly describe the nature of their sites, including a rating
for adult content. This approach relies on the self-regulation, as
opposed to governmental intervention.
Similarly, the Internet Watch Foundation was set up in 1996 as
an industry-funded body to address the problem of illegal material
on the Internet. It uses a mixture of techniques to control such
content in the UK, including a hotline to report criminal content,
support for international rating and filtering developments, and
general educational activities to inform Internet users about the
potential dangers.
Governments have tried to get involved in these issues. In
October, the UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act became law.
This can force Internet service providers to monitor the data that
passes through their servers. This will enable authorities to find
out who is downloading criminal content from the Internet.
In the US, the government has attempted to intervene in various
ways, initially trying to pass the Communications Decency Act, and
then passing the Child Online Protection Act, which makes it
illegal to provide harmful material to minors.
While governments and industry bodies alike try to keep the
Internet clean, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (Icann) is busy regulating the ownership of domain names on
the Internet.
As the commercial importance of the Internet has grown, cyber
squatters have capitalised on domain names by registering other
companies' names on the Net and then offering the URLs for sale.
Icann was set up as a non-profit organisation to handle the
administration of top-level domain names and dispute resolution
policies. It has based its policy on the research of the World
Intellectual Property Organisation (Wipo). You can check out the
policy at www.icann.org.
Domain name disputes are a serious issue for many companies,
especially given the rise of parody Web sites, which mimic existing
URLs but carry negative connotations. Enter www.intelsucks.com into
your browser for an example of a site that has appropriated the URL
for its own ends.
Of course, domain names are not the only intellectual property
on the Internet. Regulation of digital content, such as music, text
and images, is becoming big business. Once again, the industry
seems to be taking such issues into its own hands, producing
standards for digital rights management. But Wipo has released two
treaties containing rules that bring its existing international
copyright guidelines into the Internet age. These are the Wipo
Copyright Treaty and the Wipo Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
Nevertheless, much intellectual property law has yet to be tested
on the Internet - take the lawsuit between the Recording Industry
Association of America and Napster.
It is clear, in spite of government intervention to stop
criminal activity on the Internet, the e-commerce community is left
to its own devices when it comes to industry regulation. The
Internet is a clear example of a capitalist medium, in which
individuals take advantage of existing opportunities, and are
encouraged to create new ones by developing new business models.
The hands-off approach of most governments in the free world to the
Internet will be condemned and praised, but it is unlikely to
change.
Spam spoils the show
Spam is one of the biggest barriers to e-commerce on the
Internet. Sending unsolicited e-mail for commercial gain is a cause
of huge irritation among Internet users who might otherwise be
willing to buy products online. The US Congress recently passed
anti-spam legislation in the form of the Unsolicited Electronic
Mail Act. It imposes a legal requirement for an accurate return
address on spam mail, and also makes it illegal to continue sending
mail to someone who has asked to be removed from a distribution
list. How such an Act will be policed is open to question.
In the European Union, member states must implement the
E-commerce Directive by January 2002. This defines the use of
"opt-out" lists, meaning that e-mail users have to explicitly tell
an appointed list administrator that they do not want to be sent
unsolicited commercial e-mail. Spammers must then respect the
list.
Many groups, such as the not-for-profit anti-spam organisation
EuroCAUCE, have been vying for an "opt-in" list, where spammers can
only send e-mail to people who have specifically asked for it. In
July, a proposal was submitted to replace an existing directive,
97/66/EC. The proposal would extend the anti-spam rules to include
an opt-in system.