Institutional variety in communications regulation. Classification scheme and empirical evidence from Austria

<i>Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies</i> on the Internet? Self-Regulation as a Threat and a Promise

“…Coordination within XRO/policy network X [66] Effectiveness limited by bypass X [15], [35] A diversity of approaches to service delivery poses challenge for efficient regulation X [84] Financial basis, corporate form (impact on level of activity, targeting) X X [78] Simplicity of goals, specificity of means X X [52] Full range of costs, distributional impacts, administrative requirements (not just costs) X X [67] Flow, quality and management of information X X X [52] Credibility of standards enhanced by expertise X [50] Credibility of standards enhanced by public/private enforcement X [50] Transparency of framework (impact on businesses lacking regulatory certainty) X [8] Do business activities cross jurisdictions? X [8] Are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) affected (access to regulatory expertise, voice in XRO, regulatory uncertainty) X [8] Impact of others' compliance on stakeholders X [1] Compliance cost X [1] Public access to XRO (compliance) information X X [51], [25] Credibility of rules, actions, public information X X [43] Scope for regulatory innovation by XRO X X [52] Risk of capture of/by XRO X X [15], [59] Discretion allowed to members (functional standards, 'orequivalent' compliance, etc.) X X [52] Scope for 'earned autonomy' X X X [52] Sustainability risk of 'free-riding' and opportunism (ease of entry/exit) -examine participation X X [54] Reputation payoffs to the XRO as a whole compared to those for individual members?…”

“…X [8] Are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) affected (access to regulatory expertise, voice in XRO, regulatory uncertainty) X [8] Impact of others' compliance on stakeholders X [1] Compliance cost X [1] Public access to XRO (compliance) information X X [51], [25] Credibility of rules, actions, public information X X [43] Scope for regulatory innovation by XRO X X [52] Risk of capture of/by XRO X X [15], [59] Discretion allowed to members (functional standards, 'orequivalent' compliance, etc.) X X [52] Scope for 'earned autonomy' X X X [52] Sustainability risk of 'free-riding' and opportunism (ease of entry/exit) -examine participation X X [54] Reputation payoffs to the XRO as a whole compared to those for individual members? X X [72] Integrated IA vs. specific types (business burdens, competition effects); risk to coherence, quality, consistency in Better Regulation Agenda X [48], [75], [1] Ongoing audit of IAs X [28] RIA advisory role of EC X [28] Credibility of data (used as bargaining chip?)…”

“…X [87] Extend quantitative techniques as far as possible using 'hard' and 'soft' data, multiple sources, econometric analysis, etc. X [87], [48] Centralisation or decentralisation of RIAs X [46] Use case studies to build understanding, balance internal and external validity; guidelines for use X [56] Include policy and delivery risk in screening XRO options (inconsistency in literature whether risk argues for or against); examine likelihood, incidence, voice of affected parties, power to change X [25], [11], [7], [17] Consider sustainability of XRO in terms of voluntary association, agenda creep X [66], [10] Creative destruction ('sunsets', withdrawal, risk of institutionalisation) X [52] …”

“…Evaluations of XROs were limited to those that we class as co-regulatory, notably the entire German system for Internet co-regulation evaluated by Hans Bredow Institut and partners, NICAM's ongoing evaluation 52 , the UK system for media self-regulation by Latzer, Price and Verhulst for Ofcom 53 , and the OneWorldTrust evaluation of ICANN. We also note the continued reflection on video co-regulation undertaken in connection with the future implementation of the Audio-Visual Media Services Directive, although this was only considered directly relevant to ATVOD.…”

“…X X [16] Conditions for XROs (checklists) X [9], [67], [68], [82], [11], [7] Screen: market fragmentation (difference in literature as to pro/con) X [9], [25], [17] Screen: fast-moving environment (flexibility as effectiveness, impact, sustainability criterion) X X X X [25], [7], [17] Involvement, need for specific expertise X X X [25], [50], [7], [17] Screen: wide range of stakeholders X X [25], [7], [17] Establish geographic reach of issue, map existing policy network and stakeholders X [66] Tension between decentralisation and broad participation X [15] Compared to Directives, global standards more compatible with regulatory autonomy X [50] Independent advisory/research capability? X [69] Wide consumer participation X X X X [44] Use form of existing XRO as indicator of future objectives, performance, impacts X X X X [52] Need for transnational agreement: are the XROs already transnational in scope? X X X X [76] Bargaining within XRO, with government X X [51], [39], [69], [70] Placement of liability for outcomes within XRO X X [32] Are there strong informational asymmetries between XRO members and regulators?…”