The Internet and Public–Private Governance in the European Union

Abstract

The EU plays a significant role in public policy aspects of Internet governance, having created in the late s the dot eu Internet Top Level Domain (TLD). This enables users to register names under a European online address label. This paper explores key public policy issues in the emergent governance system for dot eu, because it provides an interesting case of new European transnational private governance. Specifically, dot eu governance is a reconciliation resulting from a governance cultural clash between the European regulatory state and what can be described broadly as the Internet community. The EU has customised the governance of dot eu towards a public-private dispersed agencification model. The paper extends the evidence base on agencification within trans-European regulatory networks and the emergence of private transnational network governance characterised by self-regulation.

New Governance, the Internet, and Country Code Top‐Level Domains in Europe

“…Unlike the case of its sister gTLDs, the “territorial” nature of ccTLDs has led the state and its representatives in ccTLD governance to attempt to assert perceived interests at the global level, with often disharmonious consequences. Some evidence of this kind of approach has already been found in TLD governance at the EU institutional level (see Christou and Simpson 2006), although this article suggests the phenomenon to be much more widespread across Europe.…”

An Analysis of Internet Deployment and Governance

“…Example interventions include Oftel's directives forcing BT to introduce Flat Rate Internet Access Call Origination (FRIAC), to implement local loop unbundling or the release and pricing of wholesale datastream products. On a European level the telecommunication industry has been transformed from predominantly uncompetitive state monopolies governed by a detailed (and rather restrictive) framework of regulations into a competitive market (Christou, 2006). The European Commission is largely responsible for the related legislation and the promotion the recent liberal, multi-layer approach to governance of the telecommunication market and industry (Christou, 2006;Sandholz, 1998).…”

“…On a European level the telecommunication industry has been transformed from predominantly uncompetitive state monopolies governed by a detailed (and rather restrictive) framework of regulations into a competitive market (Christou, 2006). The European Commission is largely responsible for the related legislation and the promotion the recent liberal, multi-layer approach to governance of the telecommunication market and industry (Christou, 2006;Sandholz, 1998). These examples suggest that regulatory intervention is required to address the market position (and its impact upon competition) of major telecommunication players.…”

Regulating the Internet in the Interests of Children: Emerging European and International Approaches

“…While the US favors a mix of legislation and self-regulation (Montgomery 2007) and Europe favors co-regulation (or what Christou and Simpson (2006) term 'public-private transnational governance'), the UK prefers a strategy of self-regulation (Tambini et al 2008). Held (2007: 357) defines co-regulation in terms of the following criteria, emphasizing the vital role of the state in ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of regulatory bodies:…”