Self-regulation: Content, Legitimacy and Efficiency - Governance and Ethics

Jacques BERLEUR*

IFIP-TC9 Chair, IFIP SIG9.2.2 Chair
CITA (Cellule Interfacultaire de Technology Assessment)
Institut d’Informatique, Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix
Namur (Belgique)
Email: jberleur@info.fundp.ac.be
URL: http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl

Summary

To speak about ethics in the context of the global information society seems today rather difficult. People prefer the term ‘governance’, and especially if it is associated with self-regulation. This paper summarises the findings of the analysis of some 40 self-regulation documents, using the same grid of analysis. The first documents are about computing and information systems in general. The following are more specialised although one can still find generic approaches. The sectoral approach gives us more precise documents.

When looking at the different actors, one may say that the presence of the authorities and of the users is rather weak and that the authors could be those being protected. As the content is concerned, many often it does not go further than a reminder of namely the illegal matters, and the enumeration of relatively superficial principles of protection. Commitments are ‘reasonable’ and self-controlled. It seems that a strong lobby of firms engaged in eCommerce is pushing the deal.

To show good will, to regret the decline of the State or to reach a more contractual approach between the different parties: Will it be satisfactory if the issue at stake is to regulate the society where we shall live, the information society, what belongs to the common good?

Keywords, Internet, Self-regulation, Governance, Regulation, Ethics, Codes, Deontology, State

 

  1. Introduction
  2. The interest for the ‘deontology of informatics’ is surely not the same in the Latin and in the Anglo-Saxon worlds but paradoxically the word is nearly ignored where the practice exists. Although the Council of Europe started its work on the subject in the late ‘70s, it ended in 1982-83. On the opposite the interest for Codes of Ethics or of Conduct has been proliferating in many Anglo-Saxon Computer Societies, as for instance the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) from 1966, the British Computer Society (BCS) from 1978, etc. The case of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) Member Societies Codes has been presented and revealed to us the predominance of the Anglo-Saxon environment.

    But it is not confined to Ethics of Computing. The interest may be suggested by the number of web sites devoted to ‘Business Ethics’, ‘Engineering Ethics’, and ‘Computer Ethics’. An international association, INSEIT (International Society for Ethics and Information Technology), has just been created, under the presidency of Deborah Johnson of the Georgia Institute of Technology (Gatech). But the same creed has spread in the OECD, and in the European Commission, where self-regulation is a word which has been adopted and is now promoted. We cannot forget the different business lobbies as led today by the Global Business Dialogue on electronic commerce (GBDe), created, in the spirit of the former European Commissioner Martin Bangemann, to increase the cooperation in the electronic commerce; we shall come back later on it.

    Self-regulation appears as a way of ‘governance’ on a continuum which has been called a ‘multi-regulation system’ by Michel Vivant when summarising the main ideas of the World Summit for the Internet regulators in Paris, (30th November - 1st December 1999). The Berkman Center for Internet and Society of the Harvard Law School reminds us, in the presentation of its project ‘Open Internet Governance’, that the word governance has appeared meaning that "users have criticised attempts by traditional governing bodies to regulate the Internet, arguing that such regulation is inconsistent with its ‘wild frontier’ philosophy and borderless geography." One remembers also the famous sentence of Lawrence Lessig, Professor of the same Harvard Law School: "We have no problem of governance in cyberspace. We have problem with governance." Self-regulation is just one of the means of this whole process of governance: others could be technical devices, standards, labelling systems, filtering techniques, etc.

    The IFIP-Special Interest Group (IFIP-SIG9.2.2), created by the IFIP General Assembly after the study of the Codes of its Member Societies has tackled this new approach. After having tried to clarify what were the main ethical issues to be carefully scrutinised, it has started to examine the meaning and the content of the concept of self-regulation, in the perspective of the ‘Internet Governance’. What we present here is not a state of the art, but a state of the progress of our current work.

  3. A tentative methodology

Our search for self-regulating documents is in a way the fruit of the hazard. It seems to be impossible to be systematic in this matter. Of course, there are well known documents such as the ‘10 commandments’ of the Computer Ethics Institute of Washington, D.C., the rules for Netiquette of Arlene Rinaldi, the codes of Internet Service providers associations, like the EuroISPA’s codes of conduct, but also documents of a rather generic type like the French proposal for an Internet Charter - Rules and Courtesies of the Actors of the Internet in France (1997). Organisations have started to collect such diverse instruments: the European Commission, the OECD,… It is not difficult to confess that this is not really a scientific approach. But it is the current status of such projects.

As we were starting a team analysis, we decided to apply to those texts a common grid of analysis, usually adopted when analysing texts of law (see figure 1). We identified the people enacting the code, as well as the people concerned (Ratione personae), the place where the code is applicable (Ratione loci), the topics which are treated (Ratione materiae), the ways of enforcement (sanctions and procedures), and finally a Miscellaneous (Alia).

‘Ratione personae’

People enacting (or ‘authors’

 
 

People concerned

 

‘Ratione loci’

   

‘Ratione materiae’ (Topics and themes)

   

Enforcement

Sanctions

 
 

Procedures

 

Miscellaneous - Alia

   

Figure 1: Grid of analysis

We also recognise that different people of our SIG9.2.2 team may have interpreted the way of applying this grid in slightly different manners, but at the same time those texts are coming from so many different origins that it could not affect seriously what could emerge from the analysis.

The classification of this kind of documents raises in itself a problem. We have made a first attempt based on the titles (charter, charta, guidelines, codes,…) or on the persons concerned (individuals, virtual communities, service providers,…), or on the geographical coverage (Chamber of Commerce,…). A more satisfactory solution has been found recently where we have distinguished the self-regulation documents for ‘Informatics in general’, on the one side, and for the Internet, on the other. In each case, we have also distinguished generic and specific documents. We follow here this new classification; but it appeared that there was no need, for the general principles, to make a distinction between the documents for Computing and for the Internet. Regarding the specific documents of IFIP, we just here summarised studies that we have published elsewhere. The classification and the URLs of the documents are given in Annex. The full analysis according to our grid of analysis (Figure 1) is also available on the web.

  1. A first analysis

3.1. General documents on Informatics and on the Internet - General principles

The titles of the general documents do reveal very much their purpose and focus on their normative character: 10 or 12 commandments (and in the case of the 10 commandments of the Computer Ethics Institute, the use of the antique form ‘Thou shalt’ which is normally reserved to worship, referring explicitly to the two tables of the Moses Law), 7 principles (CPSR) because 7 is a perfect number, 10 rules of Netiquette, Charters, Bill of rights for the citizen,…

Who is enacting? Individuals, but most often groups. But there is no transparency at all on the way they have been elaborated. It is all but clear that external people have been involved in the process. We also get the impression that the more these documents are declared universal, the more they are looking for signatories: this is the case for the Wartburg Charta, the CECUA’s Bill of rights, the CPSR ‘One Planet, One Net’ 7 principles. They seem to be written for all, i.e. for nobody. In a way we get the impression that there is a supply, an offer, but where is the demand or who is really concerned?

Same remark regarding the place where the principles are applicable: everywhere, i.e. nowhere.

As far as topics and themes are concerned, we shall find philosophical concerns such as the respect for others, of his/her work, of the intellectual property; we have also more ergonomic issues in the rules of Netiquette, or more political oriented documents since CECUA and CEPIS declare their intention to advise the governments.

3.2. General Documents on Informatics - Specific Principles

As said earlier, let us just remind here shortly that the IFIP Member Societies Codes (analysis of 31 Codes) covered mainly 5 essential topics:

  • Respectful general attitude: Respect for the interests or rights of the people involved, for the prestige of the profession, for the interests or rights of the public, for the welfare, health of the public, and for the quality of life;
  • Personal/institutional qualities: Conscientiousness and honesty, acceptance of responsibility and integrity, respect for requirements or contracts or agreements, conscientious work, professional development and training , competence, effectiveness and work quality;
  • Information Privacy and data integrity: Confidentiality, privacy in general and respect for property rights;
  • Production and flow of information: Flow of information to involved parties, information to the public;
  • Attitude towards regulation: Respect for the code, for the law, and for IT and professional standards.

3.3. Specific Documents on the Internet - Specific Principles

Regarding the specific documents on the Internet, titles do not seem to bring real significance; terms are used as equivalent: code of ethics, of conduct, of practice, guidelines. Rare are those which use explicitly the term of self-regulation: FSDM-Germany, ISPA-Italy, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Australian Code for self-regulation,... What seems to us interesting is a progressive shift from the norm to clauses which look more of contractual type: the words which are used today are more ‘Terms of Services’, replacing what was formerly called ‘Guidelines for the members’ (Yahoo-GeoCities, Excite, GlobalOne,…)

The authors are most often firms or, moreover, associations of firms such as associations of service providers. The concept of self-regulation is expanding itself and becoming more precise as it reaches specific sectors: publicity, telemarketing, software publishers, and even health care. The people concerned are more and more considered as clients or customers. Even if it is spoken about people who are hosted by a site, they are more and more requested to conform themselves to norms, which are imposed upon them. Are those documents still deontology instruments or only texts for self-protection of those people who are writing and enacting them? Some of them are clearly documents coming from lobbies, if not pressure groups: the Paris Recommendations of the Global Business Dialogue or the Model Code of the Electronic Commerce Platform- Nederland. A said earlier, we shall come later on those two cases.

Let us also quote here the Bertelsmann Foundation Memorandum, a now very active Foundation in the development of self-regulation of the Internet content: "Effective self-regulation requires active consumer and citizen consultation based upon shared responsibility at all stages of development and implementation. Without user involvement, a self-regulatory mechanism will not accurately reflect user needs, will not be effective in delivering the standards it promotes, and will fail to create confidence." We definitely share that opinion, but we dare not to testify that it is the full practice of that Foundation in the projects it supports!

Ratione loci? The place where those texts are applicable is not easy to specify. The associations of service providers are national and they just intend to regulate their national providers. But what about other service providers which have no national boundaries and host people from all over the world such as Yahoo-GeoCities, Excite or GlobalOne? Most of the time, one can notice that the disagreements are regulated by local courts, most probably where the headquarters of the firm are located. One could say also that the documents are not anymore ‘locally’ situated, but ‘professionally’. A real question is raised here: does self-regulation allow to solve the difficulty, as it is usually said, of the territoriality of the legal systems.

Topics and themes covered by the specific documents

It is attempting the impossible to try to summarise the topics covered in such a number of documents. However, if we do not go too far into details, one must accept that there are recurrent themes. Let us dare to give a summary.

When speaking of the codes of the associations of service providers (7 codes from 10 European associations representing, at the end of 1997, more than 500 service providers - we added also a Canadian code, as a ‘control document’), things seem rather clear: 18 themes are mentioned, among which 10 just once. The most frequent are really typical for this kind of association - the Australian example as well as the one of New Zealand that we discovered later confirm it -, but also the service providers who are not ‘associated’ (Yahoo-GeoCities, Excite) and whose coverage is world-wide.

  • All the codes mention their preoccupation about the "illegal material" (child pornography, racism propaganda,…), the necessity of youth protection especially against those who exploit their credulity, their commitment to cooperate with hotlines; but they also stress their incapacity of monitoring or controlling all their content.
  • The second score, 7 times, is linked to data protection, confidentiality, email secrecy.
  • Decency, no violence, no hatred, no cruelty, no incitement to commit crimes, no dissemination of propaganda material for unconstitutional organisations, respect for and care of human dignity, no ethnical, religious discrimination or on the basis of handicap or of expressed ideas: this is the wording of the German and Italian Codes, but it belongs also to 2 other ones in shorter development.
  • Fair trading, act decently with the customers, give them clear information, correct pricing information, etc. is explicitly mentioned in three codes, one of them adding that they commit themselves not to promote illegal commerce!
  • Honesty, legality (no material in the breach of the law), responsibility of the ISPs for their own content are topics covered by 2 codes.
  • The last topics are mentioned only once: reasonable endeavour to respect other codes (TV, Radio authorities, Sales,…), domain names property, users responsibility for their own data, best practices, Netiquette, freedom of expression and of information, journalistic style reporting, identification and right to anonymity, intellectual property rights. Let us just stress the originality of the Canadian code where its members are committed to public education in matters such as how to assign liability for content and network abuse, and to public help for understanding the options available to all stakeholders.

Some of the service providers, mainly those who are not associated with others, specify clauses about chain letters, email not solicited, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. We can also find rules for chatrooms, BBS and other ‘clubs’.

In the domain which most often, with a curious sense of modesty or decency, is called officially the ‘Internet content’, it is worth mentioning the recommendations of the Bertelsmann Foundation and having a look at the codes of the Australian Internet Industry Association, the ‘Australia’s national industry body for Internet commerce, content and connectivity.’ The recommendations of the Bertelsmann Foundation are not self-regulation documents, but an incitement to develop content self-regulation for the world of business, and mainly for the Internet industry, to create private control agencies to be favoured by public authorities, etc. The Australian codes are specific for content regarding the persons under the age of 18 years, and include ‘ISP Obligations in Relation to Internet Access Generally’ (Code 1), ‘ISP Obligations in Relation to Access to Content Hosted Outside Australia’ (Code 2), ‘Internet Content Host Obligations in Relation to Hosting of Content Within Australia’ (Code 3), and finally a list of ‘Approved Filters’. We would like to stress here how those codes remain reserved about enforcement: the term ‘reasonable’ is mentioned 22 times in 3 pages, in expressions such as ‘take reasonable steps’ (13 times), ‘reasonably effective means’ (twice), ‘reasonably ascertained’ (twice), ‘reasonably practicable’, ‘within a reasonable time’… The same texts propose also measures ‘to the extent applicable’ (7 times), showing again that the enforcement is regarded with certain caution and circumspection!

When looking at the sectoral codes, one could expect more specific clauses, since the domain is better defined. What clearly emerges is the more contractual character of those documents and the insistence on a practice in accordance with the standards of the profession. The typical case of this shift towards more contractual clauses is the Code of Ethics of the Internet Health Care coalition: it requires candour and trustworthiness, quality of information, products, services, the best commercial practices (we underline), the highest standards by Health Care Professionals.

In the world of the online publishing, the French ‘Charte de l’édition électronique’ signed by 7 publishers among which Le Monde and Libération reaffirm the usual rules of the profession; but they go into details such as mentioning the number of paragraphs that we can quote without being accused of plagiarism, or specifying the rules related to the links that you can create (they are authorised without condition provided the link opens a new window of the browser), the interdiction without consent of reproduction by means such as scanning, digital copying, …

In the electronic commerce, the ‘Model Code of Conduct for Electronic Commerce’ as proposed by the ‘Electronic Commerce Platform Nederland’ (ECP-NL) seems to us to offer typical clauses as they can be met in good commercial practices: reliability of the information which is provided, reliability of systems and organisations, reliability of types of electronic signatures, transparency in the communication, confidentiality, respect for the intellectual property,…

But quite more impressive and determining seem to us the pretensions of an international group that we mentioned earlier, and which intends to define a world-wide regulation for the electronic commerce, the Global Business Dialogue (GBDe). The archives of its site remind us the wish of the European Commissioner Martin Bangemann expressing the need for strengthened international coordination. We must know that that organisation regroups the Chief Executive Officers of some 72 private societies from all the continents: America Online, Time Warner, Fujitsu, Vivendi Universal, Toshiba, Telekom Malaysia, Seagram, Eastman Kodak, Walt Disney, Hewlett Packard, IBM, MCI Worldcom, Alcatel, ABN AMRO Bank, DaimlerChrysler, etc. Recommendations were defined at the Paris Summit of 13 September 1999. Let us say briefly, these big bosses have divided the work among themselves and will establish self-regulation in 9 specific domains, each one under the responsibility of a CEO of one of the above mentioned firms: authentication and security (Working Group led by NEC Corporation), consumer confidence (led by DaimlerChrysler), content/commercial communications (led by The Walt Disney Company), information infrastructure/market access (led by Nortel Networks), intellectual property rights (led by Fujitsu Limited), jurisdiction (led by EDS), liability (led by Telefónica), protection of personal data (led by Toshiba Corporation), and tax/tariffs (led by Deutsche Bank). Those domains have been recently slightly redefined: consumer confidence, convergence, Cyber security, digital bridges, e-Government, Internet payment, IPR, Trade/WTO, taxation. This list shows that we are not far from the main preoccupations of the European Commission Legal Advisory Board. The results of the last GBDe conference in Miami (September 26, 2000) are available on their site, theme by theme. They will meet again in 2001, in Tokyo. But let us give the full picture: on December 13, 2000, the GBDe, the International Chamber of Commerce and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) near the OECD have signed an agreement on the electronic commerce: "The GBDe, the ICC and BIAC are all committed to foster international co-operation on the full range of public policy issues arising from the Internet, including issues such as IPR, consumer confidence, cyber security, and the digital divide, and will work together to identify best practices for such initiatives."(We underline) Do they intend to overcome the European Legal Advisory Board’s work and lobby against any European Directive in the mentioned domains? History will tell us!

Again, in the domain of eCommerce, we must mention the codes of labelling organisations such as Better Business Bureau (BBBOnLine), WebTrust, TRUSTe, which try to comfort the customer confidence and assure him/her of the reliability of the firm with which s/he is in contact: security (e.g. of credit card numbers), viability (of website), protection (of consumers’ private life), labels available, reliability, privacy, kids’ protection,… But the signatory of the clauses does commit him/herself only to satisfy the labelling firm’s principles. The label does not give any guarantee of the quality of the products or of the services of the labelled firm.

To come to an end of our tour of different sectors, we should have to examine codes of telemarketing and teleservices firms. We shall not find really new themes: proper identification, calling hour restrictions, due information to consumers, authorisation for payment, prohibitions under the rule, ‘Do not call policies’, etc. Sometimes there are some details, which are only understandable by trained people such as about auto dialler and ADRMP (Automatic Dialling Recorded Message Player) on emergency lines,…

We cannot resist to quote an abstract from an American association of software publishers, because it has been also included nearly as such in the Guidelines for members of the former GeoCities before its merging with Yahoo: "Use reasonable efforts to ensure that the unauthorised reproduction and/or distribution of copyrighted computer programs does not occur on or through its servers; that cracker utilities and serial numbers used to circumvent manufacturer-installed copy-protect devices in computer programs, will not be posted on its server(s); and that links that promote sites that contain pirated computer programs and/or cracker utilities and serial numbers will not be posted on its server(s). (…) Remove pirated computer software and cracker materials or otherwise block access to it as soon as practicable after it is discovered." It is quite understandable that software publishers impose such conditions, but when they are included in a service provider’s code, it looks more like a self-protection condition, in order to avoid that the software publisher should sue into the Court. One can also think that such details are the sign of an obsessive fear of hackers, crackers and other pirates. Can a code of ethics or practice prevent them from such practices?

Enforcement, sanctions and procedures

Faithful to our grid analysis we must wonder what are the effectiveness and the constraining enforcement of such documents, whatever they may be: generic, specific, sectoral. Half of them say something about that. The service will be removed if the client is contravening to the rules of the code (Janet, Excite, Yahoo); the membership may be suspended (ISPA); legal suit can be brought in particular if illegal or illicit material has been found (ISPA-Italy).

But it is also proposed to treat the case according to amicable arrangement or to treat directly with the service provider without going through its association, which could lead to the erasing of all traces in case of criminal suit.

The most typical cases are those of the Bertelsmann Foundation, of the GBDe, and of the ECP-NL or also of the Italian service providers association. Mutatis mutandis, those four groups share the same point of view: the procedures must be created by the private partners of the business world. It also up to them to create self-regulation agencies, to set up dispute resolution mechanisms. The Italian association speak of a ‘Giurì di Autotutela’ which is enforced by a ‘Comitato Attuativo’ which can also judge as an ‘appeal court’.

  1. Orientations for a Preliminary Conclusion

All along our analysis, some documents appeared to us as noticeable, for a reason or another, positively or negatively. Let us again follow the features of our grid of analysis.

Ratione personae, we would mention the Australian Internet Industry codes, which well distinguish the different actors, authors and people concerned (including the society as a whole); they make explicit the necessary consultation and who is approving what. The Memorandum of the Bertelsmann Foundation and the ECP-NL Model Code are also mentioning the necessary participation, but we are afraid that most of the time it will remain confined to the institutional partners, if it is. Ratione loci: the texts we have seen are far from overcoming the national borders, although it is often advocated that it is one of the advantages of self-regulation. Ratione materiae, our attention was caught by the IFIP codes, the French Charta for the Internet - although it has not been finally adopted -, the 1999 code of ISPA-UK, the French Charta for electronic publishing, and some clauses of the documents of Excite, Yahoo and GlobalOne, even if too often the clauses are purely contractual (Terms of services). On the opposite, the weaknesses are on the side of the constraining rules, or of their enforcement: it remains too much to the discretion of the authors who enact the rules without transparency, and even clarity, in particular towards the people concerned and the general public. In its time, GeoCities had a specific reporting form, allowing any surfer to inform the service provider about what s/he could have find in contradiction with the Guidelines for the members. It was at the same time a document summarising what could be supposed as litigious.

Our survey reveals that we are still at the beginning of a process. One cannot avoid the impression of superficiality, heterogeneity, incoherence and even irrelevance to compensate the absence of other regulating instruments. We fear to have just words, which are meaningless or even empty. At least we have to raise the question: Whom are they protecting? We fear - we could say: we believe, in the sense that we are sure - that the current codes we have analysed are not really protecting those who have difficulties to defend themselves, whatever they may be: users, customers, clients. Let us remind the words of Prof. Michel Vivant, concluding the 1999 Paris Summit of the Regulators; he was quoting Lacordaire: "Between the strong and the weak, it is the law that makes you free and it is the liberty that oppresses." Our reading of the documents leads us to conclude that presently they are more self-protecting than self-regulating documents, and that the market freedom is the law of the Cyberspace.

But let us not speak only as a Cassandra a priori. There are authors who stress that self-regulation must be considered among the regulating and control systems: beyond the legal systems and the state authority, they may have their place and a sense. Pierre Trudel, from the University of Montreal, considers that the regulating techniques include today "the application of the common law, the ruling of the States, the contractual techniques, the self-regulation, the soft law, the standardisation, and the technical normalisation."

For making progress, and again following the features of our grid, we would suggest to question the legitimacy of the actors, to examine the principle of subsidiarity, the relevance of the contents, and the efficiency of the systems of sanctions and of control in a space which is global and overcome the national territoriality.

Self-regulation, says Pierre Trudel, may be defined as "the recourse to voluntary norms which are developed and accepted by those who participate in a determined (specific) activity." But, what does mean ‘voluntary’, or ‘determined’? Who are those who participate in the activity? What kind of participation? In our view, the legitimacy of the actors will be recognised only if all people concerned participate in the process of elaborating the texts, maybe as active or passive subjects.

Regarding the subsidiarity, we are convinced that there are contents which must escape self-regulation for reasons of ethics and democracy: the interpretation of some values cannot be appropriated or usurped by particular interests. We have made explicit elsewhere the criteria which could lead us: as soon as the interests of the majority are at stake or when the citizen are at risk to become more fragile and more vulnerable, we must keep the capacity of the public authority to maintain open the ‘horizon of universality’ which characterises the ethics of democracy. Furthermore, the legitimacy of the contents will be assessed in different ways according to the cultures and their systems of values. Let us add also that it has often been said that the deontology could anticipate the law, because of the rhythm of technology development, for instance. I must say that we have not found such an anticipation in the texts we have examined. Just as a joke, we have stressed several times that among the more explicit code of service providers in terms of privacy protection, the Dutch ISPA code, covered the matter in 10 lines, whereas the European Directive of 1995 needed 34 articles and some 20 pages.

What can be really enforced? The case of the Safe Harbour Principles in the discussion between the European Union and the USA will have to be cautiously assessed in some time. Most often in the documents we have analysed, the efficiency of the procedures which are foreseen has yet to be proven. The procedures are ill-defined and the complaints are at risk not to be really considered or at least to remain without any follow up.

What then has to be the role of the law and of the State? There is no need to adopt a dogmatic position, but we think that there are ambiguities to be solved. After the time of the Welfare State, the time has come of ‘the least State as possible’. The trends are well known of discrediting the big institutions. Very often, faced to the question of the globalisation, the State has no other means than ‘to defend its champions’. It ‘gives a framework for the self-regulation’. As the clients, the customers and the users we were mentioning earlier, is not the State in the situation where it is in search of its place and of its own legitimacy? In the meantime, it is considered as an actor among the others, at least in the mind of certain big ‘global’ businesses. Some of those champions of the new conquest of eCommerce do not hesitate to say explicitly that its role must be minimised, that we have to curb its intervention. Would it not be wiser to ask that all the actors may find their place and their role, and that they bring respect for each other? The controversies must be spelled out publicly, the interests of each of the parties clarified, the issues at stake clearly weighted. The decision must be the decision of people responsible in front of all. It is a primary ethical principle. It has been named the ‘golden rule’. Will it be the rule of what is called sometimes the ‘coregulation’ or even the ‘multi-regulation’? We know too well that the deep changes towards an information society are turning upside down the marks and references and that slogans such as ‘everything in network’ have created new exclusion. Efficiency, productivity, … are concepts which have lost their ancient meaning. That is a reason to keep his/her mind, his/her reason, and to give to it some ethical foundations.

"The structural imbalances of the world-wide Internet infrastructure, the deep inequalities in the access to information, the transnational oligopolies controlling the world-wide infostructure are major preoccupations for the regulator. A new form of regulation or of governance at the world level must be conceived in an ethical world-wide perspective, at the service of equity and of the human development."

 

Annex

As indicated, the URLs of the following texts as well as their analysis, document by document, and according to our grid of analysis (figure 1) are available at:

http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl/IFIP/sig922/selfreg.html

© IFIP-SIG9.2.2

International Federation for Information Processing

Special Interest Group " IFIP Framework on Ethics of Computing "

Self-Regulation Instruments – Classification –A Preliminary Inventory

(HCC-5, Geneva 1998; SIG9.2.2 January 2000; SIG9.2.2 June 2000; IFIP-WCC-SEC2000)

Jacques Berleur, Penny Duquenoy, Marie d’Udekem-Gevers,

Tanguy Ewbank de Wespin, Matt Jones and Diane Whitehouse

 

1. Informatics – Computing in General

1.1. General Principles

The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics, by the Computer Ethics Institute (CEI), Washington, D.C., 1992

1.2. Specific Principles

1.2.1. For Professional Societies

Codes (Standards/Guidelines) of Ethics (Practice/Conduct) of IFIP Computer Societies

2. The Internet

2.1. General Principles

One planet, One Net: Principles for the Internet Era, CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), 1997

Suggestion of Netiquette - Core Rules of Netiquette, 1994

The Net: User Guidelines and Netiquette, 1998

Online Magna Charta, Charta of Freedom for Information and Communication, ‘The Wartburg Charta’, 1997

The Internet Society of New Zealand, The Internet ‘Twelve Commandments’, 1997

Confederation of European Computer User Associations (CECUA), Bill of Rights for the Citizen in the Global Information Society, 1998

CEPIS’ Mission Statements, Contribution to a Citizen’s Charter in the Information Society, 1999

2.2 Specific Principles

2.2.1 For " Virtual Communities "

JANET Acceptable Use Policy, 1995

2.2.2 For Different Actors

La Charte française de l’Internet, Proposition de Charte de l’Internet, Règles et usages des acteurs de l’Internet en France, 1997

2.2.3. For (Associations of) Service Providers (ISPs)

Austria, ISPA-Austria, ISPA-Verhaltenrichtlinien (ISPA Guidelines of Conduct)

Belgium, ISPA-Be, Code de Conduite, Version 1.0 (April 30, 1998)

France, AFA - Association des Fournisseurs d’Accès et de Services Internet (France): Pratiques et Usages, janvier 1998 - Les pratiques des membres de l’AFA en matière de données personnelles et droit d’auteur, octobre 1998

Germany, Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter e.V. (Voluntary Self-Control for Multimedia Service Providers): Statutes - Code of Conduct of the Association - Complaint Rules for the Association, 1997

Italy, Associazione Italiana Internet Providers, Codice di Autoregolamentazione per i servizi Internet, 1997

The Netherlands, Vereniging van Nederlandse Internet Providers, NLIP-Gedragscode, 1999

UK, ISPA-UK, Code of Practice (1st version, 1996; new one 25 January 1999)

Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), Code of Conduct, 1997

Western Australian Internet Association, Code of conduct, 1997

The Internet Society of New Zealand, Internet Code of Practice, 1999

2.2.4 For other Service Providers

Excite, Terms of Service, Community Standards (Chat, Excite Clubs, Message Boards), Privacy Policy, 1995

GeoCities Members Guidelines, and particularly GeoCities Page Content Guidelines and Member Terms of Service, 1998

Yahoo, Terms of Service, 1994

Global One (owned by France Telecom), Code of Conduct Policy for Global One IP Products and Services, 1998

2.2.5. For Governmental Services and Actors

The Intergovernmental Information Technology Leadership Consortium (Council for Excellence in Government) - Draft - Consortium Charter, 1997

2.2.6 For the Industry in General

Bertelsmann Foundation, Memorandum on Self-regulation of Internet Content, Gütersloh, 1999

Australia, Internet Industry Codes of Practice, Codes for Industry Self-Regulation in Areas of Internet Content Pursuant to the Requirements of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 as Amended December 1999

2.2.7. For Specific Sectors and Services

2.2.7.1. Health Sector

Health Internet Ethics: Ethical Principles For Offering Internet Health Services to Consumers, 2000

Internet Healthcare Coalition, eHealth Code of Ethics, 2000

2.2.7.2. Publishing Sector

Charte de l’édition électronique (Le Monde, Libération, ZDNet, La Tribune, Investir, Les Echos, L’Agefi, France): rights and duties of the consumers, editorial content, copyright and intellectual property rights, 2000

2.2.7.3. eCommerce Sector

Electronic Commerce Platform Nederland, Code of Conduct for electronic commerce, Draft version 3.0, November 1999

Global Business Dialogue on Electronic Commerce, The Paris Recommendations, 1999

International Chamber of Commerce, ICC Guidelines on Advertising and Marketing on the Internet, 2 April 1998

Better Business Bureau Inc., BBBOnLine, Code of Online Business Practices, Draft 1999

WebTrust Certification Services for eCommerce Web Sites, 1997

2.2.7.4. "Software publishers" Sector

US SPA’s (Software Publishers Association) Guidelines for Copyright Protection (previously called ‘ISP Code of Conduct’), 1997

2.2.7.5. Telemarketing Sector

USA, American Teleservices Association, ATA Code of Ethics, Recommended standards for professional and ethical telemarketing conducted by members of the American Teleservices Association- "Telemarketing Sales Rule Compliance Guidelines", and

"TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) Compliance Guidelines", 1999