The Constitution and the Future of Internet Self-Regulation
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
The Internet has been used in Korea for over 20 years. So far, many laws haveregulated the Internet environment in order to organize and control it, including theAct on Promotion of Information and Communication Network Utilization andInformation Protection, etc., the Telecommunications Business Act, the JuvenileProtection Act, the Juvenile Sexual Protection Act, the Punishment of Sexual Crimes andProtection of Victims Act, the Sound Recording, Video Products and Games SoftwareAct, the Broadcasting Act, etc. In particular, when ITRs was revised in 2012, Koreaprovided the final signature despite its regulation of content, which was considered tobe in favor of regulating certain content. Furthermore, in Korea, there was an attemptin June 2007 to regulate malicious comments online by enforcing a limited personalcertification system, but this was ruled as unconstitutional by the Court. At present, theKorea Communications Standards Commission is deliberating regarding Internetcontents, which is ex post deliberation on illegal information with seemingunconstitutionality. However, it still lacks clarity because the ambiguous standards of“provisional measure or excision’ in Information and Communication Network Act 44-2(2) give excessive burden to Internet service providers (ISPs) as to their decision. Thereare four types of models used for regulating the Internet: mandated, sanctioned,equal-proportion and voluntary regulations. Currently, the Korean structure is asanctioned type in which ISP is hierarchically included in regulating the Internet. Sincesanctioned regulation is hard to manage with the characteristics and efficiency of the Internet, however, it cannot but proceed to an equal-proportion model, in which thereis a high necessity for nongovernmental participation such as self-governanceorganizations, etc. In this regard, the US Department of Commerce has decided not toextend the Internet address management agreement with ICANN, which expires onSeptember 30, 2015, thus giving validity to a civilian-oriented upward ruling structureof the Internet as initially built by the EU for truly autonomous regulation, not adownstream government-led rule.
Abstract
The Internet has been used in Korea for over 20 years. So far, many laws haveregulated the Internet environment in order to organize and control it, including theAct on Promotion of Information and Communication Network Utilization andInformation Protection, etc., the Telecommunications Business Act, the JuvenileProtection Act, the Juvenile Sexual Protection Act, the Punishment of Sexual Crimes andProtection of Victims Act, the Sound Recording, Video Products and Games SoftwareAct, the Broadcasting Act, etc. In particular, when ITRs was revised in 2012, Koreaprovided the final signature despite its regulation of content, which was considered tobe in favor of regulating certain content. Furthermore, in Korea, there was an attemptin June 2007 to regulate malicious comments online by enforcing a limited personalcertification system, but this was ruled as unconstitutional by the Court. At present, theKorea Communications Standards Commission is deliberating regarding Internetcontents, which is ex post deliberation on illegal information with seemingunconstitutionality. However, it still lacks clarity because the ambiguous standards of“provisional measure or excision’ in Information and Communication Network Act 44-2(2) give excessive burden to Internet service providers (ISPs) as to their decision. Thereare four types of models used for regulating the Internet: mandated, sanctioned,equal-proportion and voluntary regulations. Currently, the Korean structure is asanctioned type in which ISP is hierarchically included in regulating the Internet. Sincesanctioned regulation is hard to manage with the characteristics and efficiency of the Internet, however, it cannot but proceed to an equal-proportion model, in which thereis a high necessity for nongovernmental participation such as self-governanceorganizations, etc. In this regard, the US Department of Commerce has decided not toextend the Internet address management agreement with ICANN, which expires onSeptember 30, 2015, thus giving validity to a civilian-oriented upward ruling structureof the Internet as initially built by the EU for truly autonomous regulation, not adownstream government-led rule.
참고문헌 (29)
- Chang Yeong-soo, "Constitutions" (2010), Hongmoonsa
- Chun Gwang-seok, "Theory of Korean constitution" (2014), Jiphyunjae
- Chung Jae-hwang, "Introduction to Constitution" (2014), Pakyeongsa
- Chung Jong-seop, "Principles of Constitution" (2014), Pajyeongsa
- Chung Seong-jin, "Constitutional government and freedom" (2010), Pakyeongsa
- Huh Yeong, "Theory of Korean Constitution" (2014), Pakyeongsa
- Lee Jae-jin, "Freedom of the Internet media and personal rights" (2009), Hannarae
- Seong Nak-in, "Constitutions" (2014), Beopmoonsa
- Song Yeon-seok, "Who controls the cyber world?" (2006), Neuron
- Yoo Min-bong, "Korean public administration" (2012), Pahyeongsa
- 장우영, "인터넷규제의 정치: 내용규제 레짐의 고찰을 중심으로", 사회과학연구, 14(1), pp.34~71 (2006), 사회과학연구소
- Chang Woo-yeong, "Governance of the Internet regulation: Comparison between EU and Korea", Korean governance news, 289~316 (2005)
- Cho So-yeong, "A study on methodology in restricting the freedom of expression", 박사, pp.2001
- Chung Wan, "Internet real-name system as a preventive measure against cyber violence", Journal of Korean Institute of Criminology, (93), pp.2~7 (2006)
- Gwon Yeong-joon, "Cyber freedom of expression and protection of dignity", Justice, (91), pp.5~25 (2006)
- Han Hye-gyong, "Internet real-name system and choice of its detour", Korea Media Information news, 0(55), pp.50~73 (2011)
- Hong Wan-shik, "A review on the law related to Internet real-name system by principle of legislation", Public land research, (31), pp.285~308 (2006)
- 황성기, "현행 인터넷 내용심의제도의 법적 문제점에 관한 연구-템과 자율규제시스템의 바람직한 방향을 도출하기 위한", 사이버커뮤니케이션학보, 15(1), pp.5~56 (2005), 사이버커뮤니케이션학회
- Hwang Seung-heum, "Problems in legal system related to Internet content regulation and improvement plan", Information and society, 3, pp.191~221 (2001)
- Ji Seong-woo, "A consideration of legal problems in the current communication deliberation system", the Press and law, 8(2), pp.127~166 (2009)
- 이민영, "인터넷 자율규제의 법적 의의", 저스티스, (116), pp.133~160 (2010), 한국법학원
- Moon jae-wan, "A study on the freedom of anonymous expression", The Press and law, 4(2), pp.135~167 (2005)
- 박진애, "헌법재판소 결정에 나타난 인터넷에서의 표현의 자유", 경희법학, 43(3), pp.199~237 (2008), 법학연구소
- Jonathan Weinberg, "ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy", 50 Duke L.J, 192, pp.187~260 (2000)
- Milton Mueller, "ICANN and Internet governance : sorting through the debris of"self-regulation"", info, 1(6), pp.497~520 (1999)
- Rolf H. Weber., "A Constitutional Solution for Internet Governance, The Columbia Science", Technology Law Review, 14(1), pp.1~71 (2012)
- "The Principles for User Generated Content Services: A Middle-Ground Approach to Cyber-Governance", Harvard Law Review, 121(5), pp.1387~1408 (2008)
- Victor Mayer-Schönberger, "Jefferson Rebuffed: The United States and the Future of Internet Governance", Colum. Sci., Tech. L. Rev., 8, pp.188~228 (2007)
- Wolfgang Kleinwöacher, "ICANN as the “United Nations” of the Global Information Society?: The Long Road Towards Self-Regulation of the Internet", Int’l Comm. Gazette, 62, pp.451~476 (2000)