Introduction
| Páginas | 11-17 |
11
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
A Glossary of Platform Law and Policy Terms to
Foster Legal Interoperability
Luca Belli and Nicolo Zingales
At the 2019 United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), during
the customary stocktaking meeting of the Coalition on Platform
Responsibility,1 hereinafter “the Coalition”, taking place after the
annual session, the main suggestion emerging from participants
as a next step in the Coalition work has been the elaboration of
a Glossary of Platform Law and Policy Terms, so as to provide a
common language for academics, regulators and policymakers when
discussing issues of platform responsibility.
In this perspective, the elaboration of this Glossary aims at providing
the conceptual basis on which legal interoperability between different
systems framing platform governance can be built. Through this
Glossary, we aim at offering guidance on what specific platform-
related concepts mean, so that different stakeholders and, particularly,
policymakers may have a better understanding of such a complex set
of issues, thus elaborating well-informed and, ideally, good-quality
and compatible platform policies and regulations.
Importantly, this Glossary does not aim at being prescriptive,
but rather at recognizing that a specific concept may have
various meanings and such differences and nuances should be
acknowledged and highlighted to allow stakeholders to have a more
complete understanding of each issue. Indeed, the consideration of
heterogeneous conceptualizations, interpretations, and approaches
adopted by different (juridical) cultures holds the promise to enrich
the way platform-related issues are framed by stakeholders in
different countries. At the same time, this can foster the elaboration
of shared or, at least, converging principles, rules and procedures by
national regulators, legislators or even market players, thus facilitating
1 For further information on the Coalition, please visit the dedicated section of the Internet
Governance Forum website, available at:
dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr>.
12 Glossary of Platform Law and Policy Terms
legal interoperability.2 Indeed, common conceptualizations may not
only inspire legislative efforts but also be used as basis on which
develop cooperative and converging frameworks by national public
bodies and intergovernmental organizations, while elaborating public
policies, or even assist private-sector actors in the elaboration of
self-regulatory instruments.
As we are fully aware of the evolving nature of many of concepts
analyzed in this Glossary, we agreed that the Glossary should be
considered as a “living document” that could be updated over time.
As such the Glossary aims at bringing together contributions from
a heterogeneous range of disciplines, stakeholder perspectives and
vocabularies. Coalition stakeholders also agreed that the definitional
efforts should recognize as much as possible the existence of competing
and alternative views on the topic, and the Glossary contributors did
their best effort to reflect such conceptual diversity in this volume.
Glossary contributors were encouraged to conceive definitions as a
springboard for learning more about concepts and views, through
links and references to external sources. Further reference and links
to external sources will be added in the new versions of the Glossary
that will be uploaded on the IGF website in the coming years, after
having received and incorporated any comments arising in the
platform related discussions the Coalition will organize within the IGF.
How have we organized this participatory effort?
The IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility, as any other IGF
coalition, relies on spontaneous contributions of its members and
thus, the Glossary initiative was launched issuing a request for
suggested term, in order to shape the Glossary structure, based on
the Coalition collective intuition of which list of terms may be most
useful. After the first round of suggestions took place and several
Coalition members manifested interested in the Glossary project,
the following action plan was shared for feedback, and subsequently
implemented between May and October 2020:
2 For an analysis of the concept of legal interoperability, see Weber (2014). For a discussion of how
this concept can be applied to foster compatible net neutrality and data protection frameworks,
see Belli & Foditsch (2016) and Belli (2020). An noteworthy approach to the concept of legal
interoperability is offered by the works of Internet and Jurisdiction project. See
internetjurisdiction.net/>.
13
¡ reception of expressions of interest for the development of the
Glossary and participation to the Coalition session;
¡ consolidation of the proposed terms and circulation of a draft list
of terms to be used to compose the Glossary;
¡ reception of feedback on the draft list and suggestion of further
terms;
¡ development of a multistakeholder working group dedicated to
the elaboration of the glossary (the Glossary Working Group)
including all the individuals who expressed interest in the
initiative;3
¡ elaboration of draft entries describing the proposed terms;
¡ consolidation of the draft entries into a first draft version of the
glossary and request for comment on the first draft;
¡ consolidation of the updated version into a consolidated draft to
be circulated at the IGF 2020 for further feedback from the IGF
community;
¡ discussion of the draft at the 2020 session of the Coalition,
during the IGF, and elaboration of a strategic approach aimed at
maximizing the impact of the Glossary;
¡ a final consultation phase was organized using the IGF website
as a platform for comments, between November 2020 and
January 2021;
¡ consolidation and revision with glossary contributors and
Coalition stakeholders took place until November 2021.
While this may not be the first attempt to create a glossary of
platform-related terms,4 the above illustrates the uniqueness of
the open and transparent bottom-up process that was followed to
achieve these results, encapsulating at its core the IGF’s principles
of multistakeholder collaboration. We hope that this provides a
basis for much needed mutual understanding and enables more
3 The members of the working group are (in alphabetical order): Luca Belli, Vittorio Bertola,
Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, Giovanni De Gregorio, Rossana Ducato, Luã Fergus Oliveira da
Cruz, Catalina Goanta, Tamara Gojkovic, Terri Harel, Cynthia Khoo, Stefan Kulk, Paddy Leerssen,
Laila Neves Lorenzon, Chris Marsden, Enguerrand Marique, Michael Oghia, Milica Pesic, Courtney
Radsch, Roxana Radu, Konstantinos Stylianou, Rolf H. Weber, Chris Wiersma, Monika Zalnieriute
and Nicolo Zingales.
4 See, for example, the Stanford Glossary, available at:
glossary-internet-content-blocking-tools>.
Introduction
14 Glossary of Platform Law and Policy Terms
meaningful and inclusive discussion and cooperation among
academics, policymakers, journalists, platform users and any
other stakeholder with a keen interest in platform governance.
To be continued!
About the IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility
The following paragraphs provide a background picture of the origins
of the Platform Responsibility debate at the IGF and its progression
to the current state.
To start, it should be acknowledged that a core achievement of the
Coalition, well beyond the IGF’s community of stakeholders, is to
have coined and promoted the concept of “Platform Responsibility”.5
Such concept aims on the one hand to highlight the impact that
private ordering regimes designed and implemented by platforms
have on individuals’ capability to enjoy their fundamental rights, and
on the other hand, to interrogate the moral, social and human rights
responsibilities6 that platforms bear when setting up such regimes.
Indeed, the initial goal of this Coalition was to stimulate debate
and participatory analysis on the meaning of platform providers’
responsible behavior.
From the early steps, it was clear to participants that the starting
point should be an analysis of the application to digital platforms
of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,7 in
particular their responsibility to respect Human Rights and to grant
effective grievance mechanisms.8 To lay the foundations of such
work, the participants to the inception meeting of the Coalition, in
2014 at the IGF in Istanbul, suggested the development of a set of
recommendations on core dimensions of platform responsibility.9
5 See Belli, L., De Filippi, P., Zingales, N. (2014).
6 See the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human
rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and
Remedy” Framework, UN Human Rights Council Document A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011. Available
at: .
7 Idem.
8 See Belli, L., De Filippi, P., Zingales, N. (2015). Recommendations on terms of service & human
rights, Outcome Document n°1. Available at: .
9 See Zingales N. and Belli L. (2014). Report of the “inception” meeting at the 2014 IGF. Available
at: .
15
The resulting “Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human
Rights”10 (hereinafter “the Recommendations”) presented at the
2015 IGF demonstrated that the cross-disciplinary effort facilitated
by the Coalition could lead to concrete outcomes, providing a
sound response to all those arguing that the IGF is a mere talking
shop, unable to achieve tangible outcomes. The Recommendations
provide concrete evidence that the IGF can elaborate solid outputs,
in line with the IGF mandate, which prescribes that the Forum shall
“find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of
the Internet” as well as “identify emerging issues […] and, where
appropriate, make recommendations”.11
Indeed, the Recommendations served as an inspiration for (and
were annexed to) both the study on Terms of Service and Human
Rights,12 co-sponsored by the Council of Europe and FGV Law
School, and the 2017 outcome of the Coalition – a volume entitled
“Platform regulations: how platforms are regulated and how they
regulate us”, featuring research by an ample range of stakeholders.
13
It also bears noting that the “platform responsibility” approach and
a conspicuous number of elements of the Recommendations can be
found in the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)2
of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the roles and
responsibilities of internet intermediaries.
14
Fostering this kind
of multi-stakeholder and cross-institutional discussion is a core
component of the vision behind the creation of the Coalition: to
critically analyse challenging questions and collaborative develop
potential solutions that, if deemed suitable and efficient, can inspire
policymaking exercises.
The Recommendations and the 2017 volume on Platform Regulations
stressed the need to advance further the Coalition’s work with two
different yet complementary initiatives. First, the elaboration of
concrete suggestions on how to implement the right to due process
within regard to the remedies provided by online platforms’ dispute
10 See Belli L., De Filippi P. and Zingales N. (2015).
11 See Tunis Agenda (2005) available at: .
12 See Venturini et al. (2016).
13 See Belli and Zingales (2017).
14 See .
Introduction
16 Glossary of Platform Law and Policy Terms
resolution mechanisms. Such goal was achieved by organising a year-
long participatory process, leading to the Best Practices Platforms’
Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy.15 Second, the
various debates, cooperative processes and research developed by the
Coalition members highlighted the need for a deeper analysis going
beyond the notion of platform responsibility and platform regulations,
but on the very values underlying the operation of digital platforms.
Before reaching this latest phase of the coalition’ work, we discussed
the nuances of the “Platform Values” debate, with a special issue
of the Computer Law and Security Review, dedicated to “Platform
Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance”.
16
This volume aimed at promoting a discussion on the multiform notion
of platform value(s) and the term “value” was construed broadly to
embrace a range of social, ethical and juridical values underpinning
digital platforms, as well as the economic value that is generated
and extracted within platform ecosystems.
Digital platforms play a central role in the digital ecosystem, shaping
the structure of online as well as offline activities. They have acquired
a predominant role in digital policy circles and amongst Internet
scholars, due to the enormous impact that their choices, activities
and self-regulatory initiatives can have on the lives of several billion
individuals. This impact is poised to increase over the incoming
years,
17
and for this reason, we hope that this Glossary, as well as the
previous work of the Coalition will positively contribute to a better
understanding of the operation of digital platforms and, consequently,
more accurate and convergent policy initiatives.
References
Belli, L. (2020). Data Protection in the BRICS Countries: Enhanced Cooperation
and Convergence towards Legal Interoperability. New Media Journal. Chinese
Academy of Cyberspace Studies.
in-the-brics-countries-enhanced-cooperation-and-convergence-towards-
legal-interoperability/>.
15 The Best Practices can be also found on the IGF website
multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/4905/1550>.
16 A pre-print version of the Special Issue can be accessed at
multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/4905/1900>.
17 See, as an instance, Crémer, de Montjoye and Schweitzer (2019); Eyler-Driscoll, Schechter and
Patiño (2019); BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre (2019).
17
Belli, L., Zingales, N. (Eds) (2017). Platform regulations: how platforms
are regulated and how they regulate us. Leeds. Available at:
bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19402>.
Belli, L., Foditsch, N. (2016). Network Neutrality: An Empirical Approach to Legal
Interoperability. In Belli, L., De Filippi P. (Eds.) Net Neutrality Compendium.
Human Rights, Free Competition and the Future of the Internet. Springer.
Belli, L. B., De Filippi, P., Zingales, N. (2014). A New Dynamic Coalition on Platform
Responsibility within the IGF. Medialaws. Available at:
eu/a-new-dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-within-the-igf>.
Belli, L. B., De Filippi, P., Zingales, N. (2014). Recommendations on terms of
service & human rights. Outcome Document n°1. Internet Governance Forum.
Available at: .
igf-2016/830-dcpr-2015-output- document-1/file/>.
BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre. (2019). Digital Era Competition
Law: A BRICS Perspective. Available at:
competition-brics-report/>.
Crémer, J. de Montjoye, YA. Schweitzer, H. (2019). Competition Policy for the digital
era. European Commission Directorate-General for Competition. Available at:
Eyler-Driscoll S., Schechter A. and Patiño C. (2019). Digital Platforms and
Concentration. ProMarket and Chicago Booth Stigler Center.
Ruggie, J. (2011). Report of the special representative of the secretary-general on
the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business
enterprises: Guiding principles on business and human rights: implementing
the united nations ‘protect, respect and remedy’framework. Netherlands
Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(2), 224-253. Available at:
ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>.
Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. (2005). WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev. 1)-
E. Available at: .
Venturini, J., Louzada, L., Maciel, M., Zingales, N., Stylianou, K., Belli, L. (2016).
Terms of service and human rights: An analysis of online platform contracts.
FGV Direito Rio – Revan Editora – Council of Europe.
fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/18231>.
Zingales, N. Belli, L. (2014). Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility:
Report of the “inception” meeting at the 2014 IGF. Internet Governance
Forum. Available at:
php?q=filedepot_download/4905/631>.
Weber R. (December 2014). Legal Interoperability as a Tool for Combatting
Fragmentation, Global Commission on Internet Governance, Paper Series
n°4. .
Introduction
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO