Difference between revisions of "Panel Subject 2019: Antitrust versus Big Tech"

From IGF-USA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Survey Topic)
 
Line 31: Line 31:
 
  tables=Submission2019
 
  tables=Submission2019
 
  |fields=Timestamp,_pageName=Submission Number,Submission,Issue_Areas,Comments,SG
 
  |fields=Timestamp,_pageName=Submission Number,Submission,Issue_Areas,Comments,SG
  |where=Issue_Areas HOLDS 'AI'
+
  |where=Issue_Areas HOLDS 'Competition'
 
  |order by=_pageName ASC
 
  |order by=_pageName ASC
 
  |format=dynamic table
 
  |format=dynamic table

Latest revision as of 16:28, 29 March 2019

{{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}}  {{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}}  {{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}}  {{#invoke:Clickable button 2|main}}

This page is for coordination among the panel team to openly discuss the topics that will be covered under the subject of the "Antitrust versus Big Tech" The page includes the relevant survey results, Panel Guidelines and a section for the panel team to discuss in the comments.

Important Links

Important Links
Collaborative Planning Document
Panel Team Committees
Join the Team

Panel Guidelines

Panel teams should use this process to discuss the panel and get as close as possible to consensus on the following items by April 17.

  • Decide on a concrete subject for the panel based upon discussion and rough consensus. The subject and process should take into account:
    • The IGF-USA Principles
    • The working title, working description and related submissions. See Below
  • Assign team leader(s) and a representative to interface with the steering committee and provide ongoing up to date information to the wrangler and secretariat.

Survey Topic

Working Title: If Big is Bad, is Big Tech Even Badder?

Working Description: Tech and Internet companies are getting bigger through natural growth, as well as vertical and horizontal integration. This has the potential to shape the evolution of Internet usage and technologies in a variety of ways. This panel would discuss the costs and benefits of regulation as policy makers and key federal agencies examine whether there is a need for antitrust intervention. Is big tech causing harm to consumers or is the threat of antitrust being used as a political tool?

Related Submissions

<- Back to All Topics

Timestamp Submission Number Submission Issue Areas Comments SG
Timestamp Submission Number Submission Issue Areas Comments SG
2019-02-05 6:18:28 PM 2019 Submission 29 Weighing costs/benefits to regulation, privacy, antitrust, section 230 Competition Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-11 9:20:26 AM 2019 Submission 50 1 IoT security

2 Importance of collaboration for rural & remote access 3 Unintended consequences of regulation

4 Impacts of consolidation
Competition 1) There is a growing, global call for IoT security, and in many countries it is an area without partisan disagreement. Governments, civil society, technologists, and others are actively working together to ensure that users are protected from malicious attacks and botnets are prevented. The Canada, Senegal, France and many others have take a multistakeholder approach to IoT security, enlisting the help of all stakeholder groups to ensure they do their part. In the United States, home to one of the largest markets for IoT devices in the world, there is no comprehensive plan, label, or education campaign for IoT security. What can the stakeholders present for the IGF USA do to push forward in this space? Links: http://iotsecurity2018.ca https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/11/a-critical-first-step-for-iot-security-in-senegal/ https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/internet-society-advances-iot-security-in-france/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2018/iot-security-for-policymakers/ 2) In 2018, over half the world's population was said to have access to the Internet. And while that is a milestone to be celebrated, it makes the difference between those with and without Internet access even more stark. In the United States, rural, remote, and Indigenous communities are significantly less likely to have access to the Internet than their urban and non-Indigenous counterparts. And they can't get access alone. It will take coordination and collaboration between all stakeholder groups -- from local community members, to technology experts, civil society, the federal government, and more working together to close the digital divide in the US. This is a topic that was discussed at length at the 2018 Indigenous Connectivity Summit, and it will be discussed again at the 2019 Summit in Hawaii. This session could highlight times when collaboration has led to robust connectivity solutions in rural and remote areas, and what more the stakeholders in the room could do to ensure rural broadband is a reality. Links: https://www.internetsociety.org/indigenet/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2019/2018-indigenous-connectivity-summit-community-report/ https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018-Indigenous-Connectivity-Summit-Community-Report_EN.pdf 3) Today, almost every country in the world is currently in the business of “regulating the Internet.” But regulation of the Internet can have unintended consequences. One such consequence is extra-territorial application. Another one is how regulation can impact the infrastructure of the Internet, challenging the characteristics of its original design. This becomes particularly important for what it means for a resilient, global Internet. The Internet was not designed to recognize physical boundaries or to comply with only one actor’s rules. Resiliency is ensured through diversity of infrastructure and this diversity comes from nodes located globally, in different parts of the world. Internet regulation that is unfocused, uninformed and disproportionate can provide the wrong incentives for state actors to engage in a regulatory race that will only result in a fractured, less resilient Internet. As the United States considers new regulations on privacy, security, and other important issues, this workshop will seek to advance a conversation about how policy makers should balance the need for user protection with the need to protect the integrity of the infrastructure of the Internet. Links: https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/10/splintering-the-internet-the-unintended-consequence-of-regulation/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/the-internet-and-extra-territorial-effects-of-laws/ 4) Consolidation is not a new phenomenon, but often an expected evolution as industries and markets mature. Opportunities to reduce costs, expand market share, and enhance scalability are intrinsic incentives in any economic domain where companies acquire competitors or subsume parts of the production chain. Globally, trends of consolidation in the Internet Economy – including growing forces of concentration, vertical and horizontal integration, and fewer opportunities for market entry and competition – may shape not just the ways in which the Internet is used by people around the world, but its future technical evolution in the next three to five years. Today, such trends of consolidation are visible in almost all parts of the Internet economy, from access provision to services at the application layer. Looking from the national to the global level, what are the underlying drivers of these trends? What are the implications for the Internet’s technical evolution and its users? Links: https://www.internetsociety.org/globalinternetreport/2018/concept-note/ https://future.internetsociety.org/ None / Other
2019-02-11 1:44:36 PM 2019 Submission 60 Using antitrust laws to punish online platforms for political expression Competition We have seen the weaponization of antitrust laws to attack platforms that host political views and amplify opposition attitudes. Even if express actions are not taken, threats of antitrust actions can result in limits to free speech platforms. Private Sector
2019-02-11 2:10:07 PM 2019 Submission 64 Application of antitrust law to online platforms Competition Online platforms have become integral parts of many Americans’ lives, being used for social communication, many areas of commerce, and other new ways. Increasingly, policymakers on the Hill and at key federal agencies (e.g., FTC) have begun to more seriously examine whether there is a need for antitrust intervention in online platform markets. This session should feature policymakers from both the Hill and FTC, as well as industry and civil society stakeholders, who can educate IGF-USA members about, and provide diverse perspectives on, the current debate regarding antitrust law and platforms. •https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CPI-Nazzini.pdf •http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/695472/Antitrust+Competition/Abuse+of+Dominance+Concerning+Online+Platforms •https://www.concurrences.com/en/conferences/online-platforms-the-interplay-of-regulation-and-antitrust-enforcement Private Sector
2019-02-11 3:55:43 PM 2019 Submission 71 Two areas worth exploring would be international coordination on artificial intelligence and competition policy. Competition Civil Society / Academia