NEXT GENERATION POLICY FOR THE E-COMMUNICATIONS SECTOR:
THE ROLE OF THE END USER AND TECHNOLOGY
J. Ubacht & J.L.M. Vrancken
Delft University of Technology, Faculty Technology, Policy & Management, Delft, the Netherlands
j.ubacht@tudelft.nl; j.l.m.vrancken@tudelft.nl
ABSTRACT
Recent technological developments in the e-communications sector have lowered the threshold for users of information and communication technology (ICT) to enter the virtual domains of the Internet and to start playing other roles in society. ICT users have shifted their role from passive receivers of information and media content towards an active role in becoming producers, like in user generated content, or owners of infrastructure components, like in WiFi hotspots. The end user is not ‘just’ end user anymore. The trend in technological innovations undoubtedly will encourage this role shifting even further. This raises policy issues such as for the governance of privately held components of publicly accessible infrastructures and such as issues of privacy and security in virtual worlds. These policy issues have a decentralized character that escapes formerly successful central policy arrangements. We claim that policy arrangements should explicitly include a role for end user participation and take the role for technology into account. Coordination mechanisms in Open Software Development are presented as a first starting point towards innovative policy arrangements.
Key words NG-networks, user initiatives, ICT innovation policy, self-coordination mechanisms
1. SETTING THE SCENE
After the liberalization of the telecommunications sector, the e-communications landscape has changed drastically. The innovation rate of new information and communication technologies is high and the spread has become worldwide. Likewise the adoption rate of end users is high due to ever decreasing retail prices for software, hardware and Internet access. These trends enable ICT users to shift their role from the receiver of content and information at the end of a value chain towards a proactive role in finding, providing and creating information and content, for example by Web 2.0 applications as YouTube, Facebook, del.icio.us and Second Life [1]. And the domain of designing e-applications is no longer restricted to classic market players.
New technologies and applications that are now in the R&D phase will broaden the end user innovation space even further. Artificial intelligence, Web2.0, mobile television,
RFID, Peer to peer (P2P) networks and personal profiling will, on the one hand, make communications life much easier (commoditization of the end user level), and, on the other hand, provide the ICT user with new tools for creativity.
These new roles of the ICT user raise policy issues that escape the formerly centralized form of governance and regulation. One of the reasons is the fading of boundaries between spaces and roles. For example who is the owner of a network based on the WiFi protocol in which individual citizens provide for the components that build a communal WiFi network spanning a city? Likewise Internet telephony via the software based Skype application obscures the boundaries between citizens who allow their computers to be used for this Internet telephony traffic and market players such as the owners Skype Group and EBay. And who can be held responsible for the breach of intellectual property rights (IPR) in Peer to Peer networks like eMule and Tribler?
On the one hand the end user activities will raise new policy issues that bear a decentralized character. This decentralized character should be taken into account and invite policy makers to explore new arrangements to deal with e-communications policy issues. On the other hand the end user activities can be a new resource for dealing with policy issues that escape formal central law and regulation. We want to take a closer look at the opportunities that these two aspects of end user activities offer for new government arrangements.
In addition, we claim that technological innovation can also provide answers to policy issues in the e-communications sector. The governance capabilities of technology are often neglected in the search for solutions for policy issues with a decentralized character. If we are able to fully understand coordination mechanisms that are already present in next generation infrastructures, we can activate these to play a role in governance arrangements. Especially in such cases where masses of users that possess (technological) means, can be activated to make a contribution to governance solutions, as illustrated by masses of users that use tagging to detect and identify sources of spamming.
2. LINE OF ARGUMENTATION
we present some examples of these user initiatives that illustrate the shift from a passive towards a proactive role in
the creation of user generated content and the ownership of
components of ICT infrastructures. These trends lead to fading boundaries between formerly distinct categories of market players, professional organizations and users. These fading boundaries present diffuse policy issues that are difficult to address with central policy arrangements; we provide some examples of this statement.
In a search for alternative arrangements that are able to deal with these decentralized policy issues, we will focus on the potential of a role for end user in the regulatory arena and the role of technology itself to deal with policy issues. We conclude this paper with the statement that the centralized policy approach of dealing with ICT-related policy issues should be supplemented with decentralized policy arrangements that take the role of the ICT user and the role of technology explicitly into account. This statement is the first stepping stone towards a broad study into alternative arrangements for decentralized policy issues and an exploration into an active role for end users in the governance and regulatory arena, as well as for the role of technology.
3. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
The changing role of the end user by technological innovation is most obvious in the content arena, but is also present in the applications and even in the infrastructure arena. To start with the latter, the rise of wireless networking technologies, such as WiFi and Bluetooth, has led to the phenomenon of individuals creating networks and Internet access on various scales. It happened town-wise, for instance in the Dutch town of Leiden (Wireless Leiden) but it can also be done worldwide, for instance by the FON community. Wireless-Leiden applies WiFi to create free Internet access all over the town. It was among the first and is still among the largest community based WiFi-networks in the world [2],[3],[4]. FON has a somewhat different approach. FON is about a worldwide community of users of the FON WiFi device that participants of FON install in their homes. Close to a FON device, free Internet access is offered to other FON participants and cheap access is offered to non-participants [5],[6].
A second end user driven development in the infrastructure arena are the peer to peer (P2P) virtual networks on top of the physical infrastructure of the Internet. Such networks are already available in several variants, such as Gnutella (among the first fully distributed P2P networks), Bittorrent and Tribler (specializing in video content) [7],[8],[9],[10]. Their main use consists of file discovery and exchange. Many policy issues are related to these physical and virtual networks initiated and controlled by end users.
In the applications arena, there are many examples of influential applications initially started by individuals, for instance the Google search engine, the Skype VoIP system for Internet telephony, the Wikipedia collaborative knowledge system and the PGP (pretty good privacy) encryption system [11],[12],[13].
In the content arena, the end user has obtained an unprecedented role in creating and publishing content in various forms: websites, blogs, webcams, movies, wikipedia articles, etc. This has been made possible by a host of easily accessible and affordable (often free) content creating tools. Access to all this content has been made possible by the current highly effective search engines. In addition to empowering the individual, a host of new technologies, often called social software, contributes to the effective collaboration in groups. E-mail is the oldest and still among the most used tools in this group. Important new members of this type of software are the wiki's, the social network organizing tools such as Hyves and LinkedIn, content exchange platforms such a YouTube and knowledge sharing tools such as social bookmarking sites [14].
For the coming decade, we foresee that especially this social software trend will further strengthen the position of the end user. This social software compensates for one of the main disadvantages of end users in comparison with large companies: they are in principle on their own, but social software will facilitate finding partners, forming groups, sharing ideas and knowledge, generating content groupwise, support collaborative working and collaborative decision making. This has been demonstrated already by open source communities [15] but will be used by far greater numbers of individuals than is currently the case.
A second important development for the coming decade is ambient intelligence, the omni-presence of commodity computing and networking devices, becoming a commodity. This will mean that large numbers of people will be constantly on line, where ever they are, constantly in touch with group members and constantly up-to-date of relevant developments while moving within personal networks (PNs) [16].
4. END USER INITIATIVES
Box 1 New activities of ICT users
Which are the most striking conclusions that we can draw from this overview?
First, the fact that these activities require a proactive attitude from the users: the transformation from a couch potato into a self-selecting, self-producing participant in the e-society. This requires a fundamental change in lifestyle, that is foremost visible among youngsters who mainly interact digitally with their friends and peer groups via mobile phones, MSN, chat sessions etc.
Second, individuals now enter market places that were formerly restricted to traditional market players. Via virtual trading they become micro entrepreneurs that buy and sell services or physical goods, mainly in, but not restricted to, the person to person market.
Third, being a capable ICT user opens doors to a diversity of activities that allow new forms of participation in society, without having to leave your home or without having to classify yourself with formal educational training. Thus, elderly people who never finished secondary education can still become (economically) active e.g. by selling services via websites such as making clothes. And school dropouts can be great digital entrepreneurs because the costs of entry to digital markets are low.
The fourth striking aspect of ICT user activities can be found in their motivation: they are not only motivated by monetary goals, but participate in open source developments or online communities for personal motivations such as becoming a recognized member of a specific group or ranking high in user classification. Or ICT users want to satisfy their wish to contribute to society by sharing their knowledge or skills with interested individuals worldwide.
Fifth, a blurring of boundaries is taking place between public and private spaces. Youngsters are not reluctant to present their private lifes for international audiences on the Internet. To them, exposure is a motivation to be active in the ‘market of attention’, perhaps without being able to realize all the (later) consequences of what they do [17],[18]. Also the ownership of network components, such as in WiFi networks, blur the boundaries between commercial or public and citizen ownership of the infrastructure, leading to hybrid electronic networks. Sixth, end users enter domains that were formerly restricted to professionals (blogging as a journalist, uploading pictures or videos taken by mobile phones like a photographer). Or they replace and ignore intermediary functions such as real estate agents for direct buying of houses or financial institutions for acquiring loans, see for example www.boober.nl. In Box 2, we present an overview Information Blogging
Contributing to public wiki’s such as Wikipedia Making websites for personal and commercial purposes Discussion via digital forums (for instance del.iciou.us) Open Software Development
Digital submission of data for e.g. government
Communication Privately built and operated fibre-optic and WiFi networks with or without open access (Mobile) grid computing
Wiki’s in learning environments and with organisations for knowledge sharing Web-based social networking (Cyworld; Hyves, LinkedIn)
Voice over IP-telephony (VoIP) Online communities
Entertainment User-generated content (e.g. MySpace & YouTube)
Publishing their own digital information (e.g. photographs via Flickr) Participating in Interactive television programmes
Mobile entertainment (for instance Podcasts, I-Pod, mobile television) Distribution of music via P2P networks
Internet television
Media Centres for collecting media content to be viewed at an opportune moment Individual choice of digital offerings instead of package deals from broadcasters Determining the time of broadcast
Creating/living as an Avatar in Second Life Multi-user online games
Transaction Virtual entrepreneurship (e.g. in Second Life) Micro-entrepreneurship
Person-to-person trading (e.g. via eBay) Online shopping
Digital banking, online payments
of these aspects.
Via their activities end users contribute to innovation by means of ICT, a trend that will be taken even further in the decades to come. We will have a glimpse at the power of ideas and the power of the masses in the next section.
End user activities are characterized by:
• A proactive attitude, an e-active lifestyle
• Entering virtual markets, often person to person
trading
• Entering professional domains, replacing or skipping the functions of intermediaries
Box 2 Characteristics of ICT users’ activities: an overview
5. INNOVATIVE POWER
Apart from the transition of passive end users towards active ICT users, there is another remarkable transition. This one has to do with the origins of an electronic innovation and its subsequent adoption curve. Many e-innovations are designed by individuals with idea power. Because of the wide availability of (open source) software tools for creating new electronic products, content and services, users are able to transform an idea into an innovation that is adopted by other users. For example the initiators of the P2P network KaZaa later invented Skype, the Voice over IP communications service that challenged the vested interests of the telecommunications operators. This is what we call the power of idea and the ability of a minority to design an innovation.
However, designing it is not enough and this is where the other type of users comes into the picture: the majority. E-innovations require the power of the masses to create network externalities. Although the majority of ICT users may remain end users of e-innovations created by a small minority of e-innovators, their role is important in reaching a large scale of adoption. Once this large scale is reached, network externalities become apparent. The technological trends that we sketched before will reinforce end user innovation and the subsequent adoption curve even further.
But there is another side to this distinction between minority and majority power. Masses can also have the power to hinder innovation that is marketed as necessary by market players. A recent and still current issue is the transition from the IPv4 towards IPv6 that stagnates, amongst other reasons, by the reluctance of end users to make the step [20],[21],[22]. In this case claimed potential worldwide benefits cannot be reached without the willingness of users to support the transition.
Now that we have sketched the potentials and mechanisms of ICT user innovation and adoption we will take a closer look at the policy issues that are raised.
6. DECENTRALIZED POLICY ISSUES
Many policy issues can be found in both the negative, undesirable, and the positive, desirable effects of the increased power of active end users. (Un)desirable here is considered from the viewpoint of democratically chosen governments that support freedom of speech, information sharing, micro entrepreneurship etc. The viewpoint of other regimes may include the following issues too, but the way of dealing with them will be different and is left outside the scope of this article.
The undesirable effects may range from copyright infringements, cybercrime, phishing, child pornography distribution to virtual communities of terrorist groups. The technologies that contribute to these effects are primarily the P2P networks, encryption, search engines and content creating tools. New technologies will raise similar issues. Governments have a responsibility to reduce these negative effects. Another point is the new initiatives in network design that include end user components, such as citizen built WiFi networks. These networks raise questions for governance such as: are these networks public telecommunications networks on which formal regulation is applicable? And can we trace central points of authority/responsibility in case of policy problems that are raised by these hybrid networks?
But governments should also be interested in the positive effects of end user activities. The new technologies increase the possibilities for collaborative working, knowledge sharing and distance learning, for end users taking care of their own security and privacy on the net, for starting small scale businesses, for the prevention of monopolies in electronic communications and for increased innovative power of end users. In addition to the technologies mentioned for the negative effects, it is the social software that contributes especially to the positive effects.
The new end user activities will no doubt lead to new policy issues. But the character of these policy issues has changed likewise. Formerly, policy makers had the means to design central policy solutions that were enforced upon specific, well identifiable market players. For example, a formal institutional framework for handling intellectual property rights was in place and the violator of these rights would be a specific actor or organization that could be formally addressed. However, technological innovation in the e-communications sector lead to policy issues with decentralized characteristics that do not match with a centralized approach. And we are only at the start of bottom-up decentralized individual initiatives that challenge the dominant top-down centralized and structured trends of e-innovation and their matching e-policies of the past.
spam as a negative way of marketing, governments tended to design central solutions, for example by formally stating that spam was prohibited. However, the creators of spam evaded national anti-spam governance and related regulation by moving their official residence to countries that did not have formal anti-spam regulation in place. Also spammers made themselves hard to identify. Thus spam became a decentralized problem that could not be beaten by centralized formal government arrangements [23]. A next option that was explored, amongst other countries in the Netherlands, was to activate the role of end user participation by means of awareness campaigns on how to deal with spam properly and by opening a website and telephone number to invite reports on the receipt of spam. After such citizen reports, the regulatory authority was able to fine spamming organizations at least within the national boundaries. A new approach is now to look for the central points in the spam value chain that can be addressed by regulators: the location of the websites that are mentioned in spam e-mails (reported by citizens). If these websites can be deactivated, the business model of spammers will be undermined. This spam example shows that the roles that end users and technology can play in the governance of decentralized policy issues that require innovative arrangements in order to limit their negative consequences. If active ICT users lead to new business models and new applications, why not use them as a source of governance too?
Decentralized policy issues require a new policy approach. We suggest two components that should be given more consideration in the design of policy arrangements. The first is taking the ICT user into account. The second is to study the governance role of technology.
7. NEXT GENERATION POLICY: END USER INVOLVEMENT
To start with the first option: how can end users contribute to solving a policy problem? A recent example that we described above is in the realm of spam regulation, in which an end user awareness campaign was included in the policy design to combat spam. But this example is limited in the sense that it was instigated by a formal regulatory authority and only a limited part of the regulatory arrangement. A source of inspiration for an extension of the users’ role in government arrangements can be found in the coordination mechanisms that underlie the rise of inverse infrastructures. Inverse infrastructures are information infrastructures that develop bottom-up, initiated by users and that rely on self-organization [15].
We already mentioned city-wide WiFi networks, FON, and P2P networks; these are examples of inverse infrastructures. Inverse infrastructures have the following properties [24]:
1. Bottom-up investments of users;
2. Small heterogeneous networks coupled to larger networks;
3. Use of existing ICT for other, unforeseen aims; 4. User- and consumer-driven development of
infrastructures;
5. Self-organizing, self-configuring, changing network development at the component and subsystem level and
6. Innovation is done by users.
This new type of emergent infrastructures challenge the classic top-down and centralized development of former networks such as the telephony, cable, and mobile networks that were designed and rolled-out by telecommunications companies. Standards in these networks were a reflection of this centralized nature, for example circuit-switching and ISDN standards [25] (For a more elaborate treatment of the history and the paradigm shift from centralized to inverse infrastructures, see: [15].). Nowadays inverse infrastructures can be seen as the forerunner of things to come when technological innovation in ICT continues to broaden the users’ space for activity and creativity. Therefore we claim that looking at the underlying coordination mechanisms of these inverse infrastructures is a source of inspiration for next generation policies.
We can identify a myriad of coordination mechanisms in self-organizing systems, based on a study on coordination in standardization, in Open Source Software (OSS) development, complex adaptive systems (CAS) and Systems of Systems (SoS)-theories [15]. If we restrict ourselves to the study of coordination mechanisms in Open Source Software development, we see the following list (see Box 3).
Box 3 Coordination mechanisms in Open Source Software development from [15]
8. NEXT GENERATION POLICY: THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY
The other component that should receive more attention in government policy and arrangements is the role of technology itself. How can policy issues be solved or even avoided by the technical design of infrastructures or services? The expectation is that ICT users will increasingly be provided with technology that they can model towards their own preferences. Can this trend also be used to include user activities into government arrangements?
Let us take a look at the management of intellectual property rights (IPR). ICT users increasingly face a myriad of IPR-related issues in their private domain. They buy music items from the Apple i-Tune store and copy CD’s for friends that are subject to IPR, they make photos and videos themselves and publish them on the Internet, they are approached by digital producers who want to incorporate their content into other media and they open their hardware for WiFi passers-by, for grid computing or P2P file sharing. How then can the end user be supported in his IPR-management? And in his privacy management when dealing with material that contains pictures of others and in his liability management, when challenged in court? The other way around, can we analyze their activities in
order to find opportunities to make them contribute to solving IPR-related, privacy and liability issues by means of intelligent software? This is a major challenge and source for innovation in governance approaches.
We will offer one more example. If we take a look at the issue of robustness of the Internet, it turns out that now that the e-communications sector is liberalized, the options to address service providers with centralized policies are limited. In European telecommunications law, only in case a service provider is deemed to have significant market power, can he be addressed by a range of regulatory obligations in order to deal with the negative consequences of that market power [26]. The technical way could be an approach that is based on the theory of complex adaptive systems, in this case the adoption of self-healing mechanisms on the infrastructure level [27]. As illustrated in Figure 1 this entails a shift from the classic way of governing dependability by addressing the service providers as market parties towards a new arrangement in which the introduction of a protocol based on a Complex Adaptive Systems approach is encouraged to indirectly solve the problem of Internet dependability by technological means [27].
Coordination mechanisms
Examples
Committee standardization
Market and technology coordination in committees
Founding a standards community and standards procedures (e.g. Java) Standardization initiatives
Market coordination
Coordination in the market place Individual’s reputation as an expert Software distributions
Desirability of a trademark Consumer expectations
Market share as a sign of product quality
Project activity on website, high level of activity may indicate technical excellence
Regulatory coordination
Company rules and government regulation enforce coordinative behavior Participation agreements (e.g. OSS community membership registration) Intellectual Property Right licenses
Contracts
Trademarks (e.g. Java-Compatible logo)
Operational coordination
Developers in open source communities use several tools to support their activities. These tools coordinate, i.e. focus and structure, their work:
software support tools, these support the development of interoperable programs instructional books
certified training programs manuals
test suites
reference implementations
concurrent versioning systems (CVS)/ Subversion: enables software developers to work on the same version simultaneously
to-do lists orphanages Coordination by
authority
Figure 1 Regulating dependability in the Internet Infrastructure via CAS approach [27].
The governance power of new information and communication technologies and the translation of this power into regulatory arrangements is unexplored territory.
9. CHALLENGES FOR POLICY INNOVATION
Centralized policy options can deal with centralized issues, but this approach is less suitable for decentralized issues (as illustrated by spam, privacy, and intellectual property rights, citizen ownership of network components, etc.). Decentralized issues require innovative policy arrangements that take an active end user role and elements from the technical solutions space into account. This requires a paradigm shift in thinking about regulatory arrangements. A paradigm shift that extends the user activity trends already visible in the domains of technical innovation and the roles that users can play into the governance arena.
Our intention in this paper was to sketch the changes in ICT user activities. The classic end user still exists, but the number of active ICT users is growing fast and the adoption curve of new enabling technologies is steep. Also the classic ways of governance and regulation will continue to deal with policy issues in case the government tool matches with the policy issue at hand. However, we claim that ICT users as well as technology can be sources that should explicitly be taken into account in the case of non-classic, decentralized policy issues. We want to inspire policymakers and market players to take another view at users and technology and their combined forces to solve policy issues. We think the best way to do so is to make an inventory of policy issues that escape formal government control on the one hand. And on the other hand, to analyze policy arrangements that already take end user participation into account. Also renewed attention should be paid to the governance role of technology. Ultimately this should lead to an overview of best practices of innovative arrangements that are based on the participation of public and commercial partners and ICT users and that explicitly take the role of technology into account.
REFERENCES
[1] O'Reilly, T. (2005). “What is Web 2.0?”. Retrieved from:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/20 05/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
[2] Wireless Leiden website:
http://www.wirelessleiden.nl/english/ (visited 15 November 2007)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Leiden (visited 15 November 2007)
[4] Flickenger, Rob (2003). Building Wireless Community Networks (2nd ed.). O'Reilly.
[5] Savvas, Antony. (2007). “BT and FON aim for largest online Wi-Fi community”. In: Computerworld, October 4th, 2007.
[6] FON website: http://www.fon.com/en/ (visited 15 November 2007)
[7] Androutsellis-Theotokis, Stephanos & Diomidis Spinellis. (2004). “A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies”. In: ACM Computing Surveys, 36(4):335–371, December 2004.
[8] Pouwelse, Johan. (2004). “A detailed study of the BitTorrent network." Retrieved on December 18th
2004, from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/18/bittorrent_ measurements_analysis/
[9] Thompson, Clive. (2005). "The BitTorrent Effect.". In: Wired Magazine, January 2005. Retrieved from:http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/bitt orrent.html
[10] Website of Tribler: https://www.tribler.org/ (visited 15 November 2007)
[11] Battelle, John. (2005). “The Birth of Google”. In: Wired Magazine, August, 2005. Retrieved from: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/battelle. html?tw=wn_tophead_4
[12] Baset, Salman A. & Henning Schulzrinne. (2004). “An Analysis of the Skype Peer-to-Peer Internet Telephony Protocol”. Retrieved on December 5th 2004:
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~salman/publications/ skype1_4.pdf
[13] Garfinkel, Simson. (1991). PGP: Pretty Good Privacy. O'Reilly & Associates.
[14] Allen, Christopher. (2004). “Tracing the Evolution of Social Software”. Retrieved from: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the _evo.html
[15] Egyedi, TM, J.L.M. Vrancken & J. Ubacht (2007). “Inverse Infrastructures: Coordination in self-organizing systems”. In: Patrick Feng, Dan Meeking & Richard Hawkins (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT 2007), pp. 23-35. Piscataway, USA: IEEE.
[16] Niemegeers, I.G. & S.M. Heemstra de Groot. (2002). “From Personal Area Networks to Personal Networks: A User Oriented Approach”. In: Wireless
CAS Reliability
Personal Communications, Volume 22, Number 2, 175-186.
[17] Mangold., N. N. (2006). "Privacy? Leuk voor bejaarden” (“Privacy? An issue for elderly people”). Retrieved on May 4th 2007 from: http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/20070219 _privacy_leuk_voor_bejaarden
[18] Nussbaum, E. (2007). “Say everything”. Retrieved on July 3rd 2007 from: http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/.
[19] Elliot, R.N. & Spurr, M. (1998). Combined heat and power: Capturing wasted energy. Washington, DC (United States): American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, December 1998.
[20] Vrancken, J.L.M.; Koymans, C.P.J. (2005). “Intelligent complexity in Internet addressing schemes: can the Internet solve its own problems?” IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, conference proceedings, Volume 3, October 10-12, 2005: 2360 - 2365.
[21] Huston, Geoff (2000). “To NAT or IPv6 - That's the question”. December 2000. Retrieved from: http://www.potaroo.net/papers/brdbndsat/2001-01-ipv6.pdf
[22] Domingues, Mónica, Carlos Friaças & Pedro Veiga. (2007). “Is global IPv6 deployment on track?”. In: Internet Research, Volume 17, Issue 5, 505 - 518.
[23] OECD. (2005). Anti-spam regulation. Paris: OECD, November 15th 2005, DSTI/CP/ICCP/SPAM(2005)10/Final.
[24] Vree, W.G. (2003). Internet en Rijkswaterstaat: een ICT-infrastructuur langs water en wegen. Delft: Delft University of Technology, inaugural speech.
[25] Mansell, R. & R. Hawkins (1992). “Old Roads and New Signposts: Trade Policy Objectives in Telecommunication Standards”. In: F. Klaver & P. Slaa (Eds.), Telecommunication, New Signposts to Old Roads. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp.45-54.
[26] Ubacht, J. (2006). “Regulatory practice in Mobile Telecommunciations Markets: past, present and future”. In: Proceedings of the ITS Conference 2006.
