International Journal of Multidisciplinary Thought
1(1): 173 - 187 (2010)
© CD-ROM. ISSN 2156-6992
Three Levels Of Internet Governance: Finding A Balance To Ensure
Freedom Of Expression And Information Accessibility Rights Of Internet
Users
Andrey A. Scherbovich, State University – Higher School of Economics, Russia
Abstract: In this paper, we will try to compare the three levels of internet governance:
supranational, national and community level. Practice shows that none of these levels will be
recognized as sufficient for internet governance. Looking at the internet as a mirror reflecting the
real world, we must refrain from the idea of complete absence of internet governance. However, this
governance must serve the needs of the internet as free information network available everywhere in
the world. Looking from this perspective, we could say that internet governance must not limit the
freedom of expression, the right to access information and other fundamental human rights, but must
ensure their observance at all three levels. In our report, we would consider all three levels of
internet governance, highlight their positive and negative aspects and assign their roles according to
their functional characteristics. This could be an approach to establish a system of „checks and
balances‟ in the trilateral model of the internet governance policy.
Keywords: internet governance, supranational level, national level, self-regulation.
Introduction
A cyberspace philosophy promotes maximum independence of the internet from any government
and other forms of interference. It is impossible, however, to preclude any kind of internet
governance or regulation thereof. The internet is like a mirror reflecting the real world, where we
have moral and legal rules called to provide and ensure freedom of expression and information
accessibility rights, protection from abuse of those rights by criminal and other kinds of wrongful
behavior.
Similar rules should also exist in the cyberspace. Nowadays, we could in fact reveal the three levels
of internet governance, namely: supranational, national and self-regulation. Due to the specificity of
the internet, none of these levels could be declared self-sufficient or unique to set up relevant
management rules. The main purpose of this paper is to compare these three levels of internet
governance and to allocate their roles in this process according to their functional characteristics.
1. Supranational level of internet governance
Many international organizations, both of intergovernmental and non-governmental nature, are
dealing with the issue of internet governance. Among the international intergovernmental
organizations we could highlight, above all, the UN Forum on internet Governance, UNESCO, and
regional international organizations such as the Council of Europe or Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The UN internet Governance Forum holds annual international conferences in different parts of the
world. Each of the conferences is aimed to establish and improve mechanisms for internet
governance, with due account of international standards and principles in the sphere of human
rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (1966), and other fundamental documents in this area. Conferences are
open for all stakeholders involved in global internet governance. In particular, at a conference held
in 2008 in Hyderabad (India), it was stated that internet governance should be based, in all respects,
on human rights, and primarily on the freedom of expression (IGF, 3rd meeting, 2008, P. 9).
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) plays a
significant role in the development of international mechanisms of internet governance. In the
process of implementation of intergovernmental programs, primarily Information for All
Programme (IFAP), the issues of freedom of expression and information accessibility rights are
determined as strategic priorities.
It also spelled out the need to follow the principles of information ethics, to acknowledge that there
are ethical, legal and social aspects of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Ethical
principles for knowledge societies derive from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
including freedom of expression, universal access to information, especially of public domain, the
right to education, right to privacy and right to participate in cultural life. One of the most pressing
issues is unequal access to ICTs from different countries, as well as urban and rural areas within
countries (IFAP Strategic Plan, 2008, P. 10).
In addition to global, there are also regional European initiatives on internet governance. The
European dialogue on internet governance has been established and operating under the auspices of
the Council of Europe. Second meeting of the Dialogue took place on 14-15 September 2009 in
Geneva with the participation of about 200 representatives from the private sector, governments and
parliaments of different countries, as well as the civil society. The dialogue participants noted with
satisfaction that the forum was attended by representatives from all major groups of agents of
internet governance, i.e. civil society, government, youth, academia, industry and parliamentarians.
(EuroDIG Press release – 660 (2009)).
Human rights were treated as key issues in internet governance. Attention must be paid, in
particular, to implementation and consolidation of existing human rights standards in the context of
internet governance, especially in developing countries. The Dialogue promotes a developing idea
of the internet as a public resource which also seeks to guarantee universal access to information.
In 2007, the Council of Europe and UNESCO, together with the National Commission of France for
UNESCO hosted a conference titled “Ethics and Human Rights in the Information Society”. One of
the pressing issues discussed at the Conference was effective regulation and enforcement of legal
norms. It was stressed that society needs clear and precise rules and directives that internet users
could observe and implement. Paradoxically, there was also a need for a dynamic and flexible
international instrument drafted as a code of ethics of the internet with discovery of these
principles, without any inhibition of future progress and new formats (Worhoff D., 2007,
P. 37).
The position of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is that in a modern
democratic civil society, citizens should be able to decide independently whether they want to have
access to the internet. The right to disseminate and receive information is one of the fundamental
human rights. Compulsory introduction of state filtering mechanisms assigning labels or blocking
unacceptable content must be prohibited (OCSE, The Media Freedom internet Cookbook, 2004,
P. 18).
In addition to intergovernmental organizations at the international level, there are also nongovernmental organizations expressing opinions on the issue of internet governance at the
international level.
A non-governmental organization Reporters Without Borders highlighted in its report a number of
so called internet enemies, i.e. countries applying the policy of internet blocking. The latest report
shows 12 internet enemies, including Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea,
Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. All these countries have transformed the
internet into the local network (Intranet), preventing internet users from receiving „junk‟ news. They
not only censor online information, but also carry out "almost systematic" repressions of internet
users. Ten other countries were placed under „surveillance‟, as they still carry out censorship and
harassment of internet users. Among others there is also „isolated‟ Belarus, as well as such
conventional democratic countries such as Australia and South Korea (internet Enemies, RWB,
2009, P. 2). Although Russia, according to the Reporters Without Borders, is not referred to as
internet enemy, it ranks 153 out of 175 in the general ranking of press freedom (RWB off. website).
Another non-governmental organization is the internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) which deals with the management systems of unique identification of the
internet at a global level, including ensuring stability and security of such systems.
ICANN proclaims basic values, including protection and enhancement of stability, reliability,
security and global interoperability of the internet, introduction of mechanisms for the development
of an open and transparent policy that support informed decision-making based on reliable
information and expert advice and provides for the participation of most stakeholders in the
development of such policy. ICANN promotes the impartial and unbiased decision-making, fair and
just solutions through the use of documented policy guidelines. The organization performs prompt
actions to meet the internet requirements that constitute the part of decision making process, with
due account of the information and data from the parties involved (ICANN Ann. Rep., 2008, P. 16).
Another organization is ECPAT International (End Child Prostitution Child Pornography and
Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes), which is involved in the internet governance and
monitoring of its resources to combat child prostitution, child pornography and sexual exploitation
of children. ECPAT works to ensure that the benefits of the internet and new technologies are not
compromised by those who seek to use these technologies for the sexual exploitation of children.
ECPAT works with governments, law enforcement structures, the technology industry and nongovernmental organizations to develop protocols for reporting and responding to such crimes
through information and education, using hotlines and other measures to help in identification and
assistance for child victims. It also advocates and works for the establishment of comprehensive
national legislation against child pornography to protect children (See D. Moire et al., 2005, P. 10).
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), which represents the
interests of library users, is also involved in internet governance to ensure the right to access
information in the public domain. IFLA opposes any measures that could lead to exerting control
over the access to information and restricting the freedom of expression on the part of commercial
and government agencies or by any individual organization (IFLA‟s position on internet
governance, 2007, P. 57).
In Russia, there are also civil society organizations engaged in the elaboration of programs and
policies aimed to develop internet governance, find solutions to problems relating to the freedom of
expression and information accessibility rights in the internet. According to the Charter of the
Russian Public Center of internet Technologies (ROCIT), the Center aims its activities to unite
persons interested in Russia‟s accession to the global information space through the spread of
technologies based on the use of the internet as a global computer network (See ROCIT Charter).
The ROCIT holds conferences on various aspects of the internet, such as Week of Russian internet,
E-Media (i-SMI), internet safety (i-Safety), etc. The conferences demonstrate vigorous exchange of
opinions on different matters of internet activities. In addition, the ROCIT holds annual Runet Prize
Award for outstanding achievements in the development of Russian segment of the internet.
To sum up, we can outline the following positive aspects of internet governance at an international
level:
– an open and unrestricted dialogue on internet governance issues, including the freedom of
expression and information accessibility rights, independently from national legislation or ideology
of certain states
– „participatory‟ approach, i.e. involvement of many actors in decision-making process, such as
governments, international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, scientific and
professional community and other representatives of civil society dealing with the issues of internet
governance
– an open-minded, more complete and scientifically sound analysis of the issues of internet
governance
– an international level more adequately reflects the supranational nature of the internet as a
worldwide information network „without borders‟, which approaches the accepted rules to reality;
– due account of fundamental human rights instruments adopted by the United Nations and regional
international organizations.
We can also show some weaknesses of the international level:
– in most cases the decisions of international organizations are of recommendatory nature, which
prevents us from hoping that such decisions will be adopted by all jurisdictions at a national level
(with the exception of such regulations as international treaties that are properly signed and ratified
by member states, like the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the Budapest Convention
on Cybercrime (2001), etc.)
– not all national jurisdictions unequivocally perceive particular international norms and principles
of internet governance
– most of the above proposed norms and principles of internet governance have ethical nature,
which requires extremely high level of legal and information culture for them to be adopted in a
particular country
– many international non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations (Reporters Without
Borders, IFLA, etc.) perceive any attempt to regulate the internet as an illegal establishment of
censorship on the internet, which means an automatic denial of freedom of expression and
information accessibility rights of internet users.
Consequently, as for the supranational level of internet governance, the following should be stressed
here.

Development and launching of programs and policies aimed to improve internet governance
theory, ideology and methodology.

Arbitration, counseling, intermediary and other methods of dispute settlement between
national jurisdictions in the sphere of internet governance.

Development and promotion of ethical standards of internet governance, which includes the
development and improvement of the Codes of Ethics at supranational (global and regional)
and national levels.

Clarifications and training courses aimed to promote internationally approved programs and
policies of internet governance.

Development of obligatory rules stipulated in multinational treaties and conventions
designed to protect basic human rights in the sphere of information, such as the freedom of
expression/speech and information accessibility rights, with due account of the cyberspace.

Assistance in the ratification of such treaties and agreements and their implementation in
national legislations.

Monitoring of government abidance by the established rules of internet governance to
guarantee the freedom of expression and information accessibility rights.
2. National level of internet governance
At the national (state) level, the policies of internet governance could be regulated by both laws and
statutory instruments. In Russia, which is a federal state, such policies could be implemented both at
the federal and regional levels.
According to opinion polls conducted by a Russian research center, almost half of Russian citizens
(49%) believe that information in the internet should be regulated. In all population groups,
those who believe it necessary to regulate the internet dominate in number over the supporters of
total freedom of information in the web. The main argument in favor of the implementation of
regulating policies in the internet is a need for control and censorship (9%), the abundance of „dirt‟,
„garbage‟, etc. in the web (7%) and availability of the internet to children and its negative impact on
them (6%). Opponents often say that the main value of the internet is the ability for people to choose
the information that they need (9%) (RPORC, 2008).
Pursuant to clause 5, article 29 of the Russian Constitution stipulating media freedom and
prohibition of censorship, internet censorship is also deemed to be forbidden at the statutory level. In
his annual address to the Federal Assembly in 2008 the President focused on the inadmissibility of
censorship in the internet and the recognition of impracticability of any form of such censorship as
the commitment to the constitutional provision. Dmitry Medvedev said: “Freedom of speech must
be provided with technological innovations. Experience has shown that it is practically useless to
persuade the officials "to leave alone" the media. We must not try to persuade, but we must increase
the free space of the internet and digital television as actively as possible. No official would be able
to prevent discussions on the internet or censor thousands of channels at once” (Medvedev, 2008).
In the modern world, there are several ways to control access to the internet, including blocking
websites, content filtering and classification of websites, monitoring the activity of internet users
(interception of communications), control over internet users (introduction of user authorization,
control over IT equipment). Most of these policies are carried out at the state level (Kobzeva, 2008).
Unlike China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and several other countries, Russia does not block internet
resources on a regular basis. Such attempts are, however, made at a regional level.
In early June 2009, the Kirov District Court of Ufa, a capital city of the Republic of Bashkortostan
(a republic within the Russian Federation), recognized a web blog called Revinform and hosted on
Livejournal.com as extremist. On the basis of the above court decision the Bashkir providers were
instructed to restrict access to this blog in the region. This attests to the fact that access to the website was blocked by the court, said Almira Zhukova, deputy executive director of the national NGO
For Human Rights. She was among those who could not enter the website Revinform through
Livejournal.com. She says she uses internet access provided by the largest republican fixed-line
operator Bashinformsvyaz.
In this regard, many subscribers of Bashinformsvyaz could not enter other blogs hosted on
Livejournal.com, says Robert Zagree, editor-in-chief of the opposition newspaper For Local
Government.
The Prosecutor‟s Office ordered that the Bashkortostan telecom providers restricted access to
Revinform by adding border router filtering the IP-address of the site, as stated in the Kirov district
of Ufa prosecutor‟s order published on the website of Ufa Provincial (Livejournal is partly
inaccessible, 2009).
Much more frequently we could see the implementation of the policy of content filtering instead of
blocking. This policy seems to be more legally justified, being implemented in order to prevent
abuse of freedom of expression and information accessibility rights.
In Russia, measures of content filtering and restrictions on information accessibility in the internet
are introduced solely for universities and colleges. The Ministry for Education and Science issued a
letter to constituent entities of the Russian Federation, requiring to develop and adopt guidelines and
educational materials based on regional ethnical and cultural characteristics and the regional
component of a basic curriculum. It further prescribed to appoint an official at the regional level to
be responsible for content filtering (Letter No. AS-1299/03 of the Ministry for Education and
Science dated November 10, 2006).
According to the abovementioned letter, the Department for Education and Science of the Primorsky
Territory Administration issued an order “On Approval of the Classifiers of internet Information
Resources”. The classifier consists of 10 categories of information, dissemination of which is
prohibited under the laws of Russia. Such categories include propaganda of war, incitement of
hatred and enmity, propaganda of pornography and antisocial behavior, drugs, extremism, etc. The
model classifier of information, incompatible with the objectives of training and education, has also
been approved. This classifier is comprised of 25 categories, such as personal and unmoderated
information, illegal assistance to pupils and students, indecent and earthy humor, etc (Order No. 20a of the Department for Education and Science of the Primorsky Territory Administration dated
January 11, 2007).
Here are some examples of regulation of this issue in other countries.
The United States Supreme Court decision of June 23, 2003 on the constitutionality of the rules of
the Children‟s internet Protection Act (CIPA). The law adopted in December 2000 obligated the US
public libraries to equip computers in public access areas with software installing special filters
restricting access to pornographic content for readers, especially young.
During the court session, the Court held that this requirement does not contradict the First
Amendment to the US Constitution protecting the freedom of expression and information as it was
held by the Court of Pennsylvania in 2002.
The Supreme Court‟s verdict is inter alia based on the fact that, since the filters could be switched
from automatic mode to manual at any time (if an adult reader is requested to do so), then the legal
requirement on their installation was not too burdensome in terms of the First Amendment
(Monakhov, 2005, P. 12-13).
On the other hand, we known of a number of the US Supreme Court‟s decisions that are
contradictory in their findings and legal positions, such as
– the abolition of Communication Decency Act in 1997, in Reno v. ACLU Communication Decency
Act (CDA). The Act was designed to protect minors and called for the criminalization of so-called
„indecency‟ in the internet. In this case, the legal position of the Supreme Court was based on the
following: “The growth of the internet has been and continues to be a simple phenomenal.
According to the constitutional tradition and in absence of evidence to the contrary, we provided
that the government regulation of content of speech is more like to interfere in the free exchange of
ideas than to encourage it”;
– in summer 2004, the Supreme Court for the second time overturned the enforcement of the Child
Online Protection Act (COPA). The law recognized the use „for commercial purposes‟ of web
materials that could have caused „harm to minors‟ as a federal crime (Monakhov, 2005, Ibid.).
In foreign countries, measures are also undertaken to regulate the behavior of the users of internet
resources at the level of monitoring network equipment. In particular, Decree No. 175 of the
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus of February 10, 2007 approved the “Regulations on
the Operation of Computer Clubs and Cyber Cafés” stipulating as follows: "When rendering
customer services, data services and network services in a cyber café, its supervisor or an authorized
person shall maintain an electronic log of domain names of websites that had been accessed to by
the users. The period for storing an electronic log should be at least 12 months. In cases determined
by the law, the supervisor of the cyber cafe or the authorized person is obliged to provide access of
national security forces, law enforcement and state control to the log” (Decision No. 175 of the
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus of February 10, 2007).
The Regulations also stipulated that users of cyber cafés should not “use software which, by the
opinion of the Republican Expert Committee for Preventing the Promotion of Pornography,
Violence and Cruelty, is recognized as promoting violence, cruelty, and pornography” (Decision
No. 175 of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus of February 10, 2007. Ibid.).
In the United States, in accordance with the USA Patriot Act passed by the Congress in October
2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has the right to require the internet service providers to
provide information without due judicial review by simply providing a National Security Letter
(NSL). For the issue of NSL no judicial procedures or specific grounds for suspicion or
confirmation of urgent necessity are required. Moreover, none of the above actions can be
challenged (Kobzeva, 2008, Ibid).
We can outline the following positive aspects of internet governance at a national level:
– as a rule, there are well-defined members of the regulatory process with a specific legally bound
mandate to implement it
– „traditional‟ and clear (understandable) mechanisms for protecting citizens‟ constitutional rights
when they are violated (judicial, administrative, etc.)
– references to legislation and international law implemented by the country as a part of national
legal system provide greater guarantee of legal protection of freedom of expression and information
accessibility rights.
There are, however, certain weaknesses of internet governance at a national level:
– possible abuse of power by national security, law enforcement and state control officials in the
process of control or supervision exercised over the activities of internet service providers and the
users
– imperfect legislation that lags behind the level of development of internet technologies, including
the lack of definitions of sufficient internet-related terms
– users whose freedom of expression or information accessibility rights are violated would not
sometimes seek to protect their rights with public authorities because of the fear of corruption or red
tape
– insufficient legal culture and legal literacy of many internet users prevents them from efficient
defense of their rights by using state mechanisms of legal protection.
The national level of internet governance should be assigned for the compliance of following
functions.

Ratification of international treaties and conventions in the sphere of internet governance and
their implementation into national legislation.

Establishment of favorable legal environment for realization of freedom of expression and
information accessibility rights in the internet, including modernization of national
legislations according to the modern development of WEB 2.0 and other cutting-edge
technologies of cyberspace, especially the possibility to make user-generated content on
websites.

Protection of constitutional freedom of expression and information accessibility rights in the
internet by judicial and administrative bodies in a statutory manner.

Prevention of the abuse of information rights in the internet by imposing legal restrictions
that are based on constitutional provisions for defending constitutional interests, such as
health, morality, another person‟s rights, national defense and security.
3. Self-regulation of internet resources: introduction to the
community level of internet governance
When web resources are managed by state authorities, there will emerge bylaws stipulating the rules
for the use of such resources, the behavior of their users and administrators (moderators). The
bylaws generally provide for specific definitions of relevant concepts. This is a model or an example
of „quasi-self-regulation‟ of such resources.
Thus, the Order of the Federal Treasury adopted the Rules for the Information and Technical
Support of the Federal Treasury Website. The Rules, in particular, have set out the following
concepts.
Forum is an information resource website designated for the exchange of messages on the activities
of the Federal Treasury between the central staff and members of the Federal Treasury, corporations
and individuals.
Forum topic is an online conference with a selected theme.
Forum topic constitutes part of the conference that may be created by a Forum visitor.
Participants are understood to mean all registered users of the Forum, including members of the
Federal Treasury.
Moderator is a senior official of the central staff of the Federal Treasury that has extended rights in
respect of a particular section of the Forum. The Moderator has the right to modify, delete or move
any message within the controlled section of the Forum.
Administrator is an officer of the Technical Unit that has a permission to create and delete blocks,
sections and topics of the Forum, to appoint and remove moderators, and also ensures the smooth
operation of the Forum.
The rules stipulate the obligation to register Forum users. To be registered in the Forum, an
employee should go to http://www.roskazna.ru/forum and fill out the registration form. During the
registration the employee must indicate its true personal data, such as name and e-mail registered on
roskazna.ru. The Forum Administrator is authorized to remove or modify any data submitted for
registration if such data do not comply with the registration rules.
The above Rules separately indicate the prohibition on pre-moderation of messages: “The officers
do not check messages before posting them on the Forum”.
Moreover, the Rules stipulate the manner of the publication of new topics on the Forum, the status,
rights and obligations of its users and the responsibility of administrators and moderators of the
Forum (Order No. 231 of the Federal Treasury of August 28, 2008).
It is much more difficult to address the situations where a resource is privately owned by individuals
or legal entities.
According to UNESCO expert Gus Hosein, there are several ways to ensure censorship that are used
on the check points within the internet architecture. The check points include original message,
outgoing provider, end-provider and end-message or end-user. The methods used to control said
parameters include:

Direct guidance on the content: what message may be sent and to which data access may be
granted.

Requirements on the installation of filters and other technical means that block data flows.

Licensing regimes for the forms of expression, transmission and reception of information.

Modes of responsibility for the message sources and providers.

Liability for insult and defamation.

Modes of protection of copyright and intellectual property, etc.
Almost all debates over censorship come to discussions over the actions of a state, whereas main
concern over the imposition of censorship and control of data flows should be the mechanisms that
are put into effect by the source of control. Industry, especially when it acts together with the state,
can be a powerful source of censorship. In the name of the protection of copyright and intellectual
property, the authorities adopt laws and establish practices that, according to Gus Hosein, give rise
to certain concern (Hosein, 2008, P. 29).
Individuals and groups of individuals also may be entitled for censoring other people's behavior with
regard to defamation and insults.
Blocking of specific websites may be implemented at the government level. Ideally, such a
procedure may be implemented in countries with a limited number of internet providers. In this case,
the internet is accessed not from a decentralized computer, but through a state-controlled company
responsible for monitoring and blocking such access.
At the level of end-users, commercial filtering programs have been developed. In many countries,
these software applications are sold to parents who fear that their children will come across
„objectionable‟ material in the internet, as well as to companies and other organizations that do not
want their employees to view pornographic sites during working hours, using access to the internet
(Hosein, 2008, P. 33)..
In this regard, U. Zimina, senior lawyer of Russian internet company Yandex, comes to important
conclusions, which are relevant for the purposes of this paper (Zimina, 2009, P. 63):
1. All responsibility for illegal content should be borne by the owner of the site, in other words, the
information holder.
2. The owner of the site can be determined through the hosting provider of the site.
3. It often happens that the owner of the site coincides with the administrator of the domain name
(but such coincidence is not required), the information about which can be learned from the registrar
of domain names.
4. If the owner of the site can not be identified (generally in case of free-of-charge hosting services),
the provider removes the site in accordance with the contract.
5. At present, the types of providers and their responsibility in Russian legislation are not adequately
defined, which creates practical problems and requires prompt adjustment of legislation.
6. The practice of settling disputes over the content and role of providers is quite limited now.
Moreover, each hosting provider makes the user agreement available on the site, which should be
accepted when one registers his or her name (account). In the event of the default on the terms and
conditions of the user agreement, the provider retains its right to delete the user's account, and in
some cases, is obliged to do so.
Management of Russian private websites undertakes certain measures to combat extremist behavior
within their own resources. For example, the rules of Sibnet forum, in particular, state as follows: "It
is strictly prohibited to advocate violence, ethnic and other tensions. Using the profile in the fields of
Nazi symbols, messages and Nazi slogans is prohibited” (Sibnet Forum Board Rules, 2010).
The user agreement of one of the most popular social networks V Kontakte (a Russian analogue of
Facebook) reads as follows: "The website may not display information that promotes racial,
religious, ethnic hatred or hostility, and any other information that violates legally protected rights
of citizens, to describe or promote the criminal activities, post the instructions or guidelines for
criminal acts". (V Kontakte, User Agreement, 2010).
According to the Russian unofficial translation of the user agreement of Livejournal, which is the
most popular Russian blog platform, you may not „provide or distribute information or instructions
to commit illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury to any public authority, person or
entity, to promote animal cruelty. This includes, among other things, how to create explosive
devices, explosives, incendiary mixtures, as well as other types of weapons and destruction‟
(Livejournal terms of service. Unof. Russian translation, 2010).
Now, we would like to outline positive aspects of self-regulation of web resources:
– freedom of actions of individuals realizing information rights in the internet and ensuring that such
rights are observed
– a possibility of diversification of regulatory policy, depending on the specific resource in the
internet
– administration of an internet resource and the community of its users is voluntarily interested in
compliance with the user agreement of the web resource
– establishment of a competent community of users of internet resources and their corporate culture
with ethical norms, customs and rules of conduct.
Among disadvantages of self-regulation we could see the following:
– user agreements are clearly optional for the users, whereas the rules and sanctions imposed by the
administrations can be easily avoided by registering multiple accounts
– the quality of protection of the freedom of speech in the internet depends on the legal and
information culture of users, the ways of their interaction with the resource administration
– the possibility of subjective approach to the violation or compliance with the user agreements,
depending on the policy of a particular resource
– if an internet resource is registered in a foreign jurisdiction, it can give rise to a conflict of
jurisdictions which manifests itself in impracticable application of translated versions of user
agreements that are recognized as unofficial ones
– the user agreements stipulate their optional nature for the administration of the resource, or easy
ways to amend such agreements unilaterally, without any consulting with the users of the website.
Self-regulation on web resources should be allocated with the following functions.

Formation and development of social networks on different websites, establishment of user
communities and improvement of their information literacy and legal culture.

Elaboration of rules of conduct formalized in user agreements and the terms of service, their
compliance with statutory standards.

Settlement of disputes arising in a process of realization of the freedom of expression and
information accessibility rights on different websites in a statutory order within users
network communities, possible arbitration by means of specially appointed conflict
commissions, moderators and managers of such web resources.

Development of standard (community) rules of internet governance on specific websites,
which have both ethical and legal nature.
Conclusions
It is a pattern that, when a web resource is big and its proprietor holds a significant position in the
cyberspace (internet companies like Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, etc.), the user agreement is better
protected by the law. So, freedom of expression and information accessibility rights of the users are
protected better than in case of informal rules of smaller resources.
The need for the establishment of internet governance policies, where all roles will be precisely
determined, stems from the analysis of the three levels of internet governance, i.e. supranational,
national, and self-regulation.
The legal responsibility for the user-generated content should be borne by its author, rather than the
internet provider or the owner of the web resource. The difficulties with user identification should
urge interested parties to elaborate more adequate mechanisms of user identification to avoid a
situation when an innocent party assumes legal responsibility.
When implementing content-filtering policies, it is necessary to prefer real, rather than automatic
filtration, as the latter could demonstrate inadequate results and eventually threat the realization of
information accessibility rights of their users.
References
Third Meeting of the internet Governance Forum (IGF). Hyderabad, India, 3-6 December 2008.
Chairman's Summary. URL:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hydera/Chairman%27s%20Summary.10.12.2.pdf
[Accessed: 04.02.2010].
Information for All Programme. Strategic Plan (2008 – 2013). Doc. 108 EX/15 Annex. URL:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001618/161860e.pdf [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
2009 EuroDIG stakeholders support the protection of human rights and universal access as key
priorities for internet governance. Press-release – 660 (2009). URL:
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1503179&Site=COE&BackColorinternet=DBDCF2&BackCol
orIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864 [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
Worhoff D. Ethical problems related to creation and distribution of content and communication in
the internet // Ethics and human rights in the information society. Proceedings, synthesis and
recommendations. Strasbourg, 13-14 September, 2007. Russian edition. URL:
http://ifapcom.ru/files/Documents/2009/ethics2009.pdf [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
The Media Freedom internet Cookbook. Recommendations and best practices drawn from the 2004
Amsterdam internet Conference of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Russian
edition. Vienna, 16 December 2004. URL: http://www.osce.org/item/13570.html?ch=89&lc=RU
[Accessed: 04.02.2010].
Internet Enemies. March 12, 2009. Internet Freedom desk, Reporters Without Borders. URL:
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/internet_enemies_2009_2_-3.pdf [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
Russia // Reporters Without Borders. Official website. URL: http://www.rsf.org/en-rapport131Russia.html [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
Article 1. Mission and Basic Values // ICANN Annual Report of 2008. Russian edition. URL:
http://www.icann.org/ru/annualreport/annual-report-2008-ru.pdf [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
D. Moire et al. Violence against Children in cyberspace // ECPAT International, 2005. Russian
edition. URL: http://www.childcentre.info/child-safety-internetconference/public/Cyberspace_RUS.pdf [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
Hamilton S. et al. IFLA position related to internet governance // IFLA/UNESCO internet Manifesto
Guidelines. Russian edition. Saint-Petersburg, IFLA, Russian Library Association, 2007.
Russian Public Center of internet Technologies (ROCIT) Charter. URL:
http://www.rocit.ru/about/ustav/ [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
Freedom of the information in the internet: whether it is necessary to limit it? Russian public
opinion research center. Press-release No. 1115 of 9.12.2008. URL:
http://wciom.ru/arkhiv/tematicheskii-arkhiv/item/single/11097.html [Accessed: 04.02.2010].
Annual address of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of November 11,
2008 // The Russian Newspaper, 06.11.2008, The Parliamentary Newspaper, N 69, 7-13.11.2008.
Kobzeva S. Maintenance of the safe access to the internet: review of the global experience //
Information Law, 2008, No 4, pp. 37-40.
Livejournal is partly inaccessible // The Vedomosti, 26.06.2009, №116 (2386).
Letter No. AS-1299/03 of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of
November 10, 2006 “On Realization of the Content Filtering of Access of the Educational
Institution, which Connected to the internet within the Framework of the Priority National Project
“Education”, Methodical and Assistance Materials for Realization of Complex Measures on
Introduction and Use of the Program and Technical Means Providing Exception of Accessibility to
the Information in the internet which is not Compatible with Purposes of Training and Education for
Students”.
Order No. 20-a of the Department of Education and Science of the Administration of the Primorsky
Territory of January, 11 2007 “On Approval of internet Information Resources Classifier”.
Monakhov V. Freedom of the mass media in the internet. Legal conditions of realization. Moscow,
Galeria, 2005.
Decision No .175 of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus of February 10, 2007. “On
Statement of Regulations of the Operating Procedure in Computer Clubs and Cyber Cafés”.
Order No. 231 of the Federal Treasury of August 28, 2008 “On Rules of Information and Technical
Support of the Website of Federal Treasury”.
Hosein, Gus. Introduction of censorship and its consequences. // Politics in the information society:
the bordering and restraining of global data flows. Russian edition. Moscow, Russian committee of
the UNESCO Information for all Programme, 2008.
Zimina U. Responsibility of the internet service provider for an illegal content in the internet //
Arbitration justice in Russia, No. 4, 2009.
Sibneft, Forum Board Rules, 2010. URL: http://forum.sibnet.ru/index.php?act=boardrules.
[Accessed: 04.02.2010].
V Kontakte, User Agreement, 2010. URL: http://vkontakte.ru/help.php?page=terms [Accessed:
04.02.2010].
Livejournal, terms of service. Unofficial Russian translation, 2010. URL:
http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos-russian-translation.bml [Accessed: 04.02.2010].