[e2e] The Layers Principle

[koranteng_ofosu-amaah at us.ibm.com]

A decent paper looking at the Internet Architecture from the legal
perspective. Starting by discussing the end-to-end principle, it goes on to
focus more on the need to preserve Internet transparency and to avoid layer
violations when 'regulating' the Internet.  I've often thought that
engineers needed more ammunition when arguing against 'stupid' regulations
and this looks like a clueful effort in that respect. At the very least
it's educational. There've been other papers/books analyzing the end-to-end
principle in the eyes of the law (e.g. Lawrence Lessig) but this seems
clearer in my opinion.

Download page:

 http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=416263

Abstract:

This essay addresses the fundamental questions of Internet governance:
whether and how the architecture of the Internet should affect the shape
and content of legal regulation of the global network of networks. Our
answer to these questions is based on the concept of layers, the
fundamental architectural feature of the Internet. Our thesis is that legal
regulation of the Internet should be governed by the layers principle - the
law should respect the integrity of layered Internet architecture. This
principle has two corollaries. The first corollary is the principle of
layer separation: Internet regulation should not violate or compromise the
separation between layers designed into the basic architecture of the
Internet. The second corollary is the principle of minimizing layer
crossing, i.e., minimize the distance between the layer at which the law
aims to produce an affect and the layer directly affected by legal
regulation. The essay argues that layers analysis provides a more robust
conceptual framework for evaluating Internet regulations than does the
end-to-end principle.

The layers principle is supported by two fundamental ideas. The first idea
is transparency: the fact that layer-violating regulations damage
transparency combined with the fact that Internet transparency lowers the
cost of innovation provides compelling support for the principle of layer
separation: public Internet regulators should not violate or compromise the
separation between layers designed into the basic architecture of the
Internet. The second idea is fit: the fact that layer-crossing regulations
result in inherent mismatch between the ends such regulations seek to
promote and the means employed implies that layer-crossing regulations
suffer from problems of overbreadth and underinclusion; avoidance of these
problems requires Internet regulators to minimize the distance between the
layer at which the law aims to produce an effect and the layer directly
targeted by legal regulation.

Finally, the essay provides a detailed discussion of several real or
hypothetical layer-violating or layer-crossing regulations, including: (1)
The Serbian internet interdiction myth, (2) Myanmar's cut-the-wire policy,
(3) China's great firewall, (4) the French Yahoo case, (5) cyber-terrorism,
(6) Pennsylvania's IP address-blocking child-pornography statute, (7) port
blocking and peer-to-peer file sharing, and (8) the regulation of streaming
video at the IP layer.

--
Koranteng Ofosu-Amaah
Portal Solutions - Lotus Software