On May 12, 2011, both Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for the digital agenda within the European Commission, and Larry Strickling, Assistant Commissioner for Communications and Information within the United States Department of Commerce, sent a notification to the ICANN, a private association that manages Internet domain names. First of all, they agreed with the principle of self-regulation of Internet domain names by the ICANN. But, they requested a reform of its “governance” to improve its transparency and better take into account public authorities’ recommendations.
Association - Conflict resolution - Domain name - European commission - Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) - Memorandum - Power - Private regulator - Regulatory Authority - Self regulation - Soft law - Transparency - United Nations (UN) *
* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.
PORTUGUESE
Informe bibliográfico (Internet): Autoridades europeias e norte-americanas notificaram a ICANN, uma associação privada encarregada da auto-regulação de nomes de domínio na Internet, que ela deve adotar uma governança mais transparente e também adotar as recomendações de estruturas públicas.
Em 12 de maio de 2011, tanto Neelie Kroes, o Comissário Europeu para a agenda digital dentro da Comissão Europeia, quanto Larry Strickling, Comissário Assistente para Comunicações e Informação dentro do Departamento de Comércio dos Estados Unidos da América, enviaram uma notificação para a ICANN, uma associação privada que gerencia nomes de domínio na internet. Em primeiro lugar, eles concordaram com o princípio da auto-regulação dos nomes de domínio na Internet pela ICANN. No entanto, eles solicitaram uma reforma em sua governança para melhorar sua transparência e melhor levar em consideração as recomendações de autoridades públicas.
Associação – Resolução de conflitos – Nome de domínio – Comissão Europeia – Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) – Memorandum – Poder – Regulação privada – Autoridade de regulação – Auto-regulação – Soft law – Transparência – Nações Unidas (ONU)*
* No Journal of Regulation, as palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Diretor, e não pelo Autor.
ITALIAN
Relazione bibliografica (Internet): Le autorità europee e nord americane hanno indicato che l’ICANN, una società privata che ha lo scopo di auto-regolare i nomi a dominio di internet, dovrà aumentare la trasparenza della gestione ed adottare le raccomandazioni delle strutture pubbliche
Il 12 maggio 2011, Neelie Kroes, Commissario europeo per l’agenda digitale della Commissione europea, e Larry Strickling, Commissario assistente per le comunicazioni e l’informazione del Dipartimento del Commercio degli Stati Uniti, hanno entrambi dichiarato che l’ICANN, una società privata che gestisce i nomi a dominio di Internet, deve riformare il proprio sistema di gestione migliorando la sua trasparenza e deve prendere in debita considerazione le raccomandazioni provenienti dalle autorità pubbliche.
Associazione - Autorità di regolazione - Autorità privata di regolazione - Auto-regolazione - Commissione Europea - Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) - Memorandum - Nazioni Unite (ONU) - Nomi di dominio - Potere - Risoluzione di controversie - Soft law - Transparenza *
* In The Journal of Regulation, le parole chiave sono responsabilità dell’Editore e non dall’Autore.
►This scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Juliette Morel Maroger and Sophie Schiller. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Centre de recherche en Droit (CR2D) of Paris Dauphine-PSL University.
Judges, regulatory and supervisory authorities, or even authorities specially instituted by Compliance Law, such as the Agence Française Anticorruption (French Anticorruption Agency), must implement it.
The colloquium aims initially to identify and discuss the procedural rules that they then specifically implement, in particular when the strong requirements of Compliance Law, efficiency and immediacy, new negotiation techniques and commitment, must be articulated with the traditional procedural requirements that remain.
The question arises in particular as to whether the rules of a fair trial should apply (or can they be similar in transactional procedures and in the context of judicial procedures, and how the control by judges operates during homologation) in transactional procedures, with more or less specific treatment of the evidence used.
Secondly, the colloquium considers the way in which the different judges assess the different constitutive standards of Compliance Law. These are often soft Law and depending on whether the judge is repressive, administrative, or European, his or her assessment will not be legally of the same scope or of the same nature, which together leads to an issue of articulation of method. Due to the breadth of the subject, certain sectors will be particularly examined, in particular the banking sector.
Thirdly, the way in which the judge himself or herself applies Compliance Law will be examined, in what appears to be a balance between pedagogy and sanction. It then appears to play a triple role, in that it ensures compliance with standards but also in that it must find effective solutions in a Law which is more in Ex Ante than in Ex Post and that it must support operators so that they act effectively, by mastering their obligations. The motivation for decisions then appears to be a primary issue.
Because this last phase concerns the even more direct relationship between the judge and the operators and stakeholders, this theme is intended to give rise to a presentation and a round table.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on August 5, 2010, that it will cooperate more closely with the Department of Justice (DoJ) in merger reviews in the telecommunications sector. This measure is intended to foster reconciliation of potentially divergent goals for mergers set forth by both authorities.
GERMAN
Die Federal Communications Commission (FCC, die amerikanische Bundeskommunikationsbehörde), wird im Bereich Fusionenüberwachung enger mit dem Department of Justice (das amerikanische Justizministerium) arbeiten.
Die FCC hat am 5. August 2010 bekannt gemacht, dass sie enger mit dem Department of Justice (das amerikanische Justizministerium) im Bereich Fusionenüberwachung in der Telekombranche. So wird die Annäherung von beide Behörde, die oft unterschiedliche Zielen bei Fusionen unterstützen, gefördert.
SPANISH
La American Federal Communications Commission (FCC – La Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) anuncia cooperación más cercana con el Department of Justice (DoJ – El Departamento americano de justicia) en la revisión de fusiones.
La Federal Communicatins Commission (FCC – La Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) anunció el 5 de agosto 2010 que tomará pasos para aumentar su operatividad con el Department of Justice (DoJ – El Departamento americano de Justicia) en la revisión de fusiones en el sector de telecomunicaciones. Esta medida sirve para fomentar la reconciliación entre objetivos potencialmente divergentes puesto en marcha por estas dos autoridades.
The Autorité de la Concurrence (French Competition Authority) issued a recommendation (n° 11-A-05) on March 8, 2011 in which it recommends that the Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP — French Telecommunications and Postal Regulatory Authority) proceed with studies envisaging the possible breakup of France Telecom into two separate functional entities, one managing monopoly activities (the network), and the other managing competitive activities (services).
SPANISH
Informe temático (Telecomunicaciones): La Autoridad francesa de la competencia recomienda que el Regulador francés de telecomunicaciones considere una separación funcional de las actividades de France Telecom.
La Autorité de la Concurrence (la Autoridad francesa de la competencia) publicó una recomendación (n°11-A-05) el 8 de marzo del 2011 en la que recomienda que la Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP – la Autoridad regulatoria francesa de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales) proceda con sus estudios concibiendo la posible división del France Telecom en dos entidades funcionales separadas, uno que manejaría las actividades monopolísticos (la red), y el otro manejando las actividades competitivas (los servicios).
To registrer for following on site and online: anouk.leguillou@mafr.fr (please specify in your e-mail whether you wish to attend the event on site or online)
As places are limited, you will be asked to confirm 48 hours in advance
🧮The event will take place at the Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental, 9, place d’Iéna, 75116 Paris, on February 9, 2024, between 9 am and 12.45 pm.
_____
►Presentation of the topic: "Compliance Obligation" appears to be far from International Arbitration if Compliance Law is only understood in terms of binding regulations or even Criminal Law. Arbitration would only have contact with Compliance Obligation in a repulsive way, when a person claims to have enforced a contract before an arbitration court that disregards a compliance prohibition, e.g. corruption or money laundering. It is therefore from a negative angle that the cross-over has taken place.
The fact that Arbitration Law respects the requisite of Criminal Law is nothing new. Moreover, the power of Compliance in its detection and prevention tools, particularly in terms of evidence, no doubt increases the global efficiency.
But Compliance Obligation is based on Monumental Goals, notably linked to global human rights and active ambitions about environment and climate which, particularly in the value chain economy, take the legal form of compliance clauses, or even compliance contracts, or various commitments and plans, which the parties can ask the international arbitrator to enforce. They will do so even more as arbitrators are often the only international, or even global, judges available.
The use they will do of Contract Law, Quasi-Contract Law, Enforcement Law, Tort Law, reinforces Compliance Law in a global dimension.
____
The symposium, and the articles following, will expose the crucial global movement that starts. l
_____
Speakers:
🎤 Laurent Aynès, emeritus professor of Law at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, attorney, Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier law firm (Paris)
🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor of Law, director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)
🎤 Jean-François Guillemin, former General Secretary of the Bouygues Group
🎤 Jean-Baptiste Racine, professor of Law at Paris Panthéon-Assas University (Paris 2)
🎤 Eduardo Silva-Romero, president of the Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), attorney, Wordstone (Paris)
____
The symposium work will be the basis of complete chapters in the books:
📕 L'obligation de compliance, to be published in the collection 📚Regulations & Compliance, copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) andDalloz.
📘Compliance Obligation, to be published in the collection 📚Compltiance & Regulation, copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.
🔻 read une first presentation of the manifestation below ⤵️
to be published in the Compliance & Regulation Series , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.
