In order to effectively govern the Internet in the UK, it is important to reveal the following three myths regarding Internet governance. Firstly, internet governance is best decided by market behavior. Secondly, a myth stemming from academia insists that self-regulation is common and an effective practice. Thirdly, internet governance is an entirely separate regulatory system than compared to traditional, or ‘legacy’ media; this belief has led scholars to consider the DNS (Domain Name System) and ICANN (Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers) the reason why internet governance has received a lot of neglect. Throughout this precis, it will be important to reveal the implications of these myths and why they persist with regard to internet governance in the UK.

While the UK has passed its own Communication Act in 2003, these same telecommunications and broadcasting issues are occurring elsewhere. Similarly, each of these jurisdictions must also consider their laissez-faire hands off approach. In doing so, governance has shifted from conventional regulatory policies (i.e. broadcasting) towards network governance. Network governance is defined as a network culture typified by self-regulation (Thompson, 2003: 30).  This network culture has shown that the conventional vertical hierarchy from market influence has little effect on a relatively disintegrated system.

To fully comprehend the success of the self-regulating internet, it will be important to consider the nature of network organizations. These network organizations are characterized by trust, solidarity, and loyalty. Oftentimes, network organizations monitor and regulate only some aspects of the internet layer. While these self-regulating organizations may not fully represent their true intentions, they are ultimately unaccountable institutions. They may act as gatekeepers to facilitate and promote their own unique interests, and, as such, may not be well-equipped to promote the public interest.

The difference in regulatory policies effecting conventional media and new generation network are their technologies–from a vertically integrated system run by circuit switches to a disintregrated, decentralized packet switched systems respectively. Consequently, new generation networks may have control facilities anywhere in the network. The result is a vertically functioning network system whose control facilities are not bound by conventional and highly recognizeable network systems.

In the UK, the hierarchical governor of the electronic communications sector, including the internet, is Ofcom whose partnered with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) who is responsible for regulating competition and dealing with anticompetitive behaviour. However, governance is equated with productive and effective competition, intent on maintaining a liberalized market perspective–the less hierarchical market intervention, the better for the market.

It is critical to review why these governing philosophies are not fully representative of the self-regulating nature of network organizations. Instead of these organizations governing from a vertical, hierarchical way, they use distinct horizontal layers to address the layered structure of the internet (physical, data link, network, transport, session, presentation, application). Each of these distinct layers undergoes a process of control, internet exchanges, transport, and content management; assessing these processes and reflecting its analysis towards the three aforementioned myths will be important in determining the difference between conventional ‘legacy’ media governance versus new media.

The body that is responsible for the control of DNS system is Nominet, which has a monopoly power. Nominet’s self-governance allows it to control the .uk country registry in a manner that would serve the internet community; Nominet exercises significant control in this industry because of its non-profit status and its ‘4th-way’ organizational structure (reasonable practices, efficiency, cost not profit-based, public ethos). The control layer corresponds to the second and third myths, but not the first.

Internet exchanges are governed by an organization in the UK called the London Internet Exchange (LINX), which is responsible for promoting the interests of its members and promoting interconnectivity among UK providers—way customers can have the benefit of enjoying their internet services. LINX is essentially a non-profit organization with characteristics of a ‘4th-way’ organizational structure. LINX has provided a decent structure for an internet exchange platform and satisfies the second and third myths, but has failed to satisfy the first.

The transport layer is a highly competitive sector in the internet, there are a lot of competing providers and competition grows even today. The overseer of the transport layer is the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel), charged with maintaining the interests of the telecommunications market by increasing competition. Due to its competitiveness, the transport layer works very well; however, the three myths do not seem to relate to this layer.

Lastly, the content layer is a highly successful segment of the internet. There are essentially no barriers to content production and while competition may not be an issue (anyone can make content), harmful content must be surveilled (i.e. child pornography). Charitable organizations like the Internet Watch Fund (IWF), the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA), the London Internet Exchange (LINX), and the Safety Net Foundation are all equally intent on cooperating with hierarchical organizations (i.e. outside of the internet) to ensure that the content layer is not abused.

Essentially, each of these layers help facilitate the regulation for the internet. It is not fully true that the internet is unregulated, it is indeed regulated through network governance. Each of the aforementioned organizations all contribute to maintaining the internet. The myth that the market holds the best interests in governing the internet has no evidential status and can therefore be out ruled. While the last two myths regarding self-regulatory practices and its distinctiveness of regulation compared to ‘legacy’ or conventional media respectively has been satisfied. However, it is important to view the internet’s regulatory practices with an evolutionary perspective—the internet is a great platform that will alter the landscape of regulation.