Information Technologies Law

Internet privatization: a new non-territorial governance model?

As As shown by the ICANN website,  from October 1, 2016  the contract between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the United States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions expired.

From now on,  Internet enviroment is managed by a multistakeholders system very different of the way territorial goverments that we know works. This means that new forms of regulation are possible, regardless of national regulations and countries.

According to ICANN Board Chair Stephen D. Crocker  ‘a governance model defined by the inclusion of all voices, including business, academics, technical experts, civil society, governments and many others is the best way to assure that the Internet of tomorrow remains as free, open and accessible as the Internet of today.

People from different economic sectors, cultures, interests and backgrounds worked together to develop two proposals consensus that would ensure continuous, stable and secure services IANA performance and greater accountability of ICANN as coming from one of the two great transition proposals.

Our point is that we should look closely the operation of this management model as it could be exportable to other relationships in which the territorial element can not be applied,  and in consequence can allow troubleshoot application of standards or determination of jurisdiction in what now seems an unattainable solution.



According to the judgment of the Court of the European Union ruled on 13th FEB 2014 clickable links to protected works published without any access restrictions on another site, affords users of the first site direct access to those works and cannot be restricted by the IP law.

An act of communication such as that made by the manager of a website by means of clickable links is aimed at all potential users of the site managed by that person, that is to say, an indeterminate and fairly large number of recipients.

The communication must also be directed at a new public, that is to say, at a public that was not taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication to the public,  to be included within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society

The public targeted by the initial communication consisted of all potential visitors to the site concerned, since, given that access to the works on that site was not subject to any restrictive measures, all Internet users could therefore have free access to them.

In those circumstances, it must be held that, where all the users of another site to whom the works at issue have been communicated by means of a clickable link could access those works directly on the site on which they were initially communicated, without the involvement of the manager of that other site, the users of the site managed by the latter must be deemed to be potential recipients of the initial communication and, therefore, as being part of the public taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication.

History of the Netstates

In April 2012 ‘Year 2112. States become Netstates’ was published. It is a fiction story about a future where (most) of the states has no territory at all  because they became advanced forms of social networks.

In October of this same year the concept  of Netstates was introduced  in the Complutense  University of Madrid (Spain) as a paper to the Congress  ‘Liberties,  transparency and politics in Internet’  titled ‘The transition of social networking towards a new concept of aterritorial states’ and finally published on the same title as an chapter of the book ‘Freedom of information on the Internet: threats and safeguards’ Madrid 2013.

In December of 2013 one of the most important ideas of the concept ‘Netstates’, the participatory surveys,  has been promoted by the Town Council of Zaragoza (Spain) to be a social responsible enterprise under the Privacy and Society of the Knowledge Foundation to create new ways to participation of the citizens in the life of associations or any form of organization based on people linked to objectives held in common.

The core of the idea is the participation of the citizens (or members of associations or whatever) make better any organization,  and it is very simple: Many minds get better ideas than a few of them.

Today the Internet or other sistems of social communication allow ways of political participation never foreseen.

El vídeo: Stop watching us!!  reúne más de 100 organizaciones de todas las tendencias políticas en Estados Unidos  y aboga por las libertades públicas y por el derecho a la privacidad

El video incluye las declaraciones de actores, políticos y expertos legales contra las escuchas masivas llevadas a cabo por la NSA.  Se evidencia que anteriores denuncias de personas afectas al sistema de información de USA han sido más frecuentes de lo que pensábamos

  (English version) is a coalition of more than 100 public advocacy organizations and companies from across the political spectrum. This video harnesses the voices of celebrities, activists, legal experts, and other prominent figures in speaking out against mass surveillance by the NSA. Please share widely to help us spread the message

Para ver el video/ Watch the video at

Privacy of the communications in the workplace. Around european criteria

 Versión en castellano aquí

The recent judgment of the Constitutional Court dated October 7th denied the protection of a dismissed employee who had sent data considered confidential by email to a competing company production.

One of the most important criteria in Spanish Law,  to be considered in the orbit of the European Union law is the expectation of privacy.  If the company makes clear its intention to monitor communications in the workplace no employee is allowed to claim such confidentiality.

The judgment extends the doctrine that had previously sat the Supreme Court, allowing access to the contents of the email addresses of employees who are within the information system of the companies to ascertain any labor violations, understanding that may be sufficient the existing provision in a collective agreement.

When we want to apply the rules of the confidentiality of the communications in the workplace previously we need  to take into account:

1. – The secret of communications protects the communication process, not  the contents  (They has to be protected by privacy law). The object of protection are the communications, whatever contents they have,  in order we can made them freely

2. – There is no secret of communications to  the parties of the communication. Secret means not just the content but also other aspects,  as the identity of the parties  or even telephone call lists,  or incoming and outgoing calls recorded on a cell phone

3 – Communications has to be made through a closed channel. Any communication whose content has to be declared or when it is authorized to be opened, or subjet of any control to determine its nature,  is excluded of the right to the privacy of communications.