This paper argues that private property and rights assignment, especially as applied to communication infrastructure and information, should be informed by advances in both technology and our understanding of psychology. Current law in this area in the United States and many other jurisdictions is founded on assumptions about human behavior that have been shown not to hold empirically. A joint recognition of this fact, together with an understanding of what new technologies make possible, leads one to question basic assumptions about (...) how law is made and what laws we should have in a given area, if any. I begin by analyzing different aspects of U.S. law, from a high-level critique of law making to a critique of rights assignment for what I call 'simple nonrival goods.' I describe my understanding, as a non-lawyer with a background in psychology and computing, of the current conventions in U.S. law, consider the foundational assumptions that justify current conventions, describe advances in psychology and technology that call these conventions into question, and briefly note how the law might normatively change in this light. I then apply this general analysis to the question of domain name assignment by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). (shrink)

Information and communication technologies present new challenges for political theory and philosophy due to its large-scale and scope transformations. Their demands are reflected in institutional needs that cover a “cyber-political” space, i. e., a cluster of problems of the governance of the network of networks –Internet– that results in the formation of new institutions –e. g. ICANN. The question I try to answer here is: What characterizes cyberspace political discourses? The proposed hypothesis is that it is possible to interpret (...) the varied cyber-political positions from their relation with the actors that dispute cyberspace regulation. Taking this relationship as an Archimedean point, I distinguish between extreme positions –cyber-conservatism and cyber-libertarianism– and moderate positions –cyber-liberalism and cyber- socialism. Through the investigation of the works of the main proponents of each position (Goldsmith, Wu, Barlow, Assange, Lessig, Barbrook and Filby) I try to show the modifications in the traditional political positions after the incorporation of the prefix “cyber” and also, to highlight the benefits of the moderate positions over the extreme ones. (shrink)