• 과학기술학연구
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2010

과학적 불확실성이 존재하는 상황에서 위험에 대응하는 규제 정책의 정당성을 어떻게 확보할 수 있을까? 이런 중요한 물음과 관련해 70년대 이후 유럽을 중심으로 사전주의의 원칙이 하나의 대안으로 부상해왔고 국제 환경법 분야에서는 주요 원리로 인정받아왔다. 하지만 이 원칙은 그 정의의 모호함 때문에 위험분석 옹호자들로부터 다양한 비판을 받아왔다. 이 논문은 이런 여러 비판들의 적실성과 부당함을 함께 평가하면서 사전주의의 원칙의 정교화작업을 시도할 것이다. 그리고 이런 작업을 통해 얻은 결과를 위험 거버넌스 중 과학적 영역으로 흔히 인정받는 위험평가에 적용해봄으로써 이 원칙의 정책적 활용 가능성을 탐색해볼 것이다. 특히, 사전주의의 원칙은 단지 도덕적 태도이거나 정치적 입장일 뿐이라는 일부 시각을 반박하면서 이 원칙이 실제 과학적 활동 속에서 충분히 적용가능한 실제적 원리임을 강조할 것이다.

• 인터넷정보학회지
• /
• 제14권4호
• /
• pp.63-76
• /
• 2013

This short report introduces the general background why Brazil conference is being prepared and what topics would be undertaken and what goals are being taken into account. It overviews what differences from traditional telecommunication governance, internet governance has had in its historical development and how such differences had been formed from its technological differences and the regulatory policy shift from common carrier regulation to privatization. Moreover, the fact that open, voluntary, bottom-up, diverse stakeholder's participation had evolved throughout the historical development of the internet, had established the present multistakeholder governance model from technological standardization to addressing scheme policies. ICANN, which has governed internet addressing schemes since the earlier 2000s, had developed address policies including IANA function from Jon Postel and technical community's legacy management system into contract based formation between ICANN and gTLD, ccTLD registries. And it made dispute resolution policies responding to trademark disputes and resolved gTLD monopoly issue by introducing new TLD generation and the separation of registry and registar. However, there had been challenges on the legitimacy of ICANN due to its dependency on the Federal Government of the U.S. particularly in its oversight role over ICANN and IANA contract. WSIS raised up internet governance issues including addressing governance, and set up IGF as a discussion platform for multistakeholders to discuss and share all views on other internet related public policies. IGF's loose and non-binding discussion once frustrated governments and other stakeholders, but more focused discussion and visible outcomes have consolidated its unique role for internet governance discourses. Particularly, IGF addressed many emerging internet related issues like cybersecurity, privacy, net neuratlity, development related issues. WTPF of 2013, after WCIT debate on whether traditional telecommunication regulation could be applied to internet infrastructure, suggested other governance issues such as the transition to ipv6, IXP coordination etc. How to make sure the legitimacy of internet addressing governance and how and where other internet related public policies could be undertaken are fundamental tasks for internet governance. Brazil conference, which has been motivated by the breakdown of trust in internet governance from NSA mass surveillance revealed by Snowden, faces these questions and try to make consensus on principles, institutions and roadmap for internet governance in multistakeholder participation way.