A Sketch of Web-assisted e-Harassment Regulation

As we point out, information and communication are the bases of reflective efforts. We believe that, in a multi-level Internet-based communication system, we need three kinds of information-communication functions to frame an effective system that can improve institutional norm derivation and institutional norm circulation regarding e-harassment harassment. The first essential function is to identify and to archive experiences of harassment. Individuals facing real or potential threats of harassment, or management personnel encountering real or potential harassment conflicts within the organization may bring their own case to the Web anonymously. Helpers from a non-government organization, under the supervision of a community of intermediaries, can counsel individuals seeking assistance. If such individuals are willing to make their case known to the public, and if treatment of the case sufficiently protects personal privacy, the case can be published on the Web. The publication of these cases not only may help similarly situated people deal with their own corresponding issue, but also may initiate Web-based conversation revealing either other possibly hidden aspects of these types of cases or other perspectives as to how the case ought to be handled. All these cases and their associated dialog are, we should note, test cases for any proposed solutions or advocated opinions on the Web.

The second essential function for the system is a dialog platform that could assemble all the public discussions and that, in this way, could generate deliberative and reflective thinking. Each speaker can self-identify the characteristics of his or her statements, such as the statements’ agreement or disagreement with other statements, and can thereby connect his or her statements to other statements on the Web. Through these tags of identification and connection, we can observe both the interaction patterns and the development of issues over time. Members of the community of intermediaries may actively step in to direct the conversation and the exploration.

The third essential function for the multi-level Internet-based communication system is a platform for argumentation. This platform’s substantive structure can promote deeper penetration of the issues. For example, the substantive structure can promote substantive analysis that breaks an issue under dispute down into a set of minor issues. A person entering the argument platform can provide reasons to support any one side of an issue by stating the reasons for his or her opinions.

And participants are further encouraged to reveal the basis of their advocacy; for example, whether they base their thesis on their personal experience, some empirical findings, or educated opinions. Participants have access to a document-deposit feature that enables them to link their statements to documented facts or scholarly opinions. Herein, members from the community of intermediaries are vital guides in the argument process.

The community of intermediaries’ participation in the argument platform may also constitute a conflict-resolution channel-cum-platform inside an organization. However, people that can gain access to such internal dispute-resolution platforms are restricted to the parties immediately affected by the conflict.

6. Conclusion

E-participation is a new and fast-advancing field of research that involves the cooperation of multidisciplinary studies. Much work is still needed before this field can take off [6]. The current paper provides a legal perspective on the matter, and we hope to demonstrate the assertion that, by changing some core assumptions, we perhaps can identify and flesh out novel effective roles of the Internet. Otherwise, the Internet may very well bring very limited change [7], despite all our fervor. We have discussed a Web design that concerns harassment issues and that rests on the idea of institutional citizenship, and whether or not this design or a similar one can maximize the Internet’s role in our regulatory endeavor is a topic worth studying.

7. References

[1] O. Lobel, “The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought,”

Minnesota Law Review, v. 89, 2004, pp. 342-.

[2] O. Fiss, “Emerging Media Technology and the First Amendment: In Search of a New Paradigm,” Yale Law Journal, v. 104, 1995, pp. 1613-.

[3] S. Sturm, “The Architecture of Inclusion: Advancing Workplace Equity in Higher Education,” Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, v. 29, 2006, pp. 247-.

[4] S. Sturm, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach,” Columbia Law Review, v. 101:3, 2001, pp. 458 - 568.

[5] S. Sturm and H. Gadlin, “Conflict Resolution and Systemic Change,” Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2007, pp.

1- .

[6] E. Tambouris, N. Liotas, and K. Tarabanis, “A Framework for Assessing e-Participation Projects and Tools,”

Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2007.

[7] S. Shulman, “The Internet Still Might (but Probably Won’t) Change Everything,” I/S Journal, v. 1, 2004, pp.

111-45.

表 Y04

行政院國家科學委員會補助國內專家學者赴國外出差或研習報告

98 年 8 月 4 日 報告人姓名

陳起行 服務機構

及職稱

國立政治大學 教授

時間 會議 地點

June 18-23, 2009 Athens/Vouliagmeni, Greece

本會核定 補助文號

NSC 97-2410-H-004 -073 -

會議 名稱

(中文) 2009 年第一屆未來網路發展國際研討會

(英文) The First International Conference on Advances in Future Internet (AFIN 2009)

發表 論文 題目

(中文) 由網路輔助的電子性騷擾規制網站論未來法律典範

(英文) Internet and the Next Legal Paradigm - a Web Assisted Regulatory Approach toward e-Harassment

(其餘各節見附件)

附件三

表 Y04

一、參加會議經過

個人過去數年的研究, 逐漸由法理, 法律制度, 進而發展到資訊技術的整合. 今年首次 利用出國研習的機會, 以個人理論及法制上的成果, 開始設計能夠落實這些理論及制度面想 法的網路平台, 並與國際資訊科技的學者及工作者交換心得.

看到第一屆未來網路發展國際研討的 Call for Paper 時, 心中有很強烈的交流意願, 因此 著手撰寫論文, 並且學習用資訊工程界的文章模式, 感謝助理們的協助, 使得學習的時間大 幅縮減. 文章經過審查, 不但接受發表, 並且放在第一場的第一篇文章報告. 對於多年試著進 行跨領域的研究者而言, 這確實是很大的鼓勵.

機票近來不但大漲, 而且變動快速. 經查若像以往, 買華航機票延伸一點, 貴得離譜. 因 此自行上網, 找由維也納負雅典的來回機票. 之後, 由於華航無預警的取消航班, 我的雅典飛 回維也納的行程無法一併變動, 所以轉機的等待時間, 多了數日. 這也是往後變化多端的國 際飛行, 在預算有限的條件下, 必須克服的難題. 當然, 好在雅典及維也納都是可以學習其文 化, 歷史等的豐富發展, 使得等待的時間, 並不難熬.

個人被安排發表的場次如下：

2009 First International Conference on Advances in Future Internet

AFIN 2009

Table of Contents

Preface...vii Committee...viii Reviewers...x

AFIN 1: Internet Services and Applications

The Internet and the Next Legal Paradigm: A Web-Assisted Regulatory

Approach toward e-Harassment ...1 Chi-Shing Chen

Reactive TDMA Slot Assignment Protocol in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks ...6

表 Y04 Hiroaki Higaki

Reliable Key Distribution for Secure Multicast by SRDP-Sign ...12 Franco Tommasi, Simone Molendini, and Elena Scialpi

Towards Business and IT Alignment in the Future Internet: Managing

Complexity in E-Business ...18 Wilfrid Utz and Dimitris Karagiannis

Routing and Performance Evaluation of Dual Priority Delta Networks

under Hotspot Environment ...24 D. C. Vasiliadis, G. E. Rizos, and C. Vassilakis

Full and Autonomic Mobility Management for Mobile Agents ...31 Leila Ismail and Boumediene Belkkhouche

v

二、與會心得

雖然個人論文涉及網路平台的建構, 但是文章用了相當篇幅, 解說設計上所依據的法理 以及法制上的考量, 所以如何提供資訊工程界的參與者理解, 構成一大挑戰. 好在一方面對 自己的想法已經很清楚; 二方面過去長期參與辯論比賽及指導, 所以還略知溝通上的基本要 求, 結果效果不錯.

與會者也問了重要的問題, 如： 歐洲不似台灣, 網路並不如想像中發達, 我的網站, 如 何能接觸到廣大步上網的民眾; 上網進入網站討論的人, 需不需要透露其個人身份（identity）?

以及, 發展這類網站, 有無策略?

個人覺得, 這些問題讓法理以及制度上的思考, 成為關鍵, 正是跨領域值得考量者. 首 先, 個人重視事實意義脈絡的掌握與呈現(context reflection);因此, 如何將網站視為社會工作 團體接觸社會的管道, 一直是本計畫的核心課題. 換句話說, 個人所設計的網站, 在指導理 念 上 , 借 用 哥 倫 比 亞 大 學 法 學 教 授 Susan Sturm 的 理 論 , 已 經 具 有 多 觀 點 的 想 法 (multi-partiality); 因此, 規制網站的設計理念, 一直以多觀點對話協調為基準.

至於進入網站發言者, 是否必須以真實身份, 並且揭露自身真實身份. 設計上, 有許多不 同的想法,也涉及相當多的不同價值選擇. 目前個人的網站設計, 稟持必須註冊, 提供真實身 份資料, 但是進入網站發言時, 可以用暱稱, 不必以真實身份為之.好處是一方面保護隱私, 但是在必要時刻, 系統維護者仍然可以知道, 真實發言者的身份, 如有逾越正當的網站使用 規範時, 得以做出適當的處分.

至於個人發展此一網站的策略, 則正好與一直強調的治理理念相關, 由下而上, 期盼由 一個主題的成功規制, 發展至其他主題¸而形成一個網路討論網絡.此外, 空間上, 也可以由 一個國家, 一個地區, 逐漸發展至多個國家及地區. 新加坡大學法學院的教授來訪時, 曾經 與之討論過性騷擾規制網站的設計理念, 回去之後, 這位教授便將新加坡婦女團體的網站寄

表 Y04

來, 表示假以時日, 可以將此一網站延伸至該國. 當然目前離審慎樂觀的地步都還遠, 但是 發展想法上, 確實是有一個遠大的目標及企圖.

四、建議

跨領域是艱辛的工作, 但成功者, 收穫也相較可觀. 建議國內學術界能持續經營一個對 跨領域有意識地友善環境, 往後在此一領域, 應當有可觀的收穫. 報告人在雅典研討會報告 結束後，有一位英國研究單位的研究員特地與報告人切磋相當一段時間，他並且表示報告人 的論文是第二篇他在研討會所接觸到研究紮實的報告。我們互換名片，相約日後一起申請歐 盟計畫，進一步合作。其資料如下：

Dr Benjamin Aziz

Location R 1, 1. 58

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

E-mail [email protected] Telephone (office) +44 (0) 1235 778840

五．攜回資料名稱及內容

光碟資料一份, 內有所有研討活動資訊以及每一篇發表論文的全文.

表 Y04

行政院國家科學委員會補助國內專家學者出席國際學術會議報告

98 年 8 月 3 日 報告人姓名

陳起行 服務機構

及職稱

國立政治大學 教授

時間 會議 地點

2009.5.28-5.31 Denver, USA

本會核定 補助文號

NSC 97-2410-H-004 -073 --

會議 名稱

(中文)2009 年美國法律與社會學會年會

(英文)2009 Law and Society Association Annual Meeting 發表

論文 題目

(中文) 以制度公民為基礎的性騷擾規制網站實驗

(英文)A Sexual Harassment Regulatory Experiment Based on Internet Assisted Institutional Citizenship

(其餘各節見附件)

附件三

表 Y04

一、參加會議經過

五年前，個人參與美國法律與社會學會（Law and Society Association, LSA）所規劃的跨領 域研究網絡（Collaborative Research Network，CRN）中的政府規制 CRN, 並參與此一 CRN 的郵件討論社群。藉此，瞭解此一快速發展領域的相關國際間發展。

LSA 的政府規制 CRN, 是一個不折不扣的國際化又跨領域的研究社群。有來自不同國家 以及不同專業背景，如社會，經濟，政治，公共行政，以及法學學者參與研討，是交換學術 意見，擴大學術視野的好場所。尤其從此一領域專業期刊的增加以及參與成員的人數觀之，

政府規制是各國越來越重視的研究議題。個人覺得一方面，社會快速而結構性的變遷，帶來 規制上的嚴峻挑戰; 另一方面，網際網路及資訊科技等相關領域快速開展，使得新的規制理 論及實踐，十分值得投入研究，往後此一領域所帶來規制觀念及制度上的變革，值得重視。

不過今年, 由於規制與治理 CRN 的協調人（coordinator）換人, 由澳洲的一位法學教授 擔任. 她給我的信件中, 告知今年參與人數少, 很難將我的文章排入, 所以我改由大會分發我 的講次. 個人的觀察, 似乎在聯絡方式上, 就出了些問題; 不向過去, 很早就收到提計畫書或 摘要的請求, 很晚才收到這項訊息. 其結果, 雖然排在發表的第一篇文章（資料如下）, 但是 並不以規制及治理為研討主軸. 未來若仍然如此運作, 個人會尋找其他更合適的國際研討會, 或者已經有研究上合作關係的學者主辦的研討會, 提出研究成果.

Problems and Possibilities for Safe and Equal Workplaces 3113 Sponsor:

Keyword Area： GENDER AND SEXUALITY

Schedule Information:

Scheduled Time: Sat, May 30 - 8:15am - 10:00am Building/Room: Conf / TBA 13

Title Displayed in Event Calendar: Problems and Possibilities for Safe and Equal Workplaces 3113

Session Participants:

Session Organizer: Nancy Reichman (University of Denver) [email protected] Chair: Jill Weinberg (University of Chicago) [email protected]

A Sexual Harassment Regulatory Experiment Based on Internet Assisted Institutional Citizenship

*Chishing Chen (National ChengChi University)

Liminal Identities, “Regarded As,” and the End of the Protected Class

*M. Christine Fotopulos (Pennsylvania State University)

Legal Mobilization for Workplace Equality in Four European Countries

Legal Mobilization for Workplace Equality in Four European Countries