DOMAINS OF CONVENIENCE: OPEN COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND THE GEOPOLITICS OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE By Kenneth A. Merrill Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Communication of American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Communication Chair: Laura DeNardis, Ph.D. Patricia Aufderheide, Ph.D. Kathryn Montgomery, Ph.D. Derrick Cogburn, Ph.D. Dean of the School of Communication Date 2018 American University Washington, D.C. 20016 © COPYRIGHT by Kenneth A. Merrill 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DOMAINS OF CONVENIENCE: OPEN COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND THE GEOPOLITICS OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE BY Kenneth A. Merrill ABSTRACT This project draws on multiple case studies to investigate the ways in which so-called “open” country code top-level domain names (ccTLDs) (ccTLDs with no local presence requirements) mediate global debates over Internet governance. Specifically, it focuses on three cases in which open ccTLDs became implicated in cross-border controversies over (1) political censorship (wikileaks.ch), (2) intellectual property rights enforcement (rojadirecta.me), and (3) cybercrime (the redelegation of .TK). Using an interpretive comparative approach, the project draws on interviews with ccTLD technical operators, regulators, civil society groups, and users, as well as analysis of relevant documents (e.g. registry and registrar policies, court documents, media reports, and minutes from various governance fora) to examine the outsized role that open ccTLDs play in the networked information economy. Identifying the “commodification of sovereignty” as a key component in the co-production of open ccTLDs, the project draws on a sociotechnical approach to examine the ways in which these country-specific identifiers simultaneously reinforce and undermine notions of sovereignty in cyberspace and the consequences this poses for Internet governance. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Taking on a project of this magnitude has taught me a lot, about my myself to be sure, but also about the importance of friends and family who buoy you through what can be at times a difficult, frustrating, and solitary journey. Likewise, in the over four years it took me to research and write this dissertation, another lesson revealed itself: the longer it takes to complete a project the larger the list of those one needs to thank. At the top of this list is my advisor and committee chair Dr. Laura DeNardis, without whom this dissertation simply would not have happened. Her supranatural ability to simultaneously instill confidence while providing substantive criticism and endless support for so many is, frankly, beyond comprehension. She is an inspiration both professionally and personally, and I feel lucky to call her a colleague and friend. I would also like to thank Dr. Patricia Aufderheide, who steadfastly encouraged me to trust my instincts and pursue my interest in an admittedly unconventional topic for a communication scholar. To the extent the manuscript makes cogent arguments and engages the reader, it is due in large part to her keen editorial eye and aeonian efforts. Thanks to Dr. Kathryn Montgomery, who was dealt the unenviable task of helping bewildered graduate students like myself turn vague ideas into something resembling working research questions. Her patience and unflappable optimism were essential to getting this project off the ground in the first place. A special debt of gratitude to Dr. Derrick Cogburn, who stepped up in unusual circumstances in the latter stages of this project and delivered extremely incisive and necessary annotations with punctuality and aplomb. And merci to Dr. Francesca Musiani of the Institute for Communication Sciences at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, who served as the outside reader and offered instructive comments throughout. iii Beyond the committee, a host of faculty members, administrators, and colleagues at American University and beyond were integral to helping develop the project. In particular, I am indebted to Dr. John Watson, who provided indispensable insights on the legal research aspects of the project, as well as Dr. Declan Fahy, who contributed immensely to early questions about methodology. Special thanks also to Dr. Tijana Milosevic and Dr. Tatevik Sargsyan: classmates, colleagues, and friends, who both contributed to this project in immeasurable ways, not least of which by setting standards of excellence I continue to strive towards. Thanks also to Roy Gutterman, Dr. Carol Liebler, and Dr. Jasmine McNealy, each of whom, in their way, gave me the confidence to pursue a doctorate. And to Jean McGee, who patiently guided me through the thicket of administrative requirements necessary to reach this point, thank you. I am also hugely appreciative of a group of friends who contributed directly and indirectly to this work. Sebastian Boe read early drafts, engaged in Socratic interrogatories at the pub, and generally saw to it that I lost neither my mind nor my sense of humor along the way. Kevin Cudlipp was a crucial resource on the finer points of intellectual property law and on the not-so-fine points of the chipping yips. Mike Planicka was my corner man, constantly reassuring me that I was onto something and that it was worth pursuing, even when I lost sight of it myself. Mayme Donohue really should have billed me for all the counseling she provided over the years. And cheers to Daniel Sisisky, Quinton Weisberg, and Tejas Patel for dragging me out of the house occasionally for much needed drinks and Pad See Ew. Most importantly, my eternal thanks and gratitude to my family. To my grandmother, who taught me to love learning and to never be afraid to ask questions. And to my mother, who was always there for me through the ups and the downs and who, despite not knowing how to iv find the Wi-Fi on her phone, was willing to read countless drafts on the arcane minutiae of ccTLD policy. This dissertation is for you. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................................... x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT ................. 1 CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................................... 7 The Politics of Technology ................................................................................... 18 Power and counter-power in the networked public sphere ....................... 24 Internet governance ............................................................................................... 26 The politics of the DNS ............................................................................ 35 ccTLDs in Internet governance ................................................................. 43 Political space, cyberspace, and the commodification of sovereignty.................. 47 Offshoring and the commodification of sovereignty ................................ 51 The offshore information economy and domains of convenience ............ 56 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 60 Case Selection ....................................................................................................... 61 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 63 Documents ................................................................................................ 63 Non-participant observation...................................................................... 63 Interviews .................................................................................................. 64 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 65 Validation Strategies ............................................................................................. 66 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................... 66 CHAPTER 4. NETWORKS OF POWER AND COUNTER POWER: WIKILEAKS.CH ........................................................................................................ 67 Networks of power ................................................................................................ 72 The public response .................................................................................. 74 Technical intermediaries ........................................................................... 76 vi Financial intermediaries ............................................................................ 78 Networks of counter-power .................................................................................. 80 WikiLeaks and the “networked fourth estate” .......................................... 81 Hacktivists and transnational activist networks ........................................ 83 The Pirate Party........................................................................................