DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Internet Governance in Chinese Academic Literature Rebalancing a Hegemonic World Order?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Global Internet Governance in Chinese Academic Literature Rebalancing a Hegemonic World Order? China Perspectives 2016/2 | 2016 What Kind of International Order Does China Want? Global Internet Governance in Chinese Academic Literature Rebalancing a Hegemonic World Order? Séverine Arsène Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6973 DOI: 10.4000/chinaperspectives.6973 ISSN: 1996-4617 Publisher Centre d'étude français sur la Chine contemporaine Printed version Date of publication: 1 June 2016 Number of pages: 25-35 ISSN: 2070-3449 Electronic reference Séverine Arsène, « Global Internet Governance in Chinese Academic Literature », China Perspectives [Online], 2016/2 | 2016, Online since 01 June 2017, connection on 14 November 2019. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6973 ; DOI : 10.4000/chinaperspectives.6973 © All rights reserved Special feature China perspectives Global Internet Governance in Chinese Academic Literature Rebalancing a Hegemonic World Order? SÉVERINE ARSÈNE ABSTRACT: This article explores the apparently ambivalent foundations of the notion of cybersovereignty as seen from China, through some of the most recent Chinese academic literature on global Internet governance. It shows that the sampled authors conceive of the current Internet order as an anarchic or disorderly space where global hegemons reproduce their domination over the world in the di - gital age. In the rather dichotomous world that this portrays, most of the authors concentrate their attention on the position and stra - tegy of the United States, with a view to underlining the contradictions in American discourse through the PRISM scandal or the status of ICANN. In this context, most scholars studied here see the current situation, where Internet governance is increasingly debated, as an opportunity to rebalance the global Internet order and advance the strategic interests of China through the establishment of an in - tergovernmental Internet governance framework in the long term, and through active participation in the current status quo in the short term. KEYWORDS: Internet governance, China, cybersovereignty, China-US relations, hegemony. s the Internet has grown to be used by almost half of humanity and The controversies around the proposed Internet governance frameworks to comprise so many aspects of our personal, professional, social, have raised profound theoretical issues and question basic assumptions and political lives, it has progressively ceased to be considered the about the very nature of the Internet. For example, should the Internet be A (1) purely open, virtual space that some of its pioneers envisioned. With the considered a global common good when it is composed of interconnected emergence of complex, real-life issues, from content regulation to privacy, cables, routers, and digital services that are, for the most part, privately copyright, and various forms of cybercrime (scams, fraud, identity theft, owned? (5) Is the Internet really a borderless space as is often assumed, and etc.), there has been growing demand for regulation. what are the implications for sovereign states? (6) How can institutional in - Existing sources of regulation or governance are extremely diverse and novations such as the much-debated multistakeholder model be charac - sometimes contradictory or overlapping. The laws of nation-states apply terised in terms of representing the interests of various actors and political to activities that take place on their territories. Internet service providers legitimacy? (7) Normative preferences on the ideal framework(s) for Internet set norms for online behaviour through contractual terms of use, which governance are highly dependent on the theoretical understanding one may apply globally. Economic and technical arrangements that are decided have of these issues. within the technical community (such as the little-known Internet Engi - Meanwhile, China has played an increasingly visible role in these debates neering Task Force) or amongst industry players (such as peer contracts through its government representatives, technical community, private sec - between Internet service providers) have critical effects on users’ oppor - tunities and in shaping the general online ecosystem (think of the digital 1. I would like to thank Anthony H. F. Li for his help on additional documentation. divide). (2) 2. For more examples of forms of regulation, see Éric Brousseau, Meryem Marzouki, and Cécile Méadel (eds), Governance, Regulations and Powers on the Internet , Cambridge and New York, As the political implications of Internet governance have progressively Cambridge University Press, 2012. come to light, the challenge of building a coherent, global, and legitimate 3. ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. IETF: Internet Engineering Task Internet governance framework has also come to appear an almost impos - Force. IGF: Internet Governance Forum. 4. Milton Mueller and Ben Wagner, “Finding a Formula for Brazil: Representation and Legitimacy in sible target. Despite many attempts to bring together the global community Internet Governance,” Internet Policy Observatory, January 2014, p. 11, www.internetgovernance in various kinds of institutions and fora, from issue-based institutions such .org/pdf/MiltonBenWPdraft_Final.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2015). as ICANN or the IETF to the more general UN-sponsored World Summit 5. Mark Raymond, “Puncturing the Myth of the Internet as a Commons,” Georgetown Journal of In - ternational Affairs , 2013, http://tinyurl.com/onty88c (accessed on 19 October 2015); Milton L. (3) on the Information Society, to the IGF and to Netmundial and to innu - Mueller, “Property and Commons in Internet Governance,” in Éric Brousseau, Meryem Marzouki, merable bilateral and multilateral dialogues, “We have been improvising col - and Cécile Méadel (eds), Governance, Regulations and Powers on the Internet , op. cit. , pp. 39-62. lective governance arrangements for 15 years, and these improvisations 6. Jack L. Goldsmith and Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World , Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 2006. have so far failed to fully resolve the issues of legitimacy, adherence and 7. Mark Raymond and Laura DeNardis, “Multistakeholderism: Anatomy of an Inchoate Global Insti - scope on a global basis.” (4) tution,” International Theory , Vol. 7, No. 3, 2015, pp. 572-616. N o. 2016/2 • china perspectives peer-reviewed article 25 Special feature tor, and users. Its impact on the Internet’s infrastructure, standards, markets, in its own capacity to defend its interests within the existing global gover - and global governance has drawn more attention in recent years. (8) In par - nance framework. (11) ticular, the fact that China pioneered Internet censorship, notably through However, the notion of cybersovereignty has remained the bottom-line of content filtering tools known as the Great Firewall, as well as the insistence China’s cyber policy and diplomacy, and it has been consistently asserted in of Chinese officials on the notion of cybersovereignty, have raised debates various official documents and declarations, starting with the milestone on whether Chinese leaders intend to build a separate network similar to a White Paper on the Internet in China published by the State Council in Chinese “intranet.” However, China’s Internet infrastructures and services 2010. (12) This document notably emphasised that “the Internet of various are increasingly globalised and interconnected, while officials have com - countries belongs to different sovereignties, which makes it necessary to bined strong discourses on cybersovereignty with actual cooperation in a strengthen international exchanges and cooperation in this field. (…) China number of concrete domains, particularly by sending participants to nu - supports the establishment of an authoritative and just international Internet merous Internet governance fora and dialogues. administration organization under the UN system through democratic pro - In this article, I intend to explore the apparently ambivalent foundations cedures on a worldwide scale.” Similarly, a White Paper on Diplomacy (13) of the notion of cybersovereignty as seen from China, through some of the published in 2013 emphasised the concept of territorial sovereignty and most recent Chinese academic literature on global Internet governance. stressed that China “opposes the use of the Internet to interfere with other After a short summary of the positions taken by Chinese representatives countries’ domestic politics.” Article 1 of the draft Cybersecurity law, pub - on the topic in recent years, I will turn to a sampling of 13 academic arti - lished in July 2015 for public comment, states: “This law is formulated so as cles from the CNKI database for a deeper analysis of the theoretical as - to ensure network security, to preserve cyberspace sovereignty, national se - sumptions behind the Chinese positions and strategy in Internet curity, and societal public interest.” (14) Generally speaking, the notion of cy - governance (part 1). I will first show that the sampled articles conceive of bersovereignty that China advocates implies that each country should be the current Internet order as an anarchic or disorderly space where global able to police its own domestic Internet, without interference from other hegemons reproduce their domination over the world in the digital age countries (such as circumvention tools provided by foreign entities), let alone (part 2). In the rather dichotomous
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Internet Freedom in China: U.S. Government Activity, Private Sector Initiatives, and Issues of Congressional Interest
    Internet Freedom in China: U.S. Government Activity, Private Sector Initiatives, and Issues of Congressional Interest Patricia Moloney Figliola Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy May 18, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45200 Internet Freedom in China: U.S. Government and Private Sector Activity Summary By the end of 2017, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had the world’s largest number of internet users, estimated at over 750 million people. At the same time, the country has one of the most sophisticated and aggressive internet censorship and control regimes in the world. PRC officials have argued that internet controls are necessary for social stability, and intended to protect and strengthen Chinese culture. However, in its 2017 Annual Report, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières, RSF) called China the “world’s biggest prison for journalists” and warned that the country “continues to improve its arsenal of measures for persecuting journalists and bloggers.” China ranks 176th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index, surpassed only by Turkmenistan, Eritrea, and North Korea in the lack of press freedom. At the end of 2017, RSF asserted that China was holding 52 journalists and bloggers in prison. The PRC government employs a variety of methods to control online content and expression, including website blocking and keyword filtering; regulating and monitoring internet service providers; censoring social media; and arresting “cyber dissidents” and bloggers who broach sensitive social or political issues. The government also monitors the popular mobile app WeChat. WeChat began as a secure messaging app, similar to WhatsApp, but it is now used for much more than just messaging and calling, such as mobile payments, and all the data shared through the app is also shared with the Chinese government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limits of Commercialized Censorship in China
    The Limits of Commercialized Censorship in China Blake Miller∗ September 27, 2018 Abstract Despite massive investment in China's censorship program, internet platforms in China are rife with criticisms of the government and content that seeks to organize opposition to the ruling Communist Party. Past works have attributed this \open- ness" to deliberate government strategy or lack of capacity. Most, however, do not consider the role of private social media companies, to whom the state delegates information controls. I suggest that the apparent incompleteness of censorship is largely a result of principal-agent problems that arise due to misaligned incentives of government principals and private media company agents. Using a custom dataset of annotated leaked documents from a social media company, Sina Weibo, I find that 16% of directives from the government are disobeyed by Sina Weibo and that disobedience is driven by Sina's concerns about censoring more strictly than com- petitor Tencent. I also find that the fragmentation inherent in the Chinese political system exacerbates this principal agent problem. I demonstrate this by retrieving actual censored content from large databases of hundreds of millions of Sina Weibo posts and measuring the performance of Sina Weibo's censorship employees across a range of events. This paper contributes to our understanding of media control in China by uncovering how market competition can lead media companies to push back against state directives and increase space for counterhegemonic discourse. ∗Postdoctoral Fellow, Program in Quantitative Social Science, Dartmouth College, Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH 03755 (E-mail: [email protected]). 1 Introduction Why do scathing criticisms, allegations of government corruption, and content about collective action make it past the censors in China? Past works have theorized that regime strategies or state-society conflicts are the reason for incomplete censorship.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority Over ICANN?
    The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN? Lennard G. Kruger Specialist in Science and Technology Policy September 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44022 The Future of Internet Governance: Should the U.S. Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN Summary Currently, the U.S. government retains limited authority over the Internet’s domain name system, primarily through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). By virtue of the IANA functions contract, the NTIA exerts a legacy authority and stewardship over ICANN, and arguably has more influence over ICANN and the domain name system (DNS) than other national governments. Currently the IANA functions contract with NTIA expires on September 30, 2016. However, NTIA has the flexibility to extend the contract for any period through September 2019. On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced the intention to transition its stewardship role and procedural authority over key Internet domain name functions to the global Internet multistakeholder community. To accomplish this transition, NTIA asked ICANN to convene interested global Internet stakeholders to develop a transition proposal. NTIA stated that it would not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution. For two years, Internet stakeholders were engaged in a process to develop a transition proposal that will meet NTIA’s criteria. On March 10, 2016, the ICANN Board formally accepted the multistakeholder community’s transition plan and transmitted that plan to NTIA for approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Censorship: Maintaining Control in China
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons CUREJ - College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal College of Arts and Sciences 2010 Effective Censorship: Maintaining Control In China Michelle (Qian) Yang University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/curej Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Yang, Michelle (Qian), "Effective Censorship: Maintaining Control In China" 01 January 2010. CUREJ: College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, University of Pennsylvania, https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/118. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/118 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Effective Censorship: Maintaining Control In China Keywords censorship, china, incentives, Social Sciences, Political Science, Devesh Kapur, Kapur, Devesh Disciplines Political Science This article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/118 Effective Censorship: Maintaining Control in China Michelle Yang April 09, 2010 Acknowledgments My initial interest in this thesis topic was generated during the summer of 2009 when I was interning in Beijing. There, I had found myself unable to access a large portion of the websites I’ve grown so accustomed to in my everyday life. I knew from then that I wanted to write about censorship in China. Since that summer, the scope of the topic has changed greatly under the careful guidance of Professor Devesh Kapur. I am incredibly grateful for all the support he has given me during this entire process. This final thesis wouldn’t be what it is today without his guidance. Professor Kapur, thank you for believing in me and for pushing me to complete this thesis! I would also like to extend my gratitude to both Professor Doherty-Sil and Professor Goldstein for taking time out of their busy schedules to meet with me and for providing me with indispensible advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Landscape in Mainland China NPD Sep 14 2017
    Internet Landscape in China Yali Z. Liu Internet Landscape and Peering in China, GPF 12.0 Content n China Internet Market Overview n Regulatory Environment n Data Center & Interconnect n ICP Beian (Permit to go Online in China) 2 Internet Landscape in China, NPD 2017 Internet Market in China TOP 10 INTERNET COUNTRIES -2017 ** Highest of Internet Users* With the Highest Number of Internet Users n Internet User 751 million n Mobile Internet User 724 million n Mobile Payment User 502 million * Source：CNNIC, Data as of June 2017 ** Source：Internet WorlD Stats, Data as of June 2017 3 Internet Landscape in China, NPD 2017 Broadband ISP in China 2012-2017Q2 ISP BroadbanD Users Distribution Current state 80.00% 60.00% n Top two ISP 40.00% 20.00% n More meDium & small ISPs 0.00% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Q2 China Telecom China Unicom Others 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Q2 China Telecom 58.81% 56% 53.16% 54.14% 41.43% 41.85% China Unicom 26.36% 26.65% 29.19% 28.36% 25.31% 25.13% Others 14.83% 17.35% 17.65% 17.50% 33.26% 33.02% (Data sources: CNZZ) 4 Internet Landscape in China, NPD 2017 Internet Content - plugins, sites apps and keywords 5 Internet Landscape in China, NPD 2017 Alternatives 6 Internet Landscape in China, NPD 2017 Governance Content Cyberspace Administration SAPPRFT MIIT State Administration of Ministry of Industry & Press, Publication, Radio, License Video Information Technology Film and Television 7 Internet Landscape in China, NPD 2017 Cybersecurity Law & License Requirement n First comprehensive law regulating network security
    [Show full text]
  • The Rural Video Influencers in China: on the New Edge of Urbanization
    THE RURAL VIDEO INFLUENCERS IN CHINA: ON THE NEW EDGE OF URBANIZATION A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Xinwen Zhang May 2020 © 2020 Xinwen Zhang ABSTRACT On the new media platforms in China, especially the video platforms, some rural content has become quite influential, which is, to some extent, inconsistent with people's impression of the vulnerable position of rural areas the urban-rural inequality. This thesis studied some of the most popular the rural content producers with the close reading of their videos, explaining how they frame themselves and their artworks and what kind of "rurality" is performed to the audiences. While the audience might assign them as rural figures, these people were on the edge of the urban and the rural as they had a shared history as some people who were from the rural areas, spent a period of their lives as migrant workers, and finally became video influencers performing some kind of rural lifestyle. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Xinwen Zhang was born in Shenyang, China, and spent the first 18 years of her life there. Then, she went to Sun Yat-sen University and entered Boya college, which sets no determined major and emphasizes on text close reading to explore potential for students. She finally chose anthropology as the major and researched the breakfast stalls in New Phoenix Village. She went to the village and had close contact with the migrant workers running breakfast stalls and people at breakfast, mainly focusing on the population identification, identity cognition, and community construction of the migrant population as well as their dilemma.
    [Show full text]
  • About the Internet Governance Forum
    About the Internet Governance Forum The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) – convened by the United Nations Secretary-General – is the global multistakeholder forum for dialogue on Internet governance issues. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 1 The IGF as an outcome of WSIS 2 IGF mandate 2 THE IGF PROCESS 3 IGF annual meetings 3 Intersessional activities 4 National, regional and youth IGF initiatives (NRIs) 5 PARTICIPATION IN IGF ACTIVITIES 6 Online participation 6 COORDINATION OF IGF WORK 7 Multistakeholder Advisory Group 7 IGF Secretariat 7 UN DESA 7 FUNDING 7 IMPACT 8 LOOKING AHEAD: STRENGTHENING THE IGF 8 The IGF in the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation’s report 8 The IGF in the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation 9 9 1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The IGF as an outcome of WSIS Internet governance was one of the most controversial issues during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS-I), held in Geneva in December 2003. It was recognised that understanding Internet governance was essential in achieving the development goals of the Geneva Plan of Action, but defining the term and understanding the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved proved to be difficult. The UN Secretary-General set up a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to explore these issues and prepare a report to feed into the second phase of WSIS (WSIS-II), held in Tunis in November 2005. Many elements contained in the WGIG report – developed through an open process and multistakeholder consultations – were endorsed in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (one of the main outcomes of WSIS-II).
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet Beyond Borderless Versus Balkanized
    POROUS TERRITORIES: THE INTERNET BEYOND BORDERLESS VERSUS BALKANIZED LUKE MUNN Western Sydney University (Australia) [email protected] Abstract: If the internet was once viewed as a borderless realm, critics now warn it is in danger of being “balkanized”, splintering into nationalized fragments. Certainly nation-states increasingly see the Internet as “their” internet, a national space to be regulated and actively shaped. The first half of this article charts the technologies that appear to place this vision within reach: data localization, internet shutdowns, and internet filtering. These moves promise to exert sovereign control, to make the inter- net an extension of national territory. Yet by drawing on two recent events in China, this article argues that these territories are messy and their borders are permeable. Pro-government activists jump across the firewall in order to attack individuals and organizations who threaten the stability and security of their motherland. Simultane- ously, individuals scale the firewall in order to question the party line and express solidarity with democratic movements, undermining the political and technical boundaries established by their nation. Internet architectures create a condition where territorialization is constantly being both amplified and undermined by “extra- territorial” activities. These practices demonstrate the everyday porosity of internet territories, providing a messier portrait that goes beyond the dichotomy of borderless vs balkanized. Keywords: territory, fragmentation, balkanization, internet, China. When nations speak of the internet today, they no longer use the language of the virtual, but of soil. At the dawn of the internet, cyberspace was framed as a new realm decoupled from the state. This digital sphere stretched across the globe, making it essentially ungovernable.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Governance and the Move to Ipv6
    Internet Governance and the move to IPv6 TU Delft April 2008 Alex Band & Arno Meulenkamp Internet Governance Community Policies Internet Resource Statistics IPv6 2 Internet Governance ISOC IETF ICANN / IANA RIRs 4 The 5 RIRs 5 What is RIPE NCC? RIPE NCC is –a Network Coordination Center –an independent organisation –a not-for-profit membership association –one of the 5 Regional Internet Registries 6 Registration 7 Goals of the IR System: Registration Why? Ensure uniqueness of IP address space usage Provide contact information for network operators How? RIPE Database Results: IP address space allocated uniquely Contact information available for Internet resources 8 Aggregation 9 Goals of the IR System: Aggregation Why? Routing table grows fast Provide scalable routing solution for the Internet How? Encourage announcement of whole allocations (min /21) Introduction of Classless Inter Domain Routing (CIDR) Results: Growth of routing table slowed down 10 Conservation 11 Goals of the IR System: Conservation Why? IP address space is limited resource Ensure efficient usage How? Introduction of CIDR Community based policies to ensure fair usage Results: IP address space consumption slowed Address space allocated on ‘need to use’ basis 12 IP address distribution IANA RIR LIR /23 /25 /25 End User Allocation PA Assignment PI Assignment 13 Community Policies Policy Development Cycle Need Evaluation Proposal Execution Discussion Consensus 15 How policy is made ICANN / IANA ASO AfriNIC RIPEReach NCC consensus ARIN across communitiesAPNIC LACNIC AfriNIC
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of the United Nations – November a Brief 2019 Description 25-29 What Is the IGF?
    The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of the United Nations – November a brief 2019 description 25-29 What is the IGF? The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistake- holder discussion platform of the United Nations. It addresses current legal, political, social and technical aspects of the Internet. The participants deal with all aspects related to the question of how the Internet as we know it can be maintained and improved. The issues up for discussion include technical standards, human rights mat- ters, the impact of digital technologies on everyday life and working life, and opportunities arising for economic and social development. The IGF has an advisory function and provides an opportunity for all participants to influence the discussions in the relevant decision-making bodies at national and international level. What does Internet governance mean? ‘Internet governance’ describes an open and constructive decision-making and dialogue process of all social groups that serves to raise awareness of problems and to find pos- sible solutions. In this context, ‘governance’ thus does not What is the IGF? refer to state regulation. Internet governance is rather based on the ‘multistakeholder’ approach. This means that The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistake- representatives of governments and international organi- holder discussion platform of the United Nations. It sations, civil society, business and the technical commu- addresses current legal, political, social and technical nity share their views on technical standards, social and aspects of the Internet. The participants deal with all economic objectives, political procedures and other rules, aspects related to the question of how the Internet as we values and standards related to the Internet on an equal know it can be maintained and improved.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty 2.0
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2021 Sovereignty 2.0 Anupam Chander Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Haochen Sun University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2404 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3904949 This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Sovereignty 2.0 Anupam Chander* and Haochen Sun** Digital sovereignty—the exercise of control over the internet—is the ambition of the world’s leaders, from Australia to Zimbabwe, a bulwark against both foreign state and foreign corporation. Governments have resoundingly answered first-generation internet law questions of who if anyone should regulate the internet—they all will. We now confront second generation questions—not whether, but how to regulate the internet. We argue that digital sovereignty is simultaneously a necessary incident of democratic governance and democracy’s dreaded antagonist. As international law scholar Louis Henkin taught us, sovereignty can insulate a government’s worst ills from foreign intrusion. Assertions of digital sovereignty, in particular, are often double-edged—useful both to protect citizens and to control them. Digital sovereignty can magnify the government’s powers by making legible behaviors that were previously invisible to the state. Thus, the same rule can be used to safeguard or repress--a feature that legislators across the Global North and South should anticipate by careful checks and balances.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Points of Control As Global Governance Laura Denardis INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO
    INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO. 2 — AUGUST 2013 Internet Points of Control as Global Governance Laura DeNardis INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO. 2 — AUGUST 2013 Internet Points of Control as Global Governance Laura DeNardis Copyright © 2013 by The Centre for International Governance Innovation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Centre for International Governance Innovation or its Operating Board of Directors or International Board of Governors. This work was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www. cigionline.org). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Non-commercial — No Derivatives License. To view this license, visit (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/). For re-use or distribution, please include this copyright notice. Cover and page design by Steve Cross. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CIGI gratefully acknowledges the support of the Copyright Collective of Canada. CONTENTS About the Author 1 About Organized Chaos: Reimagining the Internet Project 2 Acronyms 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 3 Global Struggles Over Control of CIRS 5 Governance via Internet Technical Standards 8 Routing and Interconnection Governance 10 Emerging International Governance Themes 12 Works Cited 14 About CIGI 15 INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS INTERNET POINTS OF CONTROL AS GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ABOUT THE AUTHOR Laura DeNardis Laura DeNardis, CIGI senior fellow, is an Internet governance scholar and professor in the School of Communication at American University in Washington, DC. Her books include The Global War for Internet Governance (forthcoming 2014), Opening Standards: The Global Politics of Interoperability (2011), Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance (2009) and Information Technology in Theory (2007, with Pelin Aksoy).
    [Show full text]