The role of non-state actors in regime formation: Case study on Internet governance.

Many scholars argue that the Internet is a symbol of globalization and avoidance of state control. The Internet governance negotiations, which aims to establish an international regime for the Internet, is conducted through a multi-stakeholder setting associated with extensive involvement of non-state actors. This has been viewed as an indicator for a \u27diminishing state role\u27 in international relations; particularly, formation of international regimes. This study indicates that the role of states does not diminish in regime formation. States, especially great powers, are the main actors that set international principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures. They create regimes in order to regulate international behavior as to global sectors, including the Internet. States deliberately enable certain non-state actors to participate in regime formation and governance of some global sectors, based on conscious perception of the utility and usefulness of such participation

The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)

This document describes the LLN Ad hoc On-Demand (LOAD) distance vector routing protocol - Next Generation, a reactive routing protocol intended for use in Low power Lossy Networks (LLN). The protocol is derived from AODV and extended for use in LLNs.Ce document décrit le protocole de routage "distance vector" LOAD - Next Generation (LLN Ad hoc On-Demand). Il s'agit d'un protocole réactif qui s'adresse aux réseaux á faible puissance et fort taux de perte (Low power and Lossy Networks, LLNs). Il est dérivé d'AODV et a été modifié de maniére à répondre aux besoin de tels réseaux

Lowering Legal Barriers to RPKI Adoption

Across the Internet, mistaken and malicious routing announcements impose significant costs on users and network operators. To make routing announcements more reliable and secure, Internet coordination bodies have encouraged network operators to adopt the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (“RPKI”) framework. Despite this encouragement, RPKI’s adoption rates are low, especially in North America.This report presents the results of a year-long investigation into the hypothesis—widespread within the network operator community—that legal issues pose barriers to RPKI adoption and are one cause of the disparities between North America and other regions of the world. On the basis of interviews and analysis of the legal framework governing RPKI, the report evaluates the issues raised by community members and proposes a number of strategies to reduce or circumvent the barriers that are material. The report also describes substantial action taken this year by the American Registry for Internet Numbers (“ARIN”) and other private organizations in light of public dialogue about RPKI

Negotiating Internet Governance

What is at stake for how the Internet continues to evolve is the preservation of its integrity as a single network. In practice, its governance is neither centralised nor unitary; it is piecemeal and fragmented, with authoritative decision-making coming from different sources simultaneously: governments, businesses, international organisations, technical and academic experts, and civil society. Historically, the conditions for their interaction were rarely defined beyond basic technical coordination, due at first to the academic freedom granted to the researchers developing the network and, later on, to the sheer impossibility of controlling mushrooming Internet initiatives. Today, the search for global norms and rules for the Internet continues, be it for cybersecurity or artificial intelligence, amid processes fostering the supremacy of national approaches or the vitality of a pluralist environment with various stakeholders represented. This book provides an incisive analysis of the emergence and evolution of global Internet governance, unpacking the complexity of more than 300 governance arrangements, influential debates and political negotiations over four decades. Highly accessible, this book breaks new ground through a wide empirical exploration and a new conceptual approach to governance enactment in global issue domains. A tripartite framework is employed for revealing power dynamics, relying on: a) an extensive database of mechanisms of governance for the Internet at the global and regional level; b) an in-depth analysis of the evolution of actors and priorities over time; and c) a key set of dominant practices observed in the Internet governance communities. It explains continuity and change in Internet-related negotiations, opening up new directions for thinking and acting in this field

The Regime Complex for Managing Global Cyber Activities

When we try to understand cyber governance, it is important to remember how new cyberspace is. “Cyberspace is an operational domain framed by use of electronics to…exploit information via interconnected systems and their associated infra structure” (Kuehl 2009). While the US Defense Department sponsored a modest connection of a few computers called ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) in 1969, and the World Wide Web was conceived in 1989, it has only been in the last decade and a half that the number of websites burgeoned, and businesses begin to use this new technology to shift production and procurement in complex global supply chains. In 1992, there were only a million users on the Internet (Starr 2009, 52); today, there are nearly three billion, and the Internet has become a substrate of modern economic, social and political life. And the volatility continues. Analysts are now trying to understand the implications of ubiquitous mobility, the “Internet of everything” and storage of “big data.” Over the past 15 years, the advances in technology have far outstripped the ability of institutions of governance to respond, as well as our thinking about governance. Since the 1970s, political scientists have looked at the international governance processes of various global affairs issues through the perspective of regime theory (Keohane and Nye 1977; Ruggie 1982). This paper is a mapping exercise of cyber governance using regime theory. Regimes are the “principles, norms, rules and procedures that govern issue areas in international affairs,” but these concepts have rarely been applied to the new cyber domain (Krasner 1983). In its early days, thinking about cyber governance was relatively primitive. Ideological libertarians proclaimed that “information wants to be free,” portraying the Internet as the end of government controls. In practice, however, governments and geographical jurisdictions have been playing a major role in cyber governance right from the start