Beyond NETmundial: The Roadmap for Institutional Improvements to the Global Internet Governance Ecosystem

Beyond NETmundial: The Roadmap for Institutional Improvements to the Global Internet Governance Ecosystem explores options for the implementation of a key section of the “NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement” that was adopted at the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) held on April 23rd and 24th 2014 in São Paulo, Brazil. The Roadmap section of the statement concisely sets out a series of proposed enhancements to existing mechanisms for global internet governance, as well as suggestions of possible new initiatives that the global community may wish to consider. The sixteen chapters by leading practitioners and scholars are grouped into six sections: The NETmundial Meeting; Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum; Filling the Gaps; Improving ICANN; Broader Analytical Perspectives; and Moving Forward

China & technical global internet governance: from norm-taker to norm-maker?

 This dissertation examines Chinese engagement with core norms structuring technical global internet governance. It finds that China has been a norm-taker globally, but more of a norm-maker both regionally and domestically. Beijing seeks to restrict US government and non-state actor authority, but cannot due to limited support and power constraints

Rising China and Internet governance: Multistakeholderism, fragmentation and the Liberal Order in the age of digital sovereignty

In its open and private-based dimension, the Internet is the epitome of the Liberal International Order in its global spatial dimension. Therefore, normative questions arise from the emergence of powerful non-liberal actors such as China in Internet governance. In particular, China has supported a UN-based multilateral Internet governance model based on state sovereignty aimed at replacing the existing ICANN-based multistakeholder model. While persistent, this debate has become less dualistic through time. However, fear of Internet fragmentation has increased as the US-China technological competition grew harsher. This thesis inquires “(To what extent) are Chinese stakeholders reshaping the rules of Global Internet Governance?”. This is further unpacked in three smaller questions: (i) (To what extent) are Chinese stakeholders contributing to increased state influence in multistakeholder fora?; (ii) (how) is China contributing to Internet fragmentation?; and (iii) what are the main drivers of Chinese stakeholders’ stances? To answer these questions, Chinese stakeholders’ actions are observed in the making and management of critical Internet resources at the IETF and ICANN respectively, and in mobile connectivity standard-making at 3GPP. Through the lens of norm entrepreneurship in regime complexes, this thesis interprets changes and persistence in the Internet governance normative order and Chinese attitudes towards it. Three research methods are employed: network analysis, semi-structured expert interviews, and thematic document analysis. While China has enhanced state intervention in several technological fields, fostering debates on digital sovereignty, this research finds that the Chinese government does not exert full control on its domestic private actors and concludes that Chinese stakeholders have increasingly adapted to multistakeholder Internet governance as they grew influential within it. To enhance control over Internet-based activities, the Chinese government resorted to regulatory and technical control domestically rather than establishing a splinternet. This is due to Chinese stakeholders’ interest in retaining the network benefits of global interconnectivity

The Role of Transnational Elites in shaping the evolving Field of Internet Governance

La gouvernance de l'Internet est une thématique récente dans la politique mondiale. Néanmoins, elle est devenue au fil des années un enjeu économique et politique important. La question a même pris une importance particulière au cours des derniers mois en devenant un sujet d'actualité récurrent. Forte de ce constat, c ette recherche retrace l'histoire de la gouvernance de l'Internet depuis son émergence comme enjeu politique dans les années 1980 jusqu'à la fin du Sommet Mondial sur la Société de l'Information (SMSI) en 2005. Plutôt que de se focaliser sur l'une ou l'autre des institutions impliquées dans la régulation du réseau informatique mondial, cette recherche analyse l'émergence et l'évolution historique d'un espace de luttes rassemblant un nombre croissant d'acteurs différents. Cette évolution est décrite à travers le prisme de la relation dialectique entre élites et non-élites et de la lutte autour de la définition de la gouvernance de l'Internet. Cette thèse explore donc la question de comment les relations au sein des élites de la gouvernance de l'Internet et entre ces élites et les non-élites expliquent l'emergence, l'évolution et la structuration d'un champ relativement autonome de la politique mondiale centré sur la gouvernance de l'Internet. Contre les perspectives dominantes réaliste et libérales, cette recherche s'ancre dans une approche issue de la combinaison des traditions hétérodoxes en économie politique internationale et des apports de la sociologie politique internationale. Celle-ci s'articule autour des concepts de champ, d'élites et d'hégémonie. Le concept de champ, développé par Bourdieu inspire un nombre croissant d'études de la politique mondiale. Il permet à la fois une étude différenciée de la mondialisation et l'émergence d'espaces de lutte et de domination au niveau transnational. La sociologie des élites, elle, permet une approche pragmatique et centrée sur les acteurs des questions de pouvoir dans la mondialisation. Cette recherche utilise plus particulièrement le concept d'élite du pouvoir de Wright Mills pour étudier l'unification d'élites a priori différentes autour de projets communs. Enfin, cette étude reprend le concept néo-gramscien d'hégémonie afin d'étudier à la fois la stabilité relative du pouvoir d'une élite garantie par la dimension consensuelle de la domination, et les germes de changement contenus dans tout ordre international. A travers l'étude des documents produits au cours de la période étudiée et en s'appuyant sur la création de bases de données sur les réseaux d'acteurs, cette étude s'intéresse aux débats qui ont suivi la commercialisation du réseau au début des années 1990 et aux négociations lors du SMSI. La première période a abouti à la création de l'Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) en 1998. Cette création est le résultat de la recherche d'un consensus entre les discours dominants des années 1990. C'est également le fruit d'une coalition entre intérêts au sein d'une élite du pouvoir de la gouvernance de l'Internet. Cependant, cette institutionnalisation de l'Internet autour de l'ICANN excluait un certain nombre d'acteurs et de discours qui ont depuis tenté de renverser cet ordre. Le SMSI a été le cadre de la remise en cause du mode de gouvernance de l'Internet par les États exclus du système, des universitaires et certaines ONG et organisations internationales. C'est pourquoi le SMSI constitue la seconde période historique étudiée dans cette thèse. La confrontation lors du SMSI a donné lieu à une reconfiguration de l'élite du pouvoir de la gouvernance de l'Internet ainsi qu'à une redéfinition des frontières du champ. Un nouveau projet hégémonique a vu le jour autour d'éléments discursifs tels que le multipartenariat et autour d'insitutions telles que le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet. Le succès relatif de ce projet a permis une stabilité insitutionnelle inédite depuis la fin du SMSI et une acceptation du discours des élites par un grand nombre d'acteurs du champ. Ce n'est que récemment que cet ordre a été remis en cause par les pouvoirs émergents dans la gouvernance de l'Internet. Cette thèse cherche à contribuer au débat scientifique sur trois plans. Sur le plan théorique, elle contribue à l'essor d'un dialogue entre approches d'économie politique mondiale et de sociologie politique internationale afin d'étudier à la fois les dynamiques structurelles liées au processus de mondialisation et les pratiques localisées des acteurs dans un domaine précis. Elle insiste notamment sur l'apport de les notions de champ et d'élite du pouvoir et sur leur compatibilité avec les anlayses néo-gramsciennes de l'hégémonie. Sur le plan méthodologique, ce dialogue se traduit par une utilisation de méthodes sociologiques telles que l'anlyse de réseaux d'acteurs et de déclarations pour compléter l'analyse qualitative de documents. Enfin, sur le plan empirique, cette recherche offre une perspective originale sur la gouvernance de l'Internet en insistant sur sa dimension historique, en démontrant la fragilité du concept de gouvernance multipartenaire (multistakeholder) et en se focalisant sur les rapports de pouvoir et les liens entre gouvernance de l'Internet et mondialisation. - Internet governance is a recent issue in global politics. However, it gradually became a major political and economic issue. It recently became even more important and now appears regularly in the news. Against this background, this research outlines the history of Internet governance from its emergence as a political issue in the 1980s to the end of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005. Rather than focusing on one or the other institution involved in Internet governance, this research analyses the emergence and historical evolution of a space of struggle affecting a growing number of different actors. This evolution is described through the analysis of the dialectical relation between elites and non-elites and through the struggle around the definition of Internet governance. The thesis explores the question of how the relations among the elites of Internet governance and between these elites and non-elites explain the emergence, the evolution, and the structuration of a relatively autonomous field of world politics centred around Internet governance. Against dominant realist and liberal perspectives, this research draws upon a cross-fertilisation of heterodox international political economy and international political sociology. This approach focuses on concepts such as field, elites and hegemony. The concept of field, as developed by Bourdieu, is increasingly used in International Relations to build a differentiated analysis of globalisation and to describe the emergence of transnational spaces of struggle and domination. Elite sociology allows for a pragmatic actor-centred analysis of the issue of power in the globalisation process. This research particularly draws on Wright Mill's concept of power elite in order to explore the unification of different elites around shared projects. Finally, this thesis uses the Neo-Gramscian concept of hegemony in order to study both the consensual dimension of domination and the prospect of change contained in any international order. Through the analysis of the documents produced within the analysed period, and through the creation of databases of networks of actors, this research focuses on the debates that followed the commercialisation of the Internet throughout the 1990s and during the WSIS. The first time period led to the creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in 1998. This creation resulted from the consensus-building between the dominant discourses of the time. It also resulted from the coalition of interests among an emerging power elite. However, this institutionalisation of Internet governance around the ICANN excluded a number of actors and discourses that resisted this mode of governance. The WSIS became the institutional framework within which the governance system was questioned by some excluded states, scholars, NGOs and intergovernmental organisations. The confrontation between the power elite and counter-elites during the WSIS triggered a reconfiguration of the power elite as well as a re-definition of the boundaries of the field. A new hegemonic project emerged around discursive elements such as the idea of multistakeholderism and institutional elements such as the Internet Governance Forum. The relative success of the hegemonic project allowed for a certain stability within the field and an acceptance by most non-elites of the new order. It is only recently that this order began to be questioned by the emerging powers of Internet governance. This research provides three main contributions to the scientific debate. On the theoretical level, it contributes to the emergence of a dialogue between International Political Economy and International Political Sociology perspectives in order to analyse both the structural trends of the globalisation process and the located practices of actors in a given issue-area. It notably stresses the contribution of concepts such as field and power elite and their compatibility with a Neo-Gramscian framework to analyse hegemony. On the methodological level, this perspective relies on the use of mixed methods, combining qualitative content analysis with social network analysis of actors and statements. Finally, on the empirical level, this research provides an original perspective on Internet governance. It stresses the historical dimension of current Internet governance arrangements. It also criticise the notion of multistakeholde ism and focuses instead on the power dynamics and the relation between Internet governance and globalisation

The Market for Private Dispute Resolution Services--An Empirical Re-Assessment of ICANN-UDRP Performance

The impressive growth of the Internet in the 1990s and the boom of the e-economy generated a competition for domain names in the most coveted of the top level domain names, i.e., the .com space. The other original generic top-level domain names (gTLDs) open to commercial use, .org, and .net, were also in demand from businesses. Other types of top-level domain names, especially the country code TLDs (ccTLDs), were of little commercial value, and their registrations were not as important as the gTLDs. In 1997, partly because of the expansion of the Internet to the international sphere, the U.S. government delegated the management of numbers and names of the Internet to a non-profit corporation based in California, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Even though ICANN is not the only organization managing Internet names and addresses, it is enormously influential in fashioning the actual structure of the Internet. The relevance and power of ICANN in enacting new policies for the Internet are based on two main characteristics—its monopoly of the main Domain Name System on the Internet and the lack of technological compatibility between competing Domain Name Systems which has prevented other private firms from competing with ICANN. One of the main problems in the medium term on the Net was the creation of a system to handle the growing number of problems among users because of the, sometimes indiscriminate, registration of domain names that collided with already established trademarks in real life markets. These disputes grew at the same pace as Internet commerce boomed in the late nineties. The usual mechanism to solve these kinds of disputes, i.e., courts, were handicapped to handle cases in which parties came from different jurisdictions and laws, enforcement of court judgments was weak, and court procedures were slow and expensive. One of the main tasks of ICANN was to provide a fast and inexpensive system to resolve domain name disputes. In 1999, after a series of consultations with many interest groups, ICANN created the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a decentralized regime for dispute resolution in which ICANN created the general rules and a series of competing private providers were authorized to manage and resolve disputes. ICANN, because of its role as the only manager of the domain name system, could exert almost perfect enforcement of the UDRP providers’ decisions. Nonetheless, after a few years, harsh criticism has been leveled at ICANN/UDRP from scholars and commentators. Most of the empirical studies of the UDRP have been based on the analysis of cases handled by providers and the results of the panels’ decisions. The most common critiques are that the UDRP providers are biased, that they have an incentive to favor complainants and trademark owners, and that the rules have been designed to favor proprietary interests on the Internet. Some of these facts are a direct consequence of the political structure of ICANN, which we (and others) have analyzed elsewhere. In this paper, we present a thorough empirical study of the performance of UDRP providers. We analyze the decisions of the complainants in deciding to send their claims to particular UDRP providers. Using a multinomial logit regression model to determine whether complainants select the provider based on bias or duration of the dispute resolution procedure, we show that duration is at least as important as bias in the selection of providers. This is a key finding since our results show that the emphasis of theoretical and empirical work, which has been exclusively concentrated around the effects of bias, is misplaced. As we demonstrate, more attention should be paid to other performance and efficiency indicators, such as those proposed in this paper. We identify the duration of the domain name disputes, i.e., the entire period of time taken by panels to decide these cases is one of the main variables that determines the efficiency of the dispute resolution system and influences the choice of UDRP provider by complainants. From our empirical results, we use the duration of cases as the variable to measure the general efficiency of each UDRP provider. Hence, our study goes beyond the empirical questions regarding the final results of the cases by looking at the actual performance of providers. Among our main findings, we claim that the UDRP providers have different duration functions, implying a different process or technology in treating cases, which sets up the existence of forum shopping. The existence of forum shopping based on the performance of providers is different from the forum shopping mentioned in the UDRP literature which is based on the bias of the providers towards complainants. Second, the providers have an unambiguous bias for specific countries. This finding is very important because most of the literature discusses the bias between individuals. Nonetheless, the bias towards countries of origin of the UDRP providers could be an important element to take into account in the design of a general dispute resolution system such as the UDRP. Furthermore, the evidence of such a bias delivers a hard blow to ICANN’s claim that the system is intended to handle the most diverse claims on the Internet regardless of the countries of origin of the parties. Third, we also find that some panelists have completely different duration times for deciding cases, as compared to the rest of the cases under any private provider. That said, the structural differences among providers can have an influence on the performance of the judges. This evidence regarding some panelists, however, calls into question the actual system by which providers assign cases to panelists in the sense that the selection of the panelist is not an innocuous decision in terms of efficiency. Fourth, the performance of the providers is affected by the proofs presented by complainants and respondents. This is an indication that decisions are based on the proofs presented according to the rules of the UDRP. Finally, we find that three member panels are just as efficient as single member panels. Accordingly, a change to a general three member panel system could be beneficial in terms of fairness, without having a negative impact on efficiency

Stakes are High: Essays on Brazil and the Future of the Global Internet

This workbook seeks to provide some background to the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) scheduled for April 23rd and 24th 2014 in São Paulo, Brazil. It is designed to help outline the internet policy issues that are at stake and will be discussed at NETmundial, as well as background on internet policy in Brazil. The workbook includes essays on the history of the NETmundial meeting and the Marco Civil process in Brazil; some background on the environment in Germany—with particular attention to the link between the meeting and the Snowden case; questions of legitimacy surrounding open processes for lawmaking; and comments on the material presented to the organizing committee by official and unofficial commenters. This workbook was produced as a part of the Internet Policy Observatory, a program at the Center for Global Communication Studies, the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It was edited and curated by a steering committee including Ellery Roberts Biddle of Global Voices, Ronaldo Lemos of the Rio Institute for Technology and Society, and Monroe Price of the Annenberg School for Communication. They were assisted by Alexandra Esenler, Laura Schwartz-Henderson, and Briar Smith