4
Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain
Onlookers ’ accounts differ from those made by the IGF executive coordinator, Markus
Kummer, and these differences stir up confusion. Kummer claims the reason the
banner was removed had nothing to do with the reference to China, but rather that
no banners or posters are allowed in the IGF, a claim that is clearly contradicted by
dozens of other commercial banners spread throughout the massive complex.
The now-infamous IGF ONI book reception illustrates in one instance the current
state of cyberspace contestation. Rather than overt censorship, a member state pressures UN offi cials at the IGF to remove a poster that alludes to practices (in this case,
technical censorship) they would prefer not be mentioned. Meanwhile China is engaging in a forthright campaign to neutralize the IGF, pushing instead for Internet governance to be moved to a more state-exclusive forum. Perhaps not surprisingly, the
IGF president seems loath to annoy the member state, perhaps for fear of stirring up
yet more animosity toward the IGF. But the quiet show of authority does not go
unchallenged — documented by dozens of social-media-enabled activists and attendees, accounts of the event ripple outward to become a media storm.
A little over a year later, events in Egypt take a dramatic turn as the country is
embroiled in protests. The contests in the street are to an unknown degree organized
over the Web and documented there, with the Egyptian authorities ordering all Internet service providers (ISPs) to shutter services.
1 While the country is effectively severed
from the Internet, supporters of the Egyptian demonstrators worldwide share strategies
on repairing the broken connections. Everything from ham radios and satellite phones
to primitive dial-up connections is employed. Eventually, the Egyptian authorities
relent on the blackout, but the contests in cyberspace continue. Egyptian authorities
order the country ’ s main cell phone carriers to send out mass SMS texts urging proMubarak supporters to take to the streets and fi ght the assembled protestors.
2
Digital technologies play an increasingly important role in terms of how we express
ourselves and communicate with one another. Those who hold public offi ce, along
with those who speak to power, recognize the growing importance of the Internet and
related technologies, which together forge the domain of cyberspace. It is now considered a domain equal in importance to land, air, sea, and space and is the medium
through which commerce, education, hobbies, politics, and war all take place.
Not surprisingly, cyberspace has become an increasingly contested space — an object
of geopolitical competition. This contestation is illustrated on a daily basis, from the
formation of military cyber commands to the fi ltering of social media tools by repressive regimes to the creation of new tools and methods designed to circumvent them.
The tussles over cyberspace are the result of a gradual entanglement of competing
strategic interests mutually dependent on and targeting a common communications
and information space. It bears constant reminding that the environment we are
talking about is only several decades old, and in a short period of time it has gone
through a massive growth that continues unabated.
Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain
Onlookers ’ accounts differ from those made by the IGF executive coordinator, Markus
Kummer, and these differences stir up confusion. Kummer claims the reason the
banner was removed had nothing to do with the reference to China, but rather that
no banners or posters are allowed in the IGF, a claim that is clearly contradicted by
dozens of other commercial banners spread throughout the massive complex.
The now-infamous IGF ONI book reception illustrates in one instance the current
state of cyberspace contestation. Rather than overt censorship, a member state pressures UN offi cials at the IGF to remove a poster that alludes to practices (in this case,
technical censorship) they would prefer not be mentioned. Meanwhile China is engaging in a forthright campaign to neutralize the IGF, pushing instead for Internet governance to be moved to a more state-exclusive forum. Perhaps not surprisingly, the
IGF president seems loath to annoy the member state, perhaps for fear of stirring up
yet more animosity toward the IGF. But the quiet show of authority does not go
unchallenged — documented by dozens of social-media-enabled activists and attendees, accounts of the event ripple outward to become a media storm.
A little over a year later, events in Egypt take a dramatic turn as the country is
embroiled in protests. The contests in the street are to an unknown degree organized
over the Web and documented there, with the Egyptian authorities ordering all Internet service providers (ISPs) to shutter services.
1 While the country is effectively severed
from the Internet, supporters of the Egyptian demonstrators worldwide share strategies
on repairing the broken connections. Everything from ham radios and satellite phones
to primitive dial-up connections is employed. Eventually, the Egyptian authorities
relent on the blackout, but the contests in cyberspace continue. Egyptian authorities
order the country ’ s main cell phone carriers to send out mass SMS texts urging proMubarak supporters to take to the streets and fi ght the assembled protestors.
2
Digital technologies play an increasingly important role in terms of how we express
ourselves and communicate with one another. Those who hold public offi ce, along
with those who speak to power, recognize the growing importance of the Internet and
related technologies, which together forge the domain of cyberspace. It is now considered a domain equal in importance to land, air, sea, and space and is the medium
through which commerce, education, hobbies, politics, and war all take place.
Not surprisingly, cyberspace has become an increasingly contested space — an object
of geopolitical competition. This contestation is illustrated on a daily basis, from the
formation of military cyber commands to the fi ltering of social media tools by repressive regimes to the creation of new tools and methods designed to circumvent them.
The tussles over cyberspace are the result of a gradual entanglement of competing
strategic interests mutually dependent on and targeting a common communications
and information space. It bears constant reminding that the environment we are
talking about is only several decades old, and in a short period of time it has gone
through a massive growth that continues unabated.