6
Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain
focusing on cyberspace contests in Asia we are taking a glimpse into the future. There
is a major demographic shift in cyberspace under way, as the center of gravity of the
Internet ’ s population slowly shifts from the North and West to the South and East.
These nations are entering into cyberspace with a much different set of customs,
values, and state-society relations than those, like the United States and Europe, out
of which the Internet was developed and fi rst took shape. Just as West Coast Californian culture motivated the fi rst generation of Internet practices and principles, so too
should we expect the next phase of these practices and principles to refl ect a different
regional fl avor.
Four Phases of Cyberspace Regulation
Since 2006 when we began our global comparative approach to Internet fi ltering
research, we have mapped content-access control on the Internet in 70 states, probed
289 ISPs within those states, and tested Web access to 129,884 URLs. Based on the
data we have collected and the work of other researchers asking similar questions,
we argue that there are four phases of Internet access and content regulation. The
phases are the “ open commons ” period, from the network ’ s formation through about
2000; “ access denied, ” through about 2005; “ access controlled, ” through 2010;
and “ access contested, ” the phase we are now entering, which is the subject of this
volume.
Phase 1: The Open Commons (the 1960s to 2000)
The fi rst phase, roughly from the Internet ’ s initial formation in the 1960s through
about 2000, is the period of the “ open commons. ” This phrase is intended to convey
descriptive, predictive, and normative meanings. During this initial period of the
network ’ s development, the dominant theory about its regulation — to the extent that
anyone was thinking seriously about regulation at all — was that the Internet itself was
a separate space, often called “ cyberspace. ” The concept of cyberspace melded the
creativity of the science fi ction writer with the aspirations of the democratic theorist
dreaming of a fresh start. Up until the late 1990s, most states tended either to ignore
online activities or to regulate them very lightly. When states did pay attention to
activities online, they tended to think about and treat them very differently from
activities in real space. While the idea of an open commons seemed to work as a
description, it proved inaccurate as a prediction. Of course, on a normative level, there
is still salience and widespread attachment to the concept of an open commons.
Though the era of the open commons as a description of cyberspace is long past,
there are important elements of the theory behind it that persist today. For example,
there is truth to the argument that the Internet allows us to hear more speech from
Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain
focusing on cyberspace contests in Asia we are taking a glimpse into the future. There
is a major demographic shift in cyberspace under way, as the center of gravity of the
Internet ’ s population slowly shifts from the North and West to the South and East.
These nations are entering into cyberspace with a much different set of customs,
values, and state-society relations than those, like the United States and Europe, out
of which the Internet was developed and fi rst took shape. Just as West Coast Californian culture motivated the fi rst generation of Internet practices and principles, so too
should we expect the next phase of these practices and principles to refl ect a different
regional fl avor.
Four Phases of Cyberspace Regulation
Since 2006 when we began our global comparative approach to Internet fi ltering
research, we have mapped content-access control on the Internet in 70 states, probed
289 ISPs within those states, and tested Web access to 129,884 URLs. Based on the
data we have collected and the work of other researchers asking similar questions,
we argue that there are four phases of Internet access and content regulation. The
phases are the “ open commons ” period, from the network ’ s formation through about
2000; “ access denied, ” through about 2005; “ access controlled, ” through 2010;
and “ access contested, ” the phase we are now entering, which is the subject of this
volume.
Phase 1: The Open Commons (the 1960s to 2000)
The fi rst phase, roughly from the Internet ’ s initial formation in the 1960s through
about 2000, is the period of the “ open commons. ” This phrase is intended to convey
descriptive, predictive, and normative meanings. During this initial period of the
network ’ s development, the dominant theory about its regulation — to the extent that
anyone was thinking seriously about regulation at all — was that the Internet itself was
a separate space, often called “ cyberspace. ” The concept of cyberspace melded the
creativity of the science fi ction writer with the aspirations of the democratic theorist
dreaming of a fresh start. Up until the late 1990s, most states tended either to ignore
online activities or to regulate them very lightly. When states did pay attention to
activities online, they tended to think about and treat them very differently from
activities in real space. While the idea of an open commons seemed to work as a
description, it proved inaccurate as a prediction. Of course, on a normative level, there
is still salience and widespread attachment to the concept of an open commons.
Though the era of the open commons as a description of cyberspace is long past,
there are important elements of the theory behind it that persist today. For example,
there is truth to the argument that the Internet allows us to hear more speech from