Internet governance in a multipolar world: Challenging American hegemony

Cambridge Review of International Affairs

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 105-120

  Drissel, David ^a  

^a Iowa Central Community College   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044914230     PISSN: 09557571     EISSN: 1474449X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09557570500501812     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. August, R., 2002. International cyber-jurisdiction: a comparative analysis. American Business Law Journal, 39 (4): 531–73.
2. Bell, D., 2001. An Introduction to Cybercultures, London and New York: Routledge Press.
3. Blevins, J., 2002. The safe-harbor agreement between the United States and Europe: a missed opportunity to balance the interests of e-commerce and privacy online. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46 (4) http://www.highbeam.com⟩, accessed 4 June 2005
4. Burk, D., 2003. “ Federalism in cyberspace revisited ”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C., Jr. Washington: Cato Institute.
5. Cate, F., 2003. “ Privacy protection and the quest for information control ”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C., Jr. 297–332. Washington: Cato Institute.
6. Crews, C., and Thierer, A., 2003. “ Introduction ”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C., Jr. xv–xviii. Washington: Cato Institute.
7. De Bossey, C., 2005. “ Report of the working group on Internet governance ”. < http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rpts/othr/49653.htm>, accessed 5 November 2005
8. DiMatteo, L., 2002. The new problem of business methods patents: the convergence of national patent laws and international internet transactions. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 28 http://www.highbeam.com⟩, accessed 4 June 2005
9. Feld, H., 2003. “ Structured to fail: ICANN and the privatisation experiment ”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C., Jr. 333–62. Washington: Cato Institute.
10. Froomkin, M., 2000. “ Semi-private international rulemaking: lessons learned from the WIPO domain name process ”. In Regulating the Global Information Society, Edited by: Marsden, C., 211–32. London and New York: Routledge Press.
11. Goldsmith, J., 2000. Unilateral regulation of the internet: a modest defense. European Journal of International Law, 11 (1): 135–48.
12. Goldsmith, J., 2003. “ Against cyberanarchy ”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C., Jr. 31–70. Washington: Cato Institute.
13. Gould, M., 2000. “ Locating Internet governance: lessons from the standards process ”. In Regulating the Global Information Society, Edited by: Marsden, C., 193–210. London and New York: Routledge Press.
14. Hauben, M., 1992. “ The Net and netizens: the impact the Net has on people's lives ”. < http://www.columbia.edu/∼rh120/ch106.x01>, accessed 23 November 2005
15. Helfer, L.R., and Dinwoodie, G.B., 2001. Designing non-national systems: the case of the uniform domain name dispute resolution policy. William and Mary Law Review, 43 (1) http://www.highbeam.com⟩, accessed 4 June 2005
16. Johnson, D., and Post, D., 1996. Law and borders–the rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 48 < http://www.cli.org/X0025_LBFIN.html>, accessed 21 November 2005
17. Kizza, J., 1998. Civilising the Internet: Global Concerns and Efforts Toward Regulation, Jefferson, NC and London: McFarland.
18. Kobayhashi, B., and Ribstein, L., 2003. “ Multijurisdictional regulation of the Internet ”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C, Jr. 159–215. Washington: Cato Institute.
19. Marsden, C., 2000. “ Introduction: information and communication technologies, globalisation and regulation ”. In Regulating the Global Information Society, Edited by: Marsden, C., 1–40. London and New York: Routledge Press.
20. McCullagh, D., 2004. “ United Nations ponders Net's future ”. CNET News, 26 March, < http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5179694.html>, accessed 15 September 2005
21. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 1998. “ Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Commerce and the Internet Association of Assigned Names and Numbers ”. < http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm>, accessed 14 November 2005
22. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 2005. “ Domain names: US principles on the Internet's domain name and addressing system ”. < http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm>, accessed 14 November 2005
23. O'Reardon, M., 2004. “ Internet jurisdiction: the international perspective ”. In Social and Economic Transformation in the Digital Era, Edited by: Doukidis, G., Mylonopoulos, N., and Pouloudi, N., 128–43. London: Idea.
24. Patience, N., 1999. Nader calls for international body to oversee ICANN. Computergram International, 28 September, < http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_3756/ai_55894627>, accessed 14 November 2005
25. Post, D., 2003. “ Against “Against Cyberanarchy”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C., Jr. 71–89. Washington: Cato Institute.
26. Price, M., and Verhulst, S., 2000. “ In search of the self: charting the course of self regulation on the internet in a global environment ”. In Regulating the Global Information Society, Edited by: Marsden, C., 57–78. London and New York: Routledge Press.
27. Regoli, N., 2002. Indecent exposures in an electronic regime. Federal Communications Law Journal, 54: 365–86.
28. Reidenberg, J., 2000. Resolving conflicting international data privacy rules in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 52: 1315–76.
29. Rheingold, H., 2002. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, Cambridge MA: Perseus.
30. Samuelson, P., 2000. “ Five challenges for regulating the global information society ”. In Regulating the Global Information Society, Edited by: Marsden, C., 316–30. London and New York: Routledge Press.
31. Shipchandler, S., 2000. The wild wild Web: non-regulation as the answer to the regulatory question. Cornell International Law Journal, 33 (2): 435–63.
32. Starr, S., 2003. Responsible regulation. Spiked Online, 23 July, < http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DE74.htm>, accessed 4 October 2005
33. TechWeb News. 2005. “ Academics Call for Internationalising Internet Governance ”. 29 July, < http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/166403839>, accessed 29 September 2005
34. Uimonen, P., 2003. Networks of Global Interaction. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 16 (2): 273–86.
35. US Department of State. 2005. “ Governing the Internet ”. < http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2005/54794.htm>, accessed 12 November 2005
36. WGIG. 2005. “ Open consultations of the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group on Internet Governance ”. < http://www.wgig.org/June-scriptmorning.html>, accessed 15 October 2005
37. Wimmer, K., 2003. “ International liability for internet content: publish locally, defend globally ”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C., Jr. 239–68. Washington: Cato Institute.
38. World Summit on the Information Society. 2003. “ Declaration of principles ”. < http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html>, accessed 5 November 2005
39. Zittrain, J., 2003. “ Be careful what you ask for: reconciling a global Internet and local law ”. In Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Edited by: Thierer, A., and Crews, C., Jr. 13–30. Washington: Cato Institute.