Layers and levels
Models of analysis
17.447/17.448
Fall, 2011
1
Review
• In our last meetings we have presented two
tools of analysis for our work.
– A layered model of cyberspace
• A model familiar to computer science.
– Levels of analysis
• A model familiar to political science.
• The goals today
– Elaborate these models.
– Link them together.
2
Layers model from last week
Businesses
Citizens
NGOs, etc. Illegitimates
The net
People
Providers
Suppliers Standards Intl policy
Information
Logical
Application
Services
Internet
Physical
3
Govts
Levels of analysis
• The other tool, familiar to political science.
– But extended in fundamental ways.
4
IR levels of analysis
Global
International
State
Individual
5
Adding in private actors
Degree of state involvement
Private sector actors
Scope
Global
International
State
Individual
6
Collective actors
come with many
scopes:
•Local to a state
•Trans-national
•“Going for
Global”
The “belongs to”
arrows do not
strongly apply to
collective private
actors.
Using this model
• This model can be a tool of analysis to characterize
problems:
– Causes of war, nature of spam, climate change.
• Some problems may suggest a framing at multiple levels, some
(like climate change) seem to have a natural level where their
analysis must necessarily go.
• This model can also be a tool to explore the space of
solutions.
– A proposed solution that is at a different level than the
“natural” level of the problem may not be effective.
7
Curing spam
Global
State
Discuss at ITU
Pass laws
Individual
Private sector actors
International
Establish Spamhaus
Abandon email;
Use IM
Install a spam filter
8
Some actors move the locus
Global
Private sector actors
International
State
Advocacy groups
attempt to take
issues at the
individual level
and elevate them
to state-level
issues.
•Privacy
Advocacy
groups
Such action may
rebalance the
power among the
actors.
Individual
9
Private order
Global
Private sector actors
International
U.S. Congress
andState
agencies.
States delegate
regulation to
collective actors:
•FASB
•UL
•D&B
Administrative
organization
Individual
10
Asymmetric contention
• When actors of different sorts contend, they use
different tools, leading to asymmetric contention.
– States pass laws and enter into contracts.
– U.N. organizations convene summits and pass resolutions.
States use tools of diplomacy, such as consensus building
and stalling.
– Companies lobby, form larger collectives for clout, fund
preferred outcomes.
– Advocacy groups protest.
11
States differ in their control
Global
Private sector actors
International
State
Chinese ISPs
US views ISPs are
(largely) private
actors.
Other nations
such as China
view ISPs as full
agents of the
state.
U.S. ISPs
Interactions
among these ISPs
may have an
asymmetric feel.
Individual
12
Contention over DNS
Private sector actors
Global
WSIS/IGF
ICANN
International
US delegate DNS
regulation to
ICANN. Claims it
is “global”.
Internet-based
firms
Other nations
U.S. Dept
State
of Commerce
State and nonstate actors
contest the
legitimacy of this
at WSIS and IGF.
Individual
13
“Internet”
companies back
ICANN
A potentially useful elaboration
Degree of state involvement
International
State
Individual
14
Profit-seeking actors
Non-profit actors
Scope
Global
Combining the models
• Actors can be positioned within both models
– As can “issues” and “solutions”.
15
The matrix
Individual
State
International
People
Information
Logical
Applications
Services
Internet
Physical
16
Global
Non-profits
Profitseeking
Examples of issues
Individual
Logical
People
State
International
Digital divide
Information
Privacy;
Peer
production
Censorship
Applications
Peer
production
Lawful
intercept
Services
Global
Developing
world
Takedown;
IPR,
Spam;
Wikileaks
Blocking DNS
Governance
of DNS
Allocation of
IP addresses
Internet
Home
network mgt.
Network
neutrality
Physical
Home wiring
Facilities
unbundling
Satellite orbit
spectrum
17
Non-profits
Profitseeking
Controlling spam
Individual
State
International
Filter
Pass laws;
authorize
private
action
Discuss
Global
Non-profits
Profitseeking
Spamhaus
Filter;
Certified
emailers
People
Logical
Information
Applications
Block ports
Services
Block DNS
Internet
Disconnect
ISPs
Disconnect
ISPs;Identify
BOTs
Physical
18
Wikileaks
Individual
State
International
Global
People
Information
Wikileaks
Logical
Applications
Services
Internet
Physical
19
Non-profits
Profitseeking
Spam marketing
Individual
State
International
Global
People
Information
Spam
Logical
Applications
Services
Internet
Physical
20
Non-profits
Profitseeking
France and nazi memorabilia
Individual
State
International
People
Information
French law
Logical
Applications
Services
Internet
Physical
21
Global
Non-profits
Profitseeking
Enforcement of IPR
Individual
State
International
People
Information
IPR
enforcement
Logical
Applications
Services
Internet
Physical
22
Global
Non-profits
Profitseeking
Lessons
• This (and other) examples suggest the
following: ( I made this slide in advance…)
– Remedies can be implemented at different levels
and layers.
• Remedies at different levels (e.g. individual vs.
state) may or may not be effective.
– Want to understand issues.
• Remedies at different layers are often either
ineffective or “blunt instruments”.
23
Analysis/synthesis
• Case studies of specific events help us
generate a catalog of responses.
– Our matrix is one approach to helping organize
and discover the range of responses.
– Need tools to help us think methodically.
• The harder problem is mechanism design.
– The Internet is a built artifact.
– A technology change can “change everything”.
– How do we think methodically about that?
24
Systems engineering
• The art/science of designing large complex
systems is called “systems engineering”.
– Lots of books on how to do it.
• But they don’t tell us how to think
methodically about the necessary range of
issues.
– For many systems (highways, planes, airports,
power systems), we have prior experience to help
us catalog the issues.
– We have not built many Internets.
25
An example of a design question
• What would the implications be if we
hardened the jurisdictional boundaries of the
Internet by making sure that the binding from
an IP address to a national jurisdiction was
unambiguous?
– In whose interest?
– What would change for better or worse?
– Should computers that fight cyber-wars wear
uniforms?
26
The matrix
Individual
State
International
People
Information
Logical
Applications
Services
Internet
Physical
27
Global
Non-profits
Profitseeking
The matrix
Individual
State
International
People
Information
Logical
Applications
Services
Internet
Physical
28
Global
Non-profits
Profitseeking
The matrix
Individual
State
International
People
Information
Logical
Applications
Services
Internet
Physical
29
Global
Non-profits
Profitseeking
Examples of institutions
Individual
Logical
People
State
International
Global
Non-profits
FTC
(consumer
protection)
Information
Copyright
Censors
Applications
Freegate
Profitseeking
EFF, CDT
Wikipedia
Spamhaus;
WIPO
I
T
U
Services
I
G
F
Google,
NetFlix, etc.
W3C; Open
software
Facebook,
Twitter
ICANN*
(DNS)
DynDNS, DNS
registrars
Internet
Agencies as
ISPs
NANOG; IETF
ISPs
Physical
State-owned
facilities
IEEE 802
Fiber,
satellite, etc.
30
Summary
• My goal in my current research is to provide
tools to think methodically about both
analysis (of a specific situation) and about
design (of future network mechanisms).
• Come back later to one approach to the latter
– Control point analysis.
• There are potential class research topics
about both analysis and design.
31
Quick tutorial on DNS
• Domain Name System
– A means to use names, not IP addresses, to
identify locations on the network.
• Allows location dynamics.
• Easier to remember (?)
• Sometimes meaningful.
32
DNS is a name hierarchy
• Example name: www.mit.edu
– Top level domains (TLDs) such as .edu, .com, .us, etc are
stored in “root servers”.
• The image is “the root of the tree”.
• The addresses of the various root servers must be globally
propagated in the background.
– The root of the tree is always special.
– The server at each level provides the name of the server at
the next level.
• The root server gives the address of the server for .edu, which
gives the server address for .mit in .edu. And so on.
33
A picture
.com IPaddr
.edu IPaddr
…
Root
.edu
.com
.mit.edu
34
Design goals
• Resilience and failure-proof.
– Replicated distributed servers at each level.
• But not resistance to attack.
– Penetration and corruption.
– Mis-direction.
– Lack of assurance as to authority.
• Pharming, DHCP exploits
35
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
17.447 / 17.448 Cyberpolitics in International Relations: Theory, Methods, Policy
Fall 2011
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.
36