1. Four Dimensions and Their relationships

Broadly speaking, reaching a new deal for Internet governance shall take into consideration at least four interrelated dimensions of Internet policymaking. The first dimension is the negotiation about the legitimacy and rules of cyber weapons, mainly involving military and intelligence entities and focusing on the applicability of international laws to the cyberspace. The first to the sixth United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (UN GGE) are typical negotiation forums in this regard.

The second dimension is the global dialogue on cybercrime governance. It mainly involves public security authorities and justice systems. Key texts include the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which the EU strongly advocates, and the Draft UN Convention on the Fight against Information Crimes submitted by the Russian Federation. In addition, the U.S. government has reached its first bilateral data-sharing agreement with the UK under the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act.

The third dimension involves insights in the management and control of core Internet technological resources. A typical topic here is the jurisdiction of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other technical communities. These communities share global values. They “reject: kings, presidents and voting”, and “believe in: rough consensus and running code”.

The fourth dimension is the solid binding rules and practices in regard to cross-border data flow and digital trade. In recent years, state actors have taken actions to strengthen the role of their jurisdictions in cyberspace and these can be seen in the various legal instruments adopted, including the Cybersecurity Law of China and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the digital trade terms in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). WTO and Group 20 are the key venues where the global rules on digital economy and trade are being debated.

These four dimensions are inseparable and interrelated for the simple fact that there is only one Internet. The division of the four dimensions is a human effort to make it easier to understand the whole scenario. In practice, lines cannot really be drawn to divide between the four. For one instance, the WannaCry Ransomware attack involves both the first and the second dimension and which category to put it in depends on which perspective we take when examining it. For another instance, a lot of senior experts are promoting a norm intended to protect the public core of the Internet and such a norm covers both the first and the third dimension. For still another instance, China’s Cybersecurity Law and the GDPR of the EU bring challenges to cross-border data flow, an issue that belongs to the fourth dimension, but the two instruments are to some extent responses to actions of U.S. military and intelligence agencies as exposed in Snowden Leaks, which falls into the first dimension.

2. A Holistic Approach and the Lever of Cyber Peace

The concrete disputes of reaching a new deal of Internet governance covers a plethora of topics and subtopics such as applying existing laws vs. working on a new treaty, governance of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, relationship between a cyberattack and a physical attack, cyber espionage activities, integrity of the Internet infrastructure, financial institutions and data, social media and political stability, and, most important of all, visions of the Internet as a domain of conflicts or as a public good.

These disputes reflect the gap between more powerful nations and less powerful ones. Powerful nations are so far unwilling to accept restrictions to their cyber military capabilities and cyber ambitions. This is the major reason for the failure to fully ban cyber weapons and prevent a cyber arms race. However, due to the technical features and the asymmetry of the Internet, powerful nations actually also believe themselves to be vulnerable. They are worried about the possibility that their drones might be hijacked, their command and control systems might be attacked, their financial data might be manipulated, and their intellectual property might be stolen.

That is why the ongoing debate on international cyber norms have produced a lot of paradoxes, complexities, and ridicules. These worries, not the empty moral high grounds, provide real leverage upon cyber military ambitions. It is important to recognize this point when we are looking for a real new deal and building a global framework. The line of argument is to build cyber peace by enhancing digital cooperation, helping all stakeholders to realize that, in order to keep technological creativity and economic progress, it is needed to reduce cyber tensions in the first dimension but improve healthy cooperation in the second, third, and fourth dimensions. In one word, the prosperity of global digital economy is the lever of cyber peace.

It is in this way that the report published recently by the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation strikes at the right point. The report crystalizes its notion in its description and call for an age of “digital interdependence”, and that has captured the key logic and shall become the working logic and departure of thought for a real deal of Internet governance. The current debate on a deal of Internet governance is as prosperous as it is frustrated. On the one hand, the debate has been lively, with new mechanisms and initiatives coming out one after another. A wide range of places such as Tallinn, the Hague, Geneva, Wuzhen, Washington DC, Moscow, Tel Aviv, New Deli, Singapore, and London have all marked themselves as producing sites of cyber rules. On the other hand, the debate is gaining in depth and sophistication and it has become more difficult to reach consensuses. The UN report reunites these elements by drawing our attention back to the right departure of thought- interdependence in the digital age.

3. China and President Xi’s Cyber Commons Initiative

China has gained in recent years a clearer understanding of the cyberspace and formed a set of its own ideas. Since President Xi Jinping took office in 2013, China gradually formed its understanding of global governance. On December 16, 2015, Xi proposed at the Second World Internet Conference a cyber commons initiative, which has been consistent to the sixth WIC summit. He said that cyberspace is the common space of activities for mankind. The future of cyberspace should be in the hands of all countries. Countries should step up communications, broaden consensus and deepen cooperation to jointly build a cyber commons.

This initiative can be understood in three aspects. First, in the area of digital economy, China leads the way towards improving globalization and promotes digital interdependence. On January 17, 2017, President Xi explicitly expressed support for this point in his speech at the World Economic Forum, saying that we should seize the opportunities of the new industrial revolution and the digital economy.

Second, in the area of cybersecurity, China upholds national sovereignty and puts forward the relevant proposition as part of the initiative of building a cyber commons. The Chinese view of cyber sovereignty pays more attention to political and social stability, which is to some extent, different from the hardcore national security narrative of some other nations.

Third, in the area of cultural exchanges, China advocates respect for all cultures and civilizations. This was articulated in President Xi’s speech at the UNESCO Headquarters on March 27, 2014, which was before the idea of a cyber commons initiative was first proposed. In the speech, Xi presented his basic views in regard to civilization, culture, and religion. He said: “Exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations must not be built on the exclusive praise or belittling of one particular civilization…an attitude of equality and modesty is required if one wants to truly understand the various civilizations. Taking a condescending attitude toward a civilization cannot help anyone to appreciate its essence but may risk antagonizing it. Both history and reality show that pride and prejudice are two biggest obstacles to exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations.”

In summary, China believes that the cyberspace is a place where the most extensive communication occurs between civilizations, cultures, and nations and it should not see a repetition of the failures the world has had in the physical world or be weaponized based on an absolute division between allies and enemies. Instead, a worldview of reconciliation should prevail in the cyberspace so that different civilizations, cultures, and nations can respect one another and coexist in peace in the cyber world. All in all, a cyber commons initiative goes beyond the traditional confrontations between powers of the world, welcomes all stakeholders with their own interests and pursuits, and serves as the overarching guideline of China when dealing with cyber issues.