Search results

There is growing contestation between states and private actors over cybersecurity responsibilities, and its governance is ever more susceptible to nationalization. The authors believe these developments are based on an incomplete picture of how cybersecurity is actually governed in practice and theory. Given this disconnect, this paper aims to attempt to provide a cohesive understanding of the cybersecurity institutional landscape.

Drawing from institutional economics and using extensive desk research, the authors develop a conceptual model and broadly sketch the activities and contributions of market, networked and hierarchical governance structures and analyze how they interact to produce and govern cybersecurity.

Analysis shows a robust market and networked governance structures and a more limited role for hierarchical structures. Ex ante efforts to produce cybersecurity using purely hierarchical governance structures, even buttressed with support from networked governance structures, struggle without market demand like in the case of secure internet identifiers. To the contrary, ex post efforts like botnet mitigation, route monitoring and other activities involving information sharing seem to work under a variety of combinations of governance structures.

The authors’ conceptual framework and observations offer a useful starting point for unpacking how cybersecurity is produced and governed; ultimately, we need to understand if and how these governance structure arrangements actually impact variation in observed levels of cybersecurity.

The data communications protocol supporting the internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) is almost 40 years old, and its 32-bit address space is too small for the internet. A “next-generation” internet protocol version 6 (IPv6), has a much larger, 128-bit address space. However, IPv6 is not backward compatible with the existing internet. For 20 years, the internet technical community has attempted to migrate the entire internet to the new standard. This study aims to address important but overlooked questions about the internet’s technical evolution: will the world converge on IPv6? Will IPv6 die out? or will we live in a mixed world for the foreseeable future?

The research offers an economically-grounded study of IPv6’s progress and prospects. Many promoters of IPv6 sincerely believe that the new standard must succeed if the internet is to grow, and assume that the transition is inevitable because of the presumed depletion of the IPv4 address resources. However, by examining the associated network effects, developing the economic parameters for transition, and modeling the underlying economic forces, which impact network operator decisions, the study paints a more complex, nuanced picture.

The report concludes that legacy IPv4 will coexist with IPv6 indefinitely. IPv6 is unlikely to become an orphan. For some network operators that need to grow, particularly mobile networks where the software and hardware ecosystem is mostly converted, IPv6 deployment can make economic sense. However, the lack of backward compatibility with non-deployers eliminates many network effects that would create pressure to convert to IPv6. A variety of conversion technologies, and more efficient use of IPv4 addresses using network address translation, will support a “mixed world” of the two standards for the foreseeable future.

The authors’ conceptualization and observations provide a clearer understanding of the economic factors affecting the transition to IPv6.

This article aims to quantify the emerging transfer market for internet protocol (IPv4) numbers and provides an initial assessment of factors and policies impacting those transactions.

The research draws on Regional Internet Registry records and conducts basic analysis of stocks, flows and proportions to assess the nature of this emerging market for IP number blocks and explore some of its implications for internet governance.

There is a thriving and growing market for IPv4 number blocks. The market is improving the efficiency of IPv4 address allocation by moving numbers from unused or under-utilized holders to organizations that need them more. Buyers willingly pay for number blocks they could get for free in order to benefit from more liberal needs assessments and stronger property rights.

Information about prices is not available and some transfers may take place through leasing arrangements, which are not covered by this paper. Future research should continue to investigate the transfer market, including activity skirting or occurring outside the current RIR policy environment.

RIRs should liberalize needs assessments and remove other sources of friction to the transfer market.

No known prior assessment of the transfer market has been conducted. The research has value for policymakers and industry decision makers.