In June 2013, former US National Security Agency (NSA) former employee Edward Snowden disclosed the council’s “prism” monitoring program. The event  made cyberspace governance in the international agenda in the priority of the re-ascension, but also exacerbated the differences in the position of the parties, leading to cyberspace governance in trouble, for the network space management system to create a great challenge The In addition, the international community on the complexity of cyberspace and its governance lack of clear, unified awareness, resulting in one-sided position and a single policy to further exacerbate the governance dilemma. In the face of the complex situation, Joseph Nye tries to explain the practice of cyberspace governance by referring to the theory of mechanism complex in the field of environmental governance, and analyzes the cyberspace management through the loosely coupled complex composed of many different governance mechanisms The  This provides a useful perspective for the analysis of cyberspace governance, that is, cyberspace governance is composed of multiple rather than a single governance mechanism, the interaction between the various mechanisms have an impact on governance. This paper intends to examine the development of cyberspace governance from a more macro perspective, and try to explore the evolution of the concept behind cyberspace game, and analyze the complex relationship between government, private sector and civil society in international and domestic levels The On this basis, to explore China’s response measures and participate in cyberspace governance strategy.
First, the power of cyberspace governance Game
network space management process with the government between the game process. According to the situation of network technology, network capacity and network utilization, governments can be divided into three categories: information developed countries, information developing countries and information undeveloped countries. [③] There are also international organizations to use the network readiness (Readiness) as an indicator to measure the degree of information technology. This ranking basically overlaps with the traditional developed, developing and underdeveloped countries, and of course there is also the level of informationization in individual developing countries rising to the ranks of developed countries, or the level of information in some developing countries The level of the developed countries. Therefore, in accordance with the information developed countries, developing countries and underdeveloped countries to divide the three points in the academic more accurate. There are three aspects of the power game of cyberspace governance: one is the game between the developed countries and the information developing countries in the network ownership, the network resource allocation; the second is the non-governmental actors and the government on the Internet key resource control, network security And freedom and other issues of the game; Third, as the dominant space in cyberspace, the US government in its own private sector, civil society and other countries in the Internet between the key resources and other issues on the game (Figure 1).
First of all, information between developed countries and information-developing countries around the network space between the key infrastructure and network technology between the game. According to the behavior, the topic and the characteristic of the power game in cyberspace management, it can be divided into three stages.
The first stage is the early period of Internet governance, which is roughly from the beginning of the formation of the Internet to the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (World Summit on Information Society, WSIS), which is divided into two phases: the Geneva Conference in 2003 and the Tunis Agenda in 2005. The World Summit on the Information Society appears to be a struggle between governments and the private sector and civil society, in essence, the game between the United States and other countries on Internet control.
This period is the stage of rapid development of the Internet, a large number of new technical and technical standards have been created, the US government took the opportunity to vigorously promote the development of information technology, and developed a series of international technical standards, industry and industry norms. And information developing countries are still in the study, learn from the stage, which makes the United States and other developed countries in the field in an absolute strong position.  This stage of Internet governance mainly around the Internet domain name registration and analysis and its corresponding 13 root server control, Internet Protocol (IP) address allocation and other key resources to compete. The United States has almost controlled all international organizations and core businesses that have developed and managed Internet standards and refused to internationalize the relevant management functions or to the United Nations specialized agencies. [⑤] Therefore, at the World Summit on the Information Society, despite the pressure from the United Nations, the developing countries and even the European countries, the United States still refused to hand over the Internet management rights. Into the 21st century, the information represented by China’s developing countries to enhance the network technology, they have the domain name, users and other Internet resources have exceeded the information developed countries, but the representation in the Internet governance is far from enough, So the existing Internet governance reflects the legitimacy of the questioned.
The second stage is the stage of political competition and sovereignty competition of cyberspace governance, which is called the “return” stage of the government in cyberspace. This stage from the Information Society World Summit to 2011. In 2011, China, Russia and other countries to the 66th session of the General Assembly to submit the “International Code of Conduct for Information Security”, advocated the United Nations in cyberspace governance play a leading role. In the same year, the United States and Britain and other governments dominated the global network space management conference (Global Cyberspace Conference), also known as the London process (London Process) was held. <A The network space has become the “fifth strategic space” of human society. With the continuous breakthrough of network technology and its disruptive transformation of real society, cyberspace has become the fifth strategic space of human society. The distribution of order, power and wealth in cyberspace, the developed countries and information developing countries have serious differences on the following issues: whether the cyberspace attribute is “global public domain” or “sovereignty”; governance is government-led “Multilateral governance”, or a multi-stakeholder model dominated by non-governmental actors; governance culture is a “multicultural” or “multicultural” that is dominated by the West. [⑥] The focus of this period is also reflected in the free flow of information content in the field, when Hillary Clinton took the US Secretary of State, the Internet for the freedom of many speeches, advocating the US Internet freedom strategy. The role of the US government and social media sites in the wake of the turbulence in North Africa, which began at the end of 2010, has aroused widespread concern in the developing countries and strengthened the management of the Internet. [⑦] The third stage from the “Prism Gate incident” until now, this stage of the competition more focused on cyberspace security governance. “Prism door incident” to the United States in the field of cyberspace governance moral high ground questioned, leadership decline, forcing it to promote cyberspace governance in the low posture. At the same time, cyberspace security situation is further deteriorating, and the security threats facing countries are further increased. After experiencing the fierce confrontation of the “prism gate incident”, the developed countries and the information developing countries are aware that the maintenance of cyberspace requires the participation of all countries, and no country can lead the cyberspace governance process alone. Information developed countries and information development countries in the cognitive level of the gap gradually narrowed, the reduction of confrontational initiatives, cooperation began to grow space. Second, the “prism gate incident” caused the government and the private sector, civil society between the network security, privacy and other issues on the fierce game. Former US National Security Agency former employee Edward Snow led to expose a including “prism”, “X key points” (X-Keyscore), “Fair” (Fairview), “core” (Main Core) and other monitoring systems, including 10 monitoring systems, the monitoring system by the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence agencies to participate in almost cover the cyberspace of social networks, e-mail, instant messaging, Web pages, videos, photos, and so on.  National Security Agency requires Microsoft, Google, Facebook and other nine major global Internet companies to open the database to monitor the project to carry out data monitoring. In the “Prism Gate incident” exposure, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and other companies to the court to prosecute the federal government. [⑨] civil society have also acted against large-scale data monitoring. The American Civil Society Alliance launched a “Stop Watch Us” action on the Internet, putting pressure on the US government to get tens of thousands of Internet users’ signatures, messages and responses from hundreds of civic groups by organizing parades Demonstrations, petition to Congress, launch network initiatives, etc. to cooperate with the action. [⑩] In the “prism door incident” triggered the other countries with the US government to carry out monitoring projects ICT enterprises dissatisfaction, countries have taken new measures to protect cyberspace security. For example, the Chinese government has accelerated the process of legalization of cyberspace and began to discuss the guiding ideology of cybersecurity equipment, and formulated the network security review method. After the introduction of the “national security law”, “anti-terrorism law” “Network Security Law (Draft)” and “Criminal Law Amendment (9)” have significantly increased the terms involved in network security. These initiatives have aroused serious concern about US ICT companies and lobbyed the US government to put pressure on China to require the Chinese government to cancel the relevant provisions, such as Article 18 of the Anti-Terrorism Act provides that “telecom operators, Internet services Providers should be for the public security organs, the state security organs in accordance with the law to prevent and investigate terrorist activities to provide technical interface and decryption technical support and assistance.  Although from the government point of view, these initiatives help to maintain network security and national security, but in the private sector, the above-mentioned initiatives will not only increase the technical input, but also a substantial increase in costs. As long as cyberspace governance does not achieve a breakthrough, the government and the private sector, civil society between the game will continue to exist, and to a certain extent, will evolve into a national game. <A Finally, the US government and its private sector, civil society alliance with other countries in the Internet key resources on the issue of the game. Internet key resources include: IP address allocation, protocol parameter registration, gTLD system management, ccTLD system management and root server system management and time zone database management. Some scholars use the “cyberspace” in cyberspace to describe the status of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in cyberspace governance.  For historical reasons, these resources have been by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (National Telecommunication and Information Administration, NTIA) under the Internet Digital Distribution Agency (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA) is responsible for managing, and NTIA authorizes its management of IANA functions through regular engagement with ICANN. Therefore, it can be argued that the US government controls the key resources of the Internet. The United Nations-appointed Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) noted in its report that the US government unilaterally controls the Internet’s key resources, such as root zone documents.  The international community has been dissatisfied with this situation, and the WGIG report has proposed four options to replace the existing structure, hoping to take over the Internet’s critical resources through intergovernmental organizations or global institutions.  For ICANN, although it has been seeking independence from the US government and has repeatedly contested it, it is more concerned with how to avoid other intergovernmental organizations or institutions to take over or replace their status. Milton Muller described the phenomenon as “some network liberals even eventually turned into secret supporters of nationalism, because as long as the challenged countries were their motherland, they turned to defend the United States, allowing Its control, leading the Internet. “ Thus, in some cases, ICANN chooses to” align “with the US government to prevent other countries or intergovernmental organizations from influencing their governance structures. In ICANN’s organizational structure and decision-making system, the Government Advisory Committee (Government Advisory Committee, GAC) is eligible to nominate a liaison who does not have the right to vote. Information developing countries believe that as an international mechanism for Internet governance, the lack of representation in ICANN from information developing countries should reflect government responsibilities and powers in their future management structures and increase the authority of the Governmental Advisory Committee The But ICANN has repeatedly said it will not accept this change. In this case, the US government representatives are highly consistent with ICANN’s official position, both in the government advisory committee and at ICANN’s plenary meetings. Until the “Prism Gate Event” broke out, the US government was forced to restart the process of internationalization of ICANN’s efforts to guide the cyberspace governance game to a new stage. Second, the future development of cyberspace management trend With the advancement of the network space management process, the parties to the understanding of the spatial properties of the network gradually reached a consensus, and thus in the governance approach, the path of the differences narrow. Especially at the cognitive level, the cognition of cyberspace from various countries is based on different political, economic and cultural backgrounds, emphasizing their uniqueness to objective properties and laws based on cyberspace, emphasizing the integration between different views.  Internet space interconnection, sharing attributes determine the zero-sum game does not apply to cyberspace, cyberspace security, development, freedom is the government, the private sector and civil society to pursue the common goal. At the same time, the mutual restraint of the three issues of security, development and freedom makes it impossible for either party to ignore the interests of other actors and pursue their own absolute interests. As President Xi Jinping on December 16, 2015 at the Second World Internet Conference (World Internet Conference, WIC) said: “There is no double standard in the field of information, countries have the right to maintain their own information security, not a national security while other countries are not safe, part of the national security and another part of the country is not safe, but not Sacrifice the security of other countries to seek their own so-called absolute security. ”  This position reflects the above special properties of cyberspace governance. As a result, the international community has gradually realized that no one can dominate the process of cyberspace governance. First, the US cyberspace strategy adjustment and ICANN internationalization will drive a major transformation of the cyberspace governance architecture. Facing the pressure, the United States by part of the Internet to give up the key resources of direct control, for its network space to adjust the international strategy to prepare.  On March 14, 2014, NTIA, a subsidiary of the US Department of Commerce, announced that it would give up control of ICANN and pointed out in its transfer statement that ICANN’s management would organize global multi-stakeholder discussions on receiving issues, but explicitly United Nations or other intergovernmental organizations.  ICANN has been seeking its own independent position since its inception, and ICANN’s internationalization goal is not only to get rid of the constraints of the US government, but also to ensure that the US government will not be taken over by other countries and intergovernmental organizations. Therefore, ICANN needs to reach an agreement with the US government to ensure their independence, but also with other governments to start a game, to avoid its internationalization was strongly opposed. Second, the role of the United Nations in cyberspace governance continues to improve, will effectively promote the network space management structure and norms of the pace of construction. Through the efforts of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Information Security (GGE), the international community has also made important breakthroughs in cyberspace codes of conduct and confidence-building measures. In June 2013, the United Nations published a report of the Group of Experts, composed of representatives of 15 countries. The report clarifies for the first time that “national sovereignty and sovereign international norms and principles apply to national communications technology activities and the jurisdiction of the State in its territory for communications technology infrastructure.” At the same time, the report further recognizes the Charter of the United Nations In the applicability of cyberspace “.  “While efforts to address the security of communications technology, States must respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments.”  Compared with the 2010 expert group report, the above contents were presented as sections 20 and 21 of the 2013 report, which is a significant improvement in the compatibility of information developed countries and information developing countries in cyberspace governance Sex continues to improve.
In July 2015, the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on the Development of Information and Telecommunications from the Perspective of International Security published a third report on the Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. This report has reached a consensus on the protection of cyberspace-critical infrastructure, confidence-building measures, and international cooperation. The network sovereignty of the developing countries is further clarified, and the application of international law, especially the law of armed conflict, which is advocated by the developed countries, is also included in the application of cyberspace.  Finally, the competition and cooperation model between government and non-state actors in cyberspace governance will undergo a major change, and multi-level game will become the “new normal” of cyberspace governance. In terms of governance and path, countries’ policy positions in cyberspace governance also place greater emphasis on reality, especially in dealing with the relationship between government and other actors. All parties are aware that the responsibilities of the government and other actors should be divided according to the problems in cyberspace governance. For the multi-stakeholder governance model, the information developed countries and information development countries gradually unified awareness, the government and the private sector, civil society according to their respective functions to participate in cyberspace governance. The narrowing of cognition means that one party is more aware of the concerns of the other party. The game between the developed countries and the developing countries in cyberspace governance will be more targeted, and competition and cooperation will be carried out synchronously to promote cooperation through competition. Of course, this has increased the investment in cyberspace, and the increase in the right to speak on cyberspace governance. Brazil, China has established a network space multi-stakeholder meeting (NetMundial) and the World Internet Conference mechanism to explore the network and national security, network sovereignty and other core issues, the voice of developing countries will be more and more, more and more Big. Third, the evolution of the concept of cyberspace governance <a In the information developed countries and information development countries, governments, the private sector and civil society around the network space governance game from conflict to integration behind, reflecting the continuous evolution of the concept of cyberspace governance. Although the game around cyberspace governance is mainly to compete for the power and wealth of cyberspace, the different cognition of actors, objects and methods of governance has had an important influence on the conflict and fusion of governance. Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief research and strategy officer, pointed out at the 7th China-US Internet forum that “the misunderstanding of cyberspace in both China and the United States is largely due to ‘Internet governance’ and ‘ ‘Cyberspace governance’ caused by the confusion of the two concepts.  Similarly, cyberspace governance game and conflict also reflect the conflict between the two governance concepts. Internet governance is considered to be a multi-stakeholder governance model that is dominated by non-governmental actors, but cyberspace governance also requires the participation and coordination of government and intergovernmental organizations. Internet Governance Project (Internet Governance Project, IGP) defines Internet governance as a network-related decision that is linked by an Internet protocol, including the establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism for policies, rules, and technical standards that are common to the owner, operator, developer, and user. Distribution and global Internet standards of human behavior. “ The above definition includes three aspects, namely the acceptance and recognition of technical standards and agreements, the allocation of Internet resources such as domain names and IP addresses, spam generated by human Internet behavior, Cybercrime, copyright and trademark disputes, consumer protection issues, public sector and private security issues, rules and policies. Laura DeNardis (Laura DeNardis) proposed to be in accordance with the Internet transmission TCP / IP protocol level, and according to different levels of different functions to build Internet mode, based on the function, tasks and actors were discussed Internet resource control, standard settings , Network access, network security management, information flow, intellectual property protection and other six levels of Internet governance content.  Cyberspace governance has shifted from the professional and technical fields that have been emphasized by the original Internet governance to a wider range of political, security and economic sectors, and the importance of government and intergovernmental organizations in cyberspace governance has become increasingly prominent. Cyberspace is a broader field that includes not only the Internet, but also the data that is transmitted in the network, the users of the network, and the interaction between real society and virtual society. The corresponding cyberspace governance is a broader concept, which is “a category of cyberspace infrastructure, standards, law, social culture, economy, development and so on.”  It contains more diverse governance issues and challenges that are increasing. Such as the “Prism Gate Incident”, the government’s high-level threat (APT) due to network action in cyberspace, the Digital Divide and Data Poverty ), Cyber terrorism, online business theft and more and more governance issues have gone beyond the scope of the traditional concept of Internet governance. <A The conflict between “global public domain” and “network sovereignty”, “network autonomy” and “state dominance” in cyberspace governance game reflects that people can not understand “Internet governance” and “network Space governance “between the different governance subjects, objects and methods, trying to use a single governance approach to solve the multiple issues. The bottom-up, open and transparent governance model, which is advocated by the Internet governance subject represented by ICANN, is concerned with the high risk of cyber warfare, large-scale data monitoring and theft, and cyber terrorism. Lack of effectiveness and relevance. At the same time, the state-centered, top-down cyberspace governance philosophy can not effectively deal with the real problems of the current Internet governance and can not replace the dominance of Internet international organizations in the field. With the advance of the network space management process, the two governance ideas and methods in the collision also began to integrate. Joseph Chennai believes that cyberspace is composed of multiple governance mechanisms, in which Internet governance focuses on the technical level and is a subset of cyberspace governance. Should be based on different governance issues, to build a different governance mechanism, so that different actors to play a leading role.  The integration of governance concepts is also reflected in the increasing consensus among the parties on the multi-stakeholder governance model. ICANN uses a bottom-up, consensus-based decision-making process that advocates a governance model that limits the role of government.  Many developing countries initially opposed the multi-stakeholder governance model, stressing that government-led multilateral governance models should be adopted. With the deepening of the governance process, the information-developing countries have gradually accepted the multi-stakeholder governance model, which is gaining more and more consensus in the private sector and civil society as long as the role of the government is well reflected. The government, the private sector and the civil society participate in the decision-making process according to their respective functions and responsibilities, do not deliberately exclude other actors, nor deliberately pursue the leadership of individual actors, reflecting a more objective and balanced approach to cyberspace governance. Fourth, China’s strategic response <a The Chinese government has put forward the two goals of global governance of cyberspace, namely, to build a peaceful, safe, open and cooperative cyberspace and to establish a multilateral, democratic and transparent international Internet governance system. Important strategic objectives into the “thirteen five” plan recommendations. The former advocates foreign participation in the international network space management process, in order to establish a favorable international governance system; the latter advocates the development of network technology, nurture the network industry, enhance the national network strength. The mutual support and mutual promotion between the two requires an international strategy that can co-ordinate internal and external situations in response to complex cyberspace. Although the Chinese government has not published a specific international cyberspace strategy document, but by analyzing the existing relevant policies, can still be found in China’s international strategy of cyberspace is still in the exploratory stage. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze and discuss the international strategy of cyberspace in China according to the characteristics of cyberspace power game and the strategy of network power. (A) China’s cyberspace international policy practice Since 1994 access to the Internet, China has developed a variety of forms of international network policy into the international network space system. This aspect is to expand the needs of opening up, hope that through international cooperation in learning, the introduction of foreign advanced technical standards; the other is the driving force of information technology, integration into the globalization must be all-round participation in the international system.  In addition, with China’s growing influence in international affairs and increased dependence on the network, active participation in cyberspace governance is also an important way to maintain national interests and ways. China’s network policy is largely influenced by the situation of international cyberspace governance and developed and promoted in the interaction with the international cyberspace management system, showing the characteristics of multi-domain, multi-level and multi-subject. <A First, the international policy of the Chinese government network covers international cooperation in international technical standards, information and communication technology industry cooperation, global Internet governance, combating cybercrime, network economy, digital divide and other fields, and the development trend of global network governance Generally consistent. First of all, from the early technology, industry and Internet standards to gradually expand the cooperation to a wider range of network-related policy cooperation, many policy areas in fact beyond the scope of the Internet itself, and international economic, political and security. Secondly, after the “prism door incident”, with the cyberspace security governance become the main issue in governance, the focus of China’s network policy is also focused on the network security governance, and based on the establishment of national security, political security, Safety and social security. China not only vigorously oppose large-scale network monitoring in the international arena, advocate the maintenance of national network sovereignty, but also pay more attention to the legislative work related to cybersecurity in domestic policy and maintain national security and sovereignty in practice. Second, China’s cyberspace international policy covers bilateral, regional, multilateral and international levels. From the bilateral level, China has established intergovernmental dialogue and cooperation mechanisms with countries such as South Korea, Britain and Australia. These cooperation not only covers the contents of network security, digital economy and development, but also become an important content and support for bilateral diplomatic relations. In addition, China and the United States, between China and Russia in the field of network security to carry out a different degree of confidence-building measures (Confidence Building Measures, CBMs).  At the regional level, China and ASEAN, the SCO, the European Union, the Arab League and other regional organizations and countries to establish a variety of forms of network dialogue and cooperation mechanism. In 2009, the Chinese government signed the Cooperation Framework of the China-ASEAN Telecommunications Regulatory Commission on Network Security and the Intergovernmental Agreement on Safeguarding International Information Security of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and ASEAN Member States.  China also actively participated in the work of the ASEAN Regional Network Security Working Group, and in September 2013 held in Beijing, the ASEAN Regional Forum “to strengthen the network security measures seminar – legal and cultural perspective.” Conference development The development of the Internet requires the guidance of legal rules and the need to promote and respect cultural diversity. All parties should strengthen exchanges in the field of cybersecurity, promote mutual trust, promote cooperation and jointly build peace, security, openness and cooperation.  Finally, China is also actively involved in the multilateral and international level of cyberspace governance mechanisms, both within the United Nations Framework for Information Security, the International Telecommunication Union, the World Summit on the Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum, or the United Nations Framework London process, cyberspace multi-stakeholder meetings and other mechanisms, China is the main participant; in addition, China also through the World Internet Conference to carry out cyber space home diplomacy. China has also submitted two versions of the International Code of Conduct for Information Security to the United Nations General Assembly, together with representatives of OECD countries such as Russia and Uzbekistan.  China is also a major participant in the Global Internet Governance Consortium, where the head of the National Internet Information Office (NYSE), Lu Wei and Alibaba Group Chairman Ma, was elected as a member of the Alliance. <A Third, with the cyberspace governance covered by more and more widely, China’s cyberspace international policy to participate in the main body from the traditional Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Industry and further expanded to the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance and the new The establishment of the network letter Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set up a “network affairs office” to deal with cyberspace of foreign affairs. Among them, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is mainly responsible for bilateral, regional, multilateral and international level of network diplomacy, it is China’s docking under the framework of the United Nations network governance mechanism of the main forces, especially from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs arms control officials throughout the four United Nations information security Working Group of Experts. Net letter office as the central network security and information leading group of permanent institutions, China is to co-ordinate the network security and information management of the newly established important institutions. Since the role of network management as a co-ordination and coordination of China’s network affairs is becoming more and more important in the international policy of the network, it has not only carried out multi-level international network security and digital economic cooperation, but also established the governance mechanism of the World Internet Conference.
In addition, the Ministry of Public Security in the fight against cyber security crime, network anti-terrorism, the Ministry of Commerce in the information and communication technology market access, the Ministry of Finance in the network infrastructure external assistance and other areas of work will be China’s future implementation of cyberspace international strategy a solid foundation. It can be seen that China has formed a more comprehensive and in-depth international strategic framework of cyberspace, including pluralistic participant, wide-ranging problem coverage and multi-level participation path, which laid a good foundation for the international strategic construction of cyberspace governance basis. With the development of China from the network power to the network power, China will establish a comprehensive and perfect international strategy of cyberspace. (2) Challenges in the international strategy of cyberspace The evolution of cyberspace governance has brought many challenges to China’s cyberspace international strategy: First, the information developed countries will continue to dominate the network space governance game, which is the network of China The international strategy of space poses a challenge; the second is due to the lack of advanced Internet governance talent, leading to China’s Internet international organization in the serious shortage of the third is the network space governance game to emphasize capacity building (Capacity Building), best practice (Best Practice) And so on, will bring competitive pressure to China. These issues and challenges will have a greater impact on China’s cyberspace international strategy, if handled properly, will have a negative impact on the implementation of the network strategy. <A I = 35> First, the information developed countries continue to dominate the network space governance game direction on China’s international strategic challenges. The global governance of cyberspace is played through various forms of governance, and the construction of the mechanism depends on the negotiation between the actors. The bargaining of the negotiations depends not only on the size of the powers of the actors, but also on the global governance of cyberspace In the agenda set the ability to be closely related.  According to Joseph Nye’s definition, the former can be called “hard power”, the latter is “soft power”.  The advantages of the developed countries in these two areas are obvious, especially in the mechanism of selective or prioritizing the discussion of cyberspace governance. For example, in cybersecurity governance, the United States relies on its agenda setting capacity to prevent the international community from making large-scale data monitoring a governance agenda, while setting its network economy to focus on priority agendas. In addition, the information developed countries in the establishment of the network of human rights agenda, will focus on the field of freedom, and democracy (one country one vote), equality (the size of the country has the same discourse) and other equally important issues are excluded from the agenda. Not only that, for countries in the “prism door incident” after the request to strengthen the exercise of network sovereignty trend, the United States put forward the “data localization” (Data Localization) this agenda to circumvent the global governance mechanism to discuss network sovereignty. Compared with the information developed countries, information development countries in the agenda setting capacity there is still a big gap, the lack of initiative to set the agenda. In recent years, with China, Brazil, India and other countries have established a variety of cyberspace governance mechanism, emerging powers in the global management of cyberspace in the agenda set the ability to continue to increase. But in general, the gap between China and the information developed countries in governance capacity still exists, and will affect China through international mechanisms to safeguard their own national interests, as well as express their concerns. <
Secondly, due to the lack of advanced cyberspace governance talent, leading to China in the Internet international organizations in the representation of a serious shortage. The trend of cyberspace governance game shows that the control of Internet key resources by international organizations such as ICANN, IETF and other international organizations will not be challenged by government and intergovernmental organizations. As the US government abandons its control over ICANN, the latter will have greater independence. Network space is built on the basis of the Internet, the basis of cyberspace governance is also Internet governance. Therefore, China’s cyberspace international strategy must be in the field of Internet governance to achieve a breakthrough, while enhancing the international organizations in the Internet in the influence and representation. For the majority of developing countries, including China, it is necessary to increase the representation in international organizations such as ICANN, so that more voices from China and other developing countries appear in ICANN. Third, the network space governance game to emphasize the ability to build, best practice and other direction, which will bring China’s severe competitive pressure. The convergence of the cyberspace governance game concept has led to the international community’s focus on cyberspace governance to operational and enforceable areas such as capacity building, best practices, including the provision of network infrastructure to information developing countries and underdeveloped countries; Training in technology, law, and policy related to cyberspace governance; and providing best practices for solving specific problems in cyberspace governance. This is China’s participation in cyberspace governance of the international strategy put forward higher requirements, information developed countries in the field of resources, talent advantage is difficult to shake in the short term, which not only requires the Chinese government to invest more resources, but also China’s Internet companies , Industry associations, legal experts of the common and active participation. (C) China’s strategic thinking of cyberspace governance The basic path of China’s cyberspace international strategy is consistent with the overall macro strategy of China’s integration into the international system and the reform of the international system.  In response to the complex cyberspace governance game, China on the one hand to strengthen capacity-building, and focus on the ability to participate in the global control of cyberspace influence; the other hand, between the network security and openness to seek a balance, International cyberspace to establish their own legitimate rights and interests, to avoid the negative impact of excessive security; and strengthen the network strategy and cyberspace international strategy between the strategic interaction, the formation of mutually supportive cyberspace strategy system. <A I = 40> First, combined with the new and future development of cyberspace governance, to strengthen the shaping of international mechanisms. In the cyber space global governance level, the struggle around the governance platform is becoming increasingly fierce. Including the Internet forum, the International Telecommunication Union, the London process, the Brazilian cyberspace multi-stakeholder meeting and China’s World Internet Congress, all platforms have their dominant forces, actors involved in the subject matter and the impact of the play Are not the same. China should explore ways to enhance its own capacity-building programs to the international community in the areas of cybersecurity, cybercrime, capacity building, network economy, cyber culture and the digital divide, in conjunction with the World Internet Forum and other cyberspace governance mechanisms involved. Good practice and solutions such as the ability of public goods. Second, focus on training to participate in cyberspace governance of international talent.
Internet governance organizations are mostly non-governmental organizations, and their multi-stakeholder governance model usually requires the selection of senior management personnel from the Internet community, and the corresponding high-level management, based on the contribution of the selection object to Internet technology and governance Management positions, rather than a traditional intergovernmental organization of a country or vote in accordance with the population, economic ratio to allocate places. In the case of ICANN, its existing management structure is comprised of the Board of Directors and three support organizations, three advisory committees and two technical advisory bodies. The Board consists of 16 voting members and 5 non-voting liaison officers, with the exception of the ICANN President, the remaining 15 places from the Supporting Organizations, the General Members Advisory Committee, the Regional General Membership Organization and the Nominating Committee. To be elected as a member of the voting, must pass the bottom-up nomination and election. Therefore, China should rationalize the system and mechanism, and actively to ICANN and other international non-governmental organizations to transport talent to encourage Internet companies, industry organizations and academic institutions to actively participate in ICANN, IETF, Internet Architecture Board (Internet Architecture Board, IAB) and other institutions to select the talent in order to enhance the international organizations in the Internet in the representation and voice, and to improve China’s influence on Internet governance. Third, to strengthen the network strategy and cyberspace international strategy between the strategic interaction. China has put forward the strategy of strengthening the network power in the “13th Five-Year Plan”, and proceeded from five aspects: technological innovation, network culture, network infrastructure, network security and information construction and international cooperation.  Network power strategy has repeatedly referred to the opening up, and actively participate in the Internet governance, and even international cooperation as a separate chapter. This shows that the international strategy of cyberspace and network power strategy between the integration of mutual support. The effective interaction between the two is related to China’s openness to cyberspace, the relationship between security and development. From the perspective of the two-tier game, any country’s strategy is faced with the external situation and the internal interests of the double constraints, excessive emphasis on openness or security are not conducive to the overall national security and interests. Strengthening the interaction between the network strategy and the international strategy of cyberspace helps to improve the awareness of the decision-makers on the security and opening of cyberspace, the security of cyberspace, the development and the relationship between opening and breaking, Consistent with the objective laws of the policy. From a technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy.
At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy. At the technical level, the network strategy can better support China’s participation in global cyberspace governance. The main competition in the current cyberspace governance has shifted from the cognitive, conceptual level of the game to the provision of solutions, best practices, capacity building and other specific areas of cooperation. Lack of effective support, cyberspace international strategy is difficult to sustain, and won the recognition of the international community. At the same time, cyberspace international strategy will also help to create a favorable external environment for the network power strategy, providing external advanced experience and lessons to the domestic ICT enterprises to provide a broad international market. Finally, we can learn from the field of foreign aid experience, through foreign aid in the field of ICT to ease or even eliminate the digital divide in cyberspace governance issues, on the one hand can contribute to the network space management of Chinese power, on the other hand also contribute to China’s ICT enterprises Internationalization strategy.
網絡空間治理的進程伴隨著各國政府之間的博弈過程。根據各國政府在網絡技術、網絡能力和網絡使用度等方面的情況，可以將其劃分為信息發達國家、信息發展中國家和信息不發達國家三類。 [③] 也有國際組織以網絡就緒度（Readiness）為指標衡量各國的信息化程度。這種排名基本上與傳統的發達、發展中以及不發達國家的三分法相重疊，當然也存在個別發展中國家的信息化水平上升到發達國家行列，或部分發展中國家的信息化水平跌落到不發達國家的水平。因此，按照信息發達國家、發展中國家和不發達國家的三分法來劃分在學術上更加精確。網絡空間治理的力量博弈主要有三個方面：一是信息發達國家與信息發展中國家在網絡權歸屬、網絡資源分配方面的博弈；二是非政府行為體與政府之間就互聯網關鍵資源控制、網絡安全與自由等問題的博弈；三是作為網絡空間中的主導國家，美國政府聯合其境內的私營部門、市民社會與其他國家之間在互聯網關鍵資源歸屬等問題上的博弈（圖1）。
由於歷史的原因，這些資源一直由美國國家通信與信息管理局（National Telecommunication and Information Administration, NTIA）下屬的互聯網數字分配機構（Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA）負責管理，NTIA通過定期與ICANN簽訂合同，授權其管理IANA的職能。因此，可以認為美國政府控制著互聯網的關鍵資源。聯合國任命的互聯網治理工作組（WGIG）在報告中指出，美國政府單方面控制著如根區文件在內的互聯網關鍵資源。  國際社會對這種情況一直不滿，WGIG報告中提出了四種方案以取代既有架構，希望通過政府間組織或全球性機構來接管互聯網關鍵資源。  對於ICANN來說，雖然一直尋求獨立於美國政府之外並與之開展了多次爭奪，但它更關注的是如何避免其他政府間組織或機構接管或取代其地位。彌爾頓·穆勒將這種現象描述為“一些網絡自由主義者甚而最終轉變成了國家主義的秘密支持者，因為只要被挑戰的國家是他們的祖國，他們就轉而為美國辯護，允許其控制、主導互聯網。”
因此，在一些情況下，ICANN選擇與美國政府“結盟”共同阻止其他國家或政府間組織影響其治理結構。在ICANN的組織架構和決策體制中，各國政府代表所在的政府諮詢委員會（Government Advisory Committee, GAC）只有資格提名一名不具有表決權的聯絡員。信息發展中國家認為，作為一種互聯網治理的國際機制，在ICANN中來自信息發展中國家的代表性不足，在其未來的管理架構中，應當體現政府的職責和權力，增加政府諮詢委員會的權限。但ICANN多次表示不會接受這種改變。對於這種情況，無論是在政府諮詢委員會中，還是在ICANN的全體會議上，美國政府代表與ICANN的官方立場高度一致。直到“棱鏡門事件”爆發，美國政府才迫於多方面壓力宣布重啟ICANN的國際化進程，這將網絡空間治理博弈導向了新的階段。
隨著網絡空間治理進程的推進，各方對網絡空間屬性的認知逐漸達成共識，並由此使其在治理方法、路徑上的分歧縮小。特別是在認知層面，各國對網絡空間的認知由基於不同的政治、經濟、文化背景，強調各自的獨特性轉向基於網絡空間的客觀屬性和規律，強調不同觀點之間的融合。  網絡空間的互聯、共享屬性決定了零和博弈不適用於網絡空間，網絡空間的安全、發展、自由是政府、私營部門和市民社會所追求的共同目標。同時，安全、發展、自由這三個議題的相互制約關係，使得任何一方都不能忽視其他行為體的利益，而追求自身的絕對利益。正如習近平主席2015年12月16日在第二屆世界互聯網大會（World Internet Conference, WIC）開幕式的主題演講中指出：“在信息領域沒有雙重標準，各國都有權維護自己的信息安全，不能一個國家安全而其他國家不安全，一部分國家安全而另一部分國家不安全，更不能犧牲別國安全謀求自身所謂絕對安全”。  這一立場反映了網絡空間治理的上述特殊屬性。由此，國際社會也逐步意識到，沒有任何一方可以主導網絡空間治理進程。
首先，美國的網絡空間戰略調整與ICANN國際化進程將推動網絡空間治理架構的重大轉型。面臨重重壓力，美國通過部分放棄互聯網關鍵資源的直接控制權，為其網絡空間國際戰略的調整做準備。  2014年3月14日，美國商務部下屬的NTIA宣布將放棄對ICANN的控制，並在移交聲明中指出，將由ICANN管理層組織全球多利益攸關方討論接收問題，但明確拒絕由聯合國或其他政府間組織接管。  ICANN自成立以來一直在尋求自己的獨立地位，ICANN國際化的目標不僅是要擺脫美國政府的製約，同時還要確保在美國政府放權後，不會被其他國家和政府間組織接管。因此，ICANN既需要與美國政府達成協議以保證自己的獨立性，也要與其他國家政府展開博弈，避免其國際化遭到強烈反對。
其次，聯合國在網絡空間治理中的作用持續提升，將有力地推動網絡空間治理架構和規範的建設步伐。通過聯合國信息安全政府專家組（GGE）的努力，國際社會在網絡空間的行為規範和建立信任措施等方面也取得了重要突破。 2013年6月，聯合國發表了一份由15個國家的代表組成的專家組的報告。報告首次明確了“國家主權和源自主權的國際規範及原則適用於國家進行的通信技術活動，以及國家在其領土內對通信技術基礎設施的管轄權。”同時，報告進一步認可了“聯合國憲章在網絡空間中的適用性”。  “各國在努力處理通信技術安全問題的同時，必須尊重《世界人權宣言》和其他國際文書所載的人權和基本自由。” 與2010年的專家組報告相比，上述內容分別作為2013年報告的第20和21條款出現，這是一個巨大的進步，表明信息發達國家和信息發展中國家在網絡空間治理認知理念的兼容性不斷提高。 2015年7月，聯合國關於從國際安全的角度看信息和電信領域的發展政府專家組公佈了第三份關於網絡空間國家行為準則的報告。這份報告在保護網絡空間關鍵基礎設施、建立信任措施、國際合作等領域達成了原則性共識。信息發展中國家關心的網絡主權進一步得到明確，信息發達國家主張的國際法特別是武裝衝突法在網絡空間中的適用也寫入其中。 
在信息發達國家與信息發展中國家，政府、私營部門和市民社會等圍繞網絡空間治理的博弈從衝突轉向融合的背後，反映了網絡空間治理理念的持續演變。儘管圍繞網絡空間治理的博弈主要是為了爭奪網絡空間的權力與財富，但行為體對治理的主體、客體和方法的不同認知對治理的衝突與融合產生了重要影響。微軟首席研究及戰略官克瑞格·蒙迪（Craig Mundie）在第七屆中美互聯網論壇上就曾指出，“中美雙方在網絡空間的誤解很大程度上是由於對’互聯網治理’和’網絡空間治理’兩個概念的混淆所導致”。  同樣，網絡空間治理博弈和衝突也反映了上述兩種治理概念之間的衝突。
互聯網治理被認為屬於一種由非政府行為體主導的多利益攸關方治理模式，但網絡空間治理也需要政府和政府間組織的參與和協調。互聯網治理項目（Internet Governance Project, IGP）將互聯網治理定義為“所有者、運營商、開發者和用戶共同參與的一個由互聯網協議所聯接起來的與網絡相關的決策，包括確立政策、規則和技術標準的爭端解決機制，制定資源分配和全球互聯網中人類行為的標準。” 上述定義包括三個方面，即技術標準和協議的接受和認可，域名和IP地址等互聯網資源的分配，人類的互聯網行為產生的垃圾郵件、網絡犯罪、版權和商標爭議、消費者保護問題、公共部門和私人的安全問題等相關的規定、規則和政策等。勞拉·迪娜尼斯（Laura DeNardis）提出要按照互聯網傳輸的TCP/IP協議的層級，並根據不同層級的不同功能構建互聯網模式，依據功能、任務和行為體分別討論互聯網資源控制、標准設定、網絡接入、網絡安全治理、信息流動、知識產權保護等六個層面的互聯網治理內容。 
網絡空間治理從原先互聯網治理所強調的專業性、技術性領域轉向更廣泛的政治、安全和經濟範疇，政府和政府間組織在網絡空間治理中的重要性也日益凸顯。網絡空間是一個更廣泛的領域，它不僅包括互聯網，還包括網絡中傳輸的數據，網絡的用戶以及現實社會與虛擬社會的交互等。相對應的網絡空間治理則是一個更加寬泛的概念，它是“包括網絡空間基礎設施、標準、法律、社會文化、經濟、發展等多方面內容的一個範疇”。  它所包含的治理議題更加多元，面臨的挑戰也在不斷增加。如“棱鏡門事件”引發的對大規模數據監控的關注、政府在網絡空間開展的網絡行動導致的高持續性威脅（APT）、全球範圍內的數字鴻溝（Digital Divide）與數據貧困（Data Poverty ）、網絡恐怖主義、網絡商業竊密等越來越多的治理議題已經超越了傳統的互聯網治理理念的範疇。
隨著網絡空間治理進程的推進，上述兩種治理理念和方法在碰撞中也開始不斷融合。約瑟夫·奈認為，網絡空間是由多個治理機制組成，其中互聯網治理聚焦於技術層面，是網絡空間治理的一個子集。應當根據不同的治理議題，構建不同的治理機制，讓不同的行為體來發揮主導作用。  治理觀念的融合還表現在各方對多利益攸關方治理模式共識的增加。 ICANN採用的是一種自下而上、基於共識基礎的決策過程，並主張限制政府作用的治理模式。  很多信息發展中國家最初對多利益攸關方治理模式持反對態度，強調應當採用政府主導的多邊治理模式。隨著治理進程的深入，信息發展中國家逐步接受多利益攸關方治理模式，只要政府的作用得到合理體現，這種觀點也在私營部門和市民社會代表中獲得越來越多的共識。政府、私營部門和市民社會根據各自的功能與責任來參與決策過程，不刻意將其他行為體排除在外，也不刻意追求個別行為體的領導權，體現出更加客觀和平衡的網絡空間治理理念。
自1994年接入國際互聯網起，中國就制定了各種形式的網絡國際政策融入國際網絡空間體系。這一方面是擴大開放的需要，希望通過國際合作學習、引進國外先進的技術標準；另一方面是信息技術的驅動，融入全球化必須要全方位參與國際體系。  此外，隨著中國在國際事務中的影響力越來越大以及對網絡的依存度上升，主動參與網絡空間治理也是維護國家利益的重要路徑和方式。中國的網絡政策在很大程度上受到國際網絡空間治理形勢的影響，並在與國際網絡空間治理制度的互動中得到發展和提升，呈現出多領域、多層次和多主體的特點。
第二，中國的網絡空間國際政策覆蓋了雙邊、地區、多邊和國際等多個層級。從雙邊層面來看，中國與韓國、英國、澳大利亞等國家建立了政府間對話合作機制，這些合作不僅覆蓋網絡安全、數字經濟和發展等內容，還成為雙邊外交關係的重要內容和支撐。此外，中美、中俄之間在網絡安全領域開展了不同程度的建立信任措施（Confidence Building Measures, CBMs）。  在地區層面，中國與東盟、上合組織、歐盟、阿盟等地區組織和國家之間建立了多種形式的網絡對話合作機制。 2009年中國政府分別與東盟和上合組織成員國簽訂了《中國—東盟電信監管理事會關於網絡安全問題的合作框架》和《上合組織成員國保障國際信息安全政府間合作協定》。  中國還積極參與東盟地區論壇網絡安全工作組的工作，並於2013年9月在北京召開了東盟地區論壇“加強網絡安全措施研討會——法律和文化視角”。會議倡議互聯網的發展需要法律規則的引領，也需要促進和尊重文化多樣性，各方應在網絡安全領域加強交流、增進互信、推進合作，共同構建和平、安全、開放、合作的網絡空間。  最後，中國還積極參與多邊和國際層面的網絡空間治理機制，無論是聯合國框架下的信息安全政府專家組、國際電信聯盟、信息社會世界峰會、互聯網治理論壇，還是聯合國框架之外的倫敦進程、網絡空間多利益攸關方會議等機制，中國都是主要參與者；此外，中國還通過召開世界互聯網大會來開展網絡空間的主場外交。中國還與俄羅斯、烏茲別克斯坦等上合組織成員國共同向聯合國大會提交了兩個版本的“信息安全國際行為準則”。  中國也是全球互聯網治理聯盟的主要參與方，國家互聯網信息辦公室（網信辦）主任魯煒和阿里巴巴集團董事局主席馬雲當選為該聯盟的委員。
網絡空間治理的力量博弈變化給中國的網絡空間國際戰略帶來了多重挑戰：一是信息發達國家將繼續主導網絡空間治理博弈的方向，這對中國的網絡空間國際戰略構成挑戰；二是由於缺乏高級互聯網治理人才，導致中國在互聯網國際組織中的代表性嚴重不足；三是網絡空間治理博弈轉向強調能力建設（Capacity Building）、最佳實踐（Best Practice）等方向，將給中國帶來競爭壓力。這些問題和挑戰對中國網絡空間國際戰略將產生較大衝擊，若處理不當，會對網絡強國戰略的實施造成負面影響。
第一，信息發達國家繼續主導網絡空間治理博弈方向對中國國際戰略構成的挑戰。網絡空間全球治理是通過各種形式的治理機制發揮作用，機制的構建取決於各行為體之間的談判，談判的籌碼不僅取決於各行為體的權力大小，還與各方在網絡空間全球治理中的議程設置能力息息相關。  按照約瑟夫·奈的定義，前者可稱之為“硬權力”，後者是“軟權力”。  信息發達國家在這兩個領域的優勢明顯，特別是在通過選擇性或者優先設置議程左右網絡空間治理的機制構建。比如在網絡安全治理中，美國依靠其議程設置能力阻止國際社會將大規模數據監控列為治理議程，同時將其重點關切的網絡經濟竊密設置為優先議程。此外，信息發達國家在設置網絡人權議程時，將重點置於自由領域，而民主（一國一票）、平等（大小國家擁有同等話語權）等同樣重要的議題則被排除在議程之外。不僅如此，對於各國在“棱鏡門事件”後要求加強行使網絡主權的趨勢，美國則提出“數據本地化”（Data Localization）這一議程以規避在全球治理機制中討論網絡主權。與信息發達國家相比，信息發展中國家在議程設置能力上還存在較大差距，缺乏主動設置議程的能力。近年來，隨著中國、巴西、印度等國先後建立了各種網絡空間治理機制，新興大國在網絡空間全球治理中的議程設置能力不斷增強。但總體而言，中國與信息發達國家在治理能力方面的差距依舊存在，並將影響中國通過國際機制維護自身國家利益，以及表達自身關切。
第二，着重培养参与网络空间治理的国际化人才。国际互联网治理组织多为非政府组织，其采用的多利益攸关方治理模式通常要求从互联网社群中选拔高级管理人才，根据选拔对象对互联网技术、治理所作出的贡献来来担任相应的高级管理职务，而非传统政府间组织的一国一票或按照人口、经济比例来分配名额。以ICANN为例，其现有的管理架构是由董事会和3个支持组织、3个咨询委员会及2个技术咨询机构组成。董事会由16名具有表决权的成员和5名不具有表决权的联络员组成，除ICANN总裁之外，其余15个名额分别来自支持组织、一般会员咨询委员会、区域一般会员组织和提名委员会。要想当选为有投票权的委员，必须要通过自下而上的提名和选举。因此，中国应当理顺体制和机制，积极向ICANN等国际非政府组织输送人才，鼓励互联网企业、行业组织和学术机构积极参与ICANN、IETF、互联网架构委员会（Internet Architecture Board, IAB）等机构的人才选拔，以此来提升在互联网国际组织中的代表性和发言权，并提高中国对互联网治理的影响力。