Iran and the global politics of internet governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the internet governance agenda pursued by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) since 2003. Surveying the official documents of five major global events on internet governance, the article illustrates that the IRI agenda has been preoccupied with three major issues: first, the digital divide and the significant potential of the internet for economic development; second, the dominant role of developed countries in the management of critical internet resources; and third, the role of non-state actors in internet governance. The latter issue constitutes the main area of contention between different Iranian presidents. The IRI’s state-centric agenda for internet governance under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005–2013) sought to limit the role of non-state actors in order to enhance the hegemony of the state vis-à-vis Iranian society. During the presidencies of Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani (1997–2005 and 2013-present, respectively), however, the IRI agenda has acknowledged the role of non-state actors and been more open to the multi-stakeholder framework of internet governance. The article concludes that the overemphasis on these three issues has led the IRI to ignore the complexity of the emerging regime of global internet governance and, consequently, to overlook prevalent issues such as transnational cybercrime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it