What if we all governed the Internet?

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "What if we all governed the Internet?"

Kelly Bertina Ray
5 years ago
Views:

1 United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organization What if we all governed the Internet? Advancing multistakeholder participation in Internet governance In the Internet s relatively short history, much of its governance has become synonymous with multistakeholder participatory mechanisms and approaches. But while some people may take this for granted and as being inherent to the way in which the Internet was designed, the Internet is very different today than when it was created. Over time, as the Internet has become increasingly central to societies and economies, various stakeholders have started jostling for greater power over Internet governance. Some of the ways in which Internet have traditionally been governed now face strain. This risks not only the benefits associated with multistakeholder practice, but also the universality, openness, and freedom of and on the Internet. A better understanding of multistakeholder participation can underpin the contemporary relevance of this modality for the deepening complexity of the Internet and its potential role in sustainable development. Policy brief based on a UNESCO study authored by Anri van der Spuy and available at:

2 Study overview The study consists of: a review of literature published since the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005; an investigation into how multistakeholder participation has been applied in Kenya, Brazil, South Korea, and a global initiative under the auspices of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF); an analysis of the values that underpin multistakeholder practice; recommendations arising from the research. This research surfaces the benefits of multistakeholder approaches to the ecosystem of influences and factors which govern and shape the Internet. Among these benefits are enriched outcomes, greater legitimacy, and stimulation of creativity and innovation. UNESCO & INTERNET GOVERNANCE The study builds upon UNESCO s Internet Universality framework, which helps to identify how the Internet can help to construct global knowledge societies as foundations for sustainable development. The IU framework calls for decision-making about Internetrelated issues to respect four principles summarised by the acronym R.O.A.M., namely: that the Internet should be characterised by human rights; openness; accessibility; and multistakeholder participation. This study focuses on the fourth principle by investigating the ways in which multistakeholder participation in Internet governance can support UNESCO s work in general and the protection of the R.O.A.M. principles in particular. HOW IS MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION UNDERSTOOD TODAY? In 2005, the WSIS Working Group in Internet Governance (WGIG), set up by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), defined Internet governance. Its wording was: development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. On this basis, the study interprets multistakeholder participation as a specific governance approach whereby relevant stakeholders participate in the collective shaping of evolutions and uses of the Internet. This is not identical to undifferentiated public participation in Internet issues. Instead, the concept of multistakeholder signals specifically the distinct clusters of interests involved in any given digital issue and how these interests can be aggregated into decisions towards an Internet for the general interest, rather than being captured by a single power centre. Whether specific decision-making about Internet issues is concerned with politics, economics, technology or social issues, it occurs within a context of norms which can themselves be co-constructed. This is why the WSIS broad definition of Internet governance covers the spectrum of norms and principles through to rules and programmes.

3 WHO, WHERE, WHAT? The WSIS definition also has implications for the different objects being governed for example, the multitude of different users; legitimate uses and specific behaviours; diverse technical standards and the interoperability of applications. Depending on the issue at hand, multistakeholder participation may entail different arrangements of participants and power as the governance process unfolds. At some stage, a parliament or a specific ministry may take a final decision; at other points along the way, civil society and academia may be very much involved. A school board or a municipality might adopt a particular policy after engaging affected groups within their constituencies. Different internet-related companies can decide their terms of service in a silo, or seek the involvement of diverse stakeholders in the developing and review of such conditions. What is important for the outcomes of governance in all these cases is the extent to which final decisions take account of other interests and diverse wisdoms, and the extent to which they remain open to ongoing dialogue. In some sites, institutionalisation or constitutionalisation of multistakeholder practice makes for sustainable and accountable practice. In the light of these insights, the study investigates issues like: While the WSIS definition cites very specific stakeholder groups, the literature raises questions as to whether these stakeholder groups are still relevant today. The study therefore investigates: Who has a stake in Internet governance? Another aspect of the WSIS definition and of multistakeholder approaches more generally which raises further questions is the term in their respective roles. But the literature criticises this for not reflecting multiple variations and interests within and amongst stakeholder classifications. The study therefore investigates: What can in their respective roles mean today? The literature poses questions about differences in power, capacities and resources among different stakeholders. To better grasp these concerns, the study investigates: How can meaningful participation be understood?

2015; UNESCO at a WSIS+10 Review event in 2014 and 38 C/Resolution 56 (2015); the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2008 and 2011; the Council of Europe in 2009; the

4 How is multistakeholder participation evolving? Since the WSIS, various international and multilateral organizations have endorsed the need for multistakeholder participation, including the UN General Assembly in its ten-year review of WSIS in 2015; UNESCO at a WSIS+10 Review event in 2014 and 38 C/Resolution 56 (2015); the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2008 and 2011; the Council of Europe in 2009; the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 2010 and 2014; the G8 at Deauville in 2011; and the African Union in The literature and the case studies indicate that the reality of multistakeholder participation is sometimes challenged by issues that relate to the nature of the Internet itself including jurisdiction and enforcement, scale, and the pace at which it changes and grows as well as the governance model being used. Some of the questions that arise are: What happens when some stakeholders become or are too dominant or powerful? What is the relationship between multistakeholder and multilateral governance mechanisms? What are governments roles in Internet governance? CASE STUDIES Is the notion of multistakeholder participation becoming rhetoric rather than reality? Multistakeholder participation in action The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) illustrates a case of successful institutionalisation of multistakeholder process in ICT governance and policy development; The Marco Civil da Internet demonstrates how multistakeholder participation resulted in a human rights-related Internet law in Brazil; A constitutional challenge in South Korea shows how multiple stakeholders collaborated to challenge a real name verification law and replace it with a standard for respect for privacy and online anonymity; and The IGF best practice forum (BPF) on Gender shows how a global multistakeholder community worked together to promote and protect the norm of women s safe and meaningful access to, and use of, the Internet.

5 Main conclusions The case studies show that: There is no unitary multistakeholder Internet governance modality. The Internet governance ecosystem is made up of different governance models, only some of which are multistakeholder in nature. In many circumstances, multistakeholder mechanisms work alongside or in relation to other approaches but they add unique value. Public and private sector stakeholders low participation, or less transparent participation, along with the rise of public-private partnerships that exclude civil society input into governance issues, places increasing strain on the legitimacy and efficiency of internet governance. The study extracts specific values from the cases and literature review, finding that effective multistakeholder practices should be: inclusive; diverse; collaborative; transparent; egalitarian as regards different participants; flexible and relevant; private and safe; accountable and legitimate; and responsive.

6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MULTISTAKEHOLDER PRACTICES To help adapt multistakeholder approaches to today s Internet, the following points emerge from the study: 1. Awareness of the potential benefits of multistakeholder approaches can be heightened; 2. Multistakeholder approaches need to be specifically tailored and designed to meet the unique requirements of each Internet governance challenge; 3. Each Internet governance challenge should be clearly framed and goals defined before decisive action is taken; 4. Relevant and legitimate stakeholders should be identified and involved at the outset; 5. Multistakeholder working methods ought to be transparent and inclusive; 6. Participants should collaborate on an equal footing; 7. A diversity of platforms/stages must be provided for multistakeholder collaboration; 8. Stakeholder diversity must accommodate regional, language and interest diversity; 9. Measures for promoting accountability should be built into multistakeholder processes; 10. Multistakeholder processes and outcomes should be continuously evaluated; 11. Further research is needed to support the institutionalisation and sustainability of multistakeholder governance experiences. Multistakeholder governance of the Internet does not mean that everyone decides on everything. But it is a structured modality that engages all significant groups to directly or indirectly help shape parts of the ever more complex ecosystem that governs the Internet. It is this practice that has delivered the Internet as a key enabler for humanity as a whole. It is appropriate therefore that multistakeholder participation is reinforced for a sustainable and inclusive future. The Internet Society (ISOC) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) assisted with the costs of the research. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO or its partners and do not commit them. Cover image: Shutterstock/greiss design. Photos: Shutterstock/hobbit; Shutterstock/Rawpixel; Shutterstock/tai11; Shutterstock/Snopek Nadia CLD: CI-2017/WS/12

Internet Governance An Internet Society Public Policy Briefing

Internet Governance An Internet Society Public Policy Briefing 30 October 2015 Introduction How the Internet is governed has been a question of considerable debate since its earliest days. Indeed, how