Chapter 2 Competing Institutional Trajectories for Global Regulation—Internet in a Fragmented World

Rioux, Michèle

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45299-4_3

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…77 This is a useful first step, but no substitute for a binding agreement between states, that is, a treaty. And what institution, other than ITU, could transform itself to provide a forum for negotiating such a global agreement (regarding the transformation of ITU in recent years, see [247])? Would states relinquish to "the multi-stakeholder model" the power to curtail surveillance?…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of Internet Governance: Dystopia, Utopia, or Realpolitik?

Hill¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first discussions regarding issues that are now included under the rubric "Internet governance" date back to the 1990s. Discussions were formally brought into the arena of intergovernmental discussions in 1998, at the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and continued in particular at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005. Discussions have tended to be difficult, and little consensus has been reached, regarding a number of issues. The factors that make discussions difficult are financial, geopolitical, but also ideological. Some of the ideological approaches are idealistic and propose governance models that are new and innovative; other approaches are conservative and propose either to continue unchanged the current Internet governance arrangements, or to apply traditional intergovernmental mechanisms to at least some aspects of Internet governance. This paper concludes that an agreed international framework is needed in order to ensure that Internet governance can evolve to meet the interests of all concerned parties.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of Internet Governance: Dystopia, Utopia, or Realpolitik?

Hill¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As new technologies such as telephony, radio, and satellite appeared, the ITU incorporated them into its mandate (Balbi & Fickers, 2020;Codding, 1995). In keeping with this tradition, from the 1970s through the early 1990s, the ITU strove-but ultimately failed-to become the global authority in data networking development and governance (Schafer, 2020;Rioux et al, 2014;Winseck, 2020). In the closing decade of the twentieth century, global trends of economic liberalisation and technological convergence spurred the debate within the ITU about enhancing the role of the private sector in its operations and about the Union becoming the worldwide champion of telecommunication development and liberalisation (Hills, 2007, Ch.…”

Section: Preservation Of State-based Telecommunication Governance At the Itumentioning

confidence: 99%

Russia’s great power imaginary and pursuit of digital multipolarity

Budnitsky¹

2020

IPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past two decades, Russia has championed the primacy of national governments in managing the global internet. Scholars attribute Russia's global internet governance philosophy and practices predominantly to its increasingly authoritarian and illiberal regime under President Vladimir Putin. This article, by contrast, explores how Russian ruling elites' view of Russia as an immutable great power has directed the subsequent Russian governments' pursuit of a state-based multipolar digital order. To illuminate cultural continuities in Russia's approach to global communication governance in the post-Soviet period, I examine its state-centric policymaking initiatives at the International Telecommunication Union and the United Nations in the 1990s.

show abstract

“…For an extensive discussion of this transformation, seeRioux (2014).17 A noteworthy development prior to Computer Inquiry III was the 1982 finalization of the eight-year-long antitrust suit by the US government against AT&T, resulting in the separation of the local exchanges component of AT&T (where the natural monopoly continued to apply) and the Bell System long distance, manufacturing, and research and development open to competition from that point on. This led to the divestiture of the company in 1984 and the creation of a reformed AT&T and seven regional Bell operating companies.18 The person facilitating this was Vint Cerf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Internet Governance

Radu

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is at stake for how the Internet continues to evolve is the preservation of its integrity as a single network. In practice, its governance is neither centralized nor unitary; it is piecemeal and fragmented, with authoritative decision-making coming from different sources simultaneously: governments, businesses, international organizations, technical and academic experts, and civil society. Historically, the conditions for their interaction were rarely defined beyond basic technical coordination, due at first to the academic freedom granted to the researchers developing the network and, later on, to the sheer impossibility of controlling mushrooming Internet initiatives. Today, the search for global norms and rules for the Internet continues, be it for cybersecurity or artificial intelligence, amid processes fostering the supremacy of national approaches or the vitality of a pluralist environment with various stakeholders represented. This book provides an incisive analysis of the emergence and evolution of global Internet governance, unpacking the complexity of more than 300 governance arrangements, influential debates, and political negotiations over four decades. Highly accessible, this book breaks new ground through a wide empirical exploration and a new conceptual approach to governance enactment in global issue domains. A tripartite framework is employed for revealing power dynamics, relying on: (a) an extensive database of mechanisms of governance for the Internet at the global and regional level; (b) an in-depth analysis of the evolution of actors and priorities over time; and (c) a key set of dominant practices observed in the Internet governance communities. It explains continuity and change in Internet-related negotiations, opening up new directions for thinking and acting in this field.

show abstract

Chapter 2 Competing Institutional Trajectories for Global Regulation—Internet in a Fragmented World

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

The Future of Internet Governance: Dystopia, Utopia, or Realpolitik?

The Future of Internet Governance: Dystopia, Utopia, or Realpolitik?

Russia’s great power imaginary and pursuit of digital multipolarity

Negotiating Internet Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About