Multistakeholderism in Praxis: The Case of the Regional and National Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Initiatives

Epstein, Dmitry; Nonnecke, Brandie

doi:10.1002/poi3.116

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…to emphasize the open and multistakeholder nature of ICANN processes. Whether the IGF constitutes governance or a mere talk shop, it seems to have set in motion a process of institutional isomorphism, with multiple national and regional Internet governance forums following in its wake (Epstein and Nonnecke 2016). Studying these forums, Epstein and Nonnecke develop a distinction between substantive and performative multistakeholder governance of the Internet.…”

Section: Phase One (1993-1997): Discovery and Exceptionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inventing Internet Governance: The Historical Trajectory of the Phenomenon and the Field

Mueller¹,

Badiei²

2020

Researching Internet Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter tracks the emergence of "Internet governance" as a label, a field of research and academic study, and a real-world arena where stakeholders and interest groups clash and cooperate. We try to look at all three of them simultaneously-label, field of study, and set of practices and institutions-focusing on the interplay among them over time. We have chosen to begin our assessment of the field of Internet governance on the basis of when the term started to be consciously recognized as a phenomenon and labeled as such. Some may argue that some form of Internet governance was occurring before this; they might, for example, begin with the US Department of Defense's ARPANET and would characterize hammering out some of the early design principles of internetworking as Internet governance. An even broader approach, developed by Sandra Braman in chapter 2, tries to situate Internet governance in the convergence of computing and communication technologies in the 1950s and 1960s and the globalization of communication networks in the 1970s and 1980s. And while it is true that the Internet entered a policy context shaped by these processes, it is also true that the policy and governance of integrated services digital network (ISDN), or cross-border data flows over private leased telecommunication circuits, cannot be characterized as Internet governance. The Internet had its own distinctive protocols that posed unique governance problems. The Internet also evolved its own standards development organizations and governance institutions, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and address registries, that were outside the established institutions of global telecommunications governance.Historical periodizations are neither correct nor incorrect; they are more or less suited to specific purposes. Our purpose is not to track communications policy in general but to reveal the trajectory of Internet governance as

show abstract

Section: Phase One (1993-1997): Discovery and Exceptionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inventing Internet Governance: The Historical Trajectory of the Phenomenon and the Field

Mueller¹,

Badiei²

2020

Researching Internet Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature and debates among policy experts (Doria ; Raymond & DeNardis ), multi‐stakeholderism is typically conceived as a governance structure that entails the participation of public, commercial, civil, and academic actors; participation “as equals” is often emphasized (Epstein & Nonnecke , p. 148). Speaking more generally, however, multi‐stakeholderism allows in particular those actors affected by a given piece of regulation (the stakeholders) to join the regulator and participate in rulemaking (Cafaggi ), following a “logic of empowerment” (Auld et al .…”

Section: Internet Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Linking democratic anchorage and regulatory authority: The case of internet regulators

Ewert

Kaufmann

Maggetti

2018

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly questioned the democraticness and the authority of transnational multi‐stakeholder organizations, especially those that regulate the internet. To contribute to this discussion, we studied the “democratic anchorages” and the regulatory authority of 23 internet regulators. In particular, we conducted a fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis assessing whether and which anchorages correspond to necessary and/or sufficient conditions for exerting regulatory authority. Our results show that strong anchorage in democratic procedures is specifically relevant for this outcome. Further, we find that weak anchorage in democratically elected politicians leads to high regulatory authority, confirming the significance of non‐state actors in this policy field. More generally, our findings support but also qualify expectations about the compatibility and mutual reinforcement of democratic quality and regulatory authority at the transnational level.

show abstract

“…While globalization and digitalization have undermined the traditional function of the State in communication policies, a resurgence of the State, with different roles, has been documented in several domains (Iosifidis, 2016). National perspectives are increasingly relevant levels of analysis in multistakeholderism and more detailed analyses are needed (Epstein & Nonnecke, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the role of civil society in Internet governance? Confronting institutional passive perspectives with resource mobilization in Portugal

Silva

Lameiras

2021

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multistakeholderism in Internet governance has opened up the door to the participation of civic movements in the debate concerning the rules and future of the Internet. However, much is to be understood on the effective conditions civil society has to participate and its action at the national level. Drawing on the context given by the institutional vision of European and Portuguese authorities about the role of civil society, this article explores the Portuguese activism on Internet governance through the lens of the resource mobilization theory. Research findings indicate that civil society faces structural shortage of resources, lacking the ability to establish national horizontal networking. The most impacting resources are knowledge and legitimation achieved mainly through international collaborations. Although there is a general defense of the principle of multistakeholderism in European discourse, there is no strategy to amplify the voice of civil society at the European nor at the national level. The article argues that, in the Portuguese case, horizontal integrated networking could leapfrog organized civil society toward effective involvement in policy processes.

show abstract

Multistakeholderism in Praxis: The Case of the Regional and National Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Initiatives

Cited by 17 publications

References 17 publications

Inventing Internet Governance: The Historical Trajectory of the Phenomenon and the Field

Inventing Internet Governance: The Historical Trajectory of the Phenomenon and the Field

Linking democratic anchorage and regulatory authority: The case of internet regulators

What is the role of civil society in Internet governance? Confronting institutional passive perspectives with resource mobilization in Portugal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About