The Making of Institutions of Information Governance: The Case of the Internet Governance Forum

Abstract

Histories of information systems are inseparable from the histories of their governance. In the case ofthe Internet, governance structures informally developed during its early design were substantially different from the typical mechanisms resulting from public policy decisionmaking. Traditionally, global information systems, such as telecommunication systems, v\/ere governed through state-centrio mechanisms that would set treaty-based framework for non-state actors to operate within. Legitimate participation in these traditional governance structures was the prerogative of states that possessed sole decision-making authority. In the case of the Internet, non-state-actor-driven governance frameworks were developed outside of those traditional mechanisms. They relied on a different conception of legitimacy and authority. This paper discusses how the state and non-state actors were forced to cooperate around the creation of institutions that could accommodate the variety of views on authority, legitimacy, and decision-making processes in Internet governance. It tracks the creation of the Internet Governance Forum as a case where notions of legitimacy and authority were redefined for policy deliberations of complex information systems. The paper concludes with whether those changes lead to the emergence of new institutions that contribute tp the sustainability of the network by enabling coexistence of competing political interests and values; and what this could mean for the future of the network.

Negotiating Internet Governance

“…Understanding how processes and actions are shaped on a daily basis required a change of perspective and that came about with the praxeological turn. The concrete observation of discourses and routines had a long tradition in sociology and anthropology (Geertz 1973;Cetina 1981; Adler 2013; Autesserre 2014), but only recently captured the attention of IG scholars (Flyverbom 2011;Epstein 2013). Global governance-focused contributions in this tradition emphasized shared practices as part of daily habits, dissecting the tacit understandings and knowledge that make such interactions meaningful (Neumann and Sending 2010;Eagleton-Pierce 2013;Best and Gheciu 2014;Bueger 2016;Pouliot 2016).…”

“…Shaping processes such as the WGIG or the IGF, Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer continued to be at the forefront of UN-driven interactions with a plethora of stakeholders (Epstein 2012).…”

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

“…We claim that the IGF process does indeed introduce an innovative disruption for the UN system and potentially beyond (Epstein, )—it is reflected in the legitimating authority of the language of multistakeholderism within the UN system (e.g., the International Telecommunication Union's attempts to rebrand itself as a multistakeholder organization) and at least nominal changes in the working of formerly government‐centric processes (e.g., the opening of the UN Conference on Trade and Development's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF to participation of nonstate actors). It remains to be seen whether these nominal changes will result in substantive shifts in the decision‐making apparatus, but it already raises important questions about how the idea of multistakeholderism disseminates, gets adopted, and interpreted outside of UN settings.…”

Civil society in a global multistakeholder policy-making process : the case of the internet and netmundial

“…They also submitted workshop proposals to the IGF and identified civil society speakers for the IGF plenary session (Malcolm, 2008). As a result of the participation of civil society in the IGF, which is the meeting of two cultures, namely the bottom-up culture of the Internet community and the top-down culture of UN, the civil society group did not only influence the practices in IGF, but it was also shaped to adopt the legitimation structures of UN (Epstein, 2012). The need for the civil society group to develop internal decisionmaking mechanisms and structure became more apparent with the increasing participation of civil society actors in the IGF.…”

“…The IGF nucleus, particularly those who were active in the civil society group were, for example, The reluctance to have the IGF make recommendations to other related bodies(Ang & Pang, 2012), however, limits the participation of civil society actors in the global policy-making process of the Internet. The participation and influence of the participating actors in the IGF are limited to shaping the structures and conduct of the IGF(Epstein, 2012). The participating actors in IGF tried to shape the four key elements, namely the IGF Secretariat, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Dynamic Coalitions, Open Consultations, and the annual meeting itself.…”