What If We All Governed the Internet?

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: http://en.unesco.org/unesco-series-on-internet-freedom Study overview UNESCO & INTERNET GOVERNANCE The study builds upon UNESCO’s Internet Universality The study consists of: framework, which helps to identify how the Internet can help to construct global knowledge societies ➤ a review of literature published since the as foundations for sustainable development. The IU second phase of the World Summit on framework calls for decision-making about Internet- the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005; related issues to respect four principles summarised by the acronym R.O.A.M., namely: that the Internet ➤ an investigation into how multistake should be characterised by human rights; openness; holder participation has been applied in accessibility; and multistakeholder participation. This Kenya, Brazil, South Korea, and a global study focuses on the fourth principle by investigating initiative under the auspices of the the ways in which multistakeholder participation in Internet Governance Forum (IGF); Internet governance can support UNESCO’s work in general and the protection of the R.O.A.M. principles ➤ an analysis of the values that underpin in particular. multistakeholder practice; ➤ recommendations arising from the research. HOW IS MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION UNDERSTOOD TODAY? This research surfaces the benefits of In 2005, the WSIS Working Group in Internet multistakeholder approaches to the Governance (WGIG), set up by the World Summit ecosystem of influences and factors which on the Information Society (WSIS), defined Internet govern and shape the Internet. Among these governance. Its wording was: ‘development and benefits are enriched outcomes, greater application by Governments, the private sector legitimacy, and stimulation of creativity and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared and innovation. 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. 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 CASE STUDIES stakeholders. To better grasp these concerns, the study investigates: How can meaningful participation be understood? 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 2014. 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? ➤ 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 CASE STUDIES use of, the Internet. Main conclusions The case studies show that: The study extracts specific values from the cases and literature review, finding ➤ There is no unitary ‘multistakeholder Internet that effective multistakeholder practices governance’ modality. The Internet governance ecosystem is made up of different should be: governance models, only some of which are ➤ inclusive; multistakeholder in nature. In many circum- ➤ stances, multistakeholder mechanisms work diverse; alongside or in relation to other approaches ➤ collaborative; – but they add unique value. ➤ transparent; ➤ Public and private sector stakeholders’ low ➤ egalitarian as regards different participation, or less transparent participa- participants; tion, along with the rise of public-private ➤ flexible and relevant; partnerships that exclude civil society input into governance issues, places increasing ➤ private and safe; strain on the legitimacy and efficiency of ➤ accountable and legitimate; and internet governance. ➤ responsive. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MULTISTAKEHOLDER PRACTICES United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organization 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

Load more