Multistakeholder participation is a specific governance approach whereby multiple relevant stakeholders participate in the collective shaping of evolutions and uses of the Internet.
In 2005, the Working Group in Internet Governance (WGIG), set up by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), defined Internet governance as: 'development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, social norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use 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 common good, rather than being captured by a single power center.
The general principle of participation in decision-making that impacts on the lives of individuals has been part of the Internet from its outset, accounting for much of its success. It recognizes the value of multistakeholder participation, incorporating users and a user-centric perspective as well as all other actors critical to developing, using and governing the Internet across a range of levels. The other principles are enriched by the multistakeholder participation principle, because it states that everyone should have a stake in the future of the Internet.
It is possible to define a number of broad categories of stakeholders in the Internet, with subgroups as well: states, businesses and industries, NGOs, civil society, international governmental organization, research actors, individuals, and others. Each of these categories has more or less unique stakes in the future of the Internet, but there are also areas of great overlap and interdependence. For instance, some NGOs, are likely to prioritize the promotion of human rights; meanwhile parliaments are primary actors in defining laws to protect these rights. Still other stakeholders are key to shaping rights online, such as search engine providers, and Internet service providers (ISPs).MacKinnon, R., Hickok, E., Bar, A., and Lim, Hae-in (2015), Fostering Freedom of Expression Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries. Paris: UNESCO. Available online : http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf [last accessed on 2 January 2015]. Individuals also have particular roles to play in respecting, promoting and protecting rights.
Internet governance
Internet governance
Internet governance is the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Internet governance should not be confused with e-governance, which refers to governments' use of technology to carry out their governing duties. Although, the argument can be made that Internet governance 'as a unitary regime may in fact be an impossibility',MacLean, 2004:80; Mansell & Raboy, 2011:10; Mathiason, 2009:17. a broader conceptualization of governance recognizes both the entirety and the diversity of governance activities that steer the "ship".
The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society,WSIS, 2005 defines Internet governance as: "the 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."
Specificity It is often argued that multi-stakeholder participation is better, at least in principle, 'than governance by governments alone', as it can uphold the interests of non-elected actors in relation to governments (most of which are elected, although others not). In addition, governments may lack the necessary competence and/or adequate political will in relation to expert and benign Internet governance.Souter, 2017a. Multi-stakeholder participation more broadly can be posited as a way to prevent capture of the Internet by one constituency to the expense of another – whether this is capture by various state actors and their interstate organizations, or by private sector interests nationally or internationally. In other words, governments themselves have an interest in multi-stakeholder modalities as a way to prevent Internet capture by other power centers. The participation of more stakeholders can inject expertise and reflect a diversity of needs. The legitimacy thus ascribed to multi-stakeholder decision-making is closely tied to 'the expectation of a higher quality of policy outcomes',Hofmann, 2016:33. or simply 'better governance'.
The reality of multi-stakeholder participation is sometimes challenged by issues that relate both to the nature of the Internet itself – including jurisdiction and enforcement,Satola, 2007:56. scale, and the pace at which it changes and growsThe Economist, 2016; ISOC, 2016; de la Chapelle, 2011; Malcolm 2008:18, 90. – as well as challenges pertaining to its governance.
Stakeholders Broadly taken, the notion of stakeholders considers anyone or any entity with a legitimate interest in a particular Internet governance issue as a 'stakeholder'. It recognizes that not all stakeholders automatically self-realize or self-identify as stakeholders, and not all multi-stakeholder processes include all stakeholders. It further recognizes that multi-stakeholder-based participation represents interests-based participation, rather than undifferentiated, individual or idiosyncratic involvement by members of the public. multi-stakeholder approaches should welcome and not exclude disagreement and minority or less-popular viewpoints,See the IGF BPF Multistakeholder on Strengthening Multistakeholder Participation Mechanisms, 2015, for a list of actions that could be construed potential examples of 'bad actors' conduct in specific situations. but may justifiably exclude disruptive actors who deploy disagreement to unreasonably disrupt the process or to damage trust.
Gender divides are a significant and pressing challenge facing the Universality of the Internet ecosystem – ranging from women's ability to access and benefit the Internet to their ability to participate meaningfully in multi-stakeholder processes.
There is continued disagreement about what the definition of multi-stakeholder participation in governance actually is or should be,cf. Hofmann, 2016:33; Verhulst, 2016:6. issues of due recognition,Collins, 2007:1. the scope of participation and unequal nature of representation – particularly from developing countries and civil society participants,Souter, 2017e; Verhulst, 2016; Belli, 2015: 11; Dickinson, 2014:67; Esterhuysen, 2014: 60; Doria, 2013; Calandro, Gillwald & Zingales, 2013:5; Maciel & Affonso, 2011:17; Drake, 2011:69; Mansell & Raboy, 2011:12; Cogburn, 2006:62; Siganda, 2005:155. the (in)ability to reach consensus,Mueller & Wagner, 2014:12; Mueller, Mathiason & Klein, 2007:237. the exclusivity of some ostensibly inclusive processes and the unwillingness to listen to different views,Souter, 2017c. attempts to establish legitimacy,Collins, 2007:16. the sometimes slow pace of multi-stakeholder mechanisms, as well as the increasing number of stakeholders and complexity of challenges involved as the importance of the Internet to everyday life and economies becomes increasingly clear.cf. GCIG, 2016:8; World Bank, 2016:37; Raymond & DeNardis, 2015:609; Wagner, 2014; de la Chapelle, 2011; Mueller, 2010:253. All these challenges are significant and sometimes they differ depending on the context and issue or topic at hand. However, three general concerns that are frequently mentioned in the literature, relate to the conspicuous dominance or absence of certain participants, especially the private sector; how multi-stakeholder mechanisms should be balanced with multilateral arrangements; and what the relationship between Internet governance at national and international levels is or should be.
The evolution of multi-stakeholder participation multi-stakeholder participation and governance mechanisms may be a 'rather recent invention', but they have a longer tradition as an 'organizing principle and political practice'.Hofmann, 2016:29. Such approaches are far from unique to Internet governance; with claims of their application and use especially prevalent in topics with cross-border or international relevance.Maciel, 2014:99. Examples include labor relations, environmental protection, finance, human rights, and sustainable development. Where the Internet is concerned, multi-stakeholder participation in its governance seems to possibly be both intrinsic – and more complicated – than in many other instances of multi-stakeholder participation. The ways in which the Internet was designed has both allowed and disallowed specific types of behavior online;Weiss, 2008:xiv. meaning that the actions that led to the creation of the Internet were already acts of governance (albeit most likely unintendedGCIG, 2016:8.).
Although some have argued that the Internet is free from any regulatory oversighte.g. Barlow, 1996. or jurisdictional restraintsJohnson & Post, 1996; Maier, 2010; Yahoo Inc. v LICRA (2006). and should remain so, the Internet internally was never entirely a rule-free nor a 'law-free zone', nor was it a different universe to external legal constraints.Sunstein, 2001:139. Due to its unique design and composition, many have argued that the Internet requires non-traditional forms of governance – and particularly governance forms encouraging the participation of more stakeholders in addition to governments (democratic or otherwise), which have been the key agent of governance in the Westphalian system of national states.
The Internet is often cited as not only one of the prime examples of multi-stakeholder participation in governance,e.g. Belli, 2015:3; Kleinwächter, 2014:115; Milan & Hintz, 2014; Doria, 2013; Malcolm, 2008:520; Antonova, 2007:1. but sometimes described as inherently 'multi-stakeholder'.Esterhuysen, 2014:57. The Internet is defined by open, distributed, interconnected, participatory, and bottom-up processesISOC, 2016. – features that match multi-stakeholder participation in specific regard to its governance. Vint Cerf, one of the authors of the Internet Protocol (IP), has similarly noted that:Cerf, 2011:78. "There is no question in my mind that the diversity of players in the Internet universe demands a multi-stakeholder approach to governance in the most general sense of the word. The debate around how the Internet is or should be governed has in some ways evolved from a discussion of how/whether the Internet can be governed to one concerning 'whether there is (or should be) something new and different about the way we do so".Mueller, 2010:1. Cerf's words 'in the most general sense of the word' are important, as they also underpin the view that an understanding of multi-stakeholder approaches should not be approached in a dogmatic manner. The demand for and value of multi-stakeholder participation in Internet governance was first explicitly expressed at the WSIS, which took place in two phases between 2003 (in Geneva, Switzerland, with a focus on principles) and 2005 (in Tunis, Tunisia, with a focus on implementation).See CSTD/UNCTAD, 2015:142.
Multi-stakeholder governance in practice
KICTANet