Legitimacy of multistakeholderism in IG spaces | IGF 2023

Arguments

Working together with various stakeholders is crucial for adequate governance and policy-making

---

Stakeholder representation in ICANN is not evenly distributed

---

Report

The importance of collaboration with various stakeholders is highlighted for effective governance and policy-making. The Netherlands has been actively engaged in working with a broad array of stakeholders since around 1200 to ensure protection against the North Sea. This long-standing collaboration reflects the significance of involving diverse groups in decision-making processes.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is another example of a platform that promotes stakeholder engagement in discussions on an equal footing. Stakeholders from civil society, technology, business, and government come together to exchange ideas and perspectives. This inclusive approach fosters a more comprehensive and well-rounded decision-making process, leading to more effective governance and policy outcomes.

However, there are concerns regarding the uneven distribution of stakeholder representation in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It is noted that there are 182 members from government and 38 observers in ICANN, which is not equivalent to the 193 member count of the United Nations.

Additionally, during the recent ICANN meeting, there were discrepancies in the number of government members and observers present, indicating an imbalance in geographical representation. To address this issue, there have been calls for greater diversity in representation, particularly for the next round of generic top-level domains (GTLDs).

Currently, there is a heavy Western bias in the distribution of registries and registrars. It is argued that more diversity is needed to ensure representation of different languages and scripts. This demand for diversity aligns with the global goals of gender equality, reduced inequalities, and peace and justice outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

In conclusion, working together with various stakeholders is essential for adequate governance and policy-making. The Netherlands' collaborative approach reflects the long-standing tradition of involving diverse groups in decision-making processes. The IGF provides a platform for stakeholders from different sectors to engage in dialogue, leading to more comprehensive outcomes.

However, there is a need to address the uneven distribution of stakeholder representation in ICANN, with calls for greater diversity in future GTLDs to ensure a fair and inclusive internet governance system.

Arguments

Internet governance organizations while procedurally open, can be culturally closed off and unwelcoming.

---

Report

Internet governance organizations, although they may appear open in their procedures, often adopt culturally closed practices that exclude minority voices. These practices are reinforced by language barriers, limited accessibility, and cultural dynamics within these organizations, resulting in a lack of diversity and representation among the group that has clear access.

Notably, findings from extensive participant observation and interviews within the Internet Engineering Task Force support these arguments, demonstrating the detrimental impact of exclusionary cultures on minority participation in decision-making processes. To address this issue, it is crucial to acknowledge the value of the multistakeholder model and actively work towards overcoming exclusionary and discriminatory practices.

By doing so, we can ensure that all voices are heard and that decision-making processes are inclusive and equitable. Furthermore, it is concerning to observe growing corporate influence over Internet infrastructure, accompanied by increased surveillance practices, which poses a threat to the space for civil society within Internet governance.

These trends highlight the erosion of democratic principles in Internet governance. In conclusion, addressing exclusionary practices is vital to promote diversity, inclusion, and the value of the multistakeholder model in Internet governance. Simultaneously, efforts must be made to counter the rise of corporate power and protect the space for civil society.

Only by actively confronting these challenges can we guarantee a just, equitable, and representative Internet governance system that reflects the global Internet community.

Arguments

The importance of ensuring inclusive and meaningful participation from broader communities for the credibility and success of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance.

---

Report

In the context of internet governance, there is a growing recognition of the importance of inclusive participation and its direct influence on the legitimacy and success of the multi-stakeholder model. This model aims to involve various stakeholders, including governments, civil society, academia, and the private sector, in decision-making processes related to internet governance.

However, surveys and research indicate that there is a significant number of crucial voices and stakeholders who are not aware of or involved in these discussions, presenting a serious challenge to the model's legitimacy. The lack of inclusive participation places a responsibility on the participants currently involved in internet governance to address this concern.

It is argued that in order to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model, broader communities should be meaningfully engaged in decision-making processes. This requires finding ways to include perspectives from underrepresented groups and ensuring that diverse voices are heard and taken into account.

By doing so, the multi-stakeholder model can truly reflect the needs and interests of all stakeholders involved. Another argument put forward is the need to strengthen existing forums rather than creating multiple new ones. One representative of a small state expresses concerns about the practicality and efficiency of following discussions in multiple forums.

She suggests that reinforcing the forums already in place can lead to better utilization of resources and expertise. This approach can also foster deeper engagement and allow for more focused discussions. By consolidating efforts and resources, the internet governance community can maximize its impact and effectiveness.

Furthermore, the sharing of best practices and tangible measurable results within the internet governance community is advocated. A report from ODA highlights the potential for more focused dialogues between experts, leading to the identification and dissemination of best practices. It is proposed to measure the work done within these forums to increase clarity on the impact achieved.

This can help draw more groups into the discussions and encourage participation from diverse stakeholders. By sharing and utilizing meaningful results, the internet governance community can enhance its effectiveness and drive positive change. In conclusion, inclusive participation, the strengthening of existing forums, and the sharing of best practices and measurable results are highlighted as crucial aspects in ensuring the credibility and success of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance.

By addressing the challenge of inclusivity, streamlining efforts, and encouraging collaboration, the internet governance community can enhance legitimacy, drive meaningful outcomes, and foster a more inclusive and representative digital landscape.

Arguments

The need to deepen and broaden participation in internet governance

---

Upgrading the procedural legitimacy framework of Internet governance

---

Considerations on the expansion of the Internet governance system

---

Report

The analysis highlights the crucial importance of deepening and broadening participation in internet governance to enhance its legitimacy. It argues that inclusive participation plays a significant role in boosting the credibility and acceptance of initiatives related to internet governance. However, there is currently a deficit of participation from Global South participants, indicating an urgent need to address this issue.

One key factor in enhancing participation is effective funding. The analysis asserts that financial resources must be made available to ensure that individuals without economic means can actively participate in internet governance discussions and decision-making processes. By providing necessary support, such as travel expenses or technological resources, financial barriers can be overcome, allowing a wider range of voices and perspectives to be included.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that upgrading the procedural legitimacy framework of internet governance is necessary. It recommends reviewing and adopting the foundations of internet governance used in the 2020s, specifically referring to the roadmap developed during the NetMundial process in 2014.

By building on this existing framework, internet governance can be strengthened and made more effective, ensuring the inclusion of diverse stakeholders and promoting fair decision-making processes. In addressing emerging policy questions, the analysis emphasises the need for new processes and institutions to deal with the changing landscape of the internet.

As technology advances, new policy challenges arise, and it becomes crucial to determine the appropriate stakeholders for each issue. This requires careful consideration and deliberation to ensure that all relevant actors are involved and their perspectives are considered. An advocate for a more inclusive, procedural, and adaptable approach to internet governance is Jordan Carter.

According to Carter, a broader base of participation is essential for a truly democratic and effective governance system. Carter also encourages a review of the foundational procedures used in internet governance, suggesting that improvements and adjustments may be necessary to address the evolving needs of the internet ecosystem.

Moreover, highlighting the importance of institutional innovation, Carter emphasises the need to engage the appropriate stakeholders, ensuring that relevant expertise and perspectives are included in decision-making processes. Overall, the analysis stresses the significance of deepening and broadening participation in internet governance for its legitimacy.

It highlights the deficits in participation from Global South participants and emphasises the importance of effective funding to overcome economic barriers. Additionally, it suggests upgrading the procedural legitimacy framework, establishing new processes and institutions, and engaging appropriate stakeholders to address emerging policy questions.

Jordan Carter's advocacy supports these points, emphasising the need for inclusivity, procedural improvements, and innovation in internet governance.

Arguments

Nadia Tjahja is inviting exploration of three publications assessing the legitimacy of multistakeholderism in internet governance

---

Youth are creating new spaces within the IGF when they see that the processes that they're getting involved with do not reflect or engage in the manner that they find approachable

---

Tokenized participation implies the failure of meaningful participation, making it essential to analyze how and why they are not able to meaningfully participate

---

Report

Nadia Tjahja, a PhD fellow at the United Nations University and the Free University of Brussels, is conducting a thorough investigation into the legitimacy of multistakeholderism in internet governance. This exploration is being carried out through three publications that provide insights into the topic.

Tjahja's objective is to facilitate meaningful participation from various stakeholders and social groups in multistakeholder initiatives such as ICANN, ITF, and IGF. The research reveals that youth are playing a critical role in creating new spaces within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) when they perceive that the existing processes do not effectively engage them.

This highlights their agency and underscores the need for inclusivity in internet governance. However, a challenge to meaningful engagement arises in the form of tokenized participation, where individuals or groups are given superficial representation without having a genuine impact on decision-making processes.

This issue emphasises the importance of analysing and understanding the reasons why meaningful participation for such individuals is not feasible. Tjahja's research suggests a pyramid of participation, drawing on the elements of Arnstein's ladder, to illustrate how individuals integrate within the IGF.

This conceptual framework provides insights into the various levels of engagement and elucidates the failure of tokenized participation to enable meaningful involvement. Furthermore, the significance of continuous evolution and feedback in youth participation at the IGF is highlighted. The YouthDIG initiative actively engages previous participants to gather their feedback and suggestions for improvement.

Participants are also given the opportunity to join the YouthDIG org team, empowering them to implement the changes they desire. This approach fosters a dynamic and responsive environment, prioritising the voices of young individuals in shaping internet governance. The analysis of Tjahja's work underscores the importance of promoting diverse and inclusive participation in internet governance, particularly within multistakeholder initiatives.

It also sheds light on the challenges posed by tokenized participation and the necessity of continuous evolution and feedback. By addressing these issues, the aim is to create a more equitable and effective framework for shaping the future of internet governance.