Democracy and global governance: the wager of the Internet Governance Forum.

1
Democracy and global governancethe wager of the
Internet Governance Forum.
2

• One title, different challenges
• the possibility (opportunity, need) to govern
  global transformations
• the possibility and desirability that governing
  mechanisms contribute to more democratic world
  politics
• the centrality of communication to these
  processes
• Communication as a means for the conduct of
  political process - Governance is achieved by
  the creation of interactive, socio-political
  structures and processes stimulating
  communication between the actors involved
  (Kooiman, 2003, p. 3)
• Communication as an object of policy-making -
  Information and communication have emerged as
  one of the newest and most internationalized
  areas of public policy and institutional change
  (Mueller et al. 2004)
• Governing new communication as a challenge -
  International governance of IT (through global
  information networks) may epitomize the new forms
  of governance arising in global politics (Singh,
  2002, p. 18)

3
Addressing the democratic challenge WHAT
Elaborate on how democratic mediating principles
- of transparency and publicity, participation
and inclusion, representation and accountability,
responsiveness and respect for fundamental rights
find their place in political
practices. Assess if and how, beyond principles,
legitimate inputs, effective outputs and
normative outcomes can be associated with
governing arrangements.
4
Addressing the democratic challenge HOW

• Looking at Transnational Governance Networks
  operating around Internet governance related
  issues, specifically the Internet Governance
  Forum.
• Investigating the democratizing potential of
• their discursive interactions
• in a multi-stakeholder normative setting
• and the fostering of democratic practice
• through communication.

5
1. Towards an analytical framework 2.
Introducing the Internet Governance Forum 3.
Insights from research
6
Towards an analytical framework
7
Democracy in the global context

• Liberal institutionalism
• A radical vision of global democracy
• A cosmopolitan perspective
• A discursive approach (Dryzek 1999, 2000, 2006 -
  constraining and enabling)
• Investigate the democratization of
  discourse-related sources of power in the global
  context by focusing on the actual recognition of
  such discourses and of the views, ideas, and
  knowledge they contribute.
• Is the global communicative interaction on
  Internet Governance showing this kind of
  dispersed, critical and competent discursive
  influence?
• Is discursive representation taking place in
  Internet Governance debates?

8
Relevance of norms to world politics
Norms defined as Shared expectations or standard
of appropriate behaviour accepted by states and
intergovernmental organizations that can be
applied to states, intergovernmental
organizations and/or nonstate actors of various
kinds (Khagram et al 2002 14). Since WSIS
multi-stakeholder principle proposed as solution
to crises in the legitimacy of international (and
national) institutions, as well as a way to
foster more effective, transparent and legitimate
decision-making processes concerning complex
contemporary issues. MSH democratic potential
versus conceptual problems and constrains Are
we witnessing in IG debates and IGF context an
emerging norm that, by focusing on actors
participation AND interaction, touches upon the
content of world politics as well as on the
processes through which world politics
restructuring could take place?
9
Transnational governance networks theoretical
andmethdological challenges
10
Transnational governance networks building on
different theoretical proposals

• Khagram, Riker Sikkink (2002), Restructuring
  world politics. Transnational Social Movements,
  Networks and Norms, University of Minnesota Press
• Stone (2008) Global public policy,
  Transnational Policy Communities and their
  Networks in The Policy Studies Journal Vol 36 n.
  1
• Sorensen Torfing (2008), Theories of
  democratic network governance, Palgrave McMillan

11
Transnational governance networks an operational
definition
Horizontal articulations of interdependent, but
operationally autonomous actors, who bring into
the interaction their specific interests,
perspectives and pursue different goals, who
interact through bargaining and negotiation thus
producing norms and regulations, and contribute
to the production of public purpose - of
regulative, normative, cognitive and imaginary
nature - within a particular area in the
transnational arena. (PRIN project 2009,
elaboration from Sorensen Torfing 2007)
12
The analytical framework
13
Introducing Internet Governance Forum
14
Internet Governance Forum process
2006 16-17 february initial consultations 17
may institution of Multistakeholder Advisory
Group on IG assist in the preparatory
process 19 may second round of consultations
on IGF in Athen 22-23 may MAG defined 4 themes
to be discussed in Athens 7-8 september MAG
defines the list of panelists, workshop and final
porgramme 30 actober 2 noevmber First IGF in
Athens, Greece
2007 13 february Taking Stock of Athens
meeting 23 may open consultation in the context
of WSIS related events (15-25 maggio) 20 august
MAG mandate renovated 3 september second open
consultation on IGF in Rio de Janeiro 4-5
september MAG meeting 12-15 november Second IGF
in Rio de Janeiro, Brasile
2005 WSIS Tunis phase Tunis Agenda art. 72
2008 27-28 february incontro MAG 3-6
dicembre third IGF in Hyderabad, India
2009 15-18 november Fourth IGF in Sharm El
Sheikh, Egypt
15
The framework applied to the Internet Governance
Forum
16
The wager of the IGF
17
Insights from research
18
A mosaic of investigations and methodologies

• Digital harvesting software
• issue crawler to trace and visualize thematic
  networks developing, through linkages and virtual
  ties in the web-sphere, among actors engaged in
  the IGF process

FOCUS ON thematic networks deployed by actors in
the on-line space to assess the democratization
of discourse-related sources of power (diversity
of actors, issues)
FOCUS ON modus communicandi adopted by actors
through their use of the web as a relational space

• Organizational actors position in the web-sphere
  (investing, adopting and using technical
  functionalities)
• Consistence among actors web-space
  self-positioning, usage and democratic guiding
  principles they publicly promote

• Content analysis of documents (from WSIS to IGF)
  evolution in the use of language concerning MSH
• IGF as a model emerging national and regional
  Fora

FOCUS ON norms evolution, in discourse and
practice
19
Internet governance thematic network (March 07)
20
Specific findings from analyses
21
Democratizing discourse through actors diversity?

• Predominance of .org TLD but internal diversity
• Cluster of traditional actors ICANN IETF,
  IANA
• (not clustered) Intergovernmental institutions
  ITU, WIPO, UN, UNESCO
• Civic engagement in IG issues IP Justice,
  CPSR
• Cluster IGF as a process 1 IGF has acted a
  catalyst for actors engagement (differences
  before/after Athens - before/after Rio)
• DCs in our depiction SSA, A2K_at_IGF, IBRs

22
Democratizing discourse through issue diversity

• Enlarging of IG agenda RSF, CPTech, FoE
  online, A2KIGF, IBRs, MSH cooperation
• Issue diversity has grown up over time and it
  is represented by mutual recognition (even if
  partial) between new and old actors on the IG
  scene
• Centrality of traditional actors suggests
  prominence of traditional issues connected to IG
  (management of critical resources, security,
  technical standards)
• The need for shaping common visions pushes new
  actors to privilege networking activities among
  themselves in order to have greater impact

23
Democratizing discourse and power relations

• Highly connected clusters and central nodes
  within them play a more powerful role the
  higher the distance from the core of the network
  the less the influence
• Self referential clusters counterbalanced by
  the presence of nodes representing new actors
  (internetpolicy.net)
• CRITICAL POINTS
• exclusion of the local
• North/South divide
• role of academia
• absence of Private Sector initiatives in this map

24
Democratic mediating valuesin practice
Looking at the ways in which actors modus
communicandi creates and nurtures world
politics (language and frames, offline and online
interactions, innovation in processes through
societal learning)
25
Transparency

• Different ways of understanding and fostering
• TRANSPARENCY into political processes
• Civil society actors versus governmental actors
• publicity versus secrecy control
• Governments enhancing transparency in the
  attempt to strengthen relations with citizens
  not yet visible at the supra-national level
• Non-governmental actors A) private sector
  no interest B) public interests groups for
  some of them transparency does not emerge as a
  priority

26
Horizontal interaction, openness and recognition

• Gap between active involvement in horizontal IG
  offline debates and the relevance actors
  attribute to this involvement in their online
  communication
• horizontality offline is not mirrored online
• DCs spaces allow horizontal and communicative
  interaction
• ICTs sustains interaction in trans-nationally
  dispersed networks
• nevertheless
• DCs members seldom refer to involvement in the
  IGF process
• DCs as a model for horizontal exchange and
  cooperation?
• Or ad hoc spaces to catalyze actors efforts only
  under specific circumstances?

27
Knowledge as a power resource

• Innovation through ICTs
• different velocities in innovating existing
  communication practice
• different motivations to innovate through
  technologies (conservation of traditional power
  vs. new power brought by technologies)
• Consistecy online/offline
• Low level of coordination offline and online
  communication do not seem to reinforce each other
• Lack of integration in media use preclusion of
  broad public understanding and support (informed
  soft-power)

28
Concluding remarks
29
Discourse as a constitutional structure

• Shift from centrality of state actors actors
  diversity ? new visions and interests in global
  debates
• Actors plurality leads to enlargement of agenda
  due to the necessary knowledge they bring into
  governance networks
• OPEN ISSUES
• inclusion/exclusion (especially of localities and
  Global South)
• where/who of actual decision-making?

Democratization of discourse-related sources of
power in Internet Governance context implies
diversity of views, ideas, and knowledge to be
articulated in the process. Is the global
communicative interaction on Internet Governance
showing dispersed, critical and competent
influence?
30
Networking as democratizing social practice?
Networks contributes to democratizing world
politics when they create a venue for
representation of stakeholder interests, a means
for wider participation in global governance and
a venue for societal voices (Stone 2008). Or
when they contribute in re-defining the power
structure in terms of instrumental, structural
and meta-power (Singh 2002) Do we observe a
democratization of communication through
networking practice?

• Technology can promote transparency in policy
  processes an issue mostly for actors who
  prioritize a challenge to traditional and
  instrumental power (Singh 2002)
• Horizontality does not seem to have become a
  strategic objective in redefining structural
  power in on-line operations
• Low intentionality in online networking no
  multi-media multiplication limited meta-power
  (elite)

31
Operationalizing norms
Multi-stakeholderism has the potential to become
a democratizing norm, contributing to
restructuring world politics by allowing access,
and offering different actors the possibility to
inform and influence processes. Are we witnessing
an emerging norm in global politics concerning
actors participation and engagement?
Evolution in language multistakeholderism from
WSIS to IGF Evolution in process different
regional and national IGF
32
Next steps

• Review, consolidate the framework and refine
  application to IGF
• Update tracing thematic networks on the web
• Qualitative reading of websites as for
  networking practice
• Content analysis of documents from WSIS to IGF
  focus on stakeholders, actors, multi-stakeholder
  and concordances
• Reconstruction of IGF process the local/global
  nexus