Democracy and global governance:

the wager of the Internet Governance Forum.

IG3T seminar - Paris, June 12 2009Forms of execution and institutionalizationof Internet governance

Claudia PadovaniDSSP

Università di Padovaclaudia.padovani@unipd.it

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)

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.

Addressing the democratic challenge: WHAT

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.

1. Towards ananalytical framework

2. Introducing theInternet Governance Forum

3. Insights from research

Towards ananalytical framework

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?

Relevance of norms to world politicsNorms 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?

Transnational governance networks: theoretical andmethdological challenges

FEATURESof the field

THEORETICALCHALLENGES

NETWORK APPROACH& focus on

communication

Uncertainty

Complexity

Diversity/Dynamics

Definingboundaries

Conceptualframeworks

Analysingemerging trends

Setting network boundaries:nominalist and realistapproaches combined

Focus on relations amongactors and not (only) on their

attributes

A horizontal representationof dynamic processes –

building or removing tiesamong actors

Features of GMCG:

why a network approach?

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

“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)

Transnational governance networks:an operational definition

Th

e analytical fram

ewo

rk

Discursive interaction THE DISCURSIVE CONTEXT

Communicative interaction should be problematized in reference to its democratic potential: are processes inclusive? Participation happens on equal bases? What is the relevance of competence, skills and knowledge in discussion? Does an arguing logic prevail over an instrumental logic (Risse 2000)? This recalls democratic mediating principles of openness and inclusion, representation

Norm THE POSSIBLE OUTCOME

The cognitive and normative dimensions are relevant to both interaction frameworks and outcomes; they refer to the inter-subjective definition of the very standard of behaviour according to which actors interact but also (re)define their identities and interests… This recalls democratic mediating principles of accountability, responsiveness, fundamental rights

Network approach RELATIONAL DYNAMICS AND PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC PURPOSES

Focus on relational dynamics that underline production of public purposes, more than actors’ attributes: interaction among actors, but also among ideas, values, interest, discourses … This recalls democratic mediating principles of transparency, publicity, (horizontal) participation

IntroducingInternet Governance Forum

Internet Governance Forum process

2005WSIS Tunis phase:

Tunis Agenda art. 72

200616-17 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

200713 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

200827-28 february: incontro MAG

3-6 dicembre: third IGF in Hyderabad, India

2009

15-18 november: Fourth IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt

The framework applied to theInternet Governance Forum …

Discourse Internet Governance ß WGIG ß Annan 2004 ß Tunis mandate

Norm Multi-stakeholderism ß Definition ß Problematic aspects ß A life cycle?

Transnational Network

Internet Governance Forum (DCs)

Where discourses and norms interact through engagemen t of actors in a specific setting

Th

e wag

er of th

e IGF

Discursive interaction THE DISCURSIVE CONTEXT

Is the global communicative interaction on Internet Governance showing dispersed, critical and competent influence? > diversity assessed through thematic networks

Norm THE POSSIBLE OUTCOME

Are we witnessing an emerging norm in global politics? one that, by focusing on participation and actors’ interaction, touches upon the content of world politics restructuring as well as on the processes through which restructuring could take place? > norm emergence investigated through ref to documents and IGF developments

Network approach RELATIONAL DYNAMICS AND PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC PURPOSES

Do we observe a democratization of communication through networking practice? Are the mediating values of democracy part of the IGF discourse if we look at the practice of use of I CTs and digital conversations? > looking at use of technologies and reference to democratic mediating values in the online discourse

Insights from research

A mosaic of investigations and A mosaic of investigations and methodologiesmethodologies

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

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

•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

FOCUS ON norms

evolution, in discourse and

practice

•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

Internet governance thematic network Internet governance thematic network (March 07)(March 07)

Specific findings from analyses

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@IGF, IBRs

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

Democratizing discourse and Democratizing discourse and power relationspower 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 localNorth/South dividerole of academiaabsence of Private Sector initiatives in this map

Democratic mediating values

in 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)

TransparencyTransparency

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

Horizontal interaction, Horizontal interaction, openness and recognitionopenness 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?

Knowledge as a power resourceKnowledge 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)

Concluding remarks

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?

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?

Discourse as a constitutional Discourse as a constitutional structurestructure

Networking as democratizing social Networking as democratizing social practice?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)

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?

Operationalizing normsOperationalizing norms

Evolution in language: multistakeholderism from WSIS to IGF

Evolution in process: different regional and national IGF

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