MINILATERALISM OR

MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM?

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECT

@ChrisTMarsden

WTI Berne workshop

8 December 2013

1

Where do we locate Internet governance?

• Much attention to putative multistakeholder model

• In both plurilateral and multilateral institutions

• E.g. ICANN, OECD, ITU, IGF post-WSIS

• Some attention to standards-making and implementing

• IETF, W3C, ETSI, NIST

• Significant recent light shed on unilateralism

• US role in NSA revelations #postsnowden;

• Historically, USTR Special 301 measures on copyright important

• China Great Wall much-derided example now out of fashion

• Some light shed on minilateralism

• Fewest parties that can make an international agreement effective

2

Minilateralism: Five or More Eyes?

• Often overlooked: 5 Eyes intercontinental colonial alliance

• US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ

• Based on WWII settlement

• Very significant contribution from shy NATO allies

• Including France, Germany

• With significant corporate involvement to make it work

• Verizon, Vodafone, BT, Level3, Global Crossing

• Inheritors of Eastern Telegraph and ITT?

• Does it meet minilateralism definition?

3

Minilateralism: a ‘coalition of the willing’?

• Moisés Naím, Editor in Chief, Foreign Policy, 1 July 2009• http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/minilateralism

• Bemoans lack of progress on trade liberalisation and nuclear

non-proliferation, Kyoto Protocol etc.

• “These failures represent not only the perpetual lack of

international consensus, but also a flawed obsession with

multilateralism as the panacea for all the world's ills.”

• “We need to abandon that fool's errand in favor of a new idea.

• “By minilateralism, I mean a smarter, more targeted approach:

• We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of

countries needed to have the largest possible impact on

solving a particular problem.

• “Think of this as minilateralism's magic number.”

4

Eckersley, Robyn (2012) Moving Forward in the

Climate Negotiations: Multilateralism or Minilateralism?

• Global Environmental Politics Vol. 12, No. 2, Pages 24-42

• July 24, 2012 (doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00107)

• “inclusive multilateralism is unlikely to produce a timely

climate treaty, while exclusive minilateralism is elitist,

procedurally unjust, and likely to be self-serving.

• “Instead, I defend inclusive minilateralism,

• based on “common but differentiated representation,”

• “or representation by the most capable, the most

responsible, and the most vulnerable.”

• Sounds like the IETF?

5

Oxford Martin School (2012)

Now for the Long Term• “inclusive minilateralism” and “multi-stakeholder coalition”:

• countries (a “C-20” utilizing the existing G-20),

• companies (a “C-30” selecting 30 companies affiliated to the World

Business Council for Sustainable Development), and

• cities (working through the existing C40 Cities initiative).

• “We also discuss the idea that if the US and China, a C-2

could come to an agreement, others would fall into line”• McDonald, L. (2013) What to Make of the Warsaw COP – Michele de Nevers

http://international.cgdev.org/blog/what-make-warsaw-cop-%E2%80%93-michele-de-nevers

• Not unlike 2001 Digital Opportunities Taskforce

• G8/corporate partnership

• Which somewhat led to UNCTAD ICT4D Taskforce

6

Develops from a few (liberal) states?

• See “Regulating Code”• Case studies in policy transfer US->UK->EU

• Copyright enforcement policy• SOPA and TTIP

• Pushback from old Europe?

• Privacy and surveillance policy• Developed from encryption debate

• Social networking and behavioural ads• More in rhetoric than reality

• Network neutrality• Ongoing saga – EU Regulation stalled

7

Illiberal alternative minilateralism?

• WCIT disagreement 2012

• BRIC suggestions of re-routing BGP

• ‘Splinternet’ post-Sao Paolo• http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2013/11/18/unified-field-the-splinternet/

• Storms in tea-cups? • High-level cooperation

• ICANN’s many many panels• http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html

8

Machiavellian minilateralism;

Bismarckian ‘might is right’• Who will be at the table in new Congress of Vienna or

Congress of Berlin, how would it affect multistakeholders?

• “Many issues around surveillance centre on national

security, state sovereignty and international law.

• “IGF, with its multi-stakeholder framework and weak

governance structures, is ill-equipped to respond.

• “Most importantly there is little actual power – either

functional or discursive – located within the IGF.”• Wagner Ben (2013) After the IGF 2013 – Bali barely relevant in the run-

up to Rio (sic), http://cgcsblog.asc.upenn.edu/2013/11/12/after-the-igf-

2013-bali-barely-relevant-in-the-run-up-to-rio/

9

Bill Drake (2011) No Paradigm Shift

• “substantial chunk of actual decision-making that shapes

Internet and its use at both the national and global levels

remains outside the model of multistakeholderism

• model is best conceived of as critically important component of the

distributed institutional architecture of Internet governance,

• rather than the embodiment of a ‘paradigm shift’”• Drake, William (2011) Multistakeholderism: External Limitations and Internal

Limits. MIND: Multistakeholder Internet Dialog, Co:llaboratory Discussion

Paper Series No. 2, Internet Policymaking, 68-72, Berlin: Co:llaboratory.

• “considerable weight of decisions taken elsewhere [likely to]

• soon reduce this international forum to a friendly conversation

between true and false naives under disguise of enlightened debates”

• Massit-Folléa, F. and F. Musiani (2009) Recollections of Egypt

• Comments on Fourth Annual Meeting of Internet Governance Forum, Vox Internet,

http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/voxinternet/www.voxinternet.org/spipc8dd.html?article340

10

Musiani (2013)

Re-assess or be [further] marginalised• “Hailed in the early days of the WSIS/IGF process, multi-

stakeholderism …[needs] realistic and thorough assessment”

• “nitty gritty” details, day-to-day struggles, and material constraints of

• who participates, when, for what reasons, and how practical results

can be measured and leveraged for concrete next steps.

• revisit “categories” of stakeholders outlined by WSIS,

• in favour of a more nuanced approach

• (e.g. what actors are regrouped under the label of civil society)

• Acknowledge gap between “nominal and effective participation”

• devise creative tools to address it• Musiani, F. (2013) WSIS+10: the self-praising feast of multi-stakeholderism in

internet governance, Policy Review http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/wsis10-

self-praising-feast-multi-stakeholderism-internet-governance

11

IGP on ICANN: accountability meltdown?

• “ICANN is a nonprofit corporation with no voting

members;

• “it offers the industry ‘contracts’ but it has no competition

and so there are no alternatives to them;

• “it is a form of government with no effective judicial review,

• no real law guiding it, and no ability to avoid it or withdraw support.

• “Instead of real accountability, it offers us endless

opportunities for nonbinding participation and comment.”

• “Thus the accountability vacuum is built into ICANN’s DNA

• ever since membership was abolished more than a decade ago.”

• http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/08/31/icanns-accountability-

meltdown-a-four-part-series/

12

Council of Europe ministerial conference:

effective safeguards against mass surveillance

Press release - DC140(2013) Belgrade, 08.11.2013

• Adequate effective guarantees against electronic mass surveillance

abuses or “may undermine or even destroy democracy”

• They renew their commitment to do no harm to the Internet

and to preserve it as a universal, integral and open space.

• Examine communications data gathering by security agencies

• Guidelines for protecting journalists/others in public watchdog functions

• Guide of rights for Internet users (draft consultation with stakeholders)

• http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/belgrade2013/default_EN.asp?http

://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/belgrade2013/default_FR.asp?

13

Plea for a balanced diet

• Holistic examination of Internet governance

• Not a new plea – or an idea out of time

• Likely to require significant research resource

• require networks of specialists to cross-analyze

• E.g. specialists in each of the fields identified

• Idea for Global Internet Policy Observatory (EC)?

14

Workshop ideas

• 21 October, Bali: measuring multistakeholderism

• Plurilateral agencies (OECD, Council of Europe, European

Commission), corporations, civil society, engineers, academics

• 22 November, London:

• Post-Snowden Internet standards making

• Powell (LSE), Brown (Oxford), Clark (MIT), Marsden (Sussex)

• 3 March 2014, London: Pre-IETF 89 meeting

• Powell, Brown, Cooper (IAB), others

• Hopefully future Internet Science workshops too…

• But does not replace a fully funded research project

15

Measurement: traditional &

innovative methodology• Relationship between old and new methods

• interpretive and multi-method research design.

• content, design, discourse and textual analyses,

• interviews, observation, surveys and creative method

• Social network & content analysis, in-depth interviews, surveys

• Digitalisation of conventional processes

• (recording interviews and coding texts),

• combination of human research techniques with digital tools

• Relationship of researchers, and communities studied

• Ethics to engage with community members, discussions, informal

16

Multi-stakeholderism in ICT governance:

realistic and thorough assessment?• WSIS “summit” status

• (not a permanent intergovernmental organisation)

• only enabled it to make recommendations crafted by consensus.

• WSIS organised civil society

• reclaimed its right to be heard alongside governments/companies

• WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance)

• Internet Governance Forum

• embodying principle of multi-stakeholderism

• Practical results of this participation measured

17

Some recent literature in the field• Pavan, E. (2012) Frames and Connections in the Governance of Global

Communications: A Network Study of the Internet Governance Forum, Lexington

• Powell, Alison (2012) Assessing the Influence of Online Activism on Internet Policy-Making: The Case of SOPA/PIPA and ACTA http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2031561

• DeNardis and Raymond (2013) Thinking Clearly About Multistakeholder Internet Governance http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2354377

• Benkler, Yochai et al (2013) Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate. Berkman Center No. 2013-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2295953

• Brown, I. ed (2013) Research Handbook on Internet Governance: http://www.eelgar.com/bookentry_main.lasso?currency=UK&id=14173

• Brown and Marsden (2013) 'Regulating Code' MIT Press

• Brousseau, E., Marzouki, M., Méadel, C. eds (2012) Governance, Regulations and Powers on the Internet. Cambridge Press

• Brown, I., Clark, D., Trossen, D. (2011) “Should Specific Values Be Embedded In The Internet Architecture?” Proceedings of the Re-Architecting the Internet workshop. New York: ACM Press.

• Mantelero, A., “U.S. concern about the European right to be forgotten and free speech: much ado about nothing?”, Contratto e Impresa Europa, 2012, 727-740; [ISBN 978-88-13-31669-3]

18

Internet Society Responds to Reports of USG

Circumvention of Encryption Technology

Lynn St. Amour:

• “Any systematic, state-level attack on Internet security

and privacy is a rejection of the global, collaborative fabric

that has enabled the Internet's growth to extend beyond

the interests of any one country.”

• deeply concerned that these principles are being eroded

• users' legitimate expectations of online security treated with contempt

• To fulfill its potential, the Internet must be underpinned by

the right combination of technology, operational

processes, legislation, policy, and governance.

• USG programmes systematically undermined some or all of those

19

As the institutional home of the Internet

Engineering Task Force (IETF) • open and transparent processes are essential for security

standardization,

• result in better outcomes than any alternative approach.

• protocols developed by IETF are open for all to see, inspect, verify,

• as are open and inclusive processes by which they are specified.

• Ah but….

20

IETF Response To Pervasive Monitoring

• IETF 88 Vancouver stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Nov 7 2013

• “The actions of NSA and their partners (nation-state or

corporate, coerced or not) are a multi-faceted form of

attack, or are indistinguishable from that

• “We should do and be seen to be doing as much as we

can to counter this attack, and now is the time

• publicity counts and the attackers haven't just crossed a line,

they've moved it

• “NOTE: “we” in all the above means the IETF and each of

us outside the IETF”

21

Stephen Farrell suggestions

● “There are technical things we can do that might significantly affect the cost of pervasive monitoring and that can improve security and privacy generally

● “Some of those are short-term “point” changes (or BCPs), others may take time to be agreed, mature and get deployed

● “If we're serious about tackling the problem, some changes may affect IETF processes, long-held positions, deployments or business models

– Mantatory-to-Implement (MTI) vs. more-than-MTI

– Confidentiality vs packet inspection

– Anonymity/pseudonymity vs authent/law enforcement/advertising”

22

IETF Chairman Jari Arkko:

• “IETF has a long-standing commitment to openness and

transparency in developing security protocols for the

Internet, and sees this as critical to confidence in their use

and implementation.”

• http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/09/security-and-pervasive-monitoring/

• Security standards must be properly implemented and used.

• This is a wake-up call for technology developers and adopters to re-

examine what we can do to ensure that all links in the chain are

equally strong.

• This is key to helping restore public trust and confidence in the

Internet.

23

To every citizen of the Internet:

• let your government representatives know that,

• even in matters of national security,

• you expect privacy, rule of law, and due process in any

handling of your data.

• we remain committed to advancing work in areas such as

• browser security, privacy settings, and digital footprint awareness

• In order to help users understand and manage their privacy and

security.

• The citizens of the Internet deserve

• a global and open platform for communication

• built on solid foundations of security and privacy.

• Security a collective responsibility involving multiple stakeholders

24

In this regard, we call on those:

• involved in technology research and development:

• use the openness of standards processes like the IETF

• to challenge assumptions about security specifications.

• who implement technology and standards for Internet security:

• uphold that responsibility in your work,

• and be mindful of the damage caused by loss of trust.

• who develop products/services depending on trusted Internet:

• secure your own services, and

• be intolerant of insecurity in the infrastructure on which you depend.

• every Internet user:

• ensure you are well informed about good practice in online security,

and act on that information.

• Take responsibility for your own security.

25