Internet Governance and Capacity Building: A View from the Developing World
Internet Governance and Capacity Building: A View from the Developing World
Responses - Stakeholder Private Sector
Waudo Siganga, Computer Society of Kenya
Abstract
The responsibility to create functioning multistakeholder models lies not only with institutions, enabling stakeholders to contribute. It also lies with those stakeholders, including the private sector, to engage and participate in substantive work.
Inhaltsverzeichnis |
Internet Governance and Capacity Building: A View from the Developing World
In some of the African countries the concept of international multistakeholder engagement that came with the World Summit on Information Technology (WSIS) in 2002 / 3 was at first difficult to grasp. Traditionally international engagement has been the preserve, as noted by de La Chapelle in his paper, of governments and inter-governmental agencies. Since the 2003 Geneva meeting was billed as a “Summit”, it was taken as convocation of heads of state and other high ranking persons from the political sphere. There was thus a perceived culture shock when it emerged that the political and governmental dignitaries would be sharing round tables with, amongst others, mere mortals from the private sector. And to further confound matters, the security personnel manning the entrances to the rooms where the round table meetings were held appeared unconcerned about participants arriving without entourages and about security aspects. I was to attend one round table on behalf of the private sector. With me was a colleague from the Far East who was a CEO of a major corporation. However, the rather robust “welcome” at the doors of multistakeholder meeting room caused my colleague to quickly decide against entering and I never set eyes on him again.
Historically, the private sector in the developing world maintained a tradition of non-participation with regard to policy formulation. This was due to the pre-liberalized, monopoly-driven world in which people lived, where the government was the major investor in telecommunications. Over time the private sector evolved in accordance with the circumstances, ultimately becoming a grouping that consumed, rather than co-formulated policy. Multistakeholder partici- pation thus served to confuse both the government and the private sector in equal measure. It was obvious from the start that bringing the private sector to the table would require time, effort and re-orientation. To this day, developing country private sector participa- tion in multistakeholder policy-making (including Internet Governance at the international level) remains conspicuously low.
I observed some of the early confusion generated by the multistakeholder model at 2 prep-coms for the Tunis meeting, one in Accra and the other in Cairo. During these two meetings, there were concerted efforts, and even report outcomes, to formulate an “Africa” position to the then heated debate on Internet Governance. The efforts to have a “continental position” and later on “national Positions” were in themselves an indicator that the multistakeholder paradigm was not properly understood. Positions based on geography were the traditional way of doing things. This traditional way is exclusionary as it ignores the importance of dissenting and minority views.
The wording used for the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in the Tunis Agenda also served to heighten confusion, due, perhaps, to its exhibiting what de La Chapelle refers to as “construc- tive ambiguity”. On first appearance, the formulation “In their respective roles” suggested that Internet Governance was primarily about the status quo con- tinuing. After all, since governments were tradition- ally the sole participants at inter-governmental meetings to discuss policy, policy discussion could be regarded as their “respective role”. The definition of Internet Governance was perhaps not clear enough in explaining that the concept was new.
I must point out, however, that despite generalizing in the observations above as regards “developing countries” and “Africa”, these regions are not necessarily analogous in their reactions to and relationships with the multistakeholder model. Each country and region has its idiosyncratic characteristics. For example in some, there is higher Internet Governance participation and awareness than in others. The observations are nevertheless meant to illustrate what could be considered common trends rather than the specific circumstances of a country/region.
At this point I would like to move away from the historical perspective and consider the current status and projections of multistakeholder governance of the Internet in Africa. The potential pitfalls articu- lated by de La Chapelle provide good foundation for this analysis:
Ensuring Truly Inclusive Participation
Some of the observations made by de La Chapelle are accentuated in the developing countries. Participation, particularly from non-governmental actors, is relatively poor due to “lack of awareness, funds, or time”, not just with regard to taking part in the international “travelling circus” but also with respect to gatherings at national and regional levels. The point made by de La Chapelle that private sector players are unwilling to participate due to the perceived lack of a business proposition cannot be over-emphasized. If the IGF process (and ICANN by extension) is to reach out to these players, extra effort must be directed towards linking their day-to-day business require- ments to the outcomes of the participatory process. An additional difficulty is the previously mentioned historical disinclination of private sector players to participate in public policy formulation. Bringing such players on board will thus, for the most part, require a culture shift.
Combating Information Overload
As far as private sector players in the developing countries are concerned, this has a direct bearing on the business benefits of participation. Perusing the documentation that accompanies Internet Governance processes has a cost, and unless this cost can be directly translated into benefits, the private sector may be unwilling to participate.
Synthesizing Discussions
With particular reference to the IGF, the issue of “outcomes” has been, to say the least, controversial. And yet on the opposite scale, the business community takes the idea of activities in which regular out- comes and progress can be charted seriously. The mere fact the IGF is a non-decision-making mechanism is enough to extinguish enthusiasm for participation.
Preventing Captures
This would be of real concern to private sector players from developing countries. These players know that on the international stage of policy-making, government has a head-start due to historical reasons. Large corporate from the developed world also have a comparative head-start. The developing world private sec- tor players probably do not participate in the processes as they feel un-comfortable lining up with those from large corporations in the west who understand the issues better.
Composing Diversified Working Groups
he model described here by de La Chapelle, and which is a pre-requisite of equal footing participation by all, is a complex one and not easy to achieve, least of all in a developing country. For example, how does one hold elections for a group comprised of disparate groups like government, civil society and business? Multistakeholder working groups that come about are therefore highly unlikely to boast an ideal composition. The few existing examples have demonstrated that these groups usually feature a dominant contingent – e.g., government or civil society – that drives the process.
The Neutrality of Steering Groups
De La Chapelle observes that at international level (IGF and ICANN) no perfect method has been developed for forming steering groups. If this issue is still controversial on an international level, it goes without saying that it is an even worse problem on local levels in Africa and other developing countries. This has a knock-on effect in that it discourages those who perceive the process of forming these steering commit- tees as unfair, from participating.
Reaching Closure
This point, as with two earlier points, relates to the lack of business benefits and to synthesizing discussions. Business people in particular have a penchant and necessity to participate in activity that has definitive closure. This is because the activity needs to be measured and monitored. De La Chapelle observes that the nature of multistakeholder discussion is such that it makes attaining closure difficult. This poses a major problem in the developing world, in terms of encouraging participation among actors from the business worlds.
Building Legitimacy
The importance that developing countries lend to legitimacy in the multistakeholder processes in Internet Governance cannot be over-emphasized. In their, eyes, everything needs to fit into a tidy pigeon hole and, so far, multistakeholder Internet Governance cannot be said to have overly achieved this. For example during the Vilnius IGF meeting, I met some participants from Africa who had basic questions such as: “Who runs the IGF?” “Who funds it?” etc. In most cases multistakeholder participation, especially in a format with no decision-making role, is an abstract proposition that is not easy for some players from the developing world to comprehend. They would far prefer a process anchored in some international treaty and which clearly defines decision-making powers. I have also observed questions relating to legitimacy being raised at the localized levels of national and regional IGFs. Those involved question, for instance, question whether the success that these regional efforts have enjoyed so far is not due in part to the novelty of the process, and whether enthusiasm might not wither as the question of legitimacy becomes ever more salient.
Conlusion
Certain attributes of the impact or otherwise of the multistakeholder model in Internet Governance can be said to relate to the developing world, and to Africa in particular; this despite the fact that each country and region falling under this category displays its own particularities and nuances. Some countries have a higher level of awareness and participation than others, but it can be argued that the aforementioned pitfalls with regard to implementation of the model apply universally to this group of countries. Overall, the challenges facing the adoption of the multistake- holder model of Internet Governance in the West are amplified when the model is applied to the developing world – and to Africa in particular. One of the major challenges is the lack of adequate participation and, unless remedial measures such as capacity building (particularly as regards non-traditional actors like the private sector) are undertaken, Internet Governance will remain a preserve of the few.
