Politeia of the Internet

MIND #2
Internet Policy Making
Inhaltsverzeichnis
PDF Download

---

Responses - Stakeholder Private Sector

Peter Hellmonds, Nokia Siemens Networks

Abstract
The multistakeholder model of governance introduced within the framework of the Internet governance debate is a welcome addition to more traditional forms of governance. It enhances transparency and inclusiveness, thus helping decision-makers to adequately take into account the different viewpoints on the issues, and provides for an exchange of viewpoints between the different stakeholder groups that other single-constituent organizations lack.

Politeia of the Internet

Introduction

“Rather than being a challenge to democracy, multistakeholder governance can foster it, enrich- ing existing representative democracy frameworks and empowering citizens in our interconnected and interdependent world.” Bertrand de La Chapelle

For the last couple of years we have worked on finding the right approach to Internet governance. Bertrand brings us an interesting perspective on the multistakeholder governance model which, in the words of Nitin Desai, former chairman of the Internet Governance Forum, began as an “experiment” conducted within the WSIS. In Bertrand’s view the specific public policy challenges of Internet governance are best served by a new model of governance whose legitimacy is based on equal representation of members from different stakeholder groups, as opposed to state and state actors alone. He claims that the shift to this new model is akin to a paradigm shift, changing the way we view the world.

The Internet Governance Forum started out in Athens in 2006 as an experiment in multistakeholder dis- cussion and non-binding consensus finding, following the decision by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis 2005. And Athens, as the cradle of democracy, provided a fitting background for the launch of this experiment. Here, Plato and Aristotle once discussed the merits of the various forms of government, and we may recall how Aristotle described in Book VIII of the Nicomachean Ethics the merits of the different kinds of “constitutions”, or forms of government, and how every good form of government deteriorates into its negative counterpart because human nature causes people to put their own interests first. And because, in practice, all ideal forms of government would sooner or later deteriorate into their negative counterparts, he concludes that of the various options, “[d]emocracy is the least bad of the deviations,” because in essence the various self-interests of the people are tempered by the self-interest of everyone else.

When we talk about models of governance on the Internet, we do talk about how to create a mechanism by which the interests of the “netizens”, the citizens who utilize the so-called “cyberspace” for their social and commercial interactions, can best be preserved. And one of the main questions is whether citizens or netizens should look for their elected parliamentarians and professional ministry officials or seek to find their representation in the multistakeholder model and thus more directly influence the discourse in the manner of a global “politeia”. Looking at the distinctive nature of the Internet, there are two important observations: first, that the borders of the physical world do not have the same equivalent on the Inter- net, and second, that the citizens active on the Inter- net are sometimes better informed and better or- ganized than the elected representatives or the professional executives charged with overseeing the interests of their constituencies.

In the past, there were two main constraints preventing a more direct participation of citizens and requiring the utilization of elected representatives: distance and (lack of) expertise. With cyberspace spanning the entire globe the distances go beyond those tradition- ally being managed by national representatives. And the issues are quite technical and complex at times, with voluminous papers needing to be digested. Therefore, experts are needed with the global breadth and deep technical knowledge and we have to consider how best to assure that the right policy choices are being made in this environment. On the one hand, the Internet itself provides two remedies against the distance and the expertise problems: first of all, as long as you are connected to the Internet (with a decent access speed), you can theoretically participate live in all discussions and deliberations online, thus obviating the need for an elected representative to cover the distances and to be physically present at meetings. Secondly, the Internet itself provides for extensive access to knowledge, especially when the agencies involved transparently provide their docu- mentation online, and there are perhaps more experts in the various technical communities than in the official government authorities.

However, is this sufficient to proclaim that we no longer need representatives to defend our interests on the Internet and in Internet governance? Perhaps not. Not every citizen has the time or technical background or even the inclination to follow and participate in every debate concerning his interests. Hence, there is still a certain need for some sort of representa- tion. But clearly, with many of the issues on the Internet being, by their very nature, transnational, the dominance of national representatives or legislators imposing the narrow interests of their constituencies on the governance of the global Internet is not likely to be workable; not on a national and especially not on a global scale.

However, simply allowing “interested” parties, whether multistakeholders or not, to follow their own self-interest in discussing the Internet governance issues is problematic. Indeed, it could pose a risk by allowing the few minorities with a clear monetary or other specific interest to throw enough resources behind their issues, thus forcing the silent majorities into situations that may not be in their true best interest. These silent majorities may not be sufficiently informed or incentivized to muster the resources required to protect their own interests, especially in light of the time, money and effort that effective participation requires. There is a real risk that a certain issue, decision-making body or organization could be “captured” by those parties with the most to lose or win. And this risk of capture can not be alleviated by pointing to the option for anyone affected to participate in the meetings themselves. It is simply not far to think that telling the billions of netizens to participate in open meet- ings would be the right remedy against that risk of capture. Because even if the meetings took place online only, i.e. if they would not be offering any advantage to those physically present over those par- ticipating remotely, strong imbalances in terms of levels of expertise and knowledge and the time that is required to acquaint oneself with the issues, would still provide an upper hand to special interest groups with sufficient resources.

So, the netizens will need to have trusted experts who can represent their interests in such discussion fora and decision-making bodies. And here comes the real paradigm shift. In today’s online world, trust is not vested per se in elected or appointed government officials; rather it is earned in online communities where opinion leaders of the Internet age discuss their views publicly and transparently with their online “constituencies”. While this solves the problem of expertise and trust, it still does not solve the problem of the lack of real political legitimacy.

It is for reasons of legitimacy that the multistake- holder governance model can only supplement and enhance, but not replace more traditional forms of governance. The ordinary citizen will continue to look for their parliamentarians, ministers and other government officials for guidance and representation of their interests on the political scene. At the same time, parliamentarians and governments alike have realized that they have a lot to gain from the opportunities of the Internet age in terms of organizing discussions and debates, gaining input on policy formulation, seeking commentary for draft regulations and so on. The many national and regional Internet gover- nance forums that have sprung up and also the various international fora such as the recent e-G8 meeting are examples that show how governments take the views of the various constituencies into account.

From here, let us turn to the different roles assigned to the various stakeholder groups in the WSIS process. The key part of the final WSIS documents was the admission of the multistakeholder model, in which each stakeholder group participates “in their respective roles.” This terminology appears in para- graph 71 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (2005), which describes how the UN Secretary General should start a process of enhanced cooperation, involving “all stakeholders in their respective roles.”

However, the different roles of the various stakeholder groups had already been described at the Geneva phase two years earlier. The Geneva Declaration of Principles (2003), in the paragraphs relating to Internet governance, contains the key to understanding the various roles of the different stakeholders and how they should cooperate. On the one hand, the Geneva Declaration clearly says: “The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” It does not say, however, that all stakeholders would operate on an equal footing. Instead, according to paragraph 49, different stakeholder groups play different roles: “Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.” With this, the States asserted their sovereignty in international organizations and decision-making bodies. “The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields.” As much as the private sector would like to claim the leading role for the development of the Internet, it has only been accorded “an important role”, as a shared responsibility with others. The remaining sections accord to civil society an important role especially at community level. They also grant facilitator roles to intergovernmental and international organizations in terms of coordinating Internet-related public policy issues and the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.

Finally, there is a distinction between the multistake- holder model applied by the Internet Governance Forum and those multistakeholder models that oper- ate on the same level as other institutions and organi- zations. While the Internet Governance Forum derives its legitimacy from being an inclusive discus- sion forum created by the community of states that assembled at the WSIS, it is clear that the IGF was not meant to be a decision-making body or an imple- mentation agency. With the exception of transcripts and the summary of proceedings, the IGF does not publish formal outcomes. Its processes are therefore of a more informative nature. For policy makers and decision-makers from the organizations and institu- tions, attending the open deliberations conducted on an equal footing is beneficial in that it improves their understanding of the issues and underlying senti- ments. This, in turn, should enable them to make bet- ter decisions in their day to day work. On the other hand, those organizations charged with implement- ing policies, overseeing the operation of the network, and assuring security and accountability, may need other forms of organization and legitimacy. For some organizations, the multistakeholder model could be a welcome and workable method of organization. In other organisations, however, for instance where quick decision-making is required, such a model could prove to be too cumbersome.

In conclusion, the multistakeholder model of governance is a welcome addition to the policy formulation process, allowing all viewpoints to be heard. Yet, as a means for making decisions and for implementing policies, there need to be additional sources of legitimacy and methods of organization, depending on the task at hand. The right balance needs to be found between inclusiveness, transparency and effectiveness of action.