Global Standard-setting in Internet Governance

Abstract

This introductory chapter charts the debate on and importance of global standard-setting for the Internet and for Internet governance more broadly. Despite being highly contested, the importance of standards-developing organizations (SDOs) for ensuring and maintaining the openness, interconnectivity, and security of the Internet are critical. Their utility is outlined before setting out the central guiding questions, and aims and objectives of the book, theoretically and empirically. The added value of the approach taken in relation to SDO decision-making is explicated. The chapter then details developments within SDOs to address the public interest. It concludes with the structure, argument, and logic of the remaining chapters, with explanation of the choice of case studies, namely privacy/security, mobile communications standards, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and copyright. Each chapter in the book assesses the public interest in SDO decision-making and the mechanisms that have affected the direction of standards’ development.

Internet Fragmentation, Political Structuring, and Organizational Concentration in Transnational Engineering Networks

“…Central meeting places are needed to facilitate the negotiation of communication standards. Key arenas include the IETF, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (for an overview, see Harcourt et al, 2020). Studies of these institutions have been concerned about fragmentation.…”

“…Scholars argue that governments understand the political effects of engineering networks, monitor these networks, and seek to influence participants' behavior (Harcourt et al, 2020;Mueller, 2017;Musiani et al, 2016). For example, the IETF has been a key site for negotiations over improved encryption of internet traffic since the 'Snowden affair' (de Nardis, 2015;Harcourt et al, 2020). Furthermore, some anecdotal evidence indicates that governments have the tools to influence actors in engineering networks.…”

“…The IETF is of course only one engineering network. Other cases exist, for example, in the W3C or IEEE (Harcourt et al, 2020). The IETF is interesting, however, because unlike the IEEE it focuses exclusively on internet-related standards and unlike the W3C, which was founded in 1994, it has existed for a longer period.…”

“…Yet, is the internet at risk of fragmentation? Policy and academic literature has approached this question by focusing on divergent policies at the national level (Drake et al, 2016; Freedom House, 2018), the spread of the Internet Protocol (Mueller, 2017), and the consolidation of internet governance institutions (Harcourt et al, 2020; de Nardis, 2014). We adopt a complementary, yet distinct approach.…”

A step back to look ahead: mapping coalitions on data flows and platform regulation in the Council of the EU (2016-2019)

“…In recent years, EU digital policies have attracted a growing attention from scholars, partly due to the acceleration of EU legislative activities on key internet-related issues, such as data protection and cybersecurity. This trend reflects a broader pattern of states' increasing engagement with internet governance and policymaking to exercise power in and through cyberspace (Deibert & Crete-Nishihata, 2012;DeNardis, 2014;Harcourt et al, 2020;Radu et al, 2021).…”