Productive Contestation, Civil Society, and Global Governance: Human Rights as a Boundary Object in ICANN

Abstract

Human rights have long been discussed in relation to global governance processes, but there has been disagreement about whether (and how) a consideration for human rights should be incorporated into the workings of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), one of the main bodies of Internet governance. Internet governance is generally regarded as a site of innovation in global governance; one in which civil society can, in theory, contribute equally with government and industry. This article uses the lens of boundary object theory to examine how civil society actors succeeded in inscribing human rights as a Core Value in ICANN's bylaws. As a "boundary object" in the negotiations, the concept of human rights provided enough interpretive flexibility to translate to the social realities of the various stakeholder groups, including government and industry. This consensus-building process was bound by the organizing structure of the boundary object (human rights), and its ability to accommodate the interests of the different parties. The presence of civil society at the negotiating table demanded a shift in strategy from the usual "outsider" tactics of issue framing and agenda setting, to a more complex and iterative process of "productive contestation," a consensus-building process fueled by the differences of experience and interests of parties, bound together by the organizing structure of the boundary object. This article describes how this process ultimately resulted in the successful adoption of human rights in ICANN's bylaws.

“This is not how we imagined it”: Technological affordances, economic drivers, and the Internet architecture imaginary

“…This compounded theoretical lens allows me to jointly take into account the shaping of institutional configurations, technological orderings, economic drivers, and the collaboration among disparate groups and competitors facilitated by a joint vision. This approach enables me to analyze the Internet architecture as a site of contestation (ten Oever, 2019), as an assemblage of power (DeNardis, 2014), and “as a normative ‘system of systems,’ and to unpack ‘the micro practices of governance as mechanisms of distributed, semi-formal or reflexive coordination, private ordering, and use of internet resources’” (Epstein et al, 2016), without defaulting to a reductionist approach.…”

What is the role of civil society in Internet governance? Confronting institutional passive perspectives with resource mobilization in Portugal

“…However, this formal recognition has not been translated into a linear process of acknowledging which civil society (which movements, which interests) is entitled to participate. ten Oever (2019, p. 40) argues that “civil society plays a uniquely important role in the IG ecology because its motivations are different from those of other stakeholders,” namely the defense of human rights, also playing a crucial part in educating citizens about their rights (Daskal, 2018).…”

Internet Architecture and Human Rights: Beyond the Human Rights Gap

“…In the second contribution, Niels ten Oever builds on his experience as a human rights advocate within ICANN to reflect on what the organized civil society rightly considers a success story: in 2016, ICANN included a respect for “internationally recognized human rights” as one of its Core Values enshrined in the organization's Bylaws. Combining ethnographic observations with document analysis, ten Oever shows how human rights functioned a “boundary object,” an “arrangement which allows people to achieve some form of coordination without necessarily requiring consensus” (ten Oever, , p. 3). Thanks to its interpretive flexibility, the notion of human rights could be embraced by distinct stakeholders with diverging agendas.…”