The internet, its governance, and the multi-stakeholder model

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of key issues and concepts related to discussions of the internet, its governance, and its multi-stakeholder model. Design/methodology/approach – The method adopted is to discuss definitions of internet, to identify the key characteristics of internet, to define the multi-stakeholder approach, and to discuss the results it has achieved. Findings – The article finds that the internet is different from other networks, albeit not exactly in the ways that are commonly mentioned, and it finds that the internet's current governance mechanisms can be improved, in particular by increasing the role of more traditional governance mechanisms such as intergovernmental organizations. Originality/value – The analysis and conclusions are not found in previous literature, and they are meant to provoke further research and discussion.

Exploring the tensions and incongruities of Internet governance in Africa

“…The experience of these countries illustrates how inseparable national policymaking is from the political deliberations happening at the international level. The international level depends on state participation, forming what DeNardis (2014), Hill (2014) and others have argued is a multistakeholder model that involves states, private sector and NGOs engaging in consensus building through dialogue. African governments have achieved stakeholder status by making significant changes to the institutional structure of national governance.…”

“…In realising the potential benefits of ICTs, the governance structure at the international level has adopted a participatory, multistakeholder model that seats representatives from business, government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) around the table to form consensus about how the Internet should be run. This model and the entailed role of each stakeholder emerged from the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (Hill, 2014) in order to assuage concerns about the United States' cultural and economic dominance over the Internet. While the international governance structure promotes a dialogic model emphasising representativeness and fairness, the costs of 'joining' and sustaining membership should not be underestimated, particularly for African countries hoping to develop their economies through ICT investment.…”

The Future of Internet Governance: Dystopia, Utopia, or Realpolitik?

“…At times it is used to refer to the network properly speaking, at times it is used to refer to the very broad collection of products and services that are made available using networks based on the TCP/IP protocol, and at times it is used as a paradigm for free and open communications [21]. In this paper we will use the broad definition adopted in 1995 by the US Federal Networking Council [22 footnote xv]:…”

“…This paper discusses three particular issues that have been extensively discussed in formal intergovernmental forums, in particular in preparations for WSIS [32 para. [15][16][17][18][21][22] in the ITU. They are (1) issues related to the management of Internet domain names and addresses; (2) the financial issues related to the increasing use of the Internet; (3) issues related to the relative lack of security of the Internet, including spam and lack of privacy.…”

Privacy and Big Data: The Need for a Multi-Stakeholder Approach for Developing an Appropriate Privacy Regulation in the Age of Big Data

“…He adds that openness and accountability of this "round table" are important process criteria for developing an effective internet regulation acceptable to all parties. Similarly Hill (2014) argues that a multi-stakeholder dialogue is necessary for designing an appropriate regulation of the internet.…”