The Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance, ICANN, and Business Stakeholders - Practices of Hegemonic Power

Abstract

This research examines the relationship between the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and three groups of business stakeholders who participate in the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. The authors argue that ICANN's use of 'participatory evangelism' serves as a device for the production of hegemonic power within the Internet governance model. By performing textual linguistic analysis on archival transcripts of triannual meetings from 2012 until 2016, the study operationalises hegemony as a dependent variable by linking stakeholder participation to the Internet governance policy-making agenda. By first identifying a 'master variable' that characterises the most general understanding of the data, statistical methods were used to construct a model with hegemony as a response variable. Furthermore, Analysis of Variance and Panel Data models were applied to measure variation in tone across the three groups of business stakeholders to understand how hegemony is produced. Our findings show that by using language that expresses hesitation and uncertainty, but at the same time is resolute with less complex discourses, the business sector stakeholders contribute to the production of hegemony that would theoretically benefit ICANN. This research underscores the importance of language and discourse as a driver of power within the Internet Governance.

ICANN’s dotCommunities: Analysing the construction of DNS-appropriate communities in the new gTLD programme

“…ICANN is an institution that holds control over a set of communicative resources used to shape and normalize a certain conceptualization of the Internet, its governance and the users that inhabit it (see Epstein, 2011; Hofmann, 2016; Mueller, 2002; Van Klyton et al, 2018). Shape it according to an ideology that developed as a response to the privatization of the DNS in the late 20th century (Mueller, 2002, 2010).…”

“…It should be noted that ICANN has gone through a series of transformations over the last decade. The most notable are its decoupling from the US Department of Commerce, the incorporation of the UN human rights resolutions into its bylaws (Milan and Ten Oever, 2017) and promotion of the multi-stakeholder regime (Van Klyton et al, 2018). The impact of these changes should not be overstated, nor seen as somehow undermining either ICANN’s authoritative position or the core property-rights foundation of the regime.…”

“…. the actual decision-making authority has remained very resistant to change’ (p. 8), with others claiming that this ‘participatory evangelism’ has only served to ‘reinforce power positions in internet governance’ (Van Klyton et al, 2018: 29).…”

“…Through its operations, ICANN exerts a great degree of power over production of knowledge around the core functions of the DNS. Surrounded by giants of industry and representatives of nation states, it is the body that – through engagement with supporting organizations and independent contractors (Waye, 2015) – has the final say in how political issues or concerns resolve (Van Klyton et al, 2018), determining how technology is used and developed. ICANN is the only authority that can – with input from others – legitimize and confirm applicants to be ‘communities’, welcoming those that fit and excluding those that do not.…”