Session: Institutional Choice in Global Internet Governance

Time: 
Thu, 2011-09-29 14:30 - 16:00

Concise Description:
Global Internet governance comprises a highly distributed ecosystem of shared institutional frameworks. These vary greatly along multiple dimensions, such as their social purposes, creation, organizational settings, legal forms, strength, scope of issues, domain of actors, decision-making procedures, functions, transparency and accountability, adaptability to change, and mechanisms for monitoring, compliance, and conflict resolution. In addition, they vary in terms of the collective action problems---such as the management of common pool resources and provision of public goods, avoidance of collective bads, operation of joint facilities, coordination or harmonization of policies, or the creation and distribution of rights and benefits---to which they respond, each of which may involve distinctive incentive structures that influence the prospects for cooperation.

While variations in institutional attributes and collective action problems have had clear and consequential effects on the functional performance and stakeholder support of governance frameworks, they have received relatively little focused attention in the IGF and related settings. That is, discussions of global Internet governance frequently concentrate more on the issues to be managed than on the structures of the frameworks through which they are managed. This approach makes it more difficult to functionally rather than just politically assess the relative merits of the approaches that have been taken and to draw lessons about what has worked well or less well. By extension, it also complicates the evaluation of the many proposals now surfacing for new or revised governance arrangements pertaining, inter alia, to enhanced cooperation on global public policies, the IANA function, cybersecurity, the regulation of crossborder harm, the production of “outcomes” in the IGF, the governance of the Internet of things, the further specification of human rights on the Internet, the pursuit of a development agenda, the promotion of networked trade and intellectual property, and so on.

Accordingly, the purposes of the proposed workshop are threefold:

1. To briefly survey what existing global Internet governance frameworks actually look like in terms of institutional attributes and collective action problems, so as to identify the set of tools and parameters we have to work with;

2. To consider the implications of new additions to the tool box, such as multistakeholder frameworks like ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments, and the potential scope of their generalizability; and

3. To consider which tools or combinations thereof might be most optimal with respect to proposals for new or revised governance arrangements for the issues mentioned above.

The workshop would build on the workshop, Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance, held at the ITU’s WSIS Forum in Geneva, 17 May 2011.

From twitter...


marcohv20 (MarcoH v 2.0)

.@adielakplogan "clear correlation between #IPv6 capacity building efforts and deployment" #IGF11 #CIR

2 years 48 weeks ago

moreiras (Antonio M. Moreiras)

RT @sgdickinson: Emily Taylor: In remaining 10 mins of #CIR main session, will cover capacity building & IPv6. Speak fast everyone! #IGF11

2 years 48 weeks ago

sgdickinson (Samantha Dickinson)

Emily Taylor: In remaining 10 mins of #CIR main session, will cover capacity building & IPv6. Speak fast everyone! #IGF11

2 years 48 weeks ago

paulitrix (p8ul1tr3x )

Serious debate on the management of Critical Internet Resources and whether some functions should be centralized #CIR #igf11

2 years 48 weeks ago

sgdickinson (Samantha Dickinson)

Tulika Pandey: the IBSA proposal is a 1st draft not ratified by govt yet. #IGF11 #CIR

2 years 48 weeks ago

dotnxtcon (.nxt)

RT @sgdickinson: Esterhuysen: govts in disagreement with each other often reach agreement at expense of non-govt stakeholders #IGF11 #CIR

2 years 48 weeks ago

sgdickinson (Samantha Dickinson)

Esterhuysen: often govts in disagreement with each other will reach agreement at expense of non-govt stakeholders #IGF11 #CIR

2 years 48 weeks ago

sgdickinson (Samantha Dickinson)

Fiona Alexander: IBSA proposal undermines multistakeholder model. There are ways govt can be involved already. eg ICANN GAC. #IGF11 #CIR

2 years 48 weeks ago

sgdickinson (Samantha Dickinson)

Doria: Rather than meta govt process 4 Net governance, maybe more Internet orgs need to build in more ways 4 gov 2 participate #IGF11 #CIR

2 years 48 weeks ago

asteris (Asteris Masouras)

RT @sgdickinson: Doria: IBSA proposal would be unfortunate direction to take. Could set us back several years in terms of multistakehoder process #IGF11 #CIR

2 years 48 weeks ago