No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Internet Governance Ecosystem and the Rainforest
Abstract
What is Internet governance from a layman's perspective? And why should ordinary people care about it? Compare the Internet governance ecosystem to the rainforest. The Internet has become the planet's nervous system, turning global society heavily dependent on it, because so many modern services rely on Internet connectivity. However, the Internet isn't a "single issue" that must be regulated. In that sense, the Internet, as it has evolved over half a century, penetrates all areas of political, economic, cultural, and social life. Thus, to a high degree, the Internet governance ecosystem is the 21st century's virtual environment. Life without the Internet is unthinkable for today's youth, who will be tomorrow's decision makers. Yet from the 20th-century perspective, everyone knows the consequences of polluting the natural environment; the lesson learned is to be careful with all kinds of environmental harms, keeping real and virtual environments as healthy as possible.
... More specifically, the digital world has multiple decision centers that define standards, norms, and regulations, and that includes international organizations such as the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (UN-ITU), and private organizations that set standards and recommendations on the use of technology, such as ICANN. The NETmundial conference (The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance held in São Paulo in 2014) made clear the importance of multistakeholder systems in the context of the global governance of the Internet (Kleinwächter and Almeida 2015). ...
... However, governments participate in ICANN processes only in an advisory capacity; they do not vote in the ICANN board's decisions. This is an example of a multistakeholder process under private sector leadership (Kleinwächter and Almeida 2015). ...
The use of digital technologies in governance processes has been adopted by both public and private sectors. Digital tools can be applied to promote governance and expand public service delivery and public policy capacities. Artificial intelligence and algorithmic governance increasingly dictate public sector governance decisions. This chapter explores how digital technologies have been used by public administration to implement public policies and services. It also discusses how the use of digital tools for governance entails a new set of risks for governments and firms.
... More specifically, the digital world has multiple decision centers that define standards, norms, and regulations, and that includes international organizations such as the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (UN-ITU), and private organizations that set standards and recommendations on the use of technology, such as ICANN. The NETmundial conference (The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance held in São Paulo in 2014) made clear the importance of multistakeholder systems in the context of the global governance of the Internet (Kleinwächter and Almeida 2015). ...
... However, governments participate in ICANN processes only in an advisory capacity; they do not vote in the ICANN board's decisions. This is an example of a multistakeholder process under private sector leadership (Kleinwächter and Almeida 2015). ...
The utopian vision of the digital world was once viewed as a space without borders and government. As the digital world expanded and turned into a key resource for governments, businesses, individuals and organizations, it became evident the need of governance structures for the digital world. This chapter starts out the analysis of governance structures with concepts from the tragedy of the commons. It explores different elements of digital governance in order to enhance the global systemic trust in the digital world.
... More specifically, the digital world has multiple decision centers that define standards, norms, and regulations, and that includes international organizations such as the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (UN-ITU), and private organizations that set standards and recommendations on the use of technology, such as ICANN. The NETmundial conference (The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance held in São Paulo in 2014) made clear the importance of multistakeholder systems in the context of the global governance of the Internet (Kleinwächter and Almeida 2015). ...
... However, governments participate in ICANN processes only in an advisory capacity; they do not vote in the ICANN board's decisions. This is an example of a multistakeholder process under private sector leadership (Kleinwächter and Almeida 2015). ...
Digital technologies are important tools for supporting economic development and collective action and solving relevant public problems. On the other hand, they have many associated risks, requiring governance mechanisms to protect vulnerable groups of society and to enhance public well-being. This chapter focuses on the design of institutions essential to governing the digital world. It also presents theoretical concepts that might be part of the construction of a digital governance framework.
... In this sense, we chose a set of applicable principles developed in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Conference. 20 Governments and several stakeholder groups, including civil society, private sector, and academia, gathered to discuss issues and principles for Internet governance and roadmap actions for the Internet's future evolution. Among the issues discussed, the scope of Internet governance was preeminent, in the sense of the tension between those who see Internet governance as a mostly technical matter (with, for example, IP numbers, routing and specifications, DNS, and critical resources) and others who approach Internet governance as something that must comprehend and factor important social and political issues, such as privacy, freedom of expression, and human rights in a general sense. ...
The difference between a good and bad Internet of Things depends on society's ability to construct effective IoT governance models. This article proposes the formulation of principles as a means to unify the multiple bodies and organizations involved in the IoT governance ecosystem.
... [8] These include the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) model where governments are involved in advisory capacities; forums such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) where nongovernmental stakeholders were involved but only in consultation; and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), where multiple stakeholders participate, but without decision making authority. Governance issues related to network technologies, cybersecurity and human rights also are addressed by United Nations agencies, including the ITU, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and UNESCO (through its discussion of ROAM -rights, openness, access and multi-stakeholderprinciples), as well as by the World Trade Organization and the World Economic Forum (Kleinwachter and Almeida, 2015). The history of political debate about a new world information and communication order is not discussed here, see Mansell and Nordenstreng (2006). ...
Contests for the control of information and communication networks and, specifically, control of digital bits of power (the capacity to control information processing) in the current period often take the form of struggles over network neutrality. This paper examines how, historically, such struggles have been accompanied by changes in the configuration of ideas or social imaginaries that have legitimized the actions of companies, the state and civil society in relation to the development of networks. The aim is to assess the likelihood that institutional arrangements will be put in place that might privilege citizen interests in preserving an open internet and strengthen the capacity of citizens to resist power asymmetries that threaten their fundamental rights to privacy, access to information, and freedom of expression in the digital environment. Concepts derived from historical institutionalism and the economic history of technical change provide a framework for examining continuity and change starting from the introduction of digital technologies. The analysis shows why a narrow policy focus on network neutrality can obscure the way citizen interests in the digitally mediated environment are subordinated to corporate and state interests, making it difficult to assess whether the current period is path dependent and locked in to a single direction for development or whether there is the potential for alternative pathways - a ‘forking of the road’ - which could be more favourable to citizens.
... The internet is also known as network of networks, which concludes various private , public , academic , and business networks from local to global scope and surrounded by various resources like broad array of electronics, wireless and optical network technologies. The speed of the local machines varies when various nodes are connected to the internet as the connection depends on the Internet Service Providers [1]. Sometimes people also get confused between the words internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) but they are different in nature. ...
Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability, environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.
Internet governance is a key global policy issue in the world today. The growing global dependence on the Internet increases the importance of its governance processes. In this article, the author discusses a few lessons learned from the process of preparing and running the NETmundial meeting, which discussed Internet governance principles and a roadmap for the future Internet ecosystem.