Democracy and global governance: the wager of the Internet Governance Forum.

1. Democracy and global governance:the wager of the Internet Governance Forum.

2. One title, different challenges • the possibility (opportunity, need) to govern global transformations • the possibility and desirability that governing mechanisms contribute to more democratic world politics • the centrality of communication to these processes • Communication as a means for the conduct of political process -“Governance is achieved by the creation of interactive, socio-political structures and processes stimulating communication between the actors involved” (Kooiman, 2003, p. 3) • Communication as an object of policy-making -Information and communication have emerged as “one of the newest and most internationalized areas of public policy and institutional change” (Mueller et al. 2004) • Governing “new” communication as a challenge- “International governance of IT (through global information networks) may epitomize the new forms of governance arising in global politics” (Singh, 2002, p. 18)

3. Addressing the democratic challenge: WHAT Elaborate on how democratic mediating principles - of transparency and publicity, participation and inclusion, representation and accountability, responsiveness and respect for fundamental rights –find their place in political practices. Assess if and how, beyond principles, legitimate inputs, effective outputs and normative outcomes can be associated with governing arrangements.

4. Addressing the democratic challenge: HOW • Looking at Transnational Governance Networks operating around Internet governance related issues, specifically the Internet Governance Forum. • Investigating the democratizing potential of • their discursive interactions • in a multi-stakeholder normative setting • and the fostering of democratic practice • through communication.

5. 1. Towards an analytical framework 2. Introducing the Internet Governance Forum 3. Insights from research

6. Towards an analytical framework

7. Democracy in the global context • Liberal institutionalism • A radical vision of global democracy • A cosmopolitan perspective • A discursive approach (Dryzek 1999, 2000, 2006 - constraining and enabling…) • Investigate the democratization of discourse-related sources of power in the global context by focusing on the actual recognition of such discourses and of the views, ideas, and knowledge they contribute. • Is the global communicative interaction on Internet Governance showing this kind of dispersed, critical and competent discursive influence? • Is discursive representation taking place in Internet Governance debates?

8. Relevance of norms to world politics Norms defined as “Shared expectations or standard of appropriate behaviour accepted by states and intergovernmental organizations that can be applied to states, intergovernmental organizations and/or nonstate actors of various kinds” (Khagram et al 2002: 14). Since WSIS multi-stakeholder principle proposed as solution to crises in the legitimacy of international (and national) institutions, as well as a way to foster more effective, transparent and legitimate decision-making processes concerning complex contemporary issues. MSH: democratic potential versus conceptual problems and constrains Are we witnessing in IG debates and IGF context an emerging norm that, by focusing on actors’ participation AND interaction, touches upon the content of world politics as well as on the processes through which world politics restructuring could take place?

9. Transnational governance networks: theoretical andmethdological challenges

10. Transnational governance networks: building on different theoretical proposals • Khagram, Riker & Sikkink (2002), Restructuring world politics. Transnational Social Movements, Networks and Norms, University of Minnesota Press • Stone (2008) “Global public policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their Networks” in The Policy Studies Journal Vol 36 n. 1 • Sorensen & Torfing (2008), Theories of democratic network governance, Palgrave McMillan

11. Transnational governance networks: an operational definition “Horizontal articulations of interdependent, but operationally autonomous actors, who bring into the interaction their specific interests, perspectives and pursue different goals, who interact through bargaining and negotiation thus producing norms and regulations, and contribute to the production of public purpose - of regulative, normative, cognitive and imaginary nature - within a particular area in the transnational arena”. (PRIN project 2009, elaboration from Sorensen & Torfing 2007)

12. The analytical framework

13. Introducing Internet Governance Forum

14. Internet Governance Forum process 2006 16-17 february: initial consultations 17 may: institution of Multistakeholder Advisory Group on IG assist in the preparatory process 19 may: second round of consultations on IGF in Athen 22-23 may: MAG defined 4 themes to be discussed in Athens 7-8 september: MAG defines the list of panelists, workshop and final porgramme 30 actober – 2 noevmber: First IGF in Athens, Greece 2007 13 february: Taking Stock of Athens meeting 23 may: open consultation in the context of WSIS related events (15-25 maggio) 20 august: MAG mandate renovated 3 september: second open consultation on IGF in Rio de Janeiro 4-5 september: MAG meeting 12-15 november: Second IGF in Rio de Janeiro, Brasile 2005 WSIS Tunis phase: Tunis Agenda art. 72 2008 27-28 february: incontro MAG 3-6 dicembre: third IGF in Hyderabad, India 2009 15-18 november: Fourth IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt

15. The framework applied to the Internet Governance Forum …

16. The wager of the IGF

17. Insights from research

18. A mosaic of investigations and methodologies Digital harvesting software: issue crawler to trace and visualize thematic networks developing, through linkages and virtual ties in the web-sphere, among actors engaged in the IGF process FOCUS ON thematic networks deployed by actors in the on-line space to assess the democratization of discourse-related sources of power (diversity of actors, issues) FOCUS ON modus communicandi adopted by actors through their use of the web as a relational space • Organizational actors’ position in the web-sphere (investing, adopting and using technical functionalities) • Consistence among actors’ web-space self-positioning, usage and democratic guiding principles they publicly promote • Content analysis of documents (from WSIS to IGF): evolution in the use of language concerning MSH • IGF as a model: emerging national and regional Fora FOCUS ON norms evolution, in discourse and practice

19. Internet governance thematic network (March 07)

20. Specific findings from analyses

21. Democratizing discourse through actors’ diversity? • Predominance of .org TLD but internal diversity • Cluster of traditional actors – ICANN; IETF, IANA • (not clustered) Intergovernmental institutions – ITU, WIPO, UN, UNESCO • Civic engagement in IG issues – IP Justice, CPSR • Cluster IGF as a process: 1° IGF has acted a catalyst for actors engagement (differences before/after Athens - before/after Rio) • DCs in our depiction: SSA, A2K@IGF, IBRs

22. Democratizing discourse through issue diversity • Enlarging of IG agenda – RSF, CPTech, FoE online, A2KIGF, IBRs, MSH cooperation • Issue diversity has grown up over time and it is represented by mutual recognition (even if partial) between new and old actors on the IG scene; • Centrality of traditional actors suggests prominence of traditional issues connected to IG (management of critical resources, security, technical standards) • The need for shaping common visions pushes new actors to privilege networking activities among themselves in order to have greater impact

23. Democratizing discourse and power relations • Highly connected clusters and central nodes within them play a more powerful role & the higher the distance from the core of the network the less the influence; • Self referential clusters counterbalanced by the presence of nodes representing new actors (internetpolicy.net) • CRITICAL POINTS • exclusion of the local • North/South divide • role of academia • absence of Private Sector initiatives in this map

24. Democratic mediating valuesin practice Looking at theways in which actors’ modus communicandi creates and nurtures world politics (language and frames, offline and online interactions, innovation in processes through societal learning)

25. Transparency Different ways of understanding and fostering TRANSPARENCY into political processes: Civil society actors versus governmental actors = publicity versus secrecy & control • Governments: enhancing transparency in the attempt to strengthen relations with citizens not yet visible at the supra-national level • Non-governmental actors: A) private sector = no interest; B) public interests groups = for some of them transparency does not emerge as a priority

26. Horizontal interaction, openness and recognition Gap between active involvement in horizontal IG offline debates and the relevance actors attribute to this involvement in their online communication: horizontality offline is not mirrored online DCs spaces allow horizontal and communicative interaction & ICTs sustains interaction in trans-nationally dispersed networks nevertheless DCs members seldom refer to involvement in the IGF process DCs as a model for horizontal exchange and cooperation? Or ad hoc spaces to catalyze actors’ efforts only under specific circumstances?

27. Knowledge as a power resource • Innovation through ICTs • different velocities in innovating existing communication practice • different motivations to innovate through technologies (conservation of traditional power vs. new power brought by technologies) • Consistecy online/offline • Low level of coordination = offline and online communication do not seem to reinforce each other • Lack of integration in media use = preclusion of broad public understanding and support (informed soft-power)

28. Concluding remarks

29. Discourse as a constitutional structure • Shiftfrom centrality of state actors & actors’ diversity  new visions and interests in global debates • Actors’ pluralityleads to enlargement of agenda due to the necessary knowledge they bring into governance networks OPEN ISSUES: • inclusion/exclusion (especially of localities and Global South) • where/who of actual decision-making? Democratization of discourse-related sources of power in Internet Governance context implies diversity of views, ideas, and knowledge to be articulated in the process. Is the global communicative interaction on Internet Governance showing dispersed, critical and competent influence?

30. Networking as democratizing social practice? Networks contributes to democratizing world politics “when they create a venue for representation of stakeholder interests, a means for wider participation in global governance and a venue for societal voices” (Stone 2008). Or when they contribute in re-defining the power structure in terms of “instrumental, structural and meta-power (Singh 2002) Do we observe a democratization of communication through networking practice? • Technology can promote transparency in policy processes: an issue mostly for actors who prioritize a challenge to traditional and instrumental power (Singh 2002) • Horizontality does not seem to have become a strategic objective in redefining structural power in on-line operations • Low intentionality in online networking + no multi-media multiplication: limited meta-power (elite)

31. Operationalizing norms Multi-stakeholderism has the potential to become a democratizing norm, contributing to restructuring world politics by allowing access, and offering different actors the possibility to inform and influence processes. Are we witnessing an emerging norm in global politics concerning actors participation and engagement? Evolution in language: multistakeholderism from WSIS to IGF Evolution in process: different regional and national IGF

32. Next steps • Review, consolidate the framework and refine application to IGF • Update tracing thematic networks on the web • Qualitative reading of websites as for networking practice • Content analysis of documents from WSIS to IGF: focus on stakeholders, actors, multi-stakeholder and concordances • Reconstruction of IGF process: the local/global nexus