The general principle of participation in decision-making that impacts on the lives of individuals has been part of the Internet from its outset, accounting for much of its success.
[1] It recognizes the value of multistakeholder participation, incorporating users and a user-centric perspective as well as all other actors critical to developing, using and governing the Internet across a range of levels.
It is possible to define a number of broad categories of stakeholders in the Internet, with subgroups as well: states, businesses and industries, NGOs, civil society, international governmental organization, research actors, individuals, and others.
[6] The legitimacy thus ascribed to multi-stakeholder decision-making is closely tied to 'the expectation of a higher quality of policy outcomes',[7] or simply 'better governance'.
There is continued disagreement about what the definition of multi-stakeholder participation in governance actually is or should be,[11] issues of due recognition,[12] the scope of participation and unequal nature of representation – particularly from developing countries and civil society participants,[13] the (in)ability to reach consensus,[14] the exclusivity of some ostensibly inclusive processes and the unwillingness to listen to different views,[15] attempts to establish legitimacy,[16] the sometimes slow pace of multi-stakeholder mechanisms,[15] as well as the increasing number of stakeholders and complexity of challenges involved as the importance of the Internet to everyday life and economies becomes increasingly clear.
However, three general concerns that are frequently mentioned in the literature, relate to the conspicuous dominance or absence of certain participants, especially the private sector; how multi-stakeholder mechanisms should be balanced with multilateral arrangements; and what the relationship between Internet governance at national and international levels is or should be.
[26] The Internet is defined by open, distributed, interconnected, participatory, and bottom-up processes[27] – features that match multi-stakeholder participation in specific regard to its governance.
Using the results of the Kenya stakeholder analysis, participants from the media, business, civil society, academic, and development sectors were invited to an initial meeting in October 2004.
[39] KICTANet was created as a loose alliance[40] at this meeting with the specific aim of developing an ICT policy framework for the country.
This case is viewed as one of the first attempts for initiatives to become more concrete, formal, accountable, and tangible, rather than merely aspirational,[49] and identifiable therefore as being covered by what has come to be known as the 'digital constitutionalism umbrella'.
A focus group participant pointed out that dividing the process into these two phases allowed stakeholders sufficient time to develop positions on key aspects of the Bill.
[58] The final version[59] explicitly notes that to aid the development of the Internet in Brazil, mechanisms must be established to enhance and guarantee multi-stakeholder, transparent, collaborative, and democratic participation between private actors, civil society, and academia (Art.
[60] While the WSIS process outcomes and CGI.br Principles also provide important reference points for Brazil's adoption of multi-stakeholder approaches in international fora where Internet governance is concerned.
[61] The Constitutional challenge in the Republic of South Korea illustrates not only a multi-stakeholder model but also the importance of having strong institutions like an independent judiciary to protect human rights online.
On 24 August 2012, the South Korean Constitutional Court unanimously ruled[62] that certain user identity verification provisions in the country were unconstitutional.
[63] For five years, the provisions had required all major website operators in the Republic of South Korea[64] to obtain, verify, and store personal identification details from any user wanting to post anything on their platforms.
[66] While he acknowledged the need to protect citizens from 'legitimate concerns regarding crimes perpetrated via the Internet and the responsibility of the Government to identify such persons', he also warned about potential chilling effects and the 'impact of such identification systems to the right to freedom of expression, which is rooted in anonymity'.
These discussions became more vibrant after YouTube disabled its Korean page and published a blog post explaining and defending its global stance on freedom of expression.
Civil society organizations presented concerns to the Court about the effects the provisions were having on fundamental rights and the value of online anonymity.
[69] Professor Keechang Kim considers that: "What happened in South Korea really shows some of the very serious shortcomings or negative consequences if Internet-related policies are taken in a very one-sided, top-down manner."
[74] One writer, for instance, points out that:[75] "The IGF is the first organisation in Internet governance whose founding was explicitly based on the multi-stakeholder principle."
[77] The IGF's mandate is tasked with, among other things, discussing public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance by facilitating the exchange of information and best practices and by making 'full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities'.
It is, at least in theory, multi-stakeholder in composition,[78] and should furthermore strengthen and enhance 'the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries'.
The case of the IGF's BPF Gender illustrates the difficulties of promoting multi-stakeholder participation in Internet governance when certain, especially potentially contentious, topics are involved.
[85] The research process was envisioned to include consultations at a range of global forums and a written questionnaire sent to key actors, but also a series of publications on important Internet Freedom related issues as encryption, hate speech online, privacy, digital safety and journalism sources.
process can benefit from different viewpoints in addressing the complex and diverse stakeholder concerns inherent to an Internet governance challenge.
needs are met as far as is reasonably possible, especially where potentially contentious topics related to the future and evolution of the Internet are concerned.