Power Plays in Global Internet Governance
| Author | Madeline Carr |
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829814562655 |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Forum: Global Governance in the Interregnum |
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2015, Vol. 43(2) 640 –659
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829814562655
mil.sagepub.com
MILLENNIUM
Journal of International Studies
Power Plays in Global Internet
Governance
Madeline Carr
Aberystwyth University, UK
Abstract
The multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance has emerged as the dominant
approach to navigating the complex set of interests, agendas and implications of our increasing
dependence on this technology. Protecting this model of global governance in this context has
been referred to by the US and EU as ‘essential’ to the future of the Internet. Bringing together
actors from the private sector, the public sector and also civil society, multi-stakeholder Internet
governance is not only regarded by many as the best way to organise around this particular issue,
it is also held up as a potential template for the management of other ‘post-state’ issues. However,
as a consequence of its normative aspirations to representation and power sharing, the multi-
stakeholder approach to global Internet governance has received little critical attention. This
paper examines the issues of legitimacy and accountability with regard to the ‘rule-makers’ and
‘rule-takers’ in this model and finds that it can also function as a mechanism for the reinforcement
of existing power dynamics.
Keywords
Internet, global governance, cyber, Gramsci
Introduction
The emergence of a global computer network and the intensification of our reliance upon
it has been the source of some fascinating political challenges over the past two and a half
decades. The Internet prompts debate about the relative merit of standards versus rules, of
pluralism versus solidarism, of security versus privacy. And perhaps most significantly, it
prompts debate about the value of these (and other) binaries and the necessity of thinking
creatively about how to approach large technological shifts like the Information Age.
Corresponding author:
Madeline Carr, Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, SY23 3FE,
Wales, UK.
Email: madeline.carr@aber.ac.uk
562655MIL0010.1177/0305829814562655Millennium: Journal of International StudiesCarr
research-article2014
Forum: Global Governance in the Interregnum
Carr 641
1. Malcolm Turnbull, ‘Australia is committed to a multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance’,
press release on Malcolm Turnbull MP website, 15 March 2014. http://www.malcolmturnbull.
com.au/media/australian-committed-to-a-multi-stakeholder-system-of-internet-governance.
2. Fadi Chehadé, ‘Largest Ever ICANN Meeting Convenes in London Affirmation of
Multistakeholder Model for Internet Governance by World Leaders’, press release on ICANN
website, 23 June 2014. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-06-23-en.
3. Greg Walden, opening statement at the ‘International Proposals to Regulate the Internet’,
hearing before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 31 May 2012, Washington, DC, p.
2.
4. Bertrand de la Chapelle, ‘Towards Multi-Stakeholder Governance – The Internet Governance
Forum as Laboratory’, Internet Governance: Infrastructure and Institutions (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 256–70.
5. Some notable contributions include Jean-Marie Chenou, ‘Is Internet Governance a Democratic
Process? Multistakeholderism and Transnational Elites’, paper presented at the ECPR
Conference, 2011; Dan Drezner, ‘The Global Governance of the Internet: Bringing the State
Back In’, Political Science Quarterly 119, no. 3 (2004): 477–98; Bart Cammaerts, ‘Power
Dynamics in Multi-stakeholder Policy Processes and Intra-civil Society Networking’, in The
Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy, eds Robin Mansell and Mark Raboy
(Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2011), Laura DeNardis and Mark Raymond, ‘Thinking Clearly
about Multistakeholder Internet Governance’, paper presented at the Eighth Annual GigaNet
Symposium, Bali Indonesia, 21 October 2013; Laura DeNardis, The Global War for Internet
Governance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014); Milton Mueller and Ben Wagner,
‘Finding a Formula for Brazil: Representation and Legitimacy in Internet Governance’,
Center for Global Communication Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, http://
www.global.asc.upenn.edu/fileLibrary/PDFs/MiltonBenWPdraft_Final.pdf.
One of the key areas of debate has been the governance of the Internet. All computer
networks require some level of administration but the distributed nature of the Internet
and its deeply political, economic and cultural implications mean that coordination and
negotiation in this context is contentious and the site of considerable power struggles.
Over the past decade, multi-stakeholderism has become almost synonymous with global
Internet governance. In March 2014, Australian Communications Minister, Malcolm
Turnbull issued a statement declaring that Australia supported ‘an open Internet which is
administered by multi-stakeholder organisations like ICANN and NOT [sic] by govern-
ments’ in either a multi-lateral or supra-national form.1 In June 2014, Fadi Chehadé, head
of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) declared that the
50th ICANN meeting in London was a milestone meeting due to ‘the remarkable affir-
mations of the multi-stakeholder model’.2 In a hearing on proposed Internet regulation,
US Congressman Greg Walden argued that ‘weakening the multi-stakeholder model
threatens the Internet, harming its ability to spread prosperity and freedom’.3 Not only is
the multi-stakeholder model widely regarded as the best approach to governance of the
Internet, some also regard it as offering a model for the renovation of global governance
more generally.4
Somewhat surprisingly, multi-stakeholder Internet governance has not benefited from
as much critical analysis as its relative weight might suggest it would.5 Discussed pre-
dominantly within the Internet community, it has taken on a strong normative component
in a similar way to that in which terms like ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘Internet freedom’
To continue reading
Request your trial