Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: The IANA Transition and Internet Multistakeholder Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legitimacy, Power, and Inequalities in the Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Global Governance ((ITGG))

  • 276 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter clarifies the purpose of the study, which is a critical assessment of the multistakeholder model in the Internet governance ecosystem through an in-depth analysis of the so-called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition, probably the most relevant Internet governance multistakeholder process that has occurred in recent years. The chapter points out how multistakeholderism is a fuzzy concept that has led to ambiguous practices and disappointing results. Further, it highlights the discursive and legitimizing nature of multistakeholderism, which can serve both as a performing narrative capable of democratizing the Internet governance domain, as well as a misleading rhetoric solidifying the dominant position of the most powerful actors in different Internet policy-making arenas. Finally, the chapter concludes that a deep investigation of the consistency of the IANA transition process with normative standards of democratic legitimacy for transnational governance could shed light on the evolution of multistakeholderism in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2016/05/CSstatementonIANAtransitionMay2016-1.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2020.

  2. 2.

    Similarly, Fransen and Kolk (2007) in their account of multistakeholder practices outside Internet governance distinguished between involvement, based on the broad inclusiveness of all stakeholder in the decision-making process, and consultation, where some stakeholder groups play only an advocacy role without voting rights.

References

  • Antonova, S. (2008). Deconstructing an Experiment in Global Internet Governance: The ICANN Case. International Journal of Communications Law & Policy, 12(1), 2–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy. Accountability and Effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, M. (2019). When Public Principals Give Up Control over Private Agents: The New Independence of ICANN in Internet Governance. Regulation and Governance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beisheim, M., & Dingwerth, K. (2008, June). Procedural Legitimacy and Private Transnational Governance: Are the Good Ones Doing Better? (Report). SFB Research Center, Freie Universität Berlin, DE. https://www.sfb-governance.de/publikationen/sfb-700-working_papers/wp14/SFB-Governance-Working-Paper-14.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2020.

  • Brousseau, E., Marzouki, M., & Méadel, M. (Eds.). (2012). Governance, Regulation and Powers on the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bygrave, L. A. (2015). Internet Governance by Contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Calandro, E., Gillwald, A., & Zingales, N. (2013). Mapping Multistakeholderism in Internet Governance: Implications for Africa. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2338999. Accessed 14 September 2019.

  • Cammaerts, B. (2011). Power Dynamics in Multi-stakeholder Policy Processes and Intra-civil Society Networking. In R. Mansell & M. Raboy (Eds.), The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy (pp. 131–146). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, M. (2015). Power Plays in Global Internet Governance. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(2), 640–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenou, J. M. (2014). From Cyber-Libertarianism to Neoliberalism: Internet Exceptionalism, Multi-stakeholderism, and the Institutionalisation of Internet Governance in the 1990s. Globalizations, 11(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2014.887387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenou, J. M., & Radu, R. (2014). Global Internet Policy: A Fifteen-Year Long Debate. In R. Radu, J. M. Chenou, & R. Weber (Eds.), The Evolution of Global Internet Governance (pp. 3–22). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogburn, D. L. (2017). Transnational Advocacy Networks in the Information Society. New York: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • DeNardis, L. (2014). The Global War for Internet Governance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doria, A. (2014). Use [and Abuse] of Multistakeholderism in the Internet. In R. Radu, J. M. Chenou, & R. Weber (Eds.), The Evolution of Global Internet Governance (pp. 115–140). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • EU-COM. (2014). Commission to Pursue Role as Honest Broker in Future Global Negotiations on Internet Governance. European Commission Press release. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_14_142. Accessed 19 March 2020.

  • Fransen, L. W., & Kolk, A. (2007). Global Rule-Setting for Business: A Critical Analysis of Multi-stakeholder Standards. Organization, 14(5), 667–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froomkin, A. M. (2000). Wrong Turn in Cyberspace. Duke Law Journal, 50(17), 17–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, G. (2014). No Place to Hide. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalisation of Practise. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp. 43–76). Durham and London: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. (2014). The Internet, Its Governance, and the Multi-stakeholder Model. Info, 16(2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2013-0031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintz, A. (2007). Deconstructing Multi-stakeholder: The Discourses and Realities of Global Governance at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=26199B95118CAF71D7EED700354EDC33?doi=10.1.1.408.5532&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020.

  • Hofmann, J. (2007). Internet Governance: A Regulative Idea in Flux. In R. K. J. Bandamutha (Ed.), Internet Governance: An Introduction (pp. 74–108). Icfai: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, J. (2016). Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance: Putting a Fiction into Practice. Journal of Cyber Policy, 1(1), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, J. (2017). The Multi-stakeholder Concept as Narrative: A Discourse Analytical Approach. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3070583. Accessed 20 September 2017.

  • Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. International Organization, 53, 379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICANN et al. (2013). Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en. Accessed 12 March 2020.

  • Kleinwächter, W. (2011). Editorial (MIND Paper Series, No. 2). Berlin: Internet & Gesellschaft Collaboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koechlin, L., & Calland, R. (2009). Standard Setting at the Cutting Edge: An Evidence-Based Typology for Multi-stakeholder Initiatives. In A. Peters, et al. (Eds.), Non-state Actors as Standard Setters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kummer, M. (2013). Multistakeholder Cooperation Reflections on the Emergence of a New Phraseology in International Cooperation. https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/multistakeholder-cooperation-reflections-on-the-emergence-of-a-new-phraseology-in-international-cooperation/. Accessed 12 March 2020.

  • Malcolm, J. (2008). Multi-stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum. Sidney: Terminus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansell, R. (2007). Great Media and Communication Debates: WSIS and the MacBride Report. Information Technologies & International Development, 3(4), 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, T. (2008). Global Stakeholder Democracy, Power and Representation Beyond Liberal States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, L. M. (1999). ICANN and the Internet Governance. Info, 1(6), 497–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, L. M. (2002). Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, L. M. (2010). Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, L. M., Mathiason, J., & Klein, H. (2007). The Internet and Global Governance: Principles and Norms for a New Regime. Global Governance, 13, 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, L. M., & Wagner, B. (2014). Finding a Formula for Brazil: Representation and Legitimacy in Internet Governance. Internet Policy Observatory. https://global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/09/Finding-a-Formula-for-Brazil-Representation-and-Legitimacy-in-Internet-Governance.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2020.

  • Musiani, F., and Pohle, J. (2014). NET Mundial: Only a Landmark Event If ‘Digital Cold War’ Rhetoric Abandoned. Internet Policy Review, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.14763/2014.1.251.

  • NTIA. (2014). Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions. Accessed 12 June 2020.

  • NTIA. (2016). IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assessment Report. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/iana_stewardship_transition_assessment_report.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2020.

  • Padovani, C. (2012). Democracy and Global Governance: The Wager of the Internet Governance Forum. In F. Massit-Folléa, C. Méadel, & L. Monnoyer-Smith (Eds.), Normative Experience in Internet Politics. Paris: Presses des Mines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padovani, C., & Pavan, E. (2007). Diversity Reconsidered in a Global Multi-stakeholder Environment: Insights from the Online World. In W. Kleinwachter (Ed.), The Power of Ideas: Internet Governance in a Global Multi-stakeholder Environment (pp. 99–109). Berlin: Marketing fur Deutschland GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, D. G., & Kehl, D. (2015). Controlling Internet Infrastructure: The ‘IANA Transition’ and Why It Matters for the Future of the Internet, Part 1. https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/2964-controlling-internet-infrastructure/IANA_Paper_No_1_Final.32d31198a3da4e0d859f989306f6d480.pdf. Accessed 15 September 2018.

  • Radu, R. (2019). Negotiating Internet Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, M., & DeNardis, L. (2015). Multistakeholderism: Anatomy of an Inchoate Global Institution. International Theory. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971915000081.

  • Rioux, M., Adam, N., & Perez, B. C. (2014). Competing Institutional Trajectories for Global Regulation—Internet in a Fragmented World. In R. Radu, J. M. Chenou, & R. Weber (Eds.), The Evolution of Global Internet Governance (pp. 37–56). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (2016). IANA Transition. Journal of Cyber Policy, 1(2), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1238955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santaniello, M. (2016). Net democracy: la sfida democratica all’Internet governance. In E. De Blasio & M. Sorice (Eds.), Innovazione democratica. Un’introduzione (pp. 63–86). Roma: Luiss University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santaniello, M., & Palladino, N. (2017, March 30). Shaping Words to Shape Policy Process: Discourse Coalitions in the Internet Governance Ecosystem. Paper presented at the 1st GIG-ARTS Conference, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Sciences, 11, 303–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. (2010). Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Output, Input and Throughput (KFG Working Paper Series No. 21).

    Google Scholar 

  • Take, I. (2012). Regulating the Internet Infrastructure: A Comparative Appraisal of the Legitimacy of ICANN, ITU, and the WSIS. Regulation and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01151.x.

  • Tallberg, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Scholte, J. A. (2018). Legitimacy in Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eeten, M. J. G., & Mueller, M. (2012). Where Is the Governance in Internet Governance? New Media & Society, 15(5), 720–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. H. (2014). Visions of Political Power: Treaty Making and Multistakeholder Understanding. In R. Radu, J. M. Chenou, & R. Weber (Eds.), The Evolution of Global Internet Governance (pp. 95–114). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. H., & Gunnarson, S. R. (2012). A Constitutional Solution for Internet Governance. Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, 14, 1–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, J. (2000). ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy. Duke Law Journal, 50(1), 187–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, J. (2011). Governments, Privatization and ‘Privatization’: ICANN and the GAC. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 18(1), 189–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • WGIG. (2005). Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. https://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2019.

  • WSIS. (2005). Tunis Agenda For the Information Society. https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html. Accessed 12 October 2019.

  • Zingales, N., & Radu, R. (2015, November 9). In Search of the Holy Grail: A Principled Approach to Multistakeholder Governance in Internet Policy-Making. GigaNet Annual Symposium 2015. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2809920 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2809920. Accessed 12 October 2019.

  • Zittrain, J. (2008). The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political and Social Studies of the University of Salerno, Internet and Communication Policy Centre, Fisciano, Salerno, Italy

    Nicola Palladino & Mauro Santaniello

Authors
  1. Nicola Palladino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mauro Santaniello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Palladino, N., Santaniello, M. (2021). Introduction: The IANA Transition and Internet Multistakeholder Governance. In: Legitimacy, Power, and Inequalities in the Multistakeholder Internet Governance. Information Technology and Global Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56131-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation