Abstract
This chapter focuses on the throughput legitimacy of the IANA transition process. Throughput legitimacy refers to the “black box” of a governance system, particularly the legitimacy of the processes through which the different views, interests, and positions that participants bring to a multistakeholder initiative (or, more generally, in a decision-making process) are transformed into an outcome. The analysis takes into account the procedural quality of the IANA transition to assess if its institutional design gave equal and meaningful opportunities to all involved actors to participate and influence the outcome. Further, the discursive quality of the process is investigated, considering the extent to which the IANA transition was close to the ideal-type of deliberative procedure, and whether the process was flawed by hegemonic discursive practices that inhibited minority points of view.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-20140408-20140428a.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2020.
- 3.
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/reviewing-iana-transition-proposal. Accessed 12 June 2020.
- 4.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-accountability-participation-statistics-2015-11-04-en. Accessed 12 June 2020.
- 5.
https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission119.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2020.
- 6.
https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission126.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2020.
- 7.
- 8.
The two positions were raised at an early stage of the debate. In particular, refer to meetings 1, 13, and 14 of the RF3, and meetings 11, 18, 20, 21, 23, 31, and 32 of the CWG-Stewardship. All the transcripts are available at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings (Last accessed December 2019).
- 9.
The NTIA oversight has been defined “clerical” or “administrative” in reference both to the performance review and the authorization of the delegation or re-delegation process (the process assigning or re-assigning a TLD to a manager and inscribing it in the root file). For example, the NTIA role has been described as a “technical administrative policy review” (SSAC member, RFP3 Meeting 1); an “administrative task involving some technical issues, some technical checks and so forth” (GNSO member, CWG Meeting 4); and “a very clerical and notarial function” (ICANN Staff, CWG Meeting 12). In particular, the issue was investigated during CWG meetings 7 and 8.
- 10.
ALAC member, RFP 3 Meeting 1.
- 11.
“I think ICANN is the steward at that point to the extent that they remain in. And the job of us and the accountability group together is to make sure that that is appropriately and adequately an accountable stewardship” (GNSO member, CWG Meeting 32).
- 12.
GNSO, Non-Commercial User Constituency member, CWG Meeting 11.
- 13.
ISP member, CWG Meeting 7. See also discussion held in RFP3B Meeting 1.
- 14.
GNSO member, RFP3 Meeting 1.
- 15.
The point was particularly clearly by several ccNSO, civil society, and academic members during CWG Meeting 32.
- 16.
The argument was raised mainly by GAC and ccTLD representatives during the CWG Meeting 7.
- 17.
Conceptions of separability were widely debated during the 7th and 11th CWG meetings.
- 18.
See CWG Meetings 7 and 9 transcriptions.
- 19.
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-state-net-conference-1272015. The Strickling statements was one of the points in the agenda of the 14th meeting of the CWG-RFP3 subgroup on February 2, 2015. They were also crucial in the 32nd CWG Meeting discussions, where the internal model prevailed.
- 20.
Please refer to attendance data at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Attendance+Log+CWG-Stewardship. Accessed 12 June 2020.
- 21.
USG submission to WGIG, 2004, https://www.wgig.org/docs/usa.doc (Last accessed 16 March 2020).
- 22.
IEEE submission to WSIS + 10, 2015, https://publicadministration.un.org/wsis10/ (Last accessed 10 March 2020).
- 23.
However, since Netmundial and the approval of the Marco Civil, Brazil moved toward a constitutional discourse. Its approach to Internet governance mixes state regulation, multistakeholder governance, and effective commitment to human rights.
- 24.
JustNet and APC submission to WSIS + 10, 2015, https://publicadministration.un.org/wsis10/ (Last accessed 10 March 2020).
- 25.
Delhi Declaration, available at https://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration (Last Accessed 16 March 2020).
- 26.
Please refer to conversations held during RFP3b meeting on January 14, 2014, where many participants of different constituencies agreed in defining IANA functions as “clerical,” “administrative,” “technical,” or “operational.” https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51417868 (Last Accessed 16 March 2020).
References
Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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/en/publikationen/sfb-700-working_papers/wp14/SFB-Governance-Working-Paper-14.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2020.
Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437.
Chambers, S. (1996). Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
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.
Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In A. P. Hamlin & P. Petitt (Eds.), The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State (pp. 18–34). Oxford: Wiley.
Dellmuth, L., Scholte, J., & Tallberg, J. (2019). Institutional Sources of Legitimacy for International Organisations: Beyond Procedure Versus Performance. Review of International Studies, 45(4), 627–646. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051900007X.
DeNardis, L., & Musiani, F. (2016). Governance by Infrastrucure. In F. Musiani, D. L. Cogburn, L. DeNardis & N. S. Levinson (Eds.), The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance (pp. 3–21). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dingwerth, K. (2007). The New Transnationalism, Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Doherty, D., & Wolak, J. (2012). When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural Fairness. Political Behavior, 34, 301–323.
Drake, W. J. (2004). Reframing Internet Governance Discourse: Fifteen Baseline Propositions. In D. MacLean (Ed.), Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration (pp. 122–126). New York: UN ICT TF.
Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2011). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1999). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, R. (2016). Internet Governance, Multi-Stakeholder Models, and the IANA Transition: Shining Example or Dark Side? Journal of Cyber Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1227866.
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.
Hooker, B. (2005). Fairness. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8(4), 1–24.
Jones, M. D., Shanahan, E. A., & McBeth, M. K. (2014). The Science of Stories: Applications of the Narrative Policy Framework in Public Policy Analysis. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mueller, M. (2009). ICANN lnc.: Accountability and Participation in the Governance of Critical Internet Resource. The Korean Journal of Policy Studies, 24(2), 91–116.
Mueller, L. M. (2010). Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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 September 15, 2018.
Risse, T. (2006). Transnational Governance and Legitimacy. In Arthur Benz & Yannis Papadopoulos (Eds.), Governance and Democracy Comparing National, European and International Experiences (pp. 179–199). New York: Routledge.
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.
Santaniello, M., & Palladino, N. (2017). Shaping Words to Shape Policy Process: Discourse Coalitions in the Internet Governance Ecosystem. Paper Presented at the 1st GIG-ARTS Conference, Paris, March 30, 2017.
Schmidt, V., & Wood, M. (2019). Conceptualizing Throughput Legitimacy: Procedural Mechanisms of Accountability, Transparency, Inclusiveness and Openness in EU Governance. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12615.
Scholte, J. A., & Tallberg, J. (2018). Theorizing the Institutional Sources of Global Governance Legitimacy. In J. Tallberg, K. Bäckstrand, & J. A. Scholte (Eds.), Legitimacy in Global Governance: Sources, Processes, and Consequences (pp. 56–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schouten, G., Leroy, P., & Glasbergen, P. (2012). On the Deliberative Capacity of Private Multistakeholder Governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecological Economics, 83, 42–50.
Steenbergen, M. R., Bachtiger, A., Sporndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political De-liberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21–48.
Stone, D. (2011). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (3rd ed.). New York: Norton.
USG-DoC. (1998). Green Paper. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-policy-management-internet-names-and-addresses. Accessed March 16, 2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Palladino, N., Santaniello, M. (2021). The Throughput Legitimacy of the IANA Transition Process. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56131-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56130-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56131-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)