Multistakeholder Global Governance

by

The multistakeholder approach to global governance has gained a great deal of traction in recent years, particularly in the realm of Internet governance. This is partially due to the fact the Internet itself is a diverse, and dispersed, institution composed of many complex parts around the world. Basically all of human society has developed a stake in the governance of the Internet, whether that be private sector businesses, governments, NGOs, or individuals. Toward the end of developing a multistakeholder platform for Internet governance, the Brazilian government and ICANN held a multistakeholder conference to develop principles by which the Internet would be governed. These principles ended up being: Human Rights and Shared Values, Protection Of Intermediaries, Culture and Linguistic Diversity, Unified and Unfragmented Space, Security, Stability and Resilience Of The Internet, Open and Distributed Architecture, and Enabling Environment For Sustainable Innovation and Creativity.

Unfortunately, the grand challenge that is Internet governance was too great for the attempted initiative by the Brazilian government and ICANN as the initiative ended in failure. Other multistakeholder initiatives such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) continue with leadership from the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs in spite of this failure. The IGF, like the Brazilian and ICANN initiative, has a multistakeholder approach to decision making and has representatives from the public and private sectors along with civil society sitting on its Multistakeholder Advisory Group. The MAG guides the IGF and advises the Secretary General of the UN, placing the UN’s approach to Internet governance well within the realm of multistakeholder governance.

There is another dimension to multistakeholder governance though, specifically with regard to the Internet, and that is the importance of multistakeholder governance for development. By having more diverse voices at the governance table, policies and decisions can be made that are more effective at spurring development for all. Having developing countries at the table, as well as advocates for everything form human rights to disability, at the Internet governance table, telecommunication resources can be more effectively employed to give everyone access to information and economic opportunity. Multistakeholder governance will also help to ensure the Internet does not become the exclusive preserve of large multinational telecoms, or entirely controlled by developed country governments. This is not to say that multistakeholder governance will be easy to achieve, the failure of Brazil and ICANN is testament to that fact, rather multistakeholder governance is important for development.

by

Multi-stakeholder Governance and the IGF

Technology can make the world a smaller place. With technology you can communicate with someone in another country in real time, as if they were sitting with you. With technology there is also more opportunity for multi-stakeholder global governance. One example of multi-stakeholder global governance is the Internet Governance Forum or IGF. The IGF was created after it became clear at the first phase of the WSIS conference in 2003 that internet governance was a key issue. The purpose of the IGF is to bring varying stakeholders together as equals and exchange information and best practices, as well as facilitating a common understanding of how to maximize internet opportunities and address risks. While the IGF does not directly create policy, the discussions that are had can greatly shape the international agenda and set the ground work for negotiations.

Multi-stakeholder global governance bodies such as the IGF have many strengths. One of these strengths is that when there are multiple stakeholders, there are more perspectives and more information. This is a key aspect of the IGF because the more information that can be obtained, the stronger the knowledge base, which benefits every participant in the forum. Another strength of multi-stakeholder global governance is it gives developing countries the same opportunities as wealthier countries that have established dominance in fields such as internet governance. Developing countries having these same opportunities are important because, as detailed in the Missing Link and Falling Through the Net, technology is crucial to development. Without technology, it is harder to develop agriculture, health care, education, and almost every other area that governments are responsible for. Because of the importance of technology, it is crucial that developing nations have the opportunity to participate in the IGF because through the sharing of information and best practices, those countries can start bridging the technological gap between them and wealthier nations.

Multi-stakeholder global governance also allows for stakeholders who wouldn’t normally be included such as NGOs and other organizations to take part in discussions. This is beneficial because it allows for different perspectives and different ideas to be included. However, there are till many barriers to participation such as cost, travel, and a lack of personnel. In order to make multi-stakeholder governance truly inclusive, we must take into account the costs that participating for stakeholders face, and make global governance more accessible for those organizations that may not have as much money or funding.

 

by

Multistakeholder Internet Governance and Sustainable Development

Internet governance is the development and application of principles, norms, decision making and programs that shape the utilization of the internet. However, the actual definition of internet governance is up for debate, as some question who has the authority to control the internet. Some believe it is the job of the government, while civil society and corporations feel that they should have larger participation in internet governance. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has no control over the available content on the internet but is a global organization that works to protect the security and safety of the internet.

Lawrence Strickling cites multi-stakeholder internet governance as, “the best mechanism for maintaining an open, resilient, and secure Internet because, among other things, it is informed by a broad foundation of interested parties – including businesses, technical experts, civil society, and governments – arriving at consensus through a bottom-up process regarding policies affecting the underlying functioning of the Internet domain system.” Multi-stakeholder internet governance increases global ability to address internet policy reform. The internet governance forum (IGF) is a multi-stakeholder platform that discusses the internet and public policy.

The 12th annual meeting will take place during the month of December in 201 to discuss the theme, “Shape your digital Future.” It will discuss Generation Z and the challenges of internet identity and works to create solutions to increase digital communication. It will also discuss internet regulation, security and safety concerns for growing youths.

Internet governance is a part of sustainable development. In 2007 the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) research internet governance’s view on sustainable development. Research included:

  • Governance processes
  • economic barriers to development
  • developing countries to participate in international governance
  • access to knowledge
  • indicators for development.

 

As a result, IISD developed a series of papers that inclusive internet governance observations, mutual challenges internet governance and sustainable development face, and conclusion as to how to work to promote overall development.  

 

by

Grand Challenges and Why They Matter

Progress can only be defined by the way that major obstacles are overcome. Without hardship, there cannot be progress. Since history itself, humanity has faced many grand challenges that have shaped the world into what it is today, and the grand challenges that we currently face will determine what the future looks like. But what are grand challenges and why are they so important? To start, grand challenges are issues that directly affect humanity as a whole and require multi-stakeholder partnerships and cross disciplinary work to achieve results and find a solution within a given time frame. This term was first coined during the cold war, when the Kennedy administration ambitiously set out to land man on the moon for the first time. In 1961, Kennedy announced to the country: “before this decade is out, [we will be] landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” At this point in history, this was a grand challenge because no one thought it could be done and that it was out of the realm of what humanity was capable of. Yet it was achieved in 1969 with international help and with scientists from many disciplines, and the belief that it could be done.

If we look at some of the main issues of today, it seems impossible that we will ever end poverty, or ever become more sustainable, or be able to eliminate inequality. When the UN OWG met in Rio of 2012, 30 state members gathered together to address these grand challenges and frame them into the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Not only did they gather to identify the problems, but they gathered to set a critical deadline for when these goals should be achieved by 2030. Since the sustainable development goals were implemented, significant progress has been made. Between 1999 and 2013, poverty has been reduced from 1.7 billion to 767 million, which is very significant. Progress has also been made in hunger with the amount of undernourished people going from about 930 million in the early 2000’s to 793 million in 2014. In the field of medicine, “The risk of dying between the ages of 30 and 70 from one of four main non‑communicable diseases (NCDs)—cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease—fell from 23 per cent to 19 per cent between 2000 and 2015” (UN, Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017). However, with the deadline of 2030, the progress is not happening fast enough to achieve everything that the UN set out to do.

Although it may seem impossible to meet all of the goals set out by the SDGs before the year 2030, by setting an agenda and a deadline, it pushed countries around the world to take initiative and move in the right direction. Regardless of whether the goals are actually met by the given year, there will be significant progress made in making the world a better place for all.

by

Internet Governance

Internet governance is hotly debated in the current world we live in, with people who are adamantly opposed to it and people who believe it is the future. The heart of internet governance has its foundations in technology used to facilitate public policy and shape the evolution and future of the internet. The internet itself is transnational, open, interconnected, and hard to manage. When thinking about the internet, the only real way to provide governance is through a multi-stakeholder approach.

Multi-stakeholder means that no one individual entity will have sole input; it will be a combined effort. The multi-stakeholder approach bases its foundations on the following components:

  • Participation from stakeholders (organizations, governments, individuals, who have a claimed interest)
  • Distributed responsibilities and rights to participants
  • Variety of input from different backgrounds

Additionally, in order for this approach to work, there must be decentralization from the government. While the governments can have some input, they are not to be in charge of regulations. The backbone is the bottom-up process, where the people (the users) of a product, the internet, have the most control and say in what happens. Just as the internet is open and available to everyone, so must be its governance. There is no room for a lack of inclusivity or open-mindedness.

Recently, there was a meeting of the African Ministers of Communication and Information Technologies in Ethiopia at the second conference of the Specialized Technical Committee on Communication and ICT (STC CICT-2). The aim of the conference was to discuss and (potentially) make decisions on a variety of programs that will impact Africans in these kinds of realms. The conference was set to discuss topics ranging from internet access to digital literacy of African citizens. The chair of the committee, Minister Modibo Arouna Touré, stated that “the he Governance of the Internet is a concern to all of us because it is in the heart of economic, political, geopolitical stakes at the national level. For this particular reason it becomes imperative for Africa to become actively involved in the dynamics of Internet Governance, Cyber security, and Cybercrime.” This marks a large occasion, with African nations bidding for their share of global internet governance.

This conference and organization is an example of how regional mulit-stakeholder internet governance is an important step in a more global picture, with representatives from African nations discussing and deciding how to make the internet more accessible as well as wanting citizens to play a bigger role, something only possible if they are digitally literate. The end goal is to be represented on a global scale, but it must start somewhere, and this second regional conference is the beginning.

by

Why is Multi-stakeholder Cooperation Essential for Sustainable Development?

In the field of development, there is a multitude of actors that promote the SDGs and work towards improving the world on many different levels. These levels can go from grassroots movements, to local government action, to International cooperation. Each level of development has its own methodology, its own approach to resolving the Grand Challenges that we face, and each development actor presents different tools and knowledge for resolving the issues.

At the grassroots level where NGOs and other developmental organizations that are locally based perform hands on development work, they operate directly with the target population and do most of the developmental field work necessary to help local communities grow. These organizations collect over time the knowledge of what works and what doesn’t work on a local scale, and it allows them to understand the needs of the population, making the development work as efficient as possible. However, grassroots organizations often lack the funding and resources to expand the scale of operations to affect more people, and because of this, the impact of their development work remains local.

Governments also play an essential role in development work as they manage the resources of the country and therefore have more power to fund development projects. The government also has a large extent of knowledge on the needs of the population. However, what the government has in resources and knowledge, it lacks in efficiency. Governmental development is often criticized for its bureaucratic red tape that makes it very difficult to efficiently manage and run development projects, and this lack of efficiency results in development operations that become much more expensive and yield lesser results.

Finally, international developmental organizations such as the World Bank, the IDB, the United Nations, the HLPF, and many others offer a macro approach to development through international cooperation. The advantages to this approach are that it allows to create a conversation surrounding specific developmental issues and brings them to light, making governments realize the importance of development work in the grand scheme of the SDGs. It is also a good place for different governments to propose ways to implement development with the purpose of meeting a particular criteria and through treaties, binds countries to meet the goals. Unfortunately, there is not a strong enforcement mechanism that forces countries to implement the development work they signed off to.

At each level of development there are partial solutions to meeting the SDGs but still encounter specific difficulties at each layer. The difficulties that the different levels of development encounter however can be solved using the tools and knowledge that other actors operating at different scales have to offer. No single actor possesses the solution to development, but by putting actors together, the optimal combination of knowledge and resources would be met, allowing for the maximum amount of progress to be made. This is fundamental to understanding the importance of multi-stakeholder operations in development and why it is essential to have platforms where the different actors operating at different levels of development can share ideas and knowledge to all resolve Grand Challenges.

by

How Does the NUA Include Rural Development as an Essential Part of Its Implementation?

When the New Urban Agenda: Habitat III conference was held in October, 2016, the main focus of the conference was to promote the idea of sustainable cities and start developing ideas on how to implement strategies of urban development. Although this document’s main purpose focuses on the urban landscape, the first draft of the NUA III official document contains fifteen mentions of rural development as a part of the plan for urban development:

Article 43: integration of rural development in the framework of developing cities and human settlements

Article 44: integration through ” transport and mobility, technology and communication networks and infrastructure”

Article 62: working with both urban and rural areas, “strengthening the sustainable management of resources ”

Article 77: ensuring coherence of local governmental policies regarding land development keeping rural areas in mind

Although it may not be evident how including rural development helps meet the targets of Habitat III, it is essential to consider what dynamics exist between the two and how improving one can indeed improve the conditions for the other.

One of the biggest challenges that we are currently facing is the overpopulation of our cities and how to accommodate for increasing numbers. This increase in population is mostly due to the migration of poor populations living in rural areas that look towards the city for better work opportunities. If we are to resolve overpopulation of cities, we need to look to what can be done in the rural landscape to provide sufficient opportunities and benefits to rural populations to keep them from migrating to the cities. This is the main goal of articles 43 and 44, where a stronger integration of rural-urban development through technology, communications, and infrastructure can bring a level of development to the rural setting, providing more economic opportunities in those areas and mitigating rural-urban migration.

Another important aspect is the effect that urban development has on the rural landscape. As cities grow, the need for resources such as land, water, food, electricity, etc… increases and most of the time, the use of those resources impacts rural communities. A lot of the waste generated by cities ends up polluting rural communities, which affects the crop outputs and therefore the livelihoods of the populations living in areas most affected. Article 62 emphasizes a strong partnership between the two in order to advance the goal of sustainable cities that would benefit rural areas as well. The urban sector bring to the table new technologies that can help improve the efficiency of the resources it uses, such as creating the infrastructure for green energy (solar panels, hydroelectric, wind energy) and reduce the amount of pollutants that cities emit, and the rural sector provides the conditions under which these resources work best, and provides insight on the effects that the pollution has. Sustainability is therefore an issue that needs to be addressed with the rural sector in mind if it will work at the highest degree of success.

It is impossible to achieve the goal of “sustainable cities” without considering the effects that it has on rural communities and without taking into account the tightly wound relationships that exist between the two. This is why rural development plays an important part in the development of Habitat III and helps us reach most of the Sustainable Development Goals in the 2030 agenda.

by

Entitlement Theory and Access to Communication

Amartya Sen, author of “Development as Freedom,” first coined the term of entitlement theory in his paper “exchange Entitlements” as a way to describe the causes of famine. What he found was that famines often are not due to a lack of food, but rather a lack of access to the food that the country has available. In class, we discussed the importance of ICTs in the development framework and how people living in different societies and living in different areas of the world don’t have the same access to communications resources as people who live in large concentrated urban areas.

In the Maitland Commission Report, the ITU presented the idea of a “missing link” in the age of communication as there is still a large percentage of people that live completely isolated from the rest of the world due to a lack of access to telephone lines, internet and other forms of ICTs. One of the reasons that these populations remain without access to these technologies is because companies in charge of installing the infrastructure do not see any benefit in spending time and resources to provide this technology to marginalized communities. Another issue is that often, even if the technology is available to the communities, they are unable to afford the fees for using the internet or cellular reception. How then can these populations be given access to these technological entitlements?

One way to address this issue is through government intervention to ensure all people get access to the ICTs. By providing subsidies to companies providing the communications infrastructure, it gives private enterprises an additional motive to provide the services to marginalized communities. Another way to provide the service is through government acquisition of the technology and provide it themselves. However, involving the government in providing ICTs to the population leads to other challenges such as a loss in efficiency due to additional bureaucratic transaction costs, an increase in prices as the government tries to compensate for the higher costs, and problems with the quality of the good provided due to lack of competition.

In order to find the perfect combination of public and private that would allow marginalized communities to access ICTs, there are several conditions that need to be met that Amartya Sen defined. The first condition is that the highest level of efficiency is achieved in democratic governments. This is because democratic institutions provide greater stability and are subject to the interests of the voters, and therefore have a responsibility towards the population. There are cases in countries where the government intervened in the distribution of ICTs in order to spike the prices for personal gain or for military spending, but in the case of democratic institutions, there are checks and balances that keep that from happening.

A second condition is to ensure perfect competition and a breadth in the market. Having a large diversity of suppliers that can compete on an even playing field would cause prices of ICTs to go down and would also decrease the prices of the infrastructure, therefore making it more beneficial to provide the good to the most consumers possible, making it more affordable and more available to people in marginalized communities.

Finally, in order to set these things in motion, it is essential to raise awareness of the importance of bridging the “missing link” because through awareness, the government can act and start implementing strategies to provide greater access to the rest of the population living outside of concentrated rural areas.

In a quickly modernizing society where technological progress increases exponentially with each passing year, it is essential to make sure that no one gets left behind. ICTs are an essential part of development work, and without this access to information and communication, marginalized societies will be perpetually trying to catch up with the progress in the rest of the world and will never be able to achieve the same levels of development.

by

Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Mulitstakeholder Internet Governance can begin to solve some of the issues that I highlighted in the Digital Divides piece. With many private companies, service providers and national and international governance, the internet can be constantly monitored for quality and efficiency. With so many different parties involved, hopefully policies can reflect the needs of all different types of groups. The issue of language accessibility can be addressed if multistakeholders from around the world are given a seat at the table and are able to create public policies or recommendations that emphasize language development as part of the development of the Internet. This approach to IG could have huge impacts on the quality of information that users have access too. I think it is good that not just governments are discussing policy issues around Internet Governance, but all stakeholders are encouraged to get involved in the process. I think this creates a much stronger and more comprehensive approach to governing the internet.

This multistakeholder approach has huge impacts on the inclusivity of the internet. The Internet Governance Forum website states that “the main aim of the IGF is to facilitate inclusive, productive discussions on Internet related public policy issues from a general perspective, while keeping all stakeholders involved.” This method will greatly improve the ability for all parties to propose solutions to IG problems that may never been considered without their perspectives. For example, disability stakeholders may come forward with a new method to increase accessibility of information on websites for blind persons and with all of the stakeholders present; the changes could really be put into practice and made into policies. These cooperative and collaborative approaches to solving some of the most pressing issues for access and inclusivity have huge potential.

In addition to increased access, multistakeholder participation can allow collaboration on cyber security issues. The forum and its participants can work together to fight cyber attacks and increase connection and stability between countries and servers. With so many stakeholders present, unification against internet threats from terrorist groups like ISIS can be more succinct and effective.  The internet is an ever evolving entity that is growing and changing very quickly. With collaborative forums like IGF, the many stakeholders involved have the opportunity and capability to adapt to those changes in a unified and productive way.

by

Multistakeholder Global Goverannce

In analyzing Multistakeholder Internet Governance and its connection with Sustainable Development, we learn about the Internet Goverannce Forum, a multistakeholder platform which serves as a technological platform to facilitate discussions on public policy and the internet. We are provided more information on the international connectivity this platform provides in the publication, Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance. The publication discusses the 9th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held in Istanbul, Turkey from September 2-5, 2014. Leaders at the forum looked into “how providing access to information and communications technologies, including the Internet, could improve people’s lives and develop their capacity” (5). I found the sub-themes of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 interesting as they included:

  1. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
  2. Internet as an Engine for Growth and Development
  3. IGF and The Future of the Internet Ecosystem
  4. Enhancing Digital Trust
  5. Internet and Human Rights
  6. Critical Internet Resources
  7. Emerging Issues

In addition to these sub-themes, I felt it was important to look at the makeup of the forum participants. There were a total of 2,403 onsite participants, 1,291 remote participants, 60 remote hubs with an estimated 1852 participants and 144 total countries represented (12). In terms of onsite participation, looking at the regional makeup is also important. Africa had a total of 190 participants, second least behind Eastern Europe with 133. In terms of onsite participation by stakeholder group, 779 participants were from civil society, with the unanimous majority. The private sector had 581 participants while the Government had 571 total. Interestingly, intergovernmental organizations had only 96 participants, the least out of all onsite stakeholder groups.

Assessing these statistics in the context of my project helps me look in particular at the regional representation of Africa and all relevant stakeholders. In comparison to the 780 participants in Western Europe, 745 participants from the host country and 405 participants from Asia Pacific really minimizes the significance of the 190 onsite participants from Africa. In terms of stakeholder participation, I found civil society’s significant majority interesting and reemphasizing the importance of this forum on providing information access to collective communities.