Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ecrea3a Lakel Amar Ppt


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Ecrea3a Lakel Amar Ppt

  1. 1. THE MYTH OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET ECREA Symposium-VLB October 1Oth 2007 Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism Françoise Massit-Folléa (University of Lyon, Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences humaines, scientific coordinator of the Vox Internet Program) Amar Lakel (Assistant professor, in information and communication sciences, CEMIC –GRECO, University of Bordeaux, member of Scientific Co)
  2. 2. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism Introduction Our research aims at studying the communication practices of the forum Civil Society on Internet Gouvernance. We try to take into consideration its ambition of democratizing the international relations The WSIS, a UN initiative, announced and promoted a multi-stakeholder approach to the key question of internet governance, gathering governments, economic players, and civil society around the issue. For the period spanning the presentation of the WGIG report on June 2005 to the actual summit in Tunis in December of that same year, we studied the e-mail messages of one of the caucuses, “civil society – internet governance.” In analyzing the modalities of these exchanges, we looked to see what kind of tactics and strategies would emerge and ascertain the role they may have played in the public debate. Finally, we analyzed the limits to civil society’s actual role in a dedicated international context.
  3. 3. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism Introduction The expected results of the theory of multistakeholderism, as well at the global as at the local levels, would be a better understanding of innovations, diversities and complexity of the contemporary phenomena. A major social movement, led by ONG often related to the academic world, are engaging in a will of revitalizing the democratic instances by opening the deliberation and elarging the participation. More and more NGO want to be recognized like sources of expertises by the inclusion of their participation in the public institutions. This is the “multistakeholder” theory, placed at the heart of the post-modern institutional design. The benefits are expected to be a tighter focus on innovation and the complexity of contemporary life. Our case study on the civil society mobilized on internet governance in the WSIS process appeared emblematic of the hopes and limits to a reform of the gouvernementality and executives of the public action.
  4. 4. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism I – The CS participation in WSIS 1 – From Geneva to Tunis Without question, the WSIS saw the official recognition of CS as an actor in the public decision- making processes. “Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet” An "Office of the Civil society" was established to ensure its optimum participation in all the aspects of the process of the WSIS. The members of the civil society enriched the agenda summit, by insisting, more than the other actors, on « opening, transparency, the construction of consensus and engagement towards universal principles such as the Human Rights ".
  5. 5. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism I – The CS participation in WSIS 2 – The Internet Governance Caucus A group of strongly committed people became the intermediaries between institutions (GTGI), associations (IG- cs-caucus) and the civil society as a whole (cs-plenary List) The Internet Governance caucus of the civil society (IG - Cs - caucus) was created in February 2003, at a prepcom session of the Geneva phase of the WSIS, on the initiative of some international actors from academic and associative areas. Part of the participants in the caucus also took a significant physical involvement in the official process of the WSIS such as the Working Group on Internet Governance resulting from the first phase of the Summit. An ad hoc mailing list was created, It became a “caisse of résonnance” of this group. Over the 3 months period we studied, the exchanges on the list were marked by the development of two texts sent to the WSIS Secretariat.
  6. 6. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism I – The CS participation in WSIS 3 – Deliberation in CS-Governance Mailing List The attendance very quickly showed a very stereotyped profile of the locutors in CS List which calls into question the principle of representativeness in the international bodies. The speakers are mainly academics, militants or members of high level technical professions - all people which have very high degrees of competence in technologies of the Internet. The exchanges between contributors of more than 25 different nationalities proceed only in English, and the non-english-speaking contributors yield with this implicit obligation: no claim of linguistic opening is advanced for this period. The list includes the people more "in-sight " (mainly North-American, but not exclusively). They often underline in debate that they have been invested for more than ten years in the issues of « internet governance » - asserting a statute of expert.
  7. 7. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism II – Pragmatics of deliberation 1 – A strongly hierarchical speech The list counts approximately 31% of active transmitters (having sent at least one mail), which confirms the classical variation between "being a subscriber to a list" and « being an actor in the debate ". The group of the “emergent leaders " and their “closer guards " developed a strategy of “hyperpresence” (45% of the messages/9% actors, average of 1 message per day, function of regulation of the speech, assignment of the tasks…) The group of the "involved " are strongly implicated. They react and initiate the debates but do not lead the list (43% of the messages/22%des actors, 1 message by sem, deliberative function) The group of the "concerned ". They contribute for 12 % of the messages and account for 69% of the population (1 to 3 mails per month). They react sporadically to the debate or are satisfied to bring information punctually.
  8. 8. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism II – Pragmatics of deliberation 2 – A strategy of continuous hyperpresence The political diary of the WSIS, with its key-moments of instituted and physical speeches, mainly explains the order of discourses on the virtual word in time. The leader group seems insensitive with the evenemential fluctuations. It continues an increasing rise and consolidates its standpoint in the mailing list with, regularly, a prevalence of one leader or another one. The group of the involved seems to be implied the days before the deadlines more and more. After event, whereas the leaders maintain their presences, we note a clear rupture of the interest post event. The group of concerned seems to raise of weak temporal evolutions with moments which put some members in engagement, even if if very quickly they return on their usual level of emission.
  9. 9. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism II – Pragmatics of deliberation 3 – auto-legitimating endogamy. The strategy of dominating the debate by the permanent emission of mails seems largely successful. A hierarchy of legitimacy is naturalized, with in the center, the leaders becoming the ambassadors of the list. The analysis of the eight "leaders" reveals a clear endogamy of the communication. Indeed, nearly 60 % of the messages are intended nominally to the leaders (by direct interpellation or express quotation). The "major involved" are detached from the "minor involved", with a positioning of hyper legitimation of the leaders (66 % of their mails are indeed sent to the group of the leaders). If we adds 15 % of communications intra-group, there remains only crumbs for the other interlocutors. The "minor involved" and the "concerned ones ", as a whole do not call into question the hierarchical positions. One does not answer their questions, one does not take into account their analyses, and yet very little choose to leave the play.
  10. 10. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism Conclusion : Towards a world democratization of governance ? The list went across a very strong tension between its democratic principle of opening and the principle of effectiveness within the framework of the international diary. Many internal criticisms raised the rigidity of the diary of the debates, the excessive concentration of the legitimate authors. Other opposed to it a legitimacy produced by the quality of the productions. The opening is thus, for the ones, a principle, for the others, a means. This tension is reinforced by the leaders’ tendency to qualify their involvement on the theme of Internet governance as "historical ".This investment must thus justified the returns on strategic investment. External legitimating by international organizations has a double perverse effect: they impose "results " within the framework of their needs, become sources of legitimacy, and supports those which they accredit.
  11. 11. Internet Governance, between Global Infrastructure and Multistakeholderism Conclusion : …or a technocratisation of the politics The base opening principle of the civil society rests on better effectiveness. Trapped by this managerial legitimacy, the "civil society" seems to have broken down its democratization principle. Invited to the table of the international negotiations, the civil society brings considerable ingredients to it: reserve of expertise, pedagogical relay, participation in the public diary. But we cannot speak here about experimentation of « online deliberative democracy » : Traditional power games dissolve the effort of reflexivity in the procedure, determining participation of some, while being nourished by the activity on line of all. This public space is not made up of citizens but of "stakeholders ", not of elected representatives but of effective experts, not of States but of « bodies », the most powerful representatives of the various communities of interests.