Essay about Multistakeholder Model. Essay done for Introduction to Internet Governance course from Diplo Foundation

1. ESSAY: Multistakeholder Model
Nathalia Sautchuk Patrício
nathalia.sautchuk@gmail.com
The multistakeholder model is a significant feature of Internet governance. But
this concept didn't arise in the Internet world. According to ISOC (2013), the
term “multistakeholderism” was used first in the context of environmental
governance and sustainable development. Multistakeholder participation
emerged as a key concept for Internet governance through the two phases of
the World Summit in Information Society (WSIS) and the Working Group on
Internet Governance (WGIG) in sometime between 2003 and 2005 introduced
the term (ISOC, 2013). It emerges for the first time in the Geneva Action Plan,
in a rather arcane section of Action Line C2 related to “establishing multi-
stakeholder portals for indigenous peoples at the national level.”
ITU (2003) does not use the term “multistakeholder”, but talks about the
involvement of all stakeholders and their roles:
The management of the Internet encompasses both technical
and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders
and relevant intergovernmental and international
organizations. In this respect it is recognized that:
1. Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is
the sovereign right of States. They have rights and
responsibilities for international Internet-related public
policy issues;
2. The private sector has had and should continue to have
an important role in the development of the Internet, both
in the technical and economic fields;
3. Civil society has also played an important role on Internet
matters, especially at community level, and should
continue to play such a role;
4. Intergovernmental organizations have had and should
continue to have a facilitating role in the coordination of
Internet-related public policy issues;
5. International organizations have also had and should
continue to have an important role in the development of
Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies
(ITU, 2003)
According to ISOC (2013), the term “multistakeholderism” later became
integrated in the Tunis Agenda in the form of a working definition of Internet
governance:
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.

2. (ITU, 2005)
In ITU (2005), it was reaffirmed the involvement of all stakeholders and their
roles in this process. In addition to that it was recognized the valuable
contribution by the academic and technical communities within the stakeholder
groups to the evolution, functioning and development of the Internet. Another
important point cited in Tunis Agenda is the improvement of the coordination of
the activities of international and intergovernmental organizations and other
institutions concerned with Internet governance and the exchange of
information among themselves. It was affirmed that a multistakeholder
approach should be adopted, as far as possible, at all levels (ITU, 2005).
Although the concept of “multistakeholder” is widely used in the Internet
Governance since WSIS process, it is often loosely defined (Brown University,
2015). As it can be seen in Geneva Declaration of Principles and in Tunis
Agenda the concept is used and is not defined; its definition is indirect though
the Internet Governance process definition.
CGI.br have declared in 2009 its principles for the governance and use of the
Internet and one of them is about democratic and collaborative governance:
Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent,
multilateral and democratic manner, with the participation of
the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and
encouraging its character as a collective creation.
(CGI.br, 2009)
This principle does not use the term “multistakeholder”, but it is possible to see
an indirect definition for multistakeholderism on that.
But there are attempts to define in a direct way the concept of
“multistakeholder”. MSP Resource Portal (no date) presents a generic definition
that can be applied to various contexts, including the Internet Governance. In
its definition multi-stakeholder processes are processes that aim to involve
stakeholders in improving situations that affect them. Also they are forms of
social interaction that enable different individuals and groups, who are affected
by an issue, to enter into dialogue, negotiation, learning, decision making and
collective action. Finally they are about getting government staff, policy
makers, community representatives, scientists, business people and NGO
representatives to think and work together.
APC (no date) defines it as:
A very broad term that describes groupings of civil society,
the private sector, the public sector, the media and other
stakeholders that come together for a common purpose. It is
often used with words like “partnership” and “consultation”.
In multi-stakeholder partnerships the partners have a shared
understanding that they play different roles and have
different purposes, but that they can pursue
collective goals through collaboration and common activities

3. to achieve such goals. These partnerships are voluntary, with
participation driven by the perceived benefits they may see
emerging from the process. Such partnerships are
increasingly being used to challenge and lobby for change in
policy processes.
APC (no date)
Another definition is presented in ICANNWiki:
A Multistakeholder Model is an organizational framework or
structure which adopts the multistakeholder process of
governance or policy making, which aims to bring together
the primary stakeholders such as businesses, civil society,
governments, research institutions and non-government
organizations to cooperate and participate in the dialogue,
decision making and implementation of solutions to common
problems or goals. A stakeholder refers to an individual,
group or organization that has a direct or indirect interest or
stake in a particular organization; that is, a given action has
the ability to influence the organization's actions, decisions
and policies to achieve results.
ICANNWiki (no date)
Despite the little differences between the presented definitions, it can be
possible to summarize the definition in some characteristics that are presented
in all multistakeholder processes. MSP Resource Portal (no date) presents a
very good summary about the main characteristics of a muktistakeholder
process in the Figure 1.
Although the similarities between multistakeholder initiatives, it is important to
remember that there is a lot of diversity between them. MSP Resource Portal
(no date) cites some of the differences: in purpose (for example, input for
Figure 1: Characteristics of a multistakeholder process (Source: MSP Resource Portal, no date)

4. policy making, conflict management, decision making, project or program
design, resource management, economic development), in subject (for
example, environmental management, health, rural development), in scale
(local or global), in participants (government, businesses, civil society,
technical community) and in process (for example, long or short term, use of
many different methods).
Despite its importance to the Internet Governance, the multistakeholder model
is involved in many debates currently.
Internet Society launched in 2013 a survey seeking to understand better how
the Internet community is viewing multistakeholder governance among other
things. The responses indicate that the main challenges in the implementation
of multistakeholder governance are the efficiency, inclusiveness and equality
(ISOC, 2013). The same survey indicates three possible risks for the future of
the Internet and its governance: “balkanization” of the Internet and the
creation of national or regional Internet Governance bodies, (inter-)
governmental takeover and capture by some stakeholder groups, such as large
corporations.
The multistakeholder model is not unanimity and suffers some criticism.
Including some stakeholders are against this model, specially some
governments.
According to Badii (2014), critics of the multistakeholder model say it is an
inefficient process because it is expensive and slow, and it is often unclear who
the stakeholder groups are and what are their roles and responsibilities. Also
the critics claimed for a “greater formalization for Internet governance” around
for over a decade. There are still a more serious critique that sees
multistakeholder governance as only applicable to developed democracies
because in some parts of the world autonomous stakeholder groups do not
exist or do not have strong stakeholder groups other than the government. Due
to the difficulties that multistakeholder governance can face in assigning rights
and responsibilities, critics doubt that the Internet community is capable of
effectively administering the Internet.
DeNardis and Raymond (2013) observe that preserving the multistakeholder
model is viewed as a primary goal for the broader Internet community as well
as for many governments. This vision creates several problems:
1. It is often elevated as a value in itself rather than as a possible approach
to meeting more salient public interest objectives such as preserving
Internet interoperability, stability, security, and openness;
2. It may not be appropriate in every functional area of Internet
governance. Keeping the Internet operational requires numerous
coordinating and policymaking tasks. This administration is not a
monolithic practice but rather a multilayered series of distinct tasks of
which some are appropriately relegated to the private sector, some the
purview of traditional sovereign nation-state governance or international
treaty negotiations, and some more appropriately multistakeholder. It is a
misnomer to speak not only of multistakeholder governance but also of
Internet governance as a single thing. Various different bodies exert
authority over related but distinct aspects of governing the Internet’s

5. technical architecture.
Another debate that occurs is about the transparency of the selection of
multistakeholder representatives and the representation process. It is expected
that the multistakeholder model solve all the problems about
representativeness and legitimization in the Internet Governance.
Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director from IT for Change, had an important
speak at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review held by UNESCO from
25th to 27th February 2013, that summarizes well the role of multistakeholder
model:
Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of
engagement; it is not a means of legitimization.
Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among
people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10
review to go back to the touchstone of legitimacy – engage
with people and communities to find out the conditions of
their material reality and what seems to lie ahead in the
information society. From here we need to build our
perspectives and then come to multistakeholder spaces and
fight and fight hard for those who cannot be present here.
(Gurumurthy, 2013)
The multistakeholder model is the preferred form of governance for the
majority of Internet community and it is consolidating over the years. As the
Internet nature is decentralized, open and without borders, though that there
would be some criticism about the mutltistakeholder model, this is the model
that best fits and meets the complexity of this scenario nowadays because it
have the same Internet nature: it is open to participation of different
stakeholders, is decentralized and without borders (don't have a unique
organization or group of people that governs it).
REFERENCES
APC (no date) Glossary – multi-stakeholder. Available at
https://www.apc.org/en/glossary/term/275 [accessed 21 April 2015].
Badii F (2014) Are critics of Multistakeholder Governance committing a nirvana
mistake?. Available at http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/07/08/are-
critics-of-multistakeholder-governance-committing-a-nirvana-mistake/
[accessed 21 April 2015].
Brown University (2015) Multistakeholder governance for the global Internet.
Available at https://news.brown.edu/articles/2015/02/savage [accessed 21 April
2015].
CGI.br (2009) Principles for the governance and use of the Internet. Available at
http://cgi.br/principles-for-the-governance-and-use-of-the-internet/ [accessed
22 April 2015].
DeNardis L; Raymond M (2013) Thinking Clearly About Multistakeholder

6. Internet Governance. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2354377 [accessed
22 April 2015].
Gurumurthy A (2013) Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT
for Change, at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review held by UNESCO
from 25th to 27th February, 2013. Available at
http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/WSIS%20+%2010%20closing
%20statement%20by%20Anita%20G.pdf [accessed 22 April 2015].
ICANNWiki (no date) Multistakeholder Model. Available at
http://icannwiki.com/Multistakeholder_Model [accessed 21 April 2015].
ISOC (2013) Internet Society Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Governance –
Report and summary. Available at
http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/bp-MSreport-20131219-en.pdf
[accessed 21 April 2015].
ISOC (2013) Multistakeholder Cooperation: Reflections on the emergence of a
new phraseology in international cooperation. Available at
http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/multistakeholder-cooperation-
reflections-emergence-new-phraseology-international [accessed 21 April 2015].
ITU (2003) Declaration of Principles - Building the Information Society: a global
challenge in the new Millennium. Available at
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html [accessed 21 April 2015].
ITU (2005) Tunis Commitment. Available at
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/7.html [accessed 21 April 2015].
ITU (2005) Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Available at
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html [accessed 21 April 2015].
MSP Resource Portal (no date) What are MSPs?. Available at
http://portals.wi.wur.nl/msp/index.php?page=1186 [accessed 21 April 2015].