Regulating the Internet infrastructure: A comparative appraisal of the legitimacy of ICANN, ITU, and the WSIS

How to generate legitimate forms of governance beyond the nation state is often considered a central question in contemporary world politics. To proceed in theory-building, scholars need to systematically assign the theory-driven assumptions on legitimate forms of governance beyond the nation state with the various, already observable, forms of global governance. This article aims to conduct a comparative appraisal of the legitimatory quality of different patterns of governance by applying a framework of indicators for their assessment. The indicators are selected from the scholarly debate within International Relations on the legitimacy of global governance arrangements and structured by a multidimensional concept of legitimacy (input, throughput, and output dimensions). This framework is then applied to international, transnational, and private forms of global governance in the field of Internet regulation in order to show how each of them tries to produce and maintain legitimacy, which strategies it applies, and in how it interacts with its stakeholders.

[1]  Margaret Levi,et al.  Legitimating beliefs: Sources and indicators , 2009 .

[2]  Charlotte Dany The impact of participation: how civil society organisations contribute to the democratic quality of the UN world summit on the information society , 2006 .

[3]  J. Steffek,et al.  Legitimacy in an age of global politics , 2007 .

[4]  G. Majone Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: The Question of Standards , 1998 .

[5]  Robert O. Keohane,et al.  The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions , 2006, Ethics & International Affairs.

[6]  P. Pattberg,et al.  Private Rule-Making and the Politics of Accountability: Analyzing Global Forest Governance , 2008, Global Environmental Politics.

[7]  A. Moravcsik Is there a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis , 2004, Government and Opposition.

[8]  Yannis Papadopoulos,et al.  Governance and democracy : comparing national, European and international experiences , 2006 .

[9]  Sea´n O´ Siochru´ Civil Society Participation in the WSIS Process: Promises and Reality1 , 2004 .

[10]  J. Palfrey The End of the Experiment: How ICANN's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed , 2004 .

[11]  R. Keohane Global governance and legitimacy , 2011 .

[12]  J. Scholte Global governance, accountability and civil society , 2011 .

[13]  Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter Beyond ICANN Vs ITU? , 2004 .

[14]  M. Zürn Democratic Governance Beyond the Nation-State: , 2000 .

[15]  Mark Bovens,et al.  New Forms of Accountability and EU-Governance , 2007 .

[16]  Aarti Gupta Transparency Under Scrutiny: Information Disclosure in Global Environmental Governance , 2008, Global Environmental Politics.

[17]  Ingo Take Legitimacy in Global Governance: International, Transnational and Private Institutions Compared , 2012 .

[18]  Ann Florini Making Transparency Work , 2008, Global Environmental Politics.

[19]  Tanja A. Börzel,et al.  Governance without a state: Can it work? , 2010 .

[20]  David A. Lake Rightful Rules: Authority, Order, and the Foundations of Global Governance , 2010 .

[21]  J. Torfing,et al.  Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe , 2010 .

[22]  Magdalena Bexell,et al.  Democracy in Global Governance: The Promises and Pitfalls of Transnational Actors , 2010 .

[23]  P. Schmitter Participation in Governance Arrangements: Is there any Reason to Expect it will Achieve , 2002 .

[24]  S. Bernstein,et al.  Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance , 2011 .