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)
francoise.massit@voxinternet.fr
Amar Lakel (Assistant professor, in
information and communication sciences,
CEMIC –GRECO, University of
Bordeaux, member of Scientific Co)
amar.lakel@u-bordeaux3.fr

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. 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. 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. 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, governance@lists.cpsr.org. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.