Introduction
Since the founding of the United Nations (UN) in 1945, the question of how to enable effective participation for individual citizens in its multiple and complex deliberative processes has presented scholars and practitioners with a persistent problem. Various solutions to this problem have been explored by a wide range of actors, from the United Nations Associations (UNAs) in 1946, to the Conference of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CoNGO) founded in 1948, to the âMajor Groupsâ framework emerging from the 2000 Millennium Summit, to the innovative multistakeholder processes of the WSIS in 2003 and 2005, and its successors the Global Alliance for ICTs and Development (GAID) and the IGF, to the more expansive âMajor Groups and Other Stakeholdersâ (MGoS) approach taken in the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the General Assembly of Partners (GAP) and the sixteen Partner Constituency Groups (PCGs) of Habitat III. Each of these approaches has had some success in involving private citizens in the work of the UN, and each has also had its shortcomings. Moreover, no approach has been applied consistently across the UN system to facilitate multistakeholder involvement.
So, when the movement toward multiple stakeholders joining state actors in these global deliberations gained momentum, the civil society groupsâostensibly ârepresentingâ these private citizensâwere given a âseat at the tableâ: an opening, an opportunity. However, how does an incredibly diverse, heterogeneously rich, fractious, and resource-challenged civil society organize itself to participate effectively in these processes, to take advantage of that opening, that opportunity?
This book explores this broad question, especially as it relates to civil society participation in the evolution of the multistakeholder processes related to the Information Society, with a particular focus on their involvement in the restructuring of global telecommunications and the intense engagement over the past several decades in what is now known as global Internet governance. The emergence of the network society (Castells 1996, 1997, 1998), better known as the Information Society, includes an increased focus on the application of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to every area of human life, including work and employment, education, healthcare, recreation, scientific research, entertainment, cultural heritage preservation, and socialization. It also includes the ubiquitous social media networks and the Internet of Things (IOTs) continuously capturing data about our every move and fueling smart cities. The emergence of the Information Society has sparked an interest in telecommunications and information policy from a wide variety of sectors. New actors, who never saw themselves previously playing a role in international telecommunications and information policy formulation, are being drawn into the process. Medical doctors and nurses now interested in telemedicine, teachers interested in distance learning and edutainment, and artists, musicians, writers, and actors interested in digital distribution of creative content see themselves joining human rights activists, engineers, and intellectual property lawyers in the arenas related to global telecommunications and information policy. These policy actors are bringing with them new policy preferences, are interested in a better understanding of these global governance processes, and are looking for mechanisms through which to engage.
The UNAs have worked since 1946 to organize private citizens with an interest in the UN, to raise awareness about the UN, to keep those citizens informed about how the UN operates, and to involve them in its activities. There are now over 120 UNAs globally, organized under the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA), with secretariat offices located in New York and Geneva.
Another mechanism for the involvement of private citizens in the work of the UN is CoNGO. Founded in 1948, CoNGO had two types of organizational memberships, with its âFullâ members having consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which effectively operates as a âvettingâ mechanism for NGOs that allows some UN member states to âvetoâ certain NGOs with which they may disagree and its âAssociateâ members having affiliation with a UN program or agency. CoNGO now has over 500 members, and offices in New York, Geneva, and Vienna. The vision of CoNGO is âto be the primary support and platform for a civil society represented by a global community of informed, empowered and committed NGOs that fully participate with the UN in decision-making and programs leading to a better world, a world of economic and social justice,â and its mission is to â[f]acilitate through various means the development of a dynamic and informed world-wide NGO community able to influence policies and actions at all levels of the United Nationsâ (found on the Internet at: http://âwww.ângocongo.âorg/âwho-we-are/âvision-mission-and-objectives).
Many new opportunities for civil society involvement in these processes stimulated a plethora of institutional mechanisms for participating in UN processes. Some of these processes, such as the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), used the Major Groups Framework, which emerged from Agenda 21 and the Earth Summit, wherein any member of the nine organized âMajor Groupsâânamely (1) women; (2) children and youth; (3) indigenous peoples; (4) NGOs; (5) workers and trade unions; (6) farmers; (7) scientific and technical community; (8) business and industry, and (9) local authoritiesâwas given access to the UN meeting. This access meant they could register and attend the conference, and in some cases be able to speak on the floor, co-sponsor and propose conference events, and avail themselves to other benefits. As the participant of a Major Group, the person or organization could get access to the conference venue, the materials provided to the participants, they could sit in on official meetings, review the conference documents, and submit recommendations to be considered in the process.
Unfortunately, simply âparticipatingâ in these processes is not enough. The bigger question is whether or not civil society can participate âeffectivelyâ in these processes. Do they understand the issues on the table, the composition and structure of a conference delegation, the role of a Permanent Mission, and how international organizations and their secretariats can influence the process and the results? Are these civil society stakeholders organized in a way that allows them to influence the outcomes of these processes? Can they do so in a way that enables broad, diverse participation from around the world in their own internal processes? These opportunities place a heavy responsibility on shoulders of civil society. Collectively, we look at this as an understanding of âConference Diplomacyâ, described by Kaufmann in 1968 as he brilliantly illuminated the multiple and complex processes of the UN, and how state actors get things done within the context of an international conference. However, Kauffman focused on state delegations, and in a new multistakeholder environment, getting things done in âMultistakeholder Conference Diplomacyâ is quite different, and critically important. More importantly for this book, understanding the specific role transnational civil society networks play within a multistakeholder process, still dominated by state actors and multilateral (and bilateral) diplomacy, is paramount.
This challenge is enhanced when one considers the tremendously diverse policy preferences found within global civil society, and the heterogeneous nature of their organizational structures. And, of course, when one considers the differential financial resources among those actors involved in the process (with the global private sector having tremendous institutional and financial resources to engage in these processes).
While the levels of civil society participation in some of the UN processes discussed in this book have been very high, there are not enough financial resources within the global civil society community to get enough people to all the meetings related to their varied interests. This paucity in resources, coupled with the tremendous diversity of participation, sets up a power dynamic that allows those organizations based in New York, Geneva, Vienna, and Washington, D.C. to be disproportionately influential in these processes, relative to other civil society organizations. There are some very clear exceptionsâand the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is a leading example. But, in general, this dynamic is pervasive.
One mechanism that has altered this dynamic and promoted the active involvement of civil society has been through the use of ICTs. Perhaps even more impressive is when civil society organizations use ICTs to create networks of civil society advocates that span the globe, enabling them to participate in a broader range of UN activities. Following the landmark work of Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (1998), we call these institutions Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs), and follow their fairly strict seminal definition of what comprises a TAN. We also integrate into our understanding of TANS, insights from Sidney Tarrowâs (2005) arguments about New Transnational Activism, and Manuel Castellsâ (2012) ideas about social movements in the Internet age.
However, in this book we focus not on those movements of civil society actors that are protesting âoutsideâ the system, but instead on the attempts of transnational civil society networks to participate effectively âwithinâ the processes of the UN system (of course, many of these actors have also continued to work outside the system, including leading and participating in protests of and to the official conference processes). In doing so, this book asks whether the TANs active in the global information society (GIS) are influential partners in these global governance processes, or merely symbolic tokensâor pawns?
As a domain of interest, this book focuses broadly on the Information Society. While a somewhat imperfect and confusing conceptâand some would prefer to use the terms âNetwork Societyâ or âKnowledge Societyâ and others still the âInformation Communityââthe idea of an Information Society has a relatively long history. It is grounded in ideas about a âpostindustrialâ society (also conceived of as âpost-Fordistâ or âpostmodernâ), where ICTs are embedded deeply within systems of production and distribution, and are transforming nearly every aspect of society. Many writers have highlighted this transformation in different ways, including Toffler (1970), Bell (1976), Benniger (1986), Crawford (1983), and Castells (2004). Each of these writers has highlighted different aspects of the Information Society, but all focus on the underlying transformation in society being driven in large part by the application of ICTs. This book does not attempt to be an exhaustive history of these international organizations and movements, or of the role they have played in the GIS. Instead, this book focuses of how and important category of civil society participants use geographically distributed TANS to participate in these processes.
Many international organizations also saw a critical role for themselves in this process. The ITU, which had been in existence for over 100 years saw itself as playing an absolutely key role in these processes, and that interest would raise its head over and over again, even as we get into the specific discussion of the WSIS and global Internet governance. Another key international organization is the vying for a leadership role is UNESCO.
At the heart of the Information Society lie telecommunication networks, and the international reach and network externalities engendered by them. In 1980, a UNESCO publication entitled Many Voices, One World (known by many as the MacBride report), articulated a vision of a New World Information and Communications Order (NWICO). The International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, chaired by Sean MacBride, examined the fundamental imbalances in media ownership, content and representations between the Global South and the rest of the world.
In 1982, the Maitland Commission report titled The Missing Link highlighted the role ICTs could play in socioeconomic development and saw this as the key element that had been missing for so many years in our understanding of development.
In May 1994, US Vice-President Al Gore gave a speech to the first ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that outlined the idea of a Global Information Infrastructure (GII), which âwill allow us to share information, to connect, and to communicate as a global community.âŠIt will help educate our children and allow us to exchange ideas within a community and among nations. It will be a means by which families and friends will transcend the barriers of time and distance. It will make possible a global information marketplace, where consumers can buy or sell productsâ (ITU 1994).
This landmark speech was followed by Goreâs speech in September later that year to the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and subsequently by the GII: Agenda for Cooperation (1995) by Ronald Brown, US Secretary of Commerce and Larry Irving, Administrator, US National Telecommunication and Information Administration.
In May 1994, shortly after Vice-President Goreâs speech in Buenos Aires, a High-Level Group on the Information Society, led by Martin Bangemann, published a report entitled Europe in the Global Information Society. The Bangemann report, as it is known, outlined a European strategy for harnessing the potential of an information society.
Also at this time, some regional initiatives for an information society were gaining traction, most notably, and somewhat surprisingly, the African Information Society Initiative (AISI). The AISI, convened by the ECA was a forward-looking strategic framework that articulated a continent-wide vision for the Information Society in Africa in 1996. (Full disclosure, the author served on the high-level ECA panel to develop the AISI and convened the Information Socie...