IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v6y2012i4p499-523.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ingo Take

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingo Take, 2012. "Regulating the Internet infrastructure: A comparative appraisal of the legitimacy of ICANN, ITU, and the WSIS," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 499-523, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:6:y:2012:i:4:p:499-523
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01151.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01151.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01151.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ann Florini, 2008. "Making Transparency Work," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 14-16, May.
    2. Aarti Gupta, 2008. "Transparency Under Scrutiny: Information Disclosure in Global Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, May.
    3. Dany, Charlotte, 2006. "The impact of participation: how civil society organisations contribute to the democratic quality of the UN world summit on the information society," TranState Working Papers 43, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    4. Sander Chan & Philipp Pattberg, 2008. "Private Rule-Making and the Politics of Accountability: Analyzing Global Forest Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(3), pages 103-121, August.
    5. Claudia Padovani, 2004. "Three Questions About WSIS: A Civil Society Perspective from Within," Information Technologies and International Development, MIT Press, vol. 1(3-4), pages 123-125, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jho, Whasun & Kim, Youngwan, 2022. "Regime complexity and state competition over Global Internet Governance," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    2. Frank Biermann & Michele Betsill & Joyeeta Gupta & Norichika Kanie & Louis Lebel & Diana Liverman & Heike Schroeder & Bernd Siebenhüner & Ruben Zondervan, 2010. "Earth system governance: a research framework," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 277-298, December.
    3. Aarti Gupta & Harro van Asselt, 2019. "Transparency in multilateral climate politics: Furthering (or distracting from) accountability?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 18-34, March.
    4. Eungkyoon Lee, 2010. "Information disclosure and environmental regulation: Green lights and gray areas," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 303-328, September.
    5. Ainhoa Gonzalez & Álvaro Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis in Environmental Assessment: A Review and Reflection on Benefits and Limitations," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-24, September.
    6. Hasyim, Zainuri & Laraswati, Dwi & Purwanto, Ris H. & Pratama, Andita A. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2020. "Challenges facing independent monitoring networks in the Indonesian timber legality assurance system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    8. S. Zeng & X. Xu & H. Yin & C. Tam, 2012. "Factors that Drive Chinese Listed Companies in Voluntary Disclosure of Environmental Information," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 309-321, September.
    9. Pistorius, Till & Reinecke, Sabine, 2013. "The interim REDD+ Partnership: Boost for biodiversity safeguards?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 80-86.
    10. Cornelie Crous & John R. Owen & Lochner Marais & Samkelisiwe Khanyile & Deanna Kemp, 2021. "Public disclosure of mine closures by listed South African mining companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 1032-1042, May.
    11. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    12. Jason Thistlethwaite & Matthew Paterson, 2016. "Private governance and accounting for sustainability networks," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(7), pages 1197-1221, November.
    13. Cathrin Zengerling, 2019. "Governing the City of Flows: How Urban Metabolism Approaches May Strengthen Accountability in Strategic Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 187-199.
    14. A. Marx & E. Bécault & J. Wouters, 2012. "Private Standards in Forestry. Assessing the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council," Chapters, in: Axel Marx & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen & Jan Wouters (ed.), Private Standards and Global Governance, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Yenneti, Komali & Day, Rosie, 2015. "Procedural (in)justice in the implementation of solar energy: The case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 664-673.
    16. Böhling, Kathrin & Busch, Tanja & Berthoin Antal, Ariane & Hofmann, Jeanette, 2006. "Lernprozesse im Kontext von UN-Weltgipfeln: Die Vergesellschaftung internationalen Regierens," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Innovation and Organization SP III 2006-102, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    17. FabianG. Neuner, 2020. "Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private EnvironmentalGovernance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 60-81, February.
    18. Mathias Koenig-Archibugi & Kate Macdonald, 2017. "The Role of Beneficiaries in Transnational Regulatory Processes," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 36-57, March.
    19. Lindsay, Jon, 2011. "Defense Transparency: Seeking a Definition for a Paradoxical Concept," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt3485013j, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    20. Hancic Maja Turnšek, 2013. "No Synonyms: Global Governance and the Transnational Public," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 19(69), pages 5-31, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:6:y:2012:i:4:p:499-523. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.