IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v46y2022i10s0308596122001124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who do you think you are? Individual stakeholder identification and mobility at the Internet Governance Forum

Author

Listed:
  • Tjahja, Nadia
  • Meyer, Trisha
  • Shahin, Jamal

Abstract

In order for the Internet Governance ecosystem to work effectively, it requires a variety of expertise and advice from different sectors and backgrounds. Drawing on the public Internet Governance Forum (IGF) participation lists from 2006 to 2019, this paper analyses how individual participants chose to identify themselves in the given frameworks applied across the IGFs, and how they ‘travel’ through the Internet Governance ecosystem over successive fora. Identifying 18,968 unique IGF participants from 2006 to 2019, representing 7326 unique organisations, this paper thus provides an unprecedented level of detail as to who is present in multistakeholder discussions. It sets the scene for a more reflective discussion on the inclusivity and effectiveness of the multistakeholder model pursued at the IGF and engages with literature in the field of stakeholder mobility and stakeholder interests, opening up potential for further research on the legitimacy of multistakeholderism.

Suggested Citation

  • Tjahja, Nadia & Meyer, Trisha & Shahin, Jamal, 2022. "Who do you think you are? Individual stakeholder identification and mobility at the Internet Governance Forum," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:46:y:2022:i:10:s0308596122001124
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122001124
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102410?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeanette Hofmann, 2016. "Multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance: putting a fiction into practice," Journal of Cyber Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 29-49, January.
    2. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    3. Haas, Ernst B., 1975. "Is there a hole in the whole? Knowledge, technology, interdependence, and the construction of international regimes," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 827-876, July.
    4. Tjahja, Nadia & Meyer, Trisha & Shahin, Jamal, 2021. "What is civil society and who represents civil society at the IGF? An analysis of civil society typologies in internet governance," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6).
    5. Malcolm, Jeremy, 2015. "Criteria of meaningful stakeholder inclusion in internet governance," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 4(4), pages 1-14.
    6. Belli, Luca, 2015. "A heterostakeholder cooperation for sustainable internet policymaking," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 4(2), pages 1-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Radu, Roxana & Kettemann, Matthias C. & Meyer, Trisha & Shahin, Jamal, 2021. "Normfare: Norm entrepreneurship in internet governance," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6).
    2. Pohle, Julia, 2016. "Multistakeholder governance processes as production sites: enhanced cooperation "in the making"," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 5(3), pages 1-19.
    3. Pohle, Julia, 2016. "Multistakeholder governance processes as production sites: enhanced cooperation "in the making"," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 5(3), pages 1-19.
    4. Grover, Rohan, 2022. "The geopolitics of digital rights activism: Evaluating civil society's role in the promises of multistakeholder internet governance," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10).
    5. Richard Hyman & Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 253-272, August.
    6. Alexander Kentikelenis & Erik Voeten, 2021. "Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 721-754, October.
    7. Isuru Koswatte & Chandrika Fernando, 2022. "Policy Development for Crisis Management in the Context of Sri Lanka," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 20(3 (Fall)), pages 295-327.
    8. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    9. Marlous Blankesteijn & Bart Bossink, 2020. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Technological Innovation in the Public Sphere: Recovering Raw Materials from Waste Water," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Nikitas Konstantinidis & Konstantinos Matakos & Hande Mutlu-Eren, 2019. "“Take back control”? The effects of supranational integration on party-system polarization," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 297-333, June.
    11. Hugh Breakey, 2021. "Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 359-373, May.
    12. Vincent Caby & Lise Frehen, 2021. "How to Produce and Measure Throughput Legitimacy? Lessons from a Systematic Literature Review," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 226-236.
    13. Bartek Pytlas, 2021. "Hijacking Europe: Counter‐European Strategies and Radical Right Mainstreaming during the Humanitarian Crisis Debate 2015–16," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 335-353, March.
    14. Beetz, Jan Pieter & Rossi, Enzo, 2015. "EU legitimacy in a realist key," Discussion Papers, Center for Global Constitutionalism SP IV 2015-802, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    15. Lechler, Marie, 2019. "Employment shocks and anti-EU sentiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 266-295.
    16. Levinson, Nanette S., 2021. "Idea entrepreneurs: The United Nations Open-Ended Working Group & cybersecurity," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6).
    17. Jeremias Herberg & Tobias Haas & Daniel Oppold & Dirk von Schneidemesser, 2020. "A Collaborative Transformation beyond Coal and Cars? Co-Creation and Corporatism in the German Energy and Mobility Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Jonathan REISHER, 2022. "The effect of disinformation on democracy: the impact of Hungary’s democratic decline," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 14(1), pages 42-68, May.
    19. Mercy B. DeMenno, 2019. "Technocracy, democracy, and public policy: An evaluation of public participation in retrospective regulatory review," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 362-383, September.
    20. Sébastien Chailleux, 2020. "Making the subsurface political: How enhanced oil recovery techniques reshaped the energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(4), pages 733-750, June.

    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:eee:telpol:v:46:y:2022:i:10:s0308596122001124. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    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.