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. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Pistorius, Till & Reinecke, Sabine, 2013. "The interim REDD+ Partnership: Boost for biodiversity safeguards?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 80-86.
    8. 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.
    9. Jason Thistlethwaite & Matthew Paterson, 2016. "Private governance and accounting for sustainability networks," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(7), pages 1197-1221, November.
    10. 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.
    11. FabianG. Neuner, 2020. "Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private EnvironmentalGovernance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 60-81, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Hancic Maja Turnšek, 2013. "No Synonyms: Global Governance and the Transnational Public," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 19(69), pages 5-31, December.
    14. Sherrie Steiner, 2011. "Religious Soft Power as Accountability Mechanism for Power in World Politics," SAGE Open, , vol. 1(3), pages 21582440114, October.
    15. Patricio Valdivieso & Krister P. Andersson, 2018. "What Motivates Local Governments to Invest in Critical Infrastructure? Lessons from Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, October.
    16. Mitchell, Ronald B., 2011. "Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1882-1890, September.
    17. Smělá Monika & Sejkora Jiří, 2022. "Natural Resource Revenue Management: Which Institutional Factors Matter?," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 22(1), pages 3-23, March.
    18. Esther Turnhout & Katja Neves & Elisa de Lijster, 2014. "‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 581-597, March.
    19. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen & Éléonore Lèbre, 2021. "Tailings facility failures in the global mining industry: Will a ‘transparency turn’ drive change?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 122-134, January.
    20. Steve Williams & Brian Abbott & Edmund Heery, 2017. "Civil Governance in Work and Employment Relations: How Civil Society Organizations Contribute to Systems of Labour Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 103-119, August.

    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.