The system is without doubt imperfect, but it’s a correct baby step in the right direction. The idea that a private “individual” (whether natural or juridical) could somehow be on equal footing as a “state” on any international context (let alone a policy forum) wasn’t only unthinkable until the 20th Century, it is clearly anathema to the international order that rose from the Peace of Westphalia. And this is a good thing: the state-sovereignty and supremacy based model of international governance has been, IMHO, a scourge for humanity, as humanity been unable to tame the Hobbesian state of nature that reigns there with any social-contract that can truly tame that Leviathan.
I think the idea of the “individual Internet-end user” as having standing and voice in an international/supranational policy context is one of the great innovations and contributions of multistakeholderism, and as such, one that must be a founding principle of any ICANN 3.0. This, IMHO, is related to the rise of the individual person as a subject of public international law, an unthinkable idea less than century ago (generally derived from post-WWII Universal Human Rights treaties and institutions) and part of the necessary weakening of the State-centered model.
The mutistakeholder model, ICANN, or Internet Governance won’t solve that problem of unbound state arbitrariness and caprice, let alone illegal use of force, of course. And these concepts and institutions are not designed nor meant to either. But what they do is start changing the culture and practice of state-supremacy. It’s seems clear, for example, that in ICANN’s super tiny DNS remit, states are in no way the superior beings or overlords, and that’s a good thing. I would even venture to say, that there is mounting state practice and custom piling up that suggests that states are acquiescing to this reality (I wonder if with time, if uninterrupted, maybe this could give rise to a binding international norm?)
In any case, what I think IG and multistakeholderism are doing Is transforming the language, the change culture, to eventually change what Foucault called the “episteme”: the a priori paradigms that shape and ground our knowledge and discourse in our epoch.
IG occurs within the constant -sometimes rhythmic, sometimes cringe-inducing - dance between multiple players, the diversity of interest groups, individuals, states and countless parties deeply interested in the operation of and access to the Internet. This is a good thing.
Because it’s a good thing is why there are always important forces objecting to the nongovernmental and privatized aspects of Internet governance, arguing and pushing towards what their episteme commands: that the only logical and legitimate place for these types of functions must be in states and their exclusive dance clubs, be the United Nations (UN), or one of its specialized agencies, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
But we believe that the multistakehokderism is the necessary ritual to keep all forces engaged to maintain a non-fragmented Internet, as free as possible from purely regional or national considerations (whether public or private), but also duly respecting these. ICANN is perhaps the best IG dancehall yet (and hopefully the experiment will work and a new, even better club can be built in the future, with even better and more diverse music to dance to.)
Any future dance club must be fullly aware and cognizant of all these complexities and tensions to strengthen the current model. ALAC or ALAC-like structures that exist to give non-state-bound Individuals a seat at the policy table must be safeguarded and strengthened as centerpieces of multistakeholderism. We need a dancehall with more space for us. We need to keep building that. It’s on the right side of history and I think it’s the right thing to do for humanity as a whole.