Institutional Sources of Legitimacy in Multistakeholder Global Governance at ICANN

Multistakeholder global governance has risen in recent decades as a major alternative to old-style multilateralism, particularly in the fields of environment, food, health, corporate accountability, and the Internet. In contrast to multilateral organizations, which develop global cooperation among nation-states, multistakeholder regimes assemble representatives of various sectors that ‘have a stake’ in a particular problem (e.g., academe, business, civil society, governments, and technical experts). Multistakeholder initiatives often present themselves as more effective, democratic and fair than multilateralism. Yet how far have these multistakeholder initiatives been able to attract legitimacy: on what grounds and to whom? In particular, how far do legitimacy beliefs toward multistakeholder regimes share the same institutional sources that other research has found to count for multilateralism? Or does legitimacy work differently in multistakeholder global governance? This paper examines these questions in relation to one of the leading global multistakeholder bodies, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is a particularly interesting case to study these questions, given this multistakeholder scheme’s size and careful attention to institutional design, often presenting itself as a model multistakeholder apparatus for others to emulate. Moreover, ICANN is important. Overseeing several key technical functions of the global Internet infrastructure, it plays a crucial role in making possible a single global Internet. Drawing on mixed-methods survey interviews conducted with some 500 individuals across all parts of the ICANN regime, this paper explores the relationship between their assessments of institutional qualities on the one hand and their legitimacy beliefs toward ICANN on the other. First, we are interested in finding out what institutional qualities participants find important for ICANN. Second, we seek to determine how far participants see these institutional qualities realized in practice. Third, we aim to identify how far legitimacy in ICANN is rooted in perceptions of its purpose, procedure, and performance. To this end, we combine statistical analysis of closed-ended survey questions with a qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses. We present three key findings: 1. In terms of principles, participants in ICANN generally attach more importance to technocratic performance and democratic and fair procedure than to democratic and fair performance. Respondents also find it between ‘quite’ and ‘very’ important that ICANN delivers on technocratic procedure. 2. In terms of practice, participants in ICANN are generally most satisfied with the institution’s purpose, technocratic performance, and democratic procedures. Participants give comparatively lower scores to ICANN’s delivery on technocratic and fair procedures as well as on democratic and fair outcomes. 3. Regarding links between institutional qualities and legitimacy beliefs, participants in ICANN who are more satisfied with several aspects of the organization’s purpose, adherence to fair, democratic, and technocratic procedures, and ability to deliver technocratic outcomes generally are more likely to have high confidence in ICANN.