SNA of Internet Governance Forum tweeters: Can different advocacy networks be discerned, and what are their contents?

Ina Mossin, MALD December 2013

Project proposal for social network analysis to be carried out in D217m

Research Question

Who are the main interest-groups discussing the Internet Governance Forum, and what conclusions can be drawn from studying their connections? Was the 2013 Internet Governance Forum a success in bringing together different constituencies and fostering open discussion about the future of the Internet?

Background

In 2006 the world’s first Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was held in Athens, Greece, following an open consultation meeting called by the UN Secretary General in February same year. In the seven years that have passed since this time, the IGF has become an annual event attracting audiences from all over the world. This year, Indonesia is hosting the conference in Bali, from 21-25 October.

The IGF is a very interesting event because it brings together advocates for quite different causes: from fierce defenders of freedom of speech and information, to government officials from countries increasingly worried over the very freedom the internet offers. The event is sponsored by the UN, which indicates that the international community also increasingly takes an interest in the governance of the webs. One would also expect larger online companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon to make sure to have their voices heard in the debate, as their current sources of revenue is directly dependent on the maintenance of a web-based infrastructure, although, perhaps not necessarily on one based on the open principles as of today.

However, while the internet currently is an essentially non-regulated, global infrastructure, there are questions as to how long the web can remain as open and accessible as it is today. Notably, the “great firewall” of China, and other authoritarian regimes’ increasing attempts at controlling the access and content of their citizens’ internet use, poses a great threat to the essential open nature of the internet. Threats to an open internet architecture also comes from the “liberal” West: foreshadowed by the global internet giants’ increasing use of peer-to-peer applications; essentially bringing us back to the “walled gardens” of internet’s earliest days. This raises questions as to who has an interest in controlling or regulating the internet, and why; whose voices are heard in the attempt to articulate a global agenda for Internet governance; and is the Internet Governance Forum a suitable arena for the deliberation of the future of the internet? Are there any voices missing?

Objective

This SNA will attempt to establish who are the main interest-groups debating the future governance of the internet, and to establish to what extent they also communicate with each other.  This is useful, not least from a sociological point of view, as the future of the internet is open, and a better understanding of who is currently debating it may help raise public awareness about the issues at stake.

Hypothesis

Due to the opposing agendas evident in the nature of the conference, I expect the different constituencies (e.g. journalists, freedom of speech advocates) to be quite insular, and not communicate much with interests groups having other concerns related to the free use of the internet (e.g. government officials, business interests). However, it is to be hoped that the conference will, at least during the days it lasts, bring people from different constituencies and views together to share their perspectives on the future of the internet.

Methodology

I will download and analyse data from twitter from all the days the conference goes on for, and also for some weeks after the conference, to see if it is possible to discern a pattern of communications which is consistent with the hypothesis.

Secondly, I will attempt to discern whether a particular cluster of words in the tweets can say inform us about the evolving debate in a qualitative way. In particular, I am interested in the divergence between those who promote internet cooperation, which denotes a more transnationalist and less hierarchical viewpoint, and those who wish to strengthen internet governance, which alludes to a greater role of governments and hierarchies in the process.

I will collect attribute data on:

-        Type of connection (tweet, mention, reply)

-        Sector (NGO, media, government official, international organization, private citizen)

-        Region

-        What other words the users tweet about: Internet governance, internet cooperation, internet freedoms, freedom of speech etc.

Potential problems

A problem might be that the constituencies I expect to have the strongest interest in internet regulation might not be very vocal on twitter. The results of the analysis of the twitter conversation would therefore possibly be skewed towards whoever turns out to be most vocal and “online” in the debate over internet freedoms. These tend to be activists, which would naturally not give the full picture of the debate.  

Preliminary bibliography

Mueller, Milton L. (2010) Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance (Information Revolution and Global Politics) (MIT Press: Cambridge)

Cross, Laseter, Parker and Velasquez (2006) “Using Social Network Analysis to Improve Communities of Practice” California Management Review, Vol 49, No 1

College of Europe: Conference Report 25.-26. October 2011 “Challenges Facing the 21st Century Diplomat: Representation, Communication, Negotiation and Training”

Freedom House: “Freedom on the Net 2013: A global assessment of Internet and Digital Media”, October 3, 2013

Internet resource pages

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

Internet Governance Project (IGP) http://www.internetgovernance.org/

European Internet Foundation (EIF) www.EIFonline.org

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) http://www.icann.org/