BRIDGING THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS: Establishing the Role of Indonesian Civil Society Organizations (CSO) within Multi--stakeholder Approach of the 8th Internet Governance Forum Sherly Haristya & Hersinta STIKOM the London School of Public Relations Jakarta, Indonesia sherly.h@lspr.edu & hersinta@lspr.edu In developing Internet governance issues, the active role of Civil Society Organizations (CSO) along with other stakeholders (government and private sector) is important. But the usual criticism of CSO participation in previous multi-lateral forums had always been lack of proper coordination and too many dissonant voices (Kurbalija, 2010). This research is trying to explore the stakeholder dialogue process and the strategy of Indonesian CSO in influencing the process for preparing the 8th Internet Governance Forum. Qualitative method used in this research, in the form of in-depth interviews with multistakeholder representatives and participatory observation in their forum. Results indicated that the dialogue process has involved inclusion, openness, tolerance, transparency and empowerment dimensions, but all stakeholders still need to develop sufficient Internet governance knowledge. There are still needs for government and private sector to enhance capacity and commitment, whereas CSO has tried to strengthen the consciousness and commitment from these two sectors. Key words: civil society organization, Internet governance, multi--stakeholder, Indonesia. Paper type: research

Background

Internet is the main cause behind major social transformations and historical changes at the macro social level of societal structures and processes, social interaction, and the micro social level of individual cognition at the regular use (Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004). Because of that, the debate about Internet governance has not found its ending yet. Internet governance, according to the WGIG’s (Working Group on Internet Governance) definition is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet (Malcolm, 2008).

To accommodate the worldwide debate about Internet governance, there is an event called Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that embodies the concept of governance by network very well (Malcolm, 2008). It is an annual open forum for multi--stakeholder (government, civil society, and private sector) that was established by the World Summit on the Information Society in 2006 (What is the Internet governance forum?).

The previous global IGF have encouraged Indonesia to be involved further in Internet governance issues within multi-stakeholder approach. The declaration of Indonesia Internet Governance Forum (ID-IGF) on November 1, 2012 has shown the enthusiasm of some representatives from Indonesian government, civil society organizations (CSO), and private sectors. ID-IGF was established to start and maintain the Internet governance in Indonesia that guarantee the openness, free flow of information and knowledge, data and system security, affordable access and availability principles, with putting the national interest above all (Declaration of Indonesia Internet Governance).

One month after the declaration of ID-IGF, several Indonesian CSOs initiatively emerged

to establish Indonesian Civil Society Organizations Network for Internet Governance (ID-Config). This network will act as a hub to facilitate communication regarding Indonesia’s Internet governance issues among related CSOs. Results from all this communication processes will be prepared for the next ID-IGF that planned to be held in May 2013. Furthermore, it will also enrich the material in the 8th IGF that intended to be held in Bali with Indonesia as the hosting country. Frank La Rue, the Special Rapporteur from United Nations Human Rights Council said in 2012, that the vast development of Internet in expands the capacity of individuals to enjoy the right to freedom expression as well as other rights. Therefore, it needs meaningful participation of multiple stakeholders, including the CSO (ID-Config, 2013). As civil society participation is essential to ensure legitimacy of global discussions on the future of the Internet, the need to formulate and map important issues that become their priorities and interests in Internet governance is considered main thing to do. Several literatures have discussed about the capacity and involvement of CSOs on the topic of Internet, such as Nugroho (2011) who particularly wrote about the use and adoption of Internet and social media by Indonesian CSO. He suggested the need to build the capacity of civil society for future thinking about their involvement in the information society. On the other hand, Kurbalija, in general underlined the criticism and challenges about civil societies’ involvement in many multi-lateral forums. The usual criticism had been a lack of proper coordination and the presence of too many, often dissonant voices. (2010).

On this research, we focused on the dialogue process whenever ID-Config interacted with the other stakeholders in order to prepare themes and contents to be delivered in Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meeting in Paris on February 2013. The purpose of MAG meeting was to advise the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the programme and schedule of the IGF meetings (The Multistakeholder Advisory Group).

Problem Statement and Research Objectives

The 8th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will be held in Bali, Indonesia in 2013, where Indonesian government together with private sector and civil society are now working together to conduct this. Considering the criticism of inharmonious voices from CSOs in multi-lateral forums and also previous research that has found the limitation of Indonesian CSOs’ capability in utilizing Internet in this information society era, therefore this research is challenged to analyze how do Indonesian CSOs engage in preparing the 8th IGF and how do this engagement impact upon the shaping of multi-stakeholder approach within the preparation?

Specifically, this research is trying to explore the stakeholder dialogue process and the strategy of Indonesian CSO in influencing the process for preparing the 8th Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia, among the internal (the CSO group) and external (government and private sector) stakeholders.

Theoretical Framework

CSO and internet usage for public participatory

Nugroho (2011) on his study found that despite the possible outcome of Internet that can affect the dynamics of social, economic, and political activism, and also the convenience of using social media for civil society to achieve their missions and goals, yet not all of them under study had use it strategically. They were willing to do it but their capacity was still somewhat limited to document their works and engagements. Simultaneously, there is a need to build the capacity of civil society for future thinking about their involvement in the information society, even though

the Internet has been a convivial tool for many civil society groups, organisations and communities for social activism of many forms. In order to prepare the transparent, accountable and participatory Internet governance, CSO must understand and rise up to the challenges and opportunities posed by the complexity of multiple dimensions in this area. The stakeholder dialogue

Freeman in Rowley (1997) defined stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives” and those who can affect or are affected by its activities. While others broadens the scope of the definition to include those who have power or the ability to impact the organization, and that a stakeholder as risk-bearers who has some form of capital, either financial or human, at risk, and therefore has something to lose or gain depending on organization’s behavior (Rowley, 1997).

According to Marsh (CommGAP, n.d), there are four major types of stakeholders, which are: Core Stakeholders, people essential to the organization or process; Customers, people who receive product or service (community members, interest groups); Controllers, people who define, regulate and influence the organization or process (legislators, regulators, providers of capital, government services, media, trustees) and Partners, people through whom part or all of service is provided (suppliers, temporary staff, distributors, agents and consultants).

A stakeholder dialogue means an interactive, working communication process that involves all types of stakeholders in decision-making and implementation efforts. This dialogue involves all interest groups with a concern in a two-way communication process, focuses on increasing understanding and relations among stakeholders through the use of communication that enable participants to move forward with implementation plans (CommGAP, n.d).

Pedersen (2006) has identified five dimensions of stakeholder dialogue and engagement. These five dimensions define the extent to which a stakeholder dialogue is truly participatory, which include: inclusion, openness, tolerance, empowerment, and transparency, where all stakeholders involved in the dialogue should be given information needed to make decisions and implement outcomes.

In order to build a participative process in Internet governance debate, there are four factors that could influence the quality of stakeholder dialogue. Those are commitment, capacity, consensus and consciousness (CommGap, n.d). These are the challenges that could emerge in building dialogue forum with multi--stakeholders, therefore it requires strategies to manage and engage frequently with other stakeholders to achieve symmetrical communication.

Methodology

We have conducted participant observations in 3 (three) focus group discussions (FGD)

that were arranged by ID-Config as the CSOs’ network. Firstly was FGD amongst all stakeholders on January 23, 2013, secondly was FGD between CSOs itself on January 30, 2013, and lastly was the second FGD between all stakeholders on February 18, 2013 as the final preparation before Indonesian delegations went to the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meeting in Paris. Besides that, we also interviewed 4 (four) key informants from each stakeholder, namely Mr. Djoko Agung (representative from government; Secretary General of Indonesian Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Head Delegation for IGF), Mr. Semmy Pangerapan (representative from private sector; Chairman of Indonesia Internet Service Provider Association / APJII), Mr. Donny Budi Utoyo and Ms. Shita Laksmi (representatives from CSO / ID-Config).

In every FGD, the dimensions of stakeholder dialogue and engagement of stakeholders

about Internet governance were observed, as well as factors that could influence the quality of stakeholder dialogue and strategies applied by CSO in influencing the dialogue. For the interview, we asked the current condition of Internet governance in Indonesia and the involvement of each stakeholder in preparing the 8th IGF.

Analysis and Discussion If we viewed IGF 2013 Committee as an organization, there will be some different roles

between each party involved. Malcolm (2008) stated that the multi-stakeholder network proposed for the IGF involves governments, within whose power it is to create domestic legal rules, the private sector whose involvement is key to the operation of markets, civil society which has a role in articulating and developing norms, and international organisations which include those involved in setting Internet standards that form the Internet's technical architecture.

Firstly, the core stakeholders would be the host country government (represented by Indonesian Ministry of Communication and Information Technology), private (represented by Indonesia Internet Service Provider Association /APJII) and CSO (represented by ID-Config). The customer stakeholders would be the Indonesian society and all representatives from other country, while the one who act as controllers are United Nations (UN) and MAG members from another country who have the autonomy to define, regulate and influence the IGF process. Lastly, the partner stakeholder who act as agents or consultants are the other members of multi-stakeholder such as media, who act as agent to distribute the information for public, companies from private sectors, government bodies such as Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) and other government bodies such as Indonesian Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, and Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who was already committed in the ID-IGF forum.

Pedersen (2006) outlined different dimensions of stakeholder dialogue and the level of engagement in order to analyze the degree of the dialogue, whether it is participatory and inclusive, or hierarchal and exclusive. Based from the answers of all key informants, all stated that each stakeholder were included in decision-making process in preparing the 8th IGF. In every meetings and forum discussion held to coordinate efforts in preparing the event and also to settle issue on Internet governance, representatives from government, private and CSO were included. For example, representative from CSO (ID-Config) regularly invites all stakeholders to attend the meetings for preparing the IGF event in Bali.

Other dimensions such as openness and tolerance were also implied, where all stakeholders have a chance to voice their opinions and be open-minded about other’s arguments on the issue. Each decision-making process that happened in the meetings, it was done in open and collective manner. High levels of freedom and equality found in dialogue process also indicated that on empowerment dimension, the level of engagement among stakeholders is considered high. While for the last dimension, transparency, all stakeholders involved in the dialogue had been given information needed to make decisions and implement outcomes, in the form of written documents of every meeting results and discussions, update news and information on online forum (mailing-list) IGF 2013, whose members come from all three stakeholders.

Figure 1 Level of Engagement in Stakeholder Dialogue

Dimension Level of Engagement between Multi-stakeholders in IGF 2013

Committee Inclusion High: Each representatives of stakeholder was involved in decision-making

process

Openness High: All representatives of stakeholders have opportunities to voice their opinions

Tolerance High: Alternative opinions and critical voices were respected among stakeholders

Empowerment High: Stakeholders are able to affect the structure, process and outcomes of the dialogue

Transparency High: the degree of transparency is high, all channel of communications are open to every stakeholder

Source: Primary data (2013); based on concept by Pedersen (2006)

There were some factors that could affect the successful implementations of stakeholder dialogue: consciousness, capacity, commitment and consensus (Pedersen, 2006). For the preparation of the 8th IGF, therefore consciousness in here comprised of knowledge and awareness on Internet governance issues and the importance of the forum to be settled. There were different perspectives in considering the importance of IGF amongst the core stakeholders. Based on in-depth interviews with key informants from private sector and CSO, IGF was acknowledged as the important forum for the future of Internet since it could give equal chance for both parties to be involved in the discussions of Internet governance. Another view from the government’s side stated that IGF was considered only as a recommendation for the development of Internet regulation, while other forum namely WCIT (World Conference on International Telecommunication) regarded as more important since it served as the binding global treaty.

Drake (2004) explained while the core concept of governance is commonly employed in a wide variety of settings, but looking from the relevant scholarly and policy literatures and other public pronouncements, it becomes clear that peoples’ understandings of governance can vary, sometimes significantly. Governance itself is a difficult concept; furthermore if we relate it to the Internet, then every stakeholder actually experienced insufficient knowledge about it.

ID-Config faced problems and challenges that lie on members’ limited knowledge and understanding about Internet governance issues. Their recent network consists of 15 CSOs with various interests, covers mainly in the area of ICT (Information, Communication and Technology) but not limited to, as other CSO come from different background areas, such as justice and law, research in policy and governance, gender equality, humanities, public advocacy and consumer rights. The majority of CSO only understood piece of Internet governance issues instead of a whole picture. As a result, there were more passive participants on the discussion. More active participants came from CSO in the areas of copyright, online advocacy and ICT development, who could actively gave insight about Internet governance from their related experience.

Private sector also troubled with a lack of knowledge on Internet governance issues. This condition encompassed confusion and vagueness in defining and deciding which issue should be involved in what manner. This can be seen from the second multi-stakeholder discussion before MAG event. Representatives from private sector did not come with their suggestion of key issues. Based on the interview result with Mr. Semmy Pangerapan as the representative from private sector, he said that the most problematic issue in Internet is intellectual property rights issue, while sovereignty would remain also as popular issue, because every countries has different perspective on this matter. He also stated that the ID-IGF forum will be act as an open, transparent, discussion forum to settle which issue should be put in the first priority.

We also saw the similar condition of government’s consciousness particularly their focus

in Internet governance. Representative from government, on the same discussion as above, proposed the theme of sovereignty on the Internet to be delivered on the MAG meeting. Internet governance actually pay attention to the borderless characteristics of Internet thus every party should be concerned with local and also global interest on the Internet. One representative from the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time advised not to bring sovereignty theme since it has possibility to be rejected by the global society. He suggested to use the word “safe and secure” instead of sovereignty.

The awareness from CSOs brought them to be committed in preparing the IGF through ID-Config. They saw the open opportunity for CSOs’ future role in Internet governance areas in Indonesia, therefore they put their fullest attention to convene the 8th IGF. ID-Config regularly held meeting between its members to formulate their agenda, and finally decided to cover these issues on the MAG meeting: (1) Network neutrality; (2) Privacy; (3) Copyrights; (4) Consumer protection; (5) Content policy; (6) Cyber crime; and (7) Digital Divide. The overall theme for these issues were “Information for All.”

Until March 2013, ID-Config was the initiator of 3 (three) FGD sessions in order to set the agenda to be brought up in MAG meeting in Paris and also to engage the dialogue process between each stakeholder. We particularly saw this as a capacity from CSO to be able to allocate their human and organizational resources to to engage in the dialogue. In particular, ID-Config held the first FGD between multi-stakeholders that was planned to introduce Indonesian delegation from each stakeholder that will attend MAG meeting. This was intended to increase the awareness of every stakeholder’s members about the 8th IGF and also to let them know with whom they should contact if they want to deliver their Internet governance-related agenda. From that FGD, unfortunately, delegations from the government and private sector did not come up. This condition forced ID-Config at that time to switch the meeting format to a discussion with the other invitees that attended, such as The Indonesian Human Rights National Commission (Komnasham), Association of Telematic Communities (MASTEL) and Indonesia Domain Name Registry (PANDI), along with the other members of CSO.

Furthermore, the dialogue between stakeholders is unlikely become successful if each party is not committed. In this case, although all three stakeholders emphasized that the forum is important, they do not put the same commitment in allocating resources to the organization.

The explanation on previous paragraph also showed the capacity from CSO to support the dialogue process between stakeholders. According to Mr. Donny as the representative from ID-Config, for now ID-Config consisted of some people at the secretariat and also 15 CSOs as their network, but they would keep inviting as many CSOs as they could in the future. This was intended to build wider network and more capacity.

Government and private sector have been involved in preparing the 8th IGF, but from observation we had, it seemed that they have not built some group similar to ID-Config that could be act as a sub-forum, to engage their internal stakeholder from other governmental body or from another association in the private sector. As a result, their capacities are limited and relied on several key persons.

The last factor is consensus namely the degree to which the stakeholders agree on their perceptions regarding the issues in question and the dialogue itself (Pedersen, 2006). Consensus describes the level of harmony/conflict between the parties involved in the dialogue. On the last FGD, ID-Config viewed sovereignty theme as somewhat contradictory to their main theme, that is “Information for all.” At the end, there was no single consensus among this multi-stakeholder. Each core stakeholder has different perceptions and interests. From the last discussion, the consensus between stakeholders was settled in the form of these core themes that brought to MAG, which encompassed the objectives and interests of the three stakeholders:

a. Development (delivered by CSO and government) b. Internet Safety (delivered by government and private sector) b. Multi-stakeholders (delivered by CSO and government) c. Cyber Society (delivered by government and private sector)

From those factors above, there are problems and challenges faced by each stakeholder.

The CSO is still lack with sufficient knowledge regarding Internet governance, and on the other side, consciousness, capacity, and commitment from the government and private sector need to be enhanced. Based on that, we could conclude factors which are still considered as challenges to all stakeholders, as described in the following figure:

Figure 2 Factors Affecting the Implementation of Stakeholder Dialogue in 2013 IGF Committee

Stakeholders Consciousness

(Knowledge and Awareness)

Capacity (Ability)

Commitment (Willingness)

Consensus (Harmony/conflict)

CSO Awareness is high, but

knowledge has to be built

Has allocated resources, and

built a sub-dialogue forum for networking among internal

stakeholders

Willingness to initiate meetings and discussions; provide support for building the

dialogue

No single consensus reached, but

agreement settled on prioritizing some

important issues

Government Awareness is high, but

knowledge has to be built

Resources are considered

limited; relied to several key

persons

Has to commit more resources to the dialogue

process

No single consensus reached, but

agreement settled on prioritizing some

important issues Private Awareness is

high, but knowledge has

to be built

Limited to several key

persons; did not have sub-

dialogue forum for internal

stakeholders

Has to commit more resources to the dialogue

process

No single consensus

reached, but agreement settled

on prioritizing some important issues

Source: Primary data (2013), based on concept by Pedersen (2006) Strategies from CSO for bridging the dialogue

To cope with the situation, ID-Config had set-up strategies to educate and advocate firstly their CSO members by conducting some forums, such as FGD and public discussion with other stakeholders. The purpose of their internal FGD was to accommodate and formulate agenda from every CSOs in their network. Meanwhile, public discussion was done to spread the awareness about Internet governance issue and the plan from Indonesia to host the 8th IGF to wider public. From all of the discussions, they also made written documents that later be spread to their online forum (mailing-list). Furthermore, ID-Config also published monthly internal bulletin. This bulletin had been disseminated to CSO members, government, and also private sectors. All these

strategies intended to escalate the CSO’s knowledge and at the same time capacity to engage in the stakeholder dialogue. Capacity covers physical, organizational and human resources needed in organization to engage in dialogue with its stakeholders, and also related with commitment (willingness) (Pedersen, 2006).

ID-Config also tried to bridge the dialogue process by utilizing the presence and role of another stakeholder through FGD, press conference, and also hearing session between government and private sector. The purpose of this FGD was to engage the dialogue process between each stakeholder. Meanwhile, whenever the MAG meeting was running, ID-Config tried to conduct press conference via Internet with all the delegation. At that press conference, the moderator asked the commitment of every stakeholder in preparing the 8th IGF. By applying this strategy, ID-Config tried to pull up government and private sector’s commitment by asking it in front of the media workers, which later will disseminate the news to the society. Besides that, on the MAG meeting, ID-Config approached several representatives from the Indonesian House of Representatives and invited them for hearing session, in order to get more awareness and support from the government.

Conclusions and Implications

From this research, we found that Indonesian multi-stakeholder dialogue process for preparing the 8th IGF has involved every dimension such as inclusion, openness, tolerance, transparency and empowerment. But from the result of observations and interviews, it can be seen that there are still some factors from each stakeholder that could potentially affect the implementation of dialogue process. All three stakeholders have the need to develop sufficient knowledge regarding Internet governance. Specifically for government and private sector, there are still challenges to enhance the elements of capacity and commitment, in order to build the ideal dialogue situation. Along the process, ID-Config as the representatives from CSO has tried to strengthen the consciousness and commitment from the government and private sector, and took part to build the consensus between them. For the first purpose, ID-Config influenced government and private sector’s commitment by holding FGD and press conference. By initiating and conducting those events, they utilized the role of other stakeholders to be involved further in the dialogue, including their stakeholder partner such as media and public.

From conclusion above, the practical implications could be given for each stakeholder. Firstly, we suggest for ID-Config to influence the government and private sector’s commitment to increase their capacity. If the capacity is increasing, therefore the organizational and human resources needed in organization to engage in dialogue is also increasing, and in the end, it will affect the commitment.

Secondly, for government and private sector, it could be suggested for them to engage more frequently and systematically with each other in order to determine mutually beneficial action, and also to increase their commitment and capacity. Generally, this process on constructing the dialogue forum in 2013 IGF Committee is a part in much larger context, that is the shifting culture in policy dialogue, which is not happened only in developing countries like Indonesia, but also globally. Traditionally, it is the government that acts as a central actor in Internet-related international law. But now Internet governance is a complex issue, which involves multi-stakeholder in many levels: within member of one stakeholder, within one country, within global society. It requires capacity, commitment, and consensus amongst the multi-stakeholder to ensure the dialogue quality.

By becoming a host country of the 8th IGF, Indonesia will be the attention of the world since it is the first country that arranges this event within multi-stakeholder approach. But this

step is only a small part of a long path, therefore each stakeholder supposed to think further for strategic step after 8th IGF to be taken to continue the Internet governance implementation within Indonesia.

References

CommGAP. (n.d). Multi-stakeholder dialogue. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGOVACC/Resources/MultiStakeholderweb.pdf

Declaration of Indonesia Internet governance. Retrieved from http://id-igf.or.id/?p=127 Drake, W.J. (2004). “Reframing The Internet Governance Discourse: Fifteen Baseline Propositions.” Paper

presentations at the Workshop on Internet Governance, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, February 26-27, 2004; and the UN ICT Task Force Global Forum on Internet Governance, New York City; March 25-26, 2004.

Frooman, J. (1999). “Stakeholder influence strategies”. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 24, No. 2,

pp. 191-205 ID-Config. (2013). “Frank La Rue: Civil society participation in Internet debate is a key”. Id-Config

Bulletin. Vol. 2, January.

Komunitas TIK akan deklarasikan ID-IGF (Indonesia Internet Governance Forum). Retrieved from http://id-igf.or.id/?page_id=90

Kurbalija, J. (2010). An introduction to Internet governance. (4th ed). Diplo Foundation.

Malcolm, J. (2008). Multi--stakeholder governance and the Internet governance forum. Perth: Terminus Press

Malcolm, J. (n.d.) Multi--stakeholder policy development within the IGF. Retrieved from http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/JM_Contribution%20to%20IGF.pdf

The Multistakeholder Advisory Group. Retrieved from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag Nugroho, Y. (2011). Citizens in @action: Collaboration, participatory democracy and freedom of

information – Mapping contemporary civic activism and the use of new social media in Indonesia. Report. Research collaboration of Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester and HIVOS Regional Office Southeast Asia. Manchester and Jakarta: MIOIR and HIVOS.

Pedersen, E. R. (2006). “Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: how companies translate

stakeholder dialogue into practice.” Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137-163doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8594.2006.00265.x

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). “The new governance: governing without government.” Political Studies, 44(4),

652-667. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x/abstract

Rowley, T. (1997). “Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 887-910

Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., and Blair, J. D. (1991). “Strategies for assessing and managing

organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive. Vol. 5, No.2, pp. 61–75

Thurlow, C.,Lengel. L., and Tomic. A.,(2004). Computer Mediated Communication. Great Britain: Sage Publications.

What is the Internet governance forum? Retrieved from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/aboutigf Working Group on Internet Governance. (2005). Reforming Internet governance: perspectives from the

Working Group on Internet Governance. New York: William J. Drake.

RESEARCHPROPOSAL

BRIDGINGTHEDIALOGUEBETWEENSTAKEHOLDERS:

EstablishingtheRoleofIndonesianCivilSocietyOrganizations

(CSO)withinMulti‐stakeholderApproachofthe8thInternet

GovernanceForum

1. ProfileofResearcher

a. Name:SherlyHaristya

ShortBiography:SherlyisamastergraduateinCommunicationStudiesfrom

UniversitasIndonesia.Sheisnowalecturer,thesiscoordinator,andalsoeditor

forin‐housejournalofSekolahTinggiIlmuKomunikasitheLondonSchoolof

PublicRelations(STIKOMLSPR),Jakarta,Indonesia.Shehasbeencontinuously

focusingherresearchonissuesrelatedtointernet.Sheactivelypresentsher

researchpapersinsomenationalandinternationalacademicconferences.Her

researchpapersalsohavebeenpublishedinseveraljournalsandinabook

chapter.

b. Name:Hersinta

ShortBiography:Aformerjournalistwhohadbeenworkedinvariousmedia

companiesinIndonesia,includingmagazines,radioandonlinemedia.

GraduatedfrommasterprogramatUniversityofIndonesia(UI),majoringin

CommunicationManagement,nowsheisactivelecturingandalsoactingas

deputychiefeditorforacademicjournalofSekolahTinggiIlmuKomunikasiThe

LondonSchoolofPublicRelations(STIKOMLSPR)Jakarta.Startedherresearch

experiencein1997,wheresheactedasparttimefieldresearcherforKompas

newspaperandLaboratoriumSosiologiUI.Nowshecontinuesdoingresearch

projectsthathavebeenpresentedandpublishedinconferences,bookchapter

andacademicjournals,mainlyintheareaofonlinemediaandhealth

communication.

2. ResearchProposal

a. Background

Internet is themain cause behindmajor social transformations and historical

changes at the macro social level of societal structures and processes, social

interaction,andthemicrosocial levelof individualcognitionattheregularuse

(Thurlow,Lengel,andTomic,2004).Relatedtothat,thedebateaboutinternet

governance has not found its ending yet. In order to accommodate the

worldwidedebate in the area of internet governance, there is an event called

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It is an annual open forum for multi‐

stakeholder(government,civilsociety,andprivatesector)thatwasestablished

bytheWorldSummitontheInformationSociety in2006(What istheinternet

governanceforum?).

The previous global IGF have encouraged Indonesia to be involved further in

internetgovernance issues. Thedeclarationof Indonesia InternetGovernance

Forum (ID‐IGF) on November 1, 2012 has shown the enthusiasm of some

representativesfromIndonesiangovernment,civilsocietyorganizations(CSO),

and private sectors. ID‐IGFwas established to start andmaintain the internet

governanceinIndonesiathatguaranteetheopenness,freeflowofinformation

and knowledge, data and system security, affordable access and availability

principles,withputtingthenationalinterestaboveall(DeclarationofIndonesia

InternetGovernance).

OnemonthafterthedeclarationofID‐IGF,severalIndonesianCSOsinitiatively

emerged to establish Indonesian Civil Society Organizations Network for

Internet Governance (ID‐CONFIG). This networkwill act as a hub to facilitate

communicationregardingIndonesia’sinternetgovernanceissuesamongrelated

CSOs. Results from all this communication processeswill be prepared for the

nextID‐IGFthatplannedtobeheldinMay2013.Furthermore,itwillalsoenrich

thematerialinthe8thIGFthatintendedtobeheldinBaliwithIndonesiaasthe

hostingcountry.

SeveralliteratureshavediscussedaboutthecapacityandinvolvementofCSOs

on the topic of internet.Nugroho (2011) particularlywrote about the use and

adoption of internet and socialmedia by Indonesian CSOs.He suggested the

need to build the capacity of civil society for future thinking about their

involvementintheinformationsociety.Ontheotherhand,Kurbalija,ingeneral

underlined the criticism and challenges about civil societies’ involvement in

many multilateral forums. The usual criticism had been a lack of proper

coordinationandthepresenceoftoomany,oftendissonantvoices.(2010).

b. ProblemStatementandResearchObjectives

In view of the need to build the capacity of Indonesian CSOs, to document

CSOs’movementregardinginternetgovernancethatisstillconsideredasanew

field in developing country such as Indonesia, and also the criticism of

inharmoniousvoicesfromCSOsinmultilateralforums,asaresultthisresearch

ischallengedtoanalyzehowdoIndonesianCSOsengageininternetgovernance

issuesandhowthisengagementimpactsupontheshapingofmulti‐stakeholder

internetgovernanceinIndonesia?

Specifically,thisresearchistryingtofindout:

i. What are the current conditions (awareness and capacity) regarding Internet

governanceissuesamongIndonesianCSOs?

ii. HowdotheseconditionsaffectthewaysinwhichIndonesianCSOsparticipate

inthepreparationofthe8thIGF?

iii. What is the best strategy to put up these current circumstances and to

encourage Indonesian CSOs to participate in international multi‐stakeholder

advocacyforum?

iv. What is the strategyof IndonesianCSOs to communicate, buildnetwork, and

conduct advocacy effort within multi‐stakeholder approach during the

preparationofthe8thIGF.

v. What are the implications of Indonesian CSOs engagement in the 8th IGF for

theirfutureroleandalsothedevelopmentofInternetgovernanceinIndonesia?

b. PreviousStudies

Nugroho (2011) found that despite the possible outcome of Internet that can

affect the dynamics of social, economic, and political activism, and also the

convenienceofusingsocialmediaforcivilsocietytoachievetheirmissionsand

goals,yetnotallofthemunderstudyhaduseitstrategically.Theywerewilling

todo itbut theircapacitywasstill somewhat limitedtodocumenttheirworks

andengagements.

Moreover, the research participants also visualized their future desirable

scenario about the society through Foresight exercise. They imagined a

plausiblefuturewherethewidersocietyismorecohesive,participatory,andat

the same time interacts in a knowledge‐based engagement, facilitated by

equally accessible technology for all citizens. To arrive at this condition, the

suggestion is that the Internet and socialmedia shouldbeutilizedand its use

shouldbeevaluated.Simultaneously,thereisaneedtobuildthecapacityofcivil

society for future thinking about their involvement in the information society

(Nugroho,2011).

c. Methodology

Thisresearchwillutilizetheparticipatoryactionresearch.Thisresearchmethod

focuses on the researcher's participatory actions within the community or an

areaofconcernthataimtoimprovetherelatedcommunityorarea.Wewillbe

involvedextensivelyinthecivilsociety’ssideforthepreparationprocessofthe

8th IGF that planned to be held in Bali, Indonesia.Wewill conduct interview,

distribute surveys and execute focus group discussions with representatives

fromtentatively12 relatedCSOsnamelyElsam (LembagaStudidanAdvokasi

MasyarakatorInstituteforPolicyResearchandAdvocacy),AirPutih,SatuDunia,

ICJR(Institute forCriminalJusticeReform), Idola (IndonesiaOnlineAdvocacy),

YLKI (Yayasan LembagaKonsumen Indonesia or ConsumersAssociation from

Indonesia),AJI(AliansiJurnalisIndependenorIndependentJournalistsAlliance,

ICTWatch,RTIK(RelawanTeknologiInformasidanKomunikasiorVolunteersof

Information Communication, and Technology), Common Room, Wikimedia

Indonesia, Combine Resource Institution. Other relevant data collecting

techniquewillalsobeconductedinthefuturewhenitisneeded.

d. Significance

Jensen,inthepresentregimeofInternetgovernance,heparticularlyconcerned

with the severe lack of outreach and involvement from large groups of the

populations, especially from civil society of developing countries (Working

GrouponInternetGovernance,2005).Additionally,internetgovernanceisstilla

recent issue in Indonesia thus there has not been sufficient research about it.

This research will give a picture about the involvement of Indonesian CSOs

amongmulti‐stakeholdercoalition in internetgovernance issues,especiallyfor

the preparation of the 8th IGF thatwill be held inBali, Indonesia. Considering

that, it ishopedthatthefinalresultofthisresearchcanstrengthentheroleof

otherCSOs intheir futuremovementandalsocanenhancetheunderstanding

aboutthedynamicsdevelopmentof internetgovernanceissuesfortherelated

internet stakeholders in Indonesia. The completion of this research therefore

willcontributetothepracticalfieldandacademicscopeaswell.

e. Expectedtimeline

No ActivityDec‐11

Jan‐12

Feb‐12

Mar‐12

Apr‐12

May‐12

Jun‐12

Aug‐12

Sep‐12

Oct‐12

Nov‐12

Dec‐12

Jan‐13

Feb‐13

1

Datacollection&fieldresearchactivities X X X X X X X X X X

2MappingofrelatedCSOs X X

3Distributesurveys

4FocusGroupDiscussion X X

5 Dataanalysis X X X

6Reportwriting X X

7

Finalreportandpublication X

References

DeclarationofIndonesiainternetgovernance.Retrievedfromhttp://id‐igf.or.id/?p=127

Komunitas TIK akan deklarasikan ID‐IGF (Indonesia Internet Governance Forum).

Retrievedfromhttp://id‐igf.or.id/?page_id=90

Kurbalija,J.(2010).Anintroductiontointernetgovernance.(4thed).DiploFoundation.

Nugroho, Y. (2011). Citizens in@action: Collaboration, participatory democracy and

freedomof information–Mappingcontemporarycivicactivismandtheuseof

new social media in Indonesia. Report. Research collaboration ofManchester

InstituteofInnovationResearch,UniversityofManchesterandHIVOSRegional

OfficeSoutheastAsia.ManchesterandJakarta:MIOIRandHIVOS.

Thurlow,C.,Lengel.L.,andTomic.A.,(2004).ComputerMediatedCommunication.Great

Britain:SagePublications.

What is the internet governance forum? Retrieved from

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/aboutigf

Working Group on Internet Governance. (2005). Reforming internet governance:

perspectivesfromtheWorkingGrouponInternetGovernance.NewYork:William

J.Drake.