Yesterday morning Wolfgang Kleinwächter opened the first session of GigaNet, the academic conference on Internet governance, by stating that the technical and academic community although linked to all the other stakeholder groups, is in a way separate from them.  Descending from academic involvement in the WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance), GigaNet is intended as a neutral academic platform, not a stakeholder group in itself, that is linked to the Internet Governance Forum but independent from it. He also noted that Internet governance is a transdisciplinary field.

Peng Hwa Ang opened the first of three panels on "Theorizing Internet Governance: The State of the Art", and introduced its first speaker Mary Rundle from the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society.  Mary spoke on "The Need for Interdisciplinary Understanding", noting that there is currently a widespread disconnect of people from different disciplines.  For example Internet architects may deny that governance applies to the Internet at all, and others may contend that there is no such thing as international law, or that e-commerce is just an electronic shopping catalogue.

She spoke of the choices for governments in governing the Net, and that there are many issue areas in which they are already attempting to do so through intergovernmental organisations. Yet this is not an entire governance framework, as it does not consider the rights of the citizen. In fact, Internet governance is so complex that citizens often do not even know what is going on, which Bernard Benhamou had described as "the beginning of the end of democracy". Hence it is the role of academics to promote interdisciplinary dialogue and mutual understanding. Mary presented some suggestions as to how this can be furthered, such as co-writing papers with scholars of different disciplines.

Nanette Levinson then spoke about the challenge of discussing Internet governance in a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural context.  This field began from around 1998 with the inception of ICANN, when the role of governments was often used as a framework of analysis, but there is now a need for a more multi-disciplinary approach. Nanette's own perspective is not from law but from sociology, political science and communication. She gave some informative examples illustrating bargaining, compromise and alliance formation including the work of Germany's Vocational Training Institutions and that of NAFTA. These are cases in which not only does the global influence the national, but also the national influences the global.

The issue area of environmental governance in particular provides a useful analogue to that of Internet governance, particularly in relation to the new role of NGOs and the private sector as partners, and the shift from public to private governance. Nanette is building a multidisciplinary framework, which she calls an "ecosystem approach", in which she hopes to bridge the cultural differences between various academic and other perspectives.

Jeanette Hoffman from the Internet Governance Project then spoke on "The Role of the State in Heterogeneous Governance Arrangements". She distinguished transnational governance, that does crosses rather than ending at territorial borders, from traditional regional arrangements. She noted that these new governance arrangements are characterised by close collaboration between heterogeneous actors, and by the joint involvement of actors from the public and private sectors. DNS regulation, she said, provides an example of this. Self-regulation is also a characteristic of the new arrangements, as its legitimacy is drawn from inclusion and accountability through processes such as peer review, rather than from formal authority.

She said however that it is often uncertain as to whether these new webs of regulation are effective or not, and that their legitimacy is also often fragile. Further, in the field of transnational governance it is typical to see only a few rule makers and many rule takers. Internet governance (such as in DNS management) provides a good case study for new forms of transnational governance in other contexts. However, she concluded by saying that the area is so far undertheorised. The boundary between public and private is often fuzzy, as for example in the case of the decision on the .xxx TLD: who was ultimately responsible, was it public or private actors? Also, applying research from other policy fields to DNS regulation doesn't explain well the unique role of the US government. Neither is the shift of public to private authority adequately theorised. However, it can be concluded that despite early euphoria, government involvement in Internet governance is permanent.

Filomena Chirico then looked at internet regulation from an economic perspective. Economic theory can be used to examine the formation, structure, processes and economic impact of institutions. Regulatory goals particularly suited to economic analysis are those of correcting market failures, but there are other goals.  DNS management is a fruitful example as it raises the issues of public versus private, domain names as economic goods, the justification for a natural monopoly (which she doubts), and network effects.

Liberalisation of the domain name regulation is suggested where it can be shown that there are incentives to coordinate sufficiently through voluntary coordination. Stability and universal resolution can however be counterveiling regulatory goals in themselves. Transferring DNS management to an inter/supra/multinational body is, she says, not a likely solution, but that perhaps an antitrust investigation may be required. Broadening her analysis to the IGF raises the question whether there is one uniform solution to Internet regulation or multiple alternatives.  She suggested that the IGF may facilitate a kind of regulatory competition, whereby the good solutions will be highlighted and adopted by voluntary convergence.

Finally Ralf Bendrath spoke on hybrid regimes, focussing on data protection regulation, in which governance of privacy is managed through a combination of private and public regimes: national laws, international binding agreements, and private sector arrangements.  These include TRUSTe, The Global Business Dialogue on eCommerce (GBDe), the EU Privacy Directive, OECD guidelines, national laws, etc.

It is a characteristic of these arrangements that the less binding a regime, the more members will be involved.  The EU Privacy Directive is the most binding, and has increasingly set a global standard.  It has in turn formed hybrid arrangements, based on national laws but also relying on private sector governance.  The US Safe Harbour agreement is an example.  Ralf also stated  that in the case of the least binding arrangements, such as the privacy policies of Microsoft attached to its software, an exit strategy was always available to the consumer by refusing to use such software.

This last remark of Ralf's was one that understandably sparked some comment during question time.  Other questions and comments raised in this time included:

• That, despite his Greek heritage, we should be cautious in adopting Aristotle's recommendation of a mixed form of governance based on oligarchy and participation.
• Bill Drake said that since discussion of Internet governance is often seen as of limited relevance, a more productive dialogue can be engaged in if the topic is broadened to "global governance".
• In the case of the role of non-state actors in governance, who decides about conflicting values?  Mary said that this is a contentious question that was avoided at WSIS, and by those seeking institutionalisation at the international level.  Our best guess is that multistakeholderism is important, as are interdisciplinary study, transparency and democracy.
• Finally Nanette raised three critical success factors for scholars: cross-diciplinary and cross national dialogue, utilising technology; participation of developing and developed nations, and the involvement of foundations such as the Diplo Foundation as funding agencies have a large role in shaping what we do.