Dmitry Epstein

Who's Responsible for the Digital Divide? Public Perceptions and Policy Implications

Addressing the reasons for—and the solutions to—the “digital divide” has been on the public agenda since the emergence of the Internet. However, the term has meant quite different things, depending on the audience and the context, and these competing interpretations may in fact orient toward different policy outcomes. The goals of this article are twofold. First, the authors unpack the term “digital divide” and examine how it has been deployed and interpreted across a range of academic and policy discourses. Second, through a framing experiment embedded within a nationally representative survey, the authors demonstrate how presenting respondents with two different conceptual frames of the digital divide may lead to different perceptions of who is most accountable for addressing the issue. From this, they discuss the dynamic relationship between the construction and communication of policy discourse and the public understanding of the digital divide, as well as implications for effective communication about the digital divide and information and communication technology policy to the general public.

Not by Technology Alone: The “Analog” Aspects of Online Public Engagement in Policymaking

Abstract Between Twitter revolutions and Facebook elections, there is a growing belief that information and communication technologies are changing the way democracy is practiced. The discourse around e-government and online deliberation is frequently focused on technical solutions and based in the belief that if you build it correctly they will come. This paper departs from the literature on digital divide to examine barriers to online civic participation in policy deliberation. While most scholarship focuses on identifying and describing those barriers, this study offers an in-depth analysis of what it takes to address them using a particular case study. Based in the tradition of action research, this paper focuses on analysis of practices that evolved in Regulation Room—a research project of CeRI (Cornell eRulemaking Initiative) that works with federal government agencies in helping them engage public in complex policymaking processes. It draws a multidimensional picture of motivation, skill, and general political participation divides; or the “analog” aspects of the digital divide in online civic participation and policy deliberation.

The Value of Words: Narrative as Evidence in Policy Making

Policy makers today rely primarily on technical data as their basis for decision making. Yet, there is a potentially underestimated value in substantive reflections of the members of the public who will be affected by a particular regulation. Viewing professional policy makers and professional commenters as a community of practice, we describe their limited shared repertoire with the lay members of the public as a significant barrier to participation. Based on our work with Regulation Room, we offer an initial typology of narratives -- complexity, contributory context, unintended consequences, and reframing -- as a first step towards overcoming conceptual barriers to effective civic engagement in policy making.

The Making of Institutions of Information Governance: The Case of the Internet Governance Forum

Histories of information systems are inseparable from the histories of their governance. In the case of the Internet, governance structures informally developed during its early design were substantially different from the typical mechanisms resulting from public policy decision-making. Traditionally, global information systems, such as telecommunication systems, were governed through state-centric mechanisms that would set treaty-based framework for non-state actors to operate within. Legitimate participation in these traditional governance structures was the prerogative of states that possessed sole decision-making authority. In the case of the Internet, non-state-actor-driven governance frameworks were developed outside of those traditional mechanisms. They relied on a different conception of legitimacy and authority. This paper discusses how the state and non-state actors were forced to cooperate around the creation of institutions that could accommodate the variety of views on authority, legitimacy, and decision-making processes in Internet governance. It tracks the creation of the Internet Governance Forum as a case where notions of legitimacy and authority were redefined for policy deliberations of complex information systems. The paper concludes with whether those changes lead to the emergence of new institutions that contribute to the sustainability of the network by enabling coexistence of competing political interests and values; and what this could mean for the future of the network.

Differential Effects of Capital-Enhancing and Recreational Internet Use on Citizens’ Demand for Democracy

This study seeks to contribute to the growing body of scholarship about the Internet’s role in authoritarian and transitioning countries. Based on two original surveys of Russian and Ukrainian Internet users, online behaviors were classified as either primarily capital enhancing or recreational in terms of their democratic potential. Indirect and differential models of how these types of Internet use are associated with citizen demand for democracy were tested using serial mediation. Capital-enhancing use exhibited an indirect positive effect on demand for democratic governance by increasing critical appraisals of the incumbent regime, whereas recreational Internet was associated with satisfactory evaluations of non-democratic regimes and more entrenched authoritarian worldviews.

Crowdsourcing Internet Governance: The Case of ICANN's Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation

Internet governance issues are diverse in scope and transnational in scale, making issue awareness and consensus building among relevant stakeholders a logistical leviathan. Historically, the identification and resolution of internet governance issues have remained within the purview of technical bodies (lead primarily by the private sector) and governments. Lack of centralized control over the internet created a situation where no single player has ultimate jurisdiction over the technical and political regulation of the web. This shift in power has resulted in creation of a range of multistakeholder forums to promote both discourse among various actors about internet governance issues and potential solutions, as well as binding decision-making. On the one end of the spectrum are non-binding organizations, such the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Established in 2006, the IGF seeks to encourage deliberation about internet governance that embodies “international cooperation, collaboration, and implementation” among diverse stakeholders, albeit without binding or prescriptive outcomes (Napoli, 2008, p. 3).1 On the other end of the spectrum are organizations that produce concrete binding rules and regulations, such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Founded in 1998, in response to the growing complexity and escalating international criticism of informal, US-centric mechanisms for the management of internet names and number, ICANN remains one of the primary internet governance organizations, and also one that seeks to rely on multistakeholder processes (Mueller, 2002).