which is surprising given the expectation of diverse corporate approaches to business
and technology and the avoidance of techno-deterministic solutions. For instance,
with the tremendous influence of telecommunications companies and recent issues to
date (e.g., warrantless wiretaps or TOM-Skype surveillance), 34 their absence represents
an important and missing piece of the puzzle. Their participation throughout the drafting process suggests that the model should be fairly well suited to their interests, and
yet they chose not to continue. Likewise, given the potential for explosive growth and
expansion within the ICT space, the lack of small companies is notable—and troubling. From a strategic perspective, their inclusion is important to ensure diversity of
perspective and practicability of approach, to say nothing of orienting them to human
rights issues at the stages when integration with corporate functioning may be easier.
These deficits do not necessarily reflect a lack of GNI commitment to identifying
additional partners and are likely a result of some combination of its early stage of
organizational development, a market reaction, and limited outreach capacity. In each
case, however, GNI must ask what it needs to do to attract these groups, and also
whether their absence has some larger significance. Legislators, shareholders, and other
stakeholders should also consider whether they offer a sufficiently ample reward—and
urgency—for companies to make the investments necessary to participate in GNI.
Given that neither non-Western nor start-up companies took part in the drafting process (a path passively taken and reluctantly accepted by the group for expediency), it
seems possible that some adaptation of the GNI may be necessary to facilitate their participation, especially those in markets less welcoming to the GNI.
Accommodations could conceivably take many forms, whether some manner of onboarding or associate membership for those unable to implement the principles immediately, or a private form of participation, either to avoid government scrutiny or to
simply focus on collective activities rather than make a public statement. While these
types of arrangements might extend participation, they might also diminish the GNI
brand and its value to current participants, and will require careful consideration.
Accountability
While Internet companies are new to accountability (perhaps reflecting their libertarian outlook, propensity for confidentiality, and relative corporate immaturity), a reasonable, meaningful, and ambitious approach to accountability was widely viewed
within GNI as essential to its success and was a necessity for retaining the diverse coalition that comprises the GNI. Participants were deeply aware of Ruggie’s observation,
‘‘The Achilles heel of self-regulatory arrangements is to date their underdeveloped accountability mechanisms. Company initiatives increasingly include rudimentary forms
of internal and external reporting. . . . But no universally—or even widely—accepted
standards yet exist for these practices. . . . Beyond certain multi-stakeholder systems,
98
Colin M. Maclay
and technology and the avoidance of techno-deterministic solutions. For instance,
with the tremendous influence of telecommunications companies and recent issues to
date (e.g., warrantless wiretaps or TOM-Skype surveillance), 34 their absence represents
an important and missing piece of the puzzle. Their participation throughout the drafting process suggests that the model should be fairly well suited to their interests, and
yet they chose not to continue. Likewise, given the potential for explosive growth and
expansion within the ICT space, the lack of small companies is notable—and troubling. From a strategic perspective, their inclusion is important to ensure diversity of
perspective and practicability of approach, to say nothing of orienting them to human
rights issues at the stages when integration with corporate functioning may be easier.
These deficits do not necessarily reflect a lack of GNI commitment to identifying
additional partners and are likely a result of some combination of its early stage of
organizational development, a market reaction, and limited outreach capacity. In each
case, however, GNI must ask what it needs to do to attract these groups, and also
whether their absence has some larger significance. Legislators, shareholders, and other
stakeholders should also consider whether they offer a sufficiently ample reward—and
urgency—for companies to make the investments necessary to participate in GNI.
Given that neither non-Western nor start-up companies took part in the drafting process (a path passively taken and reluctantly accepted by the group for expediency), it
seems possible that some adaptation of the GNI may be necessary to facilitate their participation, especially those in markets less welcoming to the GNI.
Accommodations could conceivably take many forms, whether some manner of onboarding or associate membership for those unable to implement the principles immediately, or a private form of participation, either to avoid government scrutiny or to
simply focus on collective activities rather than make a public statement. While these
types of arrangements might extend participation, they might also diminish the GNI
brand and its value to current participants, and will require careful consideration.
Accountability
While Internet companies are new to accountability (perhaps reflecting their libertarian outlook, propensity for confidentiality, and relative corporate immaturity), a reasonable, meaningful, and ambitious approach to accountability was widely viewed
within GNI as essential to its success and was a necessity for retaining the diverse coalition that comprises the GNI. Participants were deeply aware of Ruggie’s observation,
‘‘The Achilles heel of self-regulatory arrangements is to date their underdeveloped accountability mechanisms. Company initiatives increasingly include rudimentary forms
of internal and external reporting. . . . But no universally—or even widely—accepted
standards yet exist for these practices. . . . Beyond certain multi-stakeholder systems,
98
Colin M. Maclay