Although the definition of governance has been debated on the world stage since the birth of the Universal Postal Union in 1974, due to globalization, interaction between international governing systems and the inclusion of civil society in such relationships are increasingly key to the industrial and societal regulations essential to modern development. Through the definitions of governance offered by Siochru and Girard, Thussu and Raboy, the reader can deduce that the liberalization of telecommunications has resulted in the growth of the free market and regulatory challenges involving the global public sphere.
Global Governance, The WSIS as a Political Space, and Creating a Global Communication Infrastructure describe governance through the eyes of several governing bodies and organizations but share the same multifaceted view of modern regulation of telecommunications. Global governance is portrayed as the convergence of international state and non-state actors, specifically those considered representatives of global civil society, where participants neutrally manage countries’ political, economic and cultural affairs. Media regulations in industry and society are changing to reflect these values as technologies unite, deregulation occurs, globalization increases and the ownership over flows of communication are consolidated. While groups including the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) have failed to meet the funding or regulatory demands resulting from contemporary consumer culture and digital and conceptual divides, civil society has experienced increased participation in governance forums. Civil society is rightly gaining the voice necessary to express social needs in an international arena separate from greedy governments and profit-driven commercial institutions.
Reflecting on the writings of Siochru and Girard, Thussu and Raboy, I believe Raboy captures the essence of media governance best in his assertion that the failures of WSIS and other international forums to concretely regulate communication should not be seen as discouraging, but, on the other hand, as a victory for modern civil society in the creation of “a space for confrontation between opposing communication paradigms” on a global plane.