The author frames an account of the 2005/6 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in the framework of John Rawls' arguments for redistribution using the ‘difference principle’ and Nancy Fraser's arguments for recognition as constituents of justice. He argues that the intensity and character of debates in the WSIS/WGIG can better be understood in terms of Fraser's notion of recognition rather than Rawls' notion of redistribution. He argues that the dynamics of

WSIS/WGIG can be understood in terms of conflicting recognition claims from states and civil society focused on the legitimacy of ‘trilateralism’, including civil society, as a principle of participation in these Internet governance fora.

The ‘struggle for recognition’ is fast becoming the paradigmatic form of political conflict in the late twentieth century…… Cultural domination supplants exploitation as the fundamental injustice (Fraser 1997: 11). Imagine, then, a hypothetical initial arrangement in which all the social primary goods are equally distributed: everyone has similar rights and duties, and income and wealth are equally shared. This state of affairs provides a benchmark for judging

improvements. If certain inequalities of wealth and differences in authority would make everyone better off than in this hypothetical starting situation, then they accord with the general conception (Rawls 1999: 54-5).