[Advisors] excellent article on the UN and the future of the internet

[Marita Moll]

Hello Advisors. Here  is a really good article explaining what is at 
stake in the current WSIS and Global Digital Compact exercises. Skipping 
to the end, the author , a veteran in internet policy analysis (bio at 
the end) concludes:

/What is key to consider is that the multistakeholder model is important 
not because of the transformative results it has produced. In fact, it 
has not managed to do that. The importance of the multistakeholder model 
should otherwise be calculated. The model has been key in legitimizing 
multi-actor participation without requiring permission from governments; 
this is crucial as an increasing number of states try to silence 
opposing voices and create echo chambers in order to justify their 
inward-looking digital strategies. Another way to think about the 
multistakeholder model is through transparency; the model has proven 
capable to shed light on the actions taken by different actors and how 
they may conflict with the Internet’s established norms and principles. /

//

/The Internet community has fought long and hard for its right to be 
part of the conversation on the future of the Internet, and to hold 
governments accountable for actions that are against its openness, 
global reach and interoperability. If we don’t pay attention, these 
crucial qualities may disappear on a whim./

Best wishes for the coming long weekend and Happy Easter to all those 
who celebrate this annual spring ritual

Marita

*The UN Wants More Say Over the Future of the Internet. That’s Not 
Necessarily A Good Thing*

https://techpolicy.press/the-un-wants-more-say-over-the-future-of-the-internet-thats-not-necessarily-a-good-thing/

Published March 27, 2023

As if Internet governance discussions were not already convoluted, the 
United Nations has recentlylaunched 
<https://www.un.org/techenvoy/global-digital-compact>a process that 
attempts to place the UN at the heart of Internet governance 
discussions. While it may seem like a good thing that the nearly 80-year 
old intergovernmental organization is concerned about the future of the 
Internet, its initiative raises critical questions for the future of 
multistakeholder collaboration.


    The Merits of Decentralization

In George Orwell’s allegorical novel,/Animal Farm/, the animals conspire 
to seize control of the farm, establishing ‘animalist’ rules to prevent 
oppressive behavior by humans. They succeed in their endeavor, until the 
pig, Napoleon, decides to change the final rule: “All animals are equal, 
but some are more equal than others,” he commands. In its simplicity, 
Orwell’s message is compelling: all power can ultimately be abused.

If there is one system that, by design, can resist such an abuse of 
power is the Internet. The original promise of the Internet was meant to 
reflect a structure where power would be dispersed, making room for more 
democratic and fair participation. A decentralized technology, the 
Internet was supposed to negate any center of control and reject any 
attempt at concentrating power. And, for the most part, this design 
choice ensured an open technology, where voluntary participation and 
open standards would be core to the way it would eventually evolve. Over 
the years, however, experience has shown that the Internet’s 
decentralized architecture is not a panacea: as the Internet’s ecosystem 
evolved and innovation led to new systems and applications, the market 
appeared to demand a certain degree of concentration.

Power concentration, while perhaps necessary to perform certain 
functions, such as reduced costs and fast decision-making, has the 
tendency to corrupt and ossify, undermining the benefits of 
decentralized, collective wisdom. Over the past 25 years or so, global 
Internet adoption has allowed certain companies to benefit greatly from 
network effects; as more users joined their systems, the value of these 
companies increased exponentially while it was harder for users to 
switch to competing services. Network effects would end up discouraging 
users from exiting certain services, resulting in high barriers for new 
entrants; Ben Thompson refers to this as the ”aggregation theory 
<https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/>.”

It is for this reason that the early decision to adopt an inclusive, 
multistakeholder model of governance for the Internet has been 
fundamental for its evolution and growth. Emerging out of the two phases 
of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), in 2003 in Geneva 
and, then, in 2005 in Tunis, the idea was that the future of the 
Internet should be tied to a collaborative approach that would allow a 
multitude of stakeholders to shape its future. In this respect, the 
“Tunis Agenda for the Information Society”acknowledged 
<https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>that “Internet 
governance is the development and application by governments, the 
private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared 
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that 
shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” And, for almost two 
decades, multistakeholder governance has sustained the Internet through 
some key milestones, including thetransition 
<https://ntia.gov/other-publication/fact-sheet-iana-stewardship-transition-explained>of 
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) from the US government to 
the wider Internet community in 2016.


    Enter the UN’s “Common Agenda”

After almost twenty years of multistakeholder governance, however, this 
inclusive model might be hanging in a balance.

In 2021, António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary General, 
released areport 
<https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf>on 
“Our Common Agenda.” Declaring that the world is at “an inflection 
point,” he pointed at two options: “a breakdown or a breakthrough.” The 
global COVID19 pandemic, the effects of climate change, conflicts within 
and between states, poverty, discrimination and violence, increasing 
negative levels of trust and solidarity, all indicate that we are 
running against time. In this regard, the United Nations is hoping 
through “a common agenda” to “accelerate the implementation of existing 
agreements, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” and 
reintroduce a renewed globalized and cohesive international order.

Thevision 
<https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf>promoted 
by the Secretary General is premised upon a “more networked and 
inclusive multilateral system, anchored within the United Nations.” It 
spans across twelve commitments, amongst which there is the improvement 
of digital cooperation. For this to be achieved, the proposal centers 
around a “Global Digital Compact,” which would cover topical issues, 
including connectivity, Internet fragmentation, data protection, human 
rights, content moderation, and the regulation of artificial 
intelligence. The choice of these themes does not seem accidental 
considering they occupy the digital agendas of most countries around the 
world. Depending on how we respond to them, they could determine the 
future of the Internet as an open, inclusive and global network of 
networks.

In the meantime, the timing of this initiative is compelling, 
withdeglobalization 
<https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/pandemic-adds-momentum-deglobalization-trend>creating 
seismic geopolitical shifts and national Internet regulation reaching an 
all-time high. The Internet is gradually becoming less global and less 
open. On paper, therefore, the Secretary General’s initiative has the 
potential to bring states together and help them shape a better future 
for the Internet. In practice, however, the “Global Digital Compact” may 
constitute the beginning of the end for the Internet’s collaborative, 
multistakeholder model.

The hope is that the United Nations can play a role similar to the one 
it played nearly twenty years ago when theWorld Summit on Information 
Society <https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>process 
legitimized the creation of a wide community of actors to resolve issues 
pertinent to the information society. In 2005, despite someresistance 
<https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/DigitalSolidarities_0.pdf>, 
states managed to find a way to get to a place of consensus regarding 
the multistakeholder model. The hope is that, twenty years later, 
governments will find a way to get to that place once again.

This is easier said than done, as the reality of today is nowhere near 
the reality of the early 2000s. In today’s political realm, 
protectionism and industrial policy are consuming the way states 
approach foreign relations. The division amongst otherwise allied 
countries is growing wider, creating the conditions for competing and, 
often, conflicting policies that do little to advance the open Internet. 
If the United States and the European Union cannot find an effective 
solution forcross border data flows 
<https://www.wired.co.uk/article/biden-eu-us-data-privacy-executive-order>, 
what are the chances for less aligned countries like India or Brazil? 
Moreover,China 
<https://www.reuters.com/technology/china-leads-us-global-competition-key-emerging-technology-study-says-2023-03-02/>has 
become more competitive and now influences the way technology is 
deployed internationally. In 2005, China was a country that was majorly 
consuming technology, supplied by the west; today, it is a noteworthy 
competitor, aleader 
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2020.1805482>in 
standards’ development and a majorexporter 
<https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/china-is-exporting-surveillance-tech-like-facial-recognition-globally.html>of 
technology globally.

Even if we disregard these concerns as ephemeral and believe that the 
global order is going through a phase of existential crisis, the fact 
that the Secretary General aims to channel Internet policy issues 
through the UN’s multilateral system is alarming. When looking at the 
issues the “Global Digital Compact” will seek to address, one cannot 
help but wonder whether the ultimate goal is to create a centralized 
system where the UN sits at the top. For example, the point about 
connecting all people to the Internet, including schools, is pretty much 
what the ITU’s and UNICEF’sGIGA <https://giga.global/about-us/>project 
aims to do. Similarly, the item on introducing “accountability criteria 
for discrimination and misleading content” happens to be the issue that 
UNESCO is seeking to address through its “Guidelines for regulating 
digital platforms 
<https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384031.locale=en>”. Both 
theITU <https://www.itu.int/en/action/ai/Pages/default.aspx>andUNESCO 
<https://en.unesco.org/artificial-intelligence>are having separate 
tracks around artificial intelligence; and, the UN already has a data 
protection and privacygroup 
<https://www.unglobalpulse.org/policy/un-privacy-policy-group/>. It 
feels like the mechanisms and organs are in place for Internet 
governance to move substantively under the auspices of the UN’s 
multilateral system.

Despite any verbalassurance 
<https://www.itu.int/hub/2022/10/establishing-the-global-digital-compact-qa-with-amandeep-singh-gill/>that 
the “Global Digital Compact” is meant to be inclusive, placing Internet 
governance under the UN is a big gamble. The multistakeholder model is 
already under pressure and scrutiny and it will not survive any attempt 
at undermining it. In a statement, delivered at the First Informal 
Consultation with Member States on the Global Digital Compact, Cuba, on 
behalf of the G77 and China group,said 
<https://www.g77.org/statement/getstatement.php?id=230130>: “While we 
acknowledge the relevance of stakeholder inputs in this process, the 
Group strongly emphasizes that this should remain a Member State driven 
process throughout and should respect States’ ownership over their own 
development pathways.” At the same time, in 2025 WSIS is up for review 
and stock will be taken on whether it has managed to deliver on its 
promise. The IGF, WSIS’ main outcome, will be scrutinized. Nothing, and 
no one, can guarantee that consensus will be reached regarding its 
future. And, the fact that Russia, a strongadversary 
<https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/governing-cyberspace-state-control-vs-multistakeholder-model>of 
the multistakeholder model, is pitting to host the IGF that year may be 
seen as the ironic epilogue of the multistakeholder chapter.


    The Road Ahead

With this in mind, here is what is in front of us.

On the one hand, the Digital Compact could, in theory, be seen as an 
attempt to re-energize a community that, for some time, has been sitting 
comfortably in the fuzziness of multistakeholderism. The term, in 
itself, has been used (and abused) so much that it has become empty of 
substance. At the same time, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), 
multistakeholderism’s quintessential body, has suffered from fatigue, 
complacency and a lack of vision. There is an opportunity for the 
Internet community to come together and rethink what the model means and 
what they want out of it. For this to happen, however, the UN must not 
only commit but further ensure that the modalities around the way the 
Digital Compact will be negotiated adhere to an inclusive, collaborative 
framework.

On the other hand, there is a probable scenario where, gradually, the UN 
takes over Internet governance; should this happen, the fate of the 
Internet is pretty much sealed. In this scenario, we should anticipate 
an environment with limited participation for civil society, the 
Internet’s engineering community, academia and businesses, lack of 
checks and balances, bureaucracy and long negotiations. Think of the 
recent historicdeal 
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/05/high-seas-treaty-agreement-to-protect-international-waters-finally-reached-at-un>to 
protect international waters, which has taken two decades in the making, 
and you start to get the picture. Only, unlike oceans that are generally 
static, the Internet cannot sit around for two decades as states 
negotiate a framework for its future.

What is key to consider is that the multistakeholder model is important 
not because of the transformative results it has produced. In fact, it 
has not managed to do that. The importance of the multistakeholder model 
should otherwise be calculated. The model has been key in legitimizing 
multi-actor participation without requiring permission from governments; 
this is crucial as an increasing number of states try to silence 
opposing voices and create echo chambers in order to justify their 
inward-looking digital strategies. Another way to think about the 
multistakeholder model is through transparency; the model has proven 
capable to shed light on the actions taken by different actors and how 
they may conflict with the Internet’s established norms and principles.

The Internet community has fought long and hard for its right to be part 
of the conversation on the future of the Internet, and to hold 
governments accountable for actions that are against its openness, 
global reach and interoperability. If we don’t pay attention, these 
crucial qualities may disappear on a whim.

Konstantinos Komaitis 
<https://techpolicy.press/author/konstantinos-komaitis/>
Konstantinos Komaitis 
<https://techpolicy.press/author/konstantinos-komaitis/>

Konstantinos Komaitis is a veteran of developing and analyzing Internet 
policy to ensure an open and global Internet. Konstantinos has spent 
almost ten years in active policy development and strategy as a Senior 
Director at the Internet society. Before that, he spent 7 years as a 
senior lecturer at the university of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, where he 
researched and taught Internet policy. Konstantinos is a public speaker 
having talked at many events around the world, including a TedX talk, 
and a writer having written for various outlets including Brookings, 
Slate, TechDirt, and EuroActive. He holds two Master degrees and a 
doctorate and he is the author of a book on domain name regulation. He 
co-hosts the “Internet of Humans Podcast”. He is currently a 
non-resident fellow and a senior researcher at the Lisbon Council.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://victoria.tc.ca/pipermail/advisors/attachments/20230406/9de64e02/attachment-0001.html>