The global internet challenge: AI era demands new governance consensus

Over the past few decades, the most important technological advance has been in the development of new information technology. In 1990, the number of internet users was barely 3 million, mostly in the United States (US). Since then the use of the internet has expanded phenomenally, reaching around 5.5 billion users today. This includes 63 per cent of the population in developing countries and 93 per cent in developed countries. The development of mobile communication and mobile phones has been a major factor in this acceleration. It is clearly the fastest and largest technology advance that the world has experienced in recent years. 

At the end of the 20th century, when the use of the internet had become quite widespread and increasingly commercially oriented, many governments wanted a greater say in decisions related to standard setting, the designation of institutions for allocation rights, and other aspects of internet governance. This led to the convening of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which met twice in 2003 and 2005 and called for the establishment of an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) within the United Nations (UN). The IGF has since met annually over the  past 20 years.

 

In most development issues handled in the UN, the effective locus of control is at the national level, even for internationally linked activities like telecommunication. The internet is quite different. It is a global facility, and even those elements of the internet that have a national identity are global in character. Coordination of national policies alone is, therefore, not an adequate answer. The internet is very much a product of cross-border partnerships and, as such, its management is not national management requiring global coordination but global management requiring national influence. 

The IGF was set up in 2005 because governments other than that of the US lacked meaningful contact with the entities responsible for setting standards for the spread and use of the internet. Most norms and working practices of the internet were not set by governments but by non-governmental entities such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IGF had to be established as a multi-stakeholder forum, providing space to build consensus among different stakeholder groups before decisions were taken in other fora, thereby resulting in better quality outcomes. 

The role of governments in influencing policy choices in internet governance has now been established. The previously dominant role of the US  government has been diluted. Moreover, most governments have set up national-level governance mechanisms.  However, the governance challenge for the internet is now rather different.

 

The internet today is substantially different from what it was when the IGF began meeting in 2005. At that time, the commercial use of the internet had only just started.  This has changed. What matters now for effective governance of the internet is its use in e-banking and e-commerce, which is now widespread; in the booming of social media, which allows users not just to access information but also to provide information and views that have an impact on politics; and in e-governance. The new thing now is the sharp rise in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) with its huge potential for affecting employment and productivity in a wide variety of areas that are not just for information provision but also for information use in the provision of goods and services. 

The internet today is highly commercialised and influenced by the corporate providers of internet services. In fact, the globally dominant companies are mostly American. The domination in internet service is related not just to the content but also to the number of users. This leads to a single corporation becoming a winner and exploiting its competitive advantage, leading, at times, to a near monopolisation of some internet service. This domination can lead to privileged access to information about users and data colonialism. Today, the dominance of the US on the internet is less about the role of its government and much more about the global impact of its internet-linked corporations. 

Right now, we are witnessing a major leap forward in information technology, which came into public view when ChatGPT became available in 2022. Since then, there has been a huge expansion in the spread of AI, which has certainly made access to information much easier --- in fact, so much easier that many web-based information providers are now worried about their relevance declining. 

However, the wider economic perspective is more seriously affected by the emergence of Generative AI. It is reputed to have the potential to replace the employment of people whose tasks involve processing information to produce and provide goods and services. But the hope is that, much like the development of electricity in the late 19th century, it will lead to rising productivity, gross domestic product growth and new types of employment generation.  

At present, AI enterprises have become the primary focus of investment flows, mainly in the US. AI enterprises account for 80 per cent of the current boom in the US stock markets, with amounts committed far exceeding those seen during the dotcom boom of the 1990s. But, as with previous technological booms and breakthroughs, there will be a few winners and many losers. The US is likely to experience a similar corrective impact on the AI boom as it did during the dotcom boom at the end of the 1990s. 

The crucial dimension for internet governance is going to be the heavy commercialisation of data and the potential impact of AI. One challenging matter is the access of AI providers to internet data, which is generally freely available but from which AI providers earn money. In fact, China’s planners see data as a factor of production, alongside labour, capital, and land, and most countries are grappling with how to manage and control data.  

However, the internet is inherently global, and national-level management is not enough.  Global agreement will be required not only on the design of the internet but also on the legitimate use of the internet and AI. Effective internet governance will require agreement not just among governments but also among corporations that are providers or major users of the internet and AI. As a starting point, the Internet Governance Forum may be asked to work out a plan for formal consideration by governments.

---

 

 

The author chaired the working group that  recommended the establishment of the IGF and then chaired for five years the organisation that arranged the IGF meetings. desaind@icloud.com