Author: dgdg admin

By Tobias B. Bacherle.

Studying the Convention on Cybercrime I realise that all my worries have been confirmed. During one of the most effective attacks by digital authoritarianism, internet freedom, and human rights in the digital space did not win anything in the negotiations.

The reactions to the adoption of the convention were even more puzzling, where unconcealed joy accompanied the first reports of a deal, followed by happy tweets from diplomats. After three years, the ad hoc working group has agreed on a Cybercrime Convention. Hooray!? Unfortunately not.

The convention seems to be about creating an international set of rules,  which at first glance appear to complement the fight against crime, in the digital space and translate it into international law. However, the content of the agreed document has very little to do with the decent goals one might associate with its title.  

Continue reading “The UN Cybercrime convention is a victory for digital authoritarianism”

By Milton Mueller.

(This is based on the keynote speech at the GigArts 2024 conference in The Hague)

We now have almost 30 years of experience with so-called multistakeholder (MS) governance. Sometimes it is called the multistakeholder model. Sometimes it is the “multistakeholder approach.” Sometimes, it is an “ism,” like communism or liberalism or impressionism. It is a good time to reflect on what it all means. Is multistakeholder just a catchword, or is it a meaningful and important structural shift in governance models. Is it something that we should preserve and protect? Is it something that we should expand? Is it something we should get rid of?

That question needs to be placed in historical context. We need to look at where the word or concept originated and how it has been used in Internet governance debates.

I have just finished a book that recounts an important part of that story. It focuses on the formation of ICANN, which is really the origin of what we now call the MS model. ICANN was an attempt to institutionalize a radical change in the role of state actors in transnational governance. My book analyzes ICANN’s changing ties to the U.S. government. It explains why the US government let go of that control, in a seeming victory for that new governance model. As an organization ICANN is one the most steadfast promoters of the multistakeholder approach.

Continue reading “The Power to Govern Ourselves: (Multi)Stakeholders, States and Collective Action”

By Peixi Xu.

Despite the removal of considerable parts of contents which are regarded as controversial in the second version of the Global Digital Compact (GDC), the third version of GDC is now being challenged by member states who chose to break the silence procedure.

However, this moment should not be understood as a setback of this prominent process, but as a moment to recognize the complex, encompassing, evolutionary, and interwoven nature of digital issues, where governance issues as diverse as Internet technical resources, data, online content, and most recently AI, are mixing altogether.

The initial framework about GDC used to describe global digital governance in 7 topics: (1) connectivity, (2) avoiding Internet fragmentation, (3) data protection, (4) applying human rights online, (5) accountability for online content, (6) regulating AI, and (7) digital commons. After rounds of consultations and talks, the third version of GDC now combine and integrate the 7 topics into 5 areas: (1) digital divide, (2) digital economy, (3) human rights, (4) data, and (5) AI. A renegotiation process perhaps will not bring the document back to the 7-topic framework but may be used to enhance some achievements on the one hand and address some disputes on the other. The following is some observations and comments regarding the third version of GDC based on a leaked text online.

Continue reading “UN Global Digital Compact Talks at a New Moment”

By Jordan Carter.

This article was first published in Intermedia on 20 June 2024.

In 2025, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly will make decisions on the future of a vital but little-known set of technology governance processes that will shape the evolution and development of the internet. This UN work comes about from a review of progress since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) concluded in 2005. Next year marks twenty years since the summit and the review, and associated decision-making, has been dubbed ‘WSIS+20’.

Much has moved on in the technology world since 2005, a time before smartphones, high speed wireless connectivity, the marvels of nascent AI technologies and more. Yet the framework developed at WSIS has in many respects proved flexible and adaptable enough to support progress towards the vision agreed in the summit’s first phase (2003), to ‘build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilise and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life’.

Continue reading “How much influence should governments have over the internet?”

By Regine Grienberger and Lilian Georgieva-Weiche.

Global endeavors to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are increasingly gearing up speed and digital technologies together with online connectivity are among the key agents for change. All efforts should have one common vision in mind: one where all citizens of the world have access to a safe, enriching, and productive online experience at a reasonable cost.

However, as we try to bridge the digital divide, we face a crucial balancing act: While digital transformation promises substantial economic and social benefits, it also opens the door to heightened cybersecurity risks, with significant political and economic implications for all countries alike.

Continue reading “Building Cyber Resilience for Sustainable Development”