The Internet’s Two Bodies: Understanding the multistakeholder reign

By Alexander Klimburg.

The reports of the death of multistakeholder Internet governance have been greatly exaggerated. But persistent misunderstanding of the phenomenon of multistakeholderism is indeed a potentially lethal threat to the future of the Internet.

The king is dead, long live the king”. Famously associated with the English monarchy, similar expressions of simultaneous rupture and continuance are found throughout the history of political governance. The historian Ernst Kantorowicz showed in his brilliant and often-repurposed book The King’s Two Bodies that any type of political governance lives in two shells. The first body is the physical, corporal and even institutional shell that inevitable is shrugged off when its time has come. The second body, often lives on – that is the legitimizing principle from which the first body draws its sovereign authority and which forms its body politic that supports it. What exactly the legitimizing principle is obviously varies depending on setting. For an absolute monarchy it could be as simple as a divine right of kings, while a parliamentary monarchy might concentrate on securing property. For the young American democracy rejecting British rule end of the 18th Century, the legitimizing principle was the consent of the governed.

Continue reading “The Internet’s Two Bodies: Understanding the multistakeholder reign”

What the Global Digital Compact Taught Us About Future Internet Governance Debates

By Byron Holland.

On September 22, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Global Digital Compact (GDC), marking one of the most significant intergovernmental agreements on digital issues in the past two decades. Appended to the Pact for the Future, the GDC is a non-binding agreement that outlines a global governance framework for a wide range of digital issues, including internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

From an internet governance perspective, the final text of the GDC represents a compromise between Member States advocating for multistakeholder internet governance and the sustainability of the IGF and those pushing for more government oversight over critical internet resources and a weakening of the Forum.

Continue reading “What the Global Digital Compact Taught Us About Future Internet Governance Debates”

Navigating the Dynamic Landscape of International Digital Policy: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

By Dr. Irina Soeffky.

“We consider the multi-stakeholder approach essential for global digital networking,” states Germany’s first Strategy for International Digital Policy. Indeed, as digital transformation accelerates, the significance of the multi-stakeholder approach becomes even more pronounced.

We are all witnessing how digital technologies are increasingly transforming every aspect of our daily lives, from the way we communicate to how we conduct business. The Internet and digital technologies have connected us in ways we never thought possible. This interconnectedness stimulates innovation, promotes the free flow of information, drives economic growth, fosters collaboration across borders, and leads to a more integrated global community.

Continue reading “Navigating the Dynamic Landscape of International Digital Policy: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach”

Digital Synergy: The Urgent Case for WSIS-SDG Alignment

By Pari Esfandiari.

The recent Global Digital Compact (GDC) discussions held in September 2024 have reignited the call for a more integrated approach to digital governance, highlighting the urgent need to merge the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Action Lines with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As we look ahead to the WSIS+20 in 2025, the time is ripe to address this separation and work towards a unified framework that streamlines efforts, maximizes resources, and accelerates progress toward sustainable digital development.

Since their inception, WSIS Action Lines and SDGs have operated in parallel, often duplicating efforts despite their common goal of leveraging digital technologies to advance sustainable development. The two frameworks, though aligned in purpose, remain largely disconnected, resulting in missed opportunities for synergy and coordinated action.

Continue reading “Digital Synergy: The Urgent Case for WSIS-SDG Alignment”

Navigating the AI Revolution: Global and Regional Strategies for Responsible Governance.


An overview of the UN, the UAE and Regional Initiatives.

By George Salama.

Humanity is witnessing a revolutionary race at an unprecedented pace— a race driven by artificial intelligence (AI) applications that are rapidly transforming nearly every aspect of our lives. While AI research and applications have been evolving for many years, the key difference today is their widespread availability to the public. As AI moves from the confines of research labs into the hands of everyday users, the focus on responsible use becomes sharper. The responsible use of AI is a global social challenge that requires a coordinated societal approach, incorporating governance models, public policies, regulatory frameworks, security measures, and safety aspects. Additionally, the socio-economic impact of AI necessitates collaboration among global and regional stakeholders. In response, several governments worldwide and specifically in the MENA region are developing comprehensive AI strategies, policies, and regulations to balance AI’s potential with its associated risks.

As AI continues to revolutionize industries worldwide, its economic impact is becoming increasingly significant. The global AI market, valued at approximately $150 billion in 2023, is projected to grow exponentially in the coming years. According to recent reports, the AI market is expected to reach over $1.8 trillion USD by 2030, driven by advancements in machine learning, automation, and the deployment of AI across sectors like healthcare, climate, finance, sports, and manufacturing.

Continue reading “Navigating the AI Revolution: Global and Regional Strategies for Responsible Governance.”