Who owns the Internet? The answer is no one and everyone. The Internet is a network of networks. Each of the separate networks belongs to different companies and organizations, and they rely on physical servers in different countries with varying laws and regulations. However, without some common rules and norms, these networks cannot be linked effectively. Fragmentation — meaning the end of the Internet — is a real threat.
Some estimates put the Internet’s economic contribution to global GDP as high as US$4.2 trillion this year. A fragmented “splinternet” would be very costly to the world, but that is one of the possible futures outlined last month in the report of the Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt.
The Internet connects about half the world’s population and another billion people — as well as about 20 billion devices — are forecast to be connected in the next five years.
However, further expansion is not guaranteed. In the commission’s worst-case scenario, the costs imposed by the malicious actions of criminals and the political controls imposed by governments would cause people to lose trust in the Internet and reduce their use of it.
The cost of cybercrime this year has been estimated to be as high as US$445 billion, and it could grow rapidly. As more devices, ranging from automobiles to pacemakers, are placed online, malicious hackers could turn the Internet of Things (IOT) into “the weaponization of everything.” Massive privacy violations by companies and governments, and cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure such as power grids — as recently happened in Ukraine — could create insecurity that undercuts the Internet’s potential.
A second scenario is what the commission calls “stunted growth.” Some users capture disproportionate gains, while others fail to benefit. Three billion or 4 billion people are still offline, and the Internet’s economic value for many who are connected is compromised by trade barriers, censorship, laws requiring local storage of data and other rules that limit the free flow of goods, services and ideas.
The movement toward sovereign control of the Internet is growing and a degree of fragmentation already exists. China has the largest number of Internet users, but its “Great Firewall” has created barriers with parts of the outside world.
Many governments censor services that they think threaten their political control. If this trend continues, it could cost more than 1 percent of GDP per year, and also impinge on peoples’ privacy, free speech and access to knowledge. While the world could muddle along this path, a great deal would be lost and many would be left behind.
In the commission’s third scenario, a healthy Internet provides unprecedented opportunities for innovation and economic growth. The Internet revolution of the past two decades has contributed something like 8 percent of global GDP and brought 3 billion users online, narrowing digital, physical, economic and educational divides. The commission’s report states that the IOT might result in up to US$11 trillion in additional GDP by 2025.
The commission concluded that sustaining unhindered innovation will require that the Internet’s standards are openly developed and available; that all users develop better digital “hygiene” to discourage hackers; that security and resilience be at the core of system design — rather than an afterthought, as they currently are; that governments not require third parties to compromise encryption; that countries agree not to attack the Internet’s core infrastructure; and that governments mandate liability and compel transparent reporting of technological problems to provide a market-based insurance industry to enhance the IOT’s security.
Until recently, the debate about the most appropriate approach to Internet governance revolved around three main camps. The first, multi-stakeholder approach, originated organically from the community that developed the Internet, which ensured technical proficiency, but not international legitimacy, because it was heavily dominated by US technocrats. A second camp favored greater control by the International Telecommunications Union, a UN specialized agency, which ensured legitimacy, but at the cost of efficiency. And authoritarian countries like Russia and China championed international treaties guaranteeing no interference with states’ strong sovereign control over their portion of the Internet.
More recently, the commission said, a fourth model is developing in which a broadened multi-stakeholder community involves more conscious planning for the participation of each stakeholder — the technical community, private organizations, companies, governments — in international conferences.
An important step in this direction was the US Department of Commerce’s decision last month to hand oversight of the so-called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions — the “address book” of the Internet — to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
ICANN, with a government advisory committee of 162 members and 35 observers, is not a typical inter-governmental organization: The governments do not control the organization. At the same time, ICANN is consistent with the multi-stakeholder approach formulated and legitimated by the Internet Governance Forum, established by the UN General Assembly.
Some US senators complained that when US President Barack Obama’s Department of Commerce handed its oversight of the IANA functions to ICANN, it was “giving away the Internet.”
However, the US could not “give away” the Internet, because the US does not own it. While the original Internet linked computers entirely in the US, today’s Internet connects billions of people worldwide. Moreover, the IANA address book — of which there are many copies — is not the Internet.
The US action last month was a step toward a more stable and open multi-stakeholder Internet of the type that the commission applauded. Let us hope that further steps in this direction follow.
Joseph Nye Jr, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is a professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers