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
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past