Based on a forward-looking reading of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation we call for a #NextGenerationInternetGovernance to emerge over the next decade. The “New Deal” on Internet Governance in the 2020s should be comprised of four loosely coupled, interdependent and mutually reinforcing governance frameworks - on peace, economy, rights, and AI - to be bootstrapped at and facilitated by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). In all, this paper aims to kick-start critical deliberation on responsible stewardship of the internet’s public goods and innovation, or in political terms principled and inspiring Internet governance for the future (#IGforTheFuture). In short: To make Internet governance work for all we need

● an #OnlinePeaceFramework (Digital Peace Plan),

● a #DigitalMarshallPlan (Digital Sustainability Agenda promoting inclusive economic growth and sustainability through internationally coordinated technology policy frameworks),

● #OnlineRights4all (A Digital Human Rights Agenda), and

● #ResponsibleAIStewardship (framework for future-proofing the research, development and deployment of AI based on a human being-oriented conception of technology and established Internet governance norms).

Setting the scene

The UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation has recently submitted its report on the relevance of internet governance policies that are informed by interdependence and oriented towards ensuring an inclusive digital society and economy for all. In this editorial we reflect on the proposals, potentials and challenges covered in the report and complement the panel’s approach with draft normative elements for a next generation internet governance regime. Our proposals are meant to stimulate the debate and inform new normative approaches to evolve the public value that can be harvested from internetworked technology. While the normative path is yet uncharted, we assess that the ideal place to start the journey towards a global future-proof and resilient internet governance regime is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), beginning with this year’s multistakeholder gathering in Berlin in November. The IGF is ideally suited to host these strategic global deliberations as well as to evolve and bootstrap the practices and institutions that must unfold over the next decade.

Solving the Internet governance puzzle

The year 2020 is almost here. The importance of the Internet’s integrity – its security, stability, robustness, resilience and functionality – has been recognized, in documents from states, international organizations, corporations and civil society, and lately by the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, as paramount to national and international practice communities from finance, to transnational communications infrastructure, national defense and national and international energy networks to name only a few examples for the nexus of infrastructure internet applications. But as the political field of Internet Governance – the multitude of private and public, national, regional and international policy arrangements impacting the use and development of the Internet – has matured, we also see information and communication technologies increasingly misused to contribute to global insecurity, rather than to ensure stability, security, safety and integrity; to violate human rights, rather than to secure them, and to entrench existing economic power relationships, rather than to promote a more equal world by empowering small and developing nations.

The age of digital interdependence

Most recently, the Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, The Age of Digital Interdependence (June 2019), has called, inter alia, for a “Declaration of Digital Interdependence” and a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation”.

With the goal of achieving an “inclusive digital economy and society” the Panel has developed a number of recommendations for a next generation internet governance to emerge by 2030. Namely to ensure that:

● “every adult should have affordable access to digital networks, as well as digitally-enabled financial and health services, as a means to make a substantial contribution to achieving the SDGs”; that

● “a platform for sharing digital public goods, engaging talent and pooling data sets, in a manner that respects privacy, in areas related to attaining the SDGs” is created; that

● “specific policies to support full digital inclusion and digital equality for women and traditionally marginalised groups” are adopted and ”a set of metrics for digital inclusiveness” agreed upon.

With a view to increasing “human and institutional capacity” the Panel recommends the establishment of regional and global digital help desks to help governments, civil society and the private sector understand digital issues and develop capacity to steer cooperation related to social and economic impacts of digital technologies.

In terms of increasing human agency, the Panel confirms that “human rights apply fully in the digital world” and urge the UN Secretary-General to “institute an agencies-wide review of how existing international human rights accords and standards apply to new and emerging digital technologies.” Internet platforms are asked to work with governments, international and local civil society organizations and human rights experts around the world “to fully understand and respond to concerns about existing or potential human rights violations” in the “face of growing threats to human rights and safety, including those of children”.

With regard to algorithmic decision-making the Panel calls on automated decision-making systems to be “designed in ways that enable their decisions to be explained and humans to be accountable for their use”: “Audits and certification schemes should monitor compliance of artificial intelligence (AI) systems with engineering and ethical standards, which should be developed using multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches.”

In order to increase trust and security, the Panel recommends the development of a “Global Commitment on Digital Trust and Security”. Purposeful digital cooperation arrangements are needed, the Panel continues, “[i]f we are to deliver on the promise of digital technologies for the SDGs”. Having identified gaps in existing governance arrangements, the Panel then proposed three digital cooperation architectures “intended to ignite focused, agile and open multi-stakeholder consultations in order to quickly develop updated digital governance mechanisms”. In order to “update digital governance,” the Panel suggest that the UN Secretary-General “facilitate[s] an agile and open consultation process to develop updated mechanisms for global digital cooperation”. The first step - the initial goal - would be marking the UN's 75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation,” which can serve to enshrine “shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture”.

Parsing the Panel’s report further we continue to find common ground: Indeed, everyone should have the means to be online and able to benefit from the advantages of the digital age. Human rights, security and trust in cyberspace should be strengthened, and appropriate mechanisms for global digital cooperation created. The universal values that are referred to, including respect, humanity, transparency, sustainability and harmony, are both interesting and sensible. A "Declaration of Digital Interdependence" is needed, however, to clearly define those values - building and consolidating the many values, principles, and initiatives - in a UN-sanctioned declaration that complements the Human Rights canon.

Additionally, we need to elaborate and refine the architecture and rules of core cyberspace infrastructure as well as transpose and extend the governance regimes of other practice communities to embrace the emergent properties of digitization (i.e. coming online). Of course we should build on our existing regime(s), but the conflation into one global digital space has brought the complexity of economic, security and user-interests into one giant agora. The challenge to implement effective governance in unprecedented fast-evolving technology capabilities that spread at a global scale and are part of the dynamics behind the catastrophic global warming, makes our joint venture truly urgent and epic in dimension.

Between binding international customary law and treaties, principles of international law, regional integration law, national law, transnational normative arrangements, internet governance principles, open standards, and best practices, the notion of ‘rules’ has become so broad online that no-one can claim to fully understand the rules. A comprehensive ecosystem of loosely coupled^[1] smart regulation with transborder compatibility is indeed essential. We assess that one of the ingenious design decisions made by the fathers of the internet, to establish architecture and practice that allows for internet traffic to flow without written contracts between network operators, is a main cause for the unprecedented innovation and economic engine^[2]. The Panel makes clear that the time of traditional international treaties, negotiated behind closed doors, is over. Multilateralism will continue to be important, but multilateralism needs to be understood as encompassing other ‘sides’ and as complemented or informed by multi-stakeholder approaches: this is "innovative multilateralism".

But what makes rules smart? We argue that the rules need to be set up to evolve and adapt to the progress of innovation. Thus smart rules and smart ways to recognize and implement rules must implicitly question and confirm their validity and legitimacy in light of technological innovation, as well as new challenges of ensuring security, enabling development and respecting, protecting and implementing rights^[3].

The governance fields the Panel addresses - security, development, rights, AI - correspond to the next generation Internet governance elements we present in this paper. The contributions in this editorial shed light on how these rules can be developed and implemented fairly. The approach we put forward aims to marry core elements of the options laid out by the panel into one holistic governance model with core (internet) infrastructure governance complemented by sectoral governance solutions driven by relevant stakeholders in a practice community (e.g. health, mobility), all loosely coupled through joint deliberation, framing and monitoring at the governance clearing house IGF.

What’s at stake in Internet governance?

Ensuring peace and security, development and human rights in times of digitality therefore always means: governing the Internet with a view to its impact on these key goals of the international information society. How can we realize the Internet’s potential as a tool for international security, for development and for exercising human rights? How can we evolve sustainable digital governance and governance of digital sustainability? While we focus on connection and connectedness here, we note that there are also non-networked upon which we increasingly depend. Protection of safety, security and privacy in the use of these devices is as important as Internet safety and security. We see the two debates as necessarily connected.

Our approach recognizes that current international law and Internet governance do not yet reflect the urgency we need to feel when providing rules and practices that lead to sustainable ecologies and a just, equitable society. The goal of our approach is simple: ensuring security, enabling sustainable digital development, and respecting, protecting and enforcing rights in the in the digital world.

Ensuring the integrity of the Internet as a public good through responsible stewardship by relevant stakeholders leading to multipronged Internet governance approaches is the backbone of our proposal for the #nextGenerationInternetGovernance in the 2020s. We are, of course, not alone with our finding. Complementary sectoral approaches to introducing common commitments, norms and principles, targeted at a more nuanced Internet governance approach, have been pursued by companies, including Siemens (Charter of Trust) and Microsoft (Tech Accord), and by institutions, including the W3C (Contract for the Web), as well as states (and other stakeholders), e.g. through the Paris Call or Christchurch Call. The Paris Call, especially, was a rallying point for many international actors, including states, to realize the need for a commitment to safeguarding the core of the Internet through norms. Building on these approaches and valuing the normative acculturation they engender, we aim to provide a comprehensive framework of loosely coupled solutions that interact normatively, and are mutually reinforcing and interdependent.

Towards a solution

While we acknowledge the importance of recognizing digital interdependence and find much value in the commitments made in the framework of previous normative approaches, we would like to go a step further in deliberating #NextGenerationInternetGovernance in the 2020s.

#NextGenerationInternetGovernance ought to be based on a commitment by all stakeholders – particularly states and businesses – to take on shared but specific stewardship to provide open and resilient Internet services to all and to protect the rule of law and human rights. Rather than using regulation as a means of asserting national or commercial dominance, stakeholders need to commit firmly to common goals: to ensure that the Internet can be a tool to realize cybersecurity, human rights and entrepreneurship in fair (digital) markets, based on (by now) decades of commitments by all stakeholders to a human rights-based and development-oriented information society.

We conceive of this #NextGenerationInternetGovernance to be comprised of four interlinked parts:

1. a Digital Peace Plan – or #OnlinePeaceFramework – including norms for good behaviour of state and non-state actors in cyberspace and confidence-building measures to counter (neo)nationalist policies that endanger the stability and functionality of the global Internet and its infrastructure, and encompass (1) human rights-based approaches to national security (including military aspects and confidence-building measures), (2) the fight against cybercrime and (3) technical security and network resilience;

2. a Digital Sustainability Agenda – or #DigitalMarshallPlan – to promote human rights-sensitive (digital) economies based on market-driven innovation with data flowing freely in trusted environments, in which sustainable economic growth and decent work are ensured, where the next billion Internet users are brought online; and generally, to drive forward the realization of the UN Sustainable Development Goals;

3. a Digital Human Rights Agenda – or #RightsOnline4All – providing norms and policies to respect, protect and implement human rights on the Internet, based on existing norms, targeted at all relevant stakeholders, in their respective roles; and

4. a Framework for Future-Proofing AI Norms – or #ResponsibleAIStewardship – including guidelines on increasing accountability for the use of AI.

#NextGenerationInternetGovernance is holistic in that it applies to all ‘layers’ of Internet governance, from the social layer to the content and services layer, from the infrastructure to the logical layer. Importantly, the #NextGenerationInternetGovernance is not an effort to create new rules for an international terra nullius. It builds on previous work on shared responsibility, responsible stewardship, for internet-related global commons and a substantial number of normatively relevant documents, both binding and not, that evidence – especially in their aggregate – a strong commitment by states and other stakeholders to cyberpeace, sustainable digital development, human rights and a rights-based accountable use of AIs.

#OnlinePeaceFramework - A New Deal on Security

A comprehensive global framework coupled with multistakeholder-based commitments is necessary to ensure a peaceful and sustainable development of the Internet in the 2020s. Most importantly, there is a need to protect the public core of the Internet. Any attack against its basic functionality fundamentally impacts our global society.

The #OnlinePeaceFramework cannot be a single document but rather a series of joint analysis, deliberation, practice and institutionalization. It should start with an analysis of cybersecurity-related problems, thereby mapping technical aspects, institutional mandates, stakeholder roles and initiatives. Some aspects will need international treaties, such as the trade in cyberweapons, some may require only informal ad hoc arrangements, such as working groups to fight certain viruses. The Digital Peace Plan should have three main parts, dealing with (1) national security (including military aspects and confidence-building measures), (2) cybercrime and (3) technical security and network resilience, respectively. The issues in the three sub-areas could be negotiated by different groups and platforms but should be loosely coupled via liaisons and interactive communication channels.

#DigitalMarshallPlan - A Digital Sustainability Agenda for Business, Trade, Work and Sustainable Growth

A Digital Sustainability Agenda should be adopted and deployed to increase the productive forces within the global private sector as a whole and technology companies in particular. The Agenda could be implemented through a Digital Marshall Plan which can generate infectious positive momentum, incentivize the evolution of open business standards and practices, dynamize trade relations regarding the Internet and improve development opportunities for all in an Internet based on data flowing freely in trusted environments (G20/OECD, Osaka).

Sustainable digital growth is conditioned by and profits from the availability of decent work (ILO Resolution, June 2019) which is, in itself, a condition for realizing our shared humanity productively in the information technology age.

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development identified the building of resilient infrastructure, the promotion of inclusive and sustainable industrialization and the fostering of innovation as key goals of sustainable development. The challenge we are now facing is the reconciliation of the impact of digitalization with the objectives of sustainable development. The goal of the Digital Sustainability Agenda would be the democratization of the means of digital production through the revitalization of a transnational socio-economic data ecosystem. The fundamental infrastructure building blocks for each layer ought to be open standards-based and therefore evolved transparently through all interested stakeholders. This will allow for the provision of digital commons (tools and content) to all mankind while a level playing field provides competitive opportunities for innovation to all.

Part of the Plan would be approaches to ensure that all humans have a right to a digital identity (SDG 16.9 “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration”) allowing them to take part in business transactions, access online educational programs (upskilling) and participate through eGovernment. Next to various authorities issuing national and international identities, responsible business facilitators that are also the providers of practical services like transaction signatories and storage are needed.

We would benefit from a globally distributed registry for digital content (incl. software), which allows all rightsholders to have their value creation assessed, verified and subsequently enforced internationally. At the same time, fair use provisions for non-commercial, e.g. artistic, private and educational purposes need to be refined and enforced. The best effort principle should be maintained in order to allow all users equal opportunity to benefit from and provide services and content on the digital ecosystem.

An open standard payment protocol can provide the basis to have financial institutions focus on new value creation and facilitating trade rather than charging for administrative and transaction services. In order to ensure the right to privacy, there needs to be an anonymous payment mechanism.

Part of the proposed Agenda would also be to start a trans-national multi-lingual development of a shared semantic ontology or a digital Rosetta Stone: the joint international development of a semantic model of the world is one of the greatest challenges and opportunities of modern mankind. Once achieved, it will make it feasible that all digital tools (from home electronics and appliances, to factory equipment to transportation systems) interoperate, thereby eliminating economic lock-in and related costs.

#OnlineRights4All - The Digital Human Rights Agenda

The Digital Human Rights Agenda is based on the commitment to existing norms and their technology-sensitive development. The dual nature of the Internet – as a space to use for the promotion of human rights and a space in which abuses can take place – has been convincingly established. Therefore, achieving public policy goals lying in the international common interest, like the protection of human rights online, is key to a sustainable online order.

Online rules encompass international legal rules, national legal rules and transnational normative arrangements. We have to enquire into the standards and practices used by judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, acting on behalf or within private companies, and enquire whether they enshrine legal recourse in tandem with the importance of the decisions they take. Protocols need to be developed in a human rights-sensitive way. Human rights-related protocol considerations include nudging and human rights protection optimization strategies.

Businesses must participate in norm-setting processes in good faith, including through self-regulation. While the potential benefits of self-regulation should be recognized in international negotiations, self-regulatory processes must support and enhance states’ existing rights protection infrastructure, not weaken or replace it.

#ResponsibleAIStewardship - Establish best practices for governing Emerging Technologies

Over 30 declarations on algorithmic accountability and related reports on the ethics of AI have been published in the last years. Instead of submitting the 31st, we ought to establish liability frameworks that define responsibilities and make developers and practitioners commit to codes that center on human dignity and ensuring human decision-making sovereignty when implementing automatic decision-making (support) systems.

What do states, what does civil society want from AI? How can we achieve this without risking violation of individual and collective self-determination? We believe that we need to establish a normative framework with clear guidelines for the deployment of Artificial Intelligence in society, especially the societal implications of AI use. Automated decision-making systems must be designed with sensitivity to human rights and human development in mind. Humans must be kept in the loop so that systems can be monitored for errors and accountability. Any automatic decision must be clearly identified as such, traceable back to the logic underlying the decision.

In a 2018 paper on regulating automated decision-making^[4], Google highlighted five policy areas regarding automation where research was needed. Our Framework echoes this call and proposes discourse platforms to allow consultation on them. It may be helpful to establish some global standards as ‘due diligence’ best practice processes in relation to developing and applying AI.

Further approaches that ought to be implemented within the Framework include standards for explainability of AI; a fairness appraisal (to balance competing goals and definitions of fairness in AI use); safety considerations for workflows; access to training data for research purposes; and determining Human-AI collaboration, especially the relevant weaknesses and strengths and how they can be managed in light of a liability regime^[5].

A new normative order of the digital: good rules for a better Internet

We understand our proposals as having orientative value in the coming discussion processes to establish new forms, forums and formats for digital cooperation. We offer more granular suggestions that fit well with proposals, as by the German Advisory Council for Global Change, for the development of a UN Framework Convention on Digital Sustainability and Sustainable Digitalization.

We are convinced of the formative power of norms within our digital ecosystem. The new deal for #NextGenerationInternetGovernance relies on its inherent normativity to shape technicity. Technology influences our behavior, but the focus on code and standards as ‘telling us what to do’ can be reoriented through our value-based normative approach. Rather than letting actors within the Internet Governance realm instrumentalize security or let profits dictate policy, our approach holds the promise of sustainable digitalization and digital sustainability.

Fast-forwarding Internet governance: #IGforTheFuture, where Forum follows Function

Up to now we have reviewed and contextualized the High Level Panel report and described normative building blocks with which to lay the foundations for sustainability and for progressive digital societies of today and tomorrow. The Panel on Digital Cooperation pointed out that the UN can add value to the normative framing of digital transformation by acting, inter alia, as a convener and a space for debating values and norms. The IGF can act as a clearing house and central deliberation space, where practices, norms and standards are discussed and where organizers of multi-stakeholder initiatives on specific issues assess progress and where the capacity of all stakeholders in mapping and measuring normative progress through best-practice models can be increased.

This continues to be true. However, we believe that the IGF Berlin 2019 can signal a turning point in the framing of Internet governance by reinventing itself to truly become a forum for #NextGenerationInternetGovernance.

One stratification of internet governance that we believe can work well is to distinguish between perspectives of organizations and aspects of challenges by dividing the online space into

(1) the physical layer – technology that allows for the connectivity and computation,

(2) the logical layer – the logical and protocol suits that enable the decentralized management of the network traffic ,

(3) the content layer, which includes all the information and applications of the world wide web, but also industrial internet services etc. and lastly

(4) the social layer, which includes all the inter-cultural and inter-personal actions (see illustration below).

Additionally Cerf, Ryan, Senges and Whitt have pointed out in the 2014 paper “Ensuring that Forum Follows Function”^[7], the chief and most notable role of the IGF is that of the aforementioned “global clearinghouse and deliberation space tasked with (1) identifying emergent internet governance challenges, (2) framing them so that experts from all relevant institutions can cooperate in developing and implementing innovative solutions, and (3) assuring that the progress and discourse are archived and available for analysis.” The core functions of the IGF are depicted below.

Illustration 2: Three core functions of the IGF

We posit that this approach of forum following function is still key to ensuring a successful #IGforTheFuture. The good news here is that our approach calls for no new organization or mandate, but rather for the IGF to act as a global unifier and simplifier of Internet governance-related policy activities, a central reservoir for policy streams. What should its role be in the future?

(1) Identify issues: The IGF, supported by a strong MAG and strengthened Secretariat, should continue to identify emerging issues and introduce them to the global stakeholder community. For that, the process of selecting topics and workshops should be as accountable and open as possible.

(2) Then the framing of the issues should take place. As Cerf et al. (2014) write, experts attending the IGF analyze existing issues and

“stratif[y them] into modular challenges which are maximally independent when it comes to the (1) core technical functions, (2) the content and services realm as well as matters of human rights.”

Then, IGF participants identify the ideal institution to work on the issue:

“Each institution can decide in what constellation of collaborators it wants to address which problem. The setup hence (i) allows for competing or parallel approaches and (ii) positions the IGF as facilitator rather than responsible for finding solutions to the various persistent challenges and constantly emerging issues.”

Then, these ideas are transferred to the optimal institutional form (ad hoc or permanent) to deal with them, respectively. A quickly materializing threat might need a multistakeholder coalition. A suspected cyberattack might call for NATO leadership. Pervasive human rights abuse via the Internet in a country might call for the regional human rights organization to act in consonance with NGOs. The need for a new standard would be dealt with e.g. by IETF’s standard-setting apparatus. A larger question of a new ethical framework for AI (and where needed legal framework) can be first addressed by global academia that pulls together other stakeholders and delivers a report about options and trade-offs. This approach would ensure responsive regulatory approaches (smart regulation).

(3) Finally, solutions are tracked and ‘legitimized’ through open review, debate and monitoring. This should happen both at IGF workshops that should show more continuity from one year to the next and in the various actor constellations that should nevertheless not only ‘do justice’ but be seen to do good. This makes their work transparent and immunizes them against critique as to their secrecy. The IGF can present a year’s worth of solutions, identify best practice models and offer critique of normative approaches that didn’t solve the problem they set out to. This ‘reporting back’ to the community is an essential part of ensuring policy continuity and feeds into the first function, the identification of pressing issues.

We stand with Cerf et al.’s 2014 conclusions and also believe that

“the IGF has the mandate and potential to serve these core functions and thereby stay a neutral non-decision-making platform dedicated to bringing all relevant institutions and experts together and facilitating the coordination of partners so that they can address the challenges relevant to them. These core functions do not exclude the other important functions the IGF serves - like capacity building or promoting universal access - as outlined by its mandate.”

#IGforTheFuture and the future of the IGF

The IGF 2019 in Berlin, with a view to the 2020 anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, is an optimal starting point for discussions on #NextGenerationInternetGovernance on cybersecurity, human rights, economic progress, and future-proofing laws and society in light of the challenges presented by developments such as the Internet of Things and AI. The answers need to be as convincing as the challenges are great: realizing a rights-based, sustainable next generation internet governance regime through adaptive and tailored governance approaches with the complex goal of ensuring loose coupling but not centralization or strict dovetailing of mandates.

One of the founding ideas and ideals behind the Internet was to enable communication across long distances, to bring the world together. As normative actors, we need to take the Internet seriously - in managing adverse effects and in enhancing positive ones. As the 2020s approach, it is high time to reach across the stakeholder aisle, to make different normative 'cultures' cohere, to build trust, and to create a truly transnational network of actors to ensure that the network of networks can fulfill its promise to the world and its people.

The UN Panel’s arguments are fueling our multi-pronged approach for a #NextGenerationInternetGovernance in the 2020s and ought to be harnessed in the run-up to WSIS +20 in 2025. Our approach towards an #IGforTheFuture highlights the potential value of the event: responsible stewardship, accountability, inclusiveness and norm-generation, allowing outside solutions but importing them into the process and thus keeping a firm hand on the fragmentation of Internet policy-making.

This paper is a beginning, not an end: It is meant to fuel a multistakeholder-based normative dynamic that - over the next ten years - will be crucial to develop an Internet governance framework that collaboratively maps the problem space, defines the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders and grows a loose coupling between related areas. We must overcome the trends of polarization between the west and the east, as well as the dystrophic tendency to balkanize the policy / legal space into a multitude of national and regional “solutions” that make it difficult to do business but also impossible for people to use the net and their services and devices internationally. Let us stop complaining and start collaborating on a #NextGenerationInternetGovernance based on a trans-national, decentralized architecture that makes the Internet a technology and space through which individuals are empowered by access to information, knowledge and increased participation in a public discourse and political participation space. Companies can grow in monetary terms and as socially responsible actors, and states can exercise their rights and responsibilities. The Internet has brought significant change to all sectors of society and fundamentally altered the interrelation of stakeholders in public policy. As we have shown, it is now time for the Internet, and its governance regime, to become responsive to sensible change. It is time to become responsible stewards of the internet and our planet.

[1] David Weinberger, Small Pieces Loosely Joined: A Unified Theory of the Web (2003).

[2] Andrw Sulivan, The Internet is made with carrots, not sticks | TechCrunch (2016)

[3] Kent Walker, How we're supporting smart regulation and policy innovation in 2019, (2019)

[4] Amodei et al., Concrete Problems in AI Safety, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06565.pdf.

[5] Perspectives on Issues in AI Governance - Google AI (2019).

[6] see https://global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/08/BeyondNETmundial_FINAL.pdf, pp. 31

[7] see https://global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/08/BeyondNETmundial_FINAL.pdf, pp. 31