For a non-Westerner, it is amusing to note it's easily discernible spirit of Enlightenment and rationalism, which optimistically suggests a linear, progressive, and ascensional advancement of the Internet and the major stakeholders’ exposure to, and eagerness to apply, good Internet Governance practices. The reality, however, appears radically opposite: the rise of the new social conservatism and nationalism across the Atlantic and much of the world, and the return of the Big State, coupled with irrationality in policy making, rather suggests fundamental policy setbacks, which are yet to mount to the further prejudice of the Internet’s nature and, subsequently, Internet Governance.

New Deal, New Wheal?

I would also defy the notion of global common interest which the paper interprets as the upholding of the Internet’s integrity. Notwithstanding ritual statements, in reality some leading Internet nations seek quite the opposite. In a similar vein “shared responsibility to provide open and resilient Internet services to all and to protect the rule of law and human rights” has become infamous for its quite opportunistic interpretations in pursuit of fiercely contesting geopolitical interests. Looking ahead, such a rivalry is unlikely to cease any time soon, thereby affecting the Internet’s fundamentals. Plus, there is no body or institution capable of effectively reconciling nation-states’ parochial interests and cure their irrational fears, and it would hardly emerge any time soon.

A significant part of the blame should also be laid on the global community behind the IG/IGF movement for the failure to propone a global consensus on the common interest over past decades. Too busy assembling in lovely places to celebrate a purported global universal IG agenda and kowtowing to government and business celebrities it has ignored a hardly gratifying job of turning the agenda into a main-street narrative.

The Internet business was lulled by the original laissez-faire environment and, ultimately, was caught unaware by a drastic change in the institutional environment. Understandably, it has opted for petty opportunism as the only credible survival strategy.

The technical community seems to have been living in a bubble of its own and being ignorant of the-then looming socio-political challenges. The payday is yet to come as Governments have become far more technically versed, coopted renegade techies and are now far more capable of shaping tech policies to serve what they conceive of as a national, rather than common interest.

Last but not least, the biggest nation on the Internet offers what seems to some a simple yet effective alternative to the multistakeholder-based governance. Few nations would bother to test it for universality, yet many are tempted to replicate it, apparently adding to detrimental effects on the Internet’s integrity.

New Deal, New Heal

The authors’ attempt to table a new, hybrid model to revitalize the dialogue on the IG agenda seems too late and quite naïve. As some of them would admit, by its existence the Internet has challenged traditional societal fundamentals, and sensing the time has come for them to strike back, Governments will stick to the “winner-takes-it-all” approach, meaning an assault on and/or crawling revision of the multistakeholder-based IG principles. With their polarized approaches, little doubt that the Internet is going to split, at least, in terms of both parameters and policies, in 2 or even more loosely interconnected bubbles (e.g. the Golden Billion plus a handful of other nations vs. the rest of the world).

The good news, however, is that whilst the multistakeholder-based governance is now facing a conceptual and existential crisis, there have already emerged signs that the opposing stance is prone to a similar crisis, too. Plus, the hope remains today’s institutions and socio-economic and societal fundamentals would evolve over time into more mature and relevant ones (albeit not granted and not necessarily in a linear and progressive way).

At the end of the day, once the stakeholders realize, each in its own way, the gravity of the loss, perhaps the time would come to hammer the very new deal suggested by the authors or a different but effective one, as the Internet still keeps a lot of surprises.