Can the multi-stakeholder model, which has safeguarded an open, inclusive internet, survive?
Originally published on Global Voices
Is AI the future of the internet? AI-generated illustration generated by Muhammed Bello Buhari. Used with permission.
By Muhammed Bello Buhari
Today, if you post a video on a social media platform, you can be confident that it will be seen by people across the globe within seconds. Whether you’re in a remote village in Indonesia, the vibrant streets of Sao Paulo, Brazil, or the bustling city of Lagos, Nigeria, your video can travel across borders, instantly reaching millions of people. The internet’s current structure makes this seamless, borderless communication possible, empowering collaboration and idea-sharing across vast distances. Despite occasional government-imposed restrictions, the internet’s fundamental unified and interoperable design remains the same worldwide and transcends geographical and political boundaries.
But this could change. In 2024, critical discussions began that could reshape internet governance, with debates extending into 2025. At stake is the shift from a multistakeholder model — where governments, businesses, civil society, and technical communities share responsibility — to a government-dominated approach. Topics under review include open internet, connectivity, artificial intelligence (AI), digital infrastructure, human rights, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Central to these debates is a critical question: Can the multi-stakeholder model, which has safeguarded an open, inclusive internet, survive?
The internet was designed to be decentralized, a network of networks where no single entity held absolute control. This architecture empowered equal participation, innovation, and the free exchange of ideas. Open standards that enable seamless interconnection and multi-stakeholder model governance allowed the internet to grow into a transformative global platform, empowering anyone to build networks without centralized approval. The internet’s functionality is framed by the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model, comprising the application, presentation, session, transport, network, data link, and physical infrastructure layers.
Over time, companies like Facebook (Meta), Google, and Amazon, which initially focused on the application layer (services such as social media, search, and e-commerce), began integrating vertically across multiple layers, including infrastructure like undersea cables and data centers. This vertical integration consolidates power, allowing these companies to control not just services but also the physical and network layers of the internet. This concentration of influence disrupts the decentralized architecture, giving them disproportionate leverage over global communication channels and raising concerns about potential monopolistic practices. Such dynamics underscore the importance of robust governance to ensure openness, universality, and equitable access across all layers of the Internet.
The internet’s application layer powers integral parts of daily life, like social media, e-commerce, and web browsing. Beneath this, the network layer assigns unique Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to devices worldwide, enabling connectivity. Currently, IP address allocation and control are managed by a hierarchical system under the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), ensuring equitable distribution and decentralized oversight. However, if control over IP addresses were to centralize, it would grant immense power over global communication and information flows. This makes internet governance crucial, not only to protect freedom of expression but also to uphold the decentralized principles that form the internet’s foundation.
The year 2025 is a critical moment for the internet’s future, shaped by two global trends and the adoption of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). First, governments face mounting pressure — accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic — to regulate the digital ecosystem. The pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of digital spaces to the spread of disinformation, cybercrime, and online privacy breaches, amplifying calls for stronger regulatory frameworks. By 2022, over a quarter of governments worldwide had enacted national frameworks aimed at governing digital platforms, online content, and user data. Second, state-controlled internet models, championed by nations like China, are reshaping the digital landscape. China’s “New IP” proposals to international standard-setting bodies, such as ISO and ITU, would allow state control over every device connected to the network, using terms like “national security” and “digital sovereignty” to justify restrictions on openness and interoperability. This shift is further exacerbated by nations like Russia signaling their intent to create isolated networks, challenging the very fabric of the global internet as a “network of networks.”
The governance of critical infrastructure, such as IP addresses, is pivotal in ensuring global communication remains open and accessible. For example, imagine a small e-commerce business in Kenya that depends on cross-border trade with customers in Europe. If the global internet fractures into isolated networks, this business could lose access to international markets overnight, devastating its operations and the livelihoods it supports. Such scenarios underscore the stakes involved in maintaining an open and interconnected internet.
In response, the GDC — negotiated by 193 member states and part of the broader Pact for the Future — was adopted in September 2024 at the UN’s Summit of the Future. Key highlights of the GDC include commitments to universal internet access, the promotion of ethical AI systems, enhanced cooperation on cybersecurity, and ensuring human rights are embedded in digital governance policies. Additionally, it aims to address digital divides by fostering inclusive and equitable development of digital technologies.
Notably, the GDC elevates the role of the UN Secretary-General’s Tech Envoy's office in New York to a central position, consolidating authority previously spread across Geneva-based entities like ITU and UNCTAD. While this shift is intended to streamline governance, it raises concerns about the exclusion of non-state actors from decision-making processes. Critics worry that this centralization could marginalize the multi-stakeholder model and risk overlooking the integration of human rights principles in implementation. These developments coincide with the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)+20 Review in 2025, which is tasked with assessing the implementation and progress of the 2005 WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The stakes are clear: the internet is at a crossroads between democratic openness and authoritarian control.
A pressing concern is the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a multi-stakeholder platform rooted in WSIS 2005, which faces reevaluation during the WSIS+20 review. The IGF, despite its flaws, such as its lack of decision-making power and controversial host choices like Saudi Arabia in 2024, remains one of the most effective platforms for convening diverse stakeholders. It provides a unique space for human rights-based, consensus-driven discussions on internet governance.
An emerging challenge is the shifting narrative in global forums, where human rights are increasingly framed through the lens of economic development rather than freedoms like expression and participation. This shift, driven by influential state actors and some international organizations, reflects a growing emphasis on digital economies and infrastructure investments as cornerstones of national and global development agendas. While such priorities align with sustainable development goals (SDGs), they risk sidelining critical discussions on the protection of individual rights and freedoms in favor of economic imperatives.
Immediate engagement is crucial. Civil society must rally to protect an inclusive, open, and equitable internet. A multi-stakeholder model — transparent, participatory, and accountable — is crucial to maintaining the internet as a global, interoperable platform. Preserving its essence requires vigilance and action to counter efforts to centralize power or weaken governance principles. Stakeholders must contribute to processes shaping the future of internet governance, particularly the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS+20 review. The GDC’s 2025 roadmap includes endorsement, an implementation map, review phases, and a high-level review by 2027. Similarly, WSIS+20 invites feedback on WSIS Action Lines by January 2025 and consultations to address agenda gaps by March 2025. These processes are critical opportunities to advocate for inclusive, transparent policies that sustain an open internet.
The urgency is clear. The internet has transformed dramatically since WSIS Geneva in 2003, becoming integral to modern life. Emerging challenges like AI and geopolitical fragmentation threaten its foundational principles, but the multi-stakeholder model remains a vital tool for navigating these complexities. Civil society must amplify awareness locally and globally, engage in national and regional IGFs, and collaborate directly with policymakers. Effective communication and highlighting the internet’s role in achieving sustainable development goals are essential strategies. By prioritizing human rights, supporting digital inclusion, and shaping equitable policies, stakeholders can ensure the internet remains a democratic and innovative space for generations.
