Securing the digital transition

Everyyear, the World Economic Forum publishes a Global Risks Report, whichdistils the views of experts and policymakers from around the world.This year, cybersecurity is high on the list of global concerns, as wellit should be. In 2017, the world witnessed a continued escalation incyber attacks and security breaches that affected all parts of society.There is no reason to believe 2018 will be different.Theimplications are far-reaching. Most immediately, we must grapple withgovernance of the Internet as well as on the Internet. Otherwise, theopportunities afforded by digital technologies could be squandered in aregulatory and legal arms race, complete with new borders and new globaltensions.But there’s a broader issue: For all the speed with whichwe are racing into the digital age, efforts to ensure global stabilityare lagging far behind. In many respects, our world is still organisedwithin a Westphalian framework. States with (mostly) recognised bordersare the building blocks of the international system. Their interactions,and their willingness to share sovereignty, define the existing worldorder.But globalisation has gradually changed the realities on theground. And while its force – waxing and waning since the decadespreceding World War I – is nowadays being tempered by geopolitics, andby the impulse to slow the pace of technological change, the digitaltransformation will propel globalisation forward, albeit in a differentform. After all, the Internet’s key feature is its non-territorialarchitecture. By breaking down traditional borders, it poses a directchallenge to the very foundation of the Westphalian order.This is aprofoundly positive development, because it facilitates free expressionand the cross-border exchange of goods and ideas. But, as with all humaninventions, the Internet can be abused, as evidenced by the rise incybercrime, online harassment, hate speech, incitement to violence, andonline radicalisation.Minimising such abuses in the years ahead willrequire close international co-operation to establish and enforcecommon rules. There can be no solution in isolation, because no singlegovernment can tackle the problem on its own.Over time, an alphabetsoup of organisations has emerged to bring together the technicalcommunity, businesses, governments, and civil society. And bodies suchas ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), IETF(Internet Engineering Task Force), and W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)now provide de facto governance of the Internet’s architecture. Butgovernance on the Internet is far more complex. Here, the institutionallandscape is both crowded and unsettled.It is crowded becausenumerous actors are competing to shape the normative framework ofcyberspace. Many countries have multiple relevant ministries regulatingonline activity. Websites and online services have vastly differentcommunity guidelines and terms of service. Public- and private-sectordevelopers determine the design of the Internet’s changinginfrastructure. And numerous civil-society groups are proposing theirown sets of cyber principles, while international organisations attemptto develop multilateral agreements.The landscape remains unsettledbecause intergovernmental co-operation has largely stalled, owing toconflicting priorities among countries. Making matters worse, there arestill too few dedicated spaces for different stakeholders to interactand devise operational solutions.In the absence of mutually agreedframeworks, governments will tend to adopt short-term unilateralmeasures – mandatory data localisation, excessive content restrictions,intrusive surveillance – to address immediate concerns, or as a responseto domestic political pressure. But by doing so, they could fuel adynamic that heightens, rather than minimises, international tensions.Digitalgovernance touches on everything from cybersecurity to the economy tohuman rights, and uncertainty about which laws apply in differentjurisdictions weakens enforcement in all of them, leaving everyone worseoff. Moreover, measures to address one dimension can easily affect theothers, which means that unco-ordinated and rash policy decisions canhave negative consequences across the board.When I had the honour ofchairing the Global Commission on Internet Governance, our 2016 reporthighlighted these risks, and called for “a new Social Compact” to ensurethat the Internet of the future will be accessible, inclusive, secure,and trustworthy.Progress since then has been limited. Becauseefforts at the United Nations to establish global cyber rules havereached an impasse, alternative initiatives will have to drive theprocess forward.Fortunately, the Global Commission on the Stabilityof Cyberspace recently issued an important “Call to Protect the PublicCore of the Internet.” And the upcoming Global Internet and JurisdictionConference in Ottawa will provide another valuable opportunity forpolicymakers to continue working toward solutions.Such technical andlegalistic proceedings are essential for shaping the global transitionfrom the industrial to the digital era. To avoid a legal arms race,policymakers will need to develop a smart approach to a variety oftricky issues, from mutual assistance frameworks for investigations tothe role of domain-name administrators and service providers inaddressing abusive speech online.Achieving policy coherence acrossjurisdictions should be a top priority. Doing so will require direct,sustained interactions among all stakeholders. Only then can we create aframework to preserve the cross-border nature of the Internet, protecthuman rights, fight abuse, and sustain a truly global digital economy.AsKofi Annan said back in 2004, “In managing, promoting, and protecting[the Internet’s] presence in our lives, we need to be no less creativethan those who invented it.” Westphalia is behind us. What comes next isup to us. – Project Syndicate* Carl Bildt is a former prime minister and foreign minister of Sweden.