5. Conclusion
A multi-stakeholder future for internet governance is not guaranteed.86 Authoritarian states such as China are patiently working through existing multilateral processes, capitalizing on the waning attention and resources of EU institutions, to undermine the open, free internet that Western countries have taken for granted. While the EU is unlikely to change the approaches of authoritarian regimes simply by engaging or investing more, the real risk is that by failing to engage, Western allies will be leaving the field to states that have a radically different vision of what the internet should be – and that a less free, or even fragmented internet will follow. By working together more effectively, with an emphasis on commonalities rather than differences, the EU and US can reduce risks of internet fragmentation, and aim to preserve a single, free and open internet.
As the meaning of internet governance expands beyond naming and addressing, it is essential that the EU and US build on positive foundations, learn lessons from failures in coordination, to enhance the effectiveness of existing multi-stakeholder processes, and proactively plan to ensure that future developments (AI, IoT, search markets, social media, mobile carriers, cybersecurity and responsible state behaviour in cyberspace) have multi-stakeholder homes.
86 See extensive discussions on this issue in Global Commission on Internet Governance (2016), ‘One Internet’.