Internet governance grew out of technical coordination (IANA/ICANN), and AI governance is starting with political/ethical summits (AI Safety Summits). I’m wondering what people think about the similarities or differences between the two types of governance. Some of you here on CircleID have been at this for years and have been deeply involved in Internet Governance, and I appreciate your input if you have the time. But I welcome the opinions of everyone.

Excuse me if some of my comparisons seem naïve or idealistic, but in my experience as a member of several working groups and mailing lists over the years related to Internet governance, I see some similarities and maybe even some lessons to be learned and mistakes to be avoided from how Internet governance evolved.

Even if you consider some of the questions non-issues or a flawed comparison, your opinion is welcome.

The Institutional Question (ICANN vs. AI Hubs)

If ICANN represents the “failure” of attempting a single global multistakeholder body for technical coordination, are we repeating history by seeking a unified UN-style “IAEA for AI,” or is a distributed model safer?

ICANN’s mission was strictly narrow (DNS/IP). Can AI governance survive if it attempts to govern both the “technical logical layer” (weights and parameters) and the “social application layer” simultaneously?

The IETF’s “rough consensus and running code” prioritized functionality over fairness. In AI, where “running code” can have immediate societal harm, is a technical-first governance model even possible?

How do we prevent “Mission Creep” in AI bodies when the history of ICANN shows that technical coordination bodies inevitably become proxies for content regulation and political disputes?

Is the current “AI Safety Summit” model merely a recreation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and if so, how do we avoid the 20-year deadlock that followed?

Multistakeholderism vs. Reality

The term “multi-stakeholder” is often viewed as a buzzword that masks corporate or state capture. Do you have any opinion on that?

Given the high capital requirements for LLMs, is “multistakeholder” governance even viable, or are we moving toward a “Bilateral” governance era between Big Tech and Big States?

The Internet Community was largely academic and technical however, the AI Community is largely corporate and proprietary. How does this change or affect the legitimacy of governance?

ICANN was criticized for being too US-centric. With the “Compute Divide” mirroring the early “Digital Divide,” how do we prevent AI governance from becoming a “Digital Colonialism 2.0”?

In Internet governance, “Civil Society” was often a decorative layer. How can AI architects ensure that “Alignment” isn’t just a technical term for “corporate compliance”?

If “Rough Consensus” failed to solve DNS abuse, why do we think it will solve AI bias or existential risk?

Technical Layers and Fragmentation

The Internet is a standardized protocol (TCP/IP); AI has no equivalent unified standard.

Internet governance relies on a three-layer framework (Infrastructure, Logical, Social). In AI, where the Logical layer, the model, is often a proprietary black box, can it actually be governed without breaking the system?

Does AI need an “IETF for Weights”? If OpenAI, Google, Meta and others don’t need interoperability standards to function, is “Technical Governance” even a relevant concept?

The Internet thrived on open standards. If AI governance moves toward Closed/Safety-First models, are we effectively “Splinternet-ing”, (new word?) the AI stack before it even matures?

ICANN manages a root that must be unique. AI has no root. Does this lack of a central point of failure make AI governance harder or easier than Internet governance?

How do we govern the compute layer (hardware) without triggering the same sovereign tensions that led to the “Sovereign Internet” movement in the 2010s?

Lessons from the ICANN Experiment (I’ll admit a little bias in this part due to my own experience)

If ICANN’s accountability mechanisms were mostly performative, what concrete, binding mechanisms can AI governance use to hold model developers responsible?

ICANN’s transition from US oversight was meant to be a triumph of globalism. Why did it feel like a transition from state oversight to corporate capture for many, and how does AI avoid this?

Is the “Open Source AI” movement the new “Cyber-libertarianism,” and will it be crushed by regulation just as the early “Free Internet” was?

Transparency in ICANN meant public meetings; transparency in AI means “Model Interpretability.” Is it a mistake to treat a social governance problem as a technical black box problem?

Finally, if Internet governance was about connectivity and AI governance is about content/output, are we trying to use a hammer (ICANN’s model) to fix a problem that requires a scalpel; sector-specific regulation?

Summary of Resources Used:

• Understanding AI through the Three-Layer Internet Framework (Lawfare)
• Distinguishing between Internet and AI Governance (Simon Institute)
• ICANN’s Role and Evolution (Chatham House)
• Lessons from Internet Governance History (TechPolicy.Press)

Thanks in advance for your comments.