As the United Nations’ Global Digital Compact (GDC) approaches its expected adoption, a growing chorus of critics warns that it threatens the very foundations of multistakeholderism in Internet governance. While the GDC aims to foster global cooperation and advance shared objectives for digital transformation, it not only centralizes power within the UN but also sidelines the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)—a platform that has, for years, been instrumental in amplifying diverse voices, especially from marginalized communities and the private sector. By shifting decision-making authority to governments and state-led processes, the GDC jeopardizes the inclusive, open, and collaborative spirit that has made the IGF a vital forum for shaping the future of the Internet.

Critics argue that the GDC’s emphasis on “enhancing international governance of artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity” and its commitment to a “balanced, inclusive and risk-based approach” risk marginalizing the contributions and perspectives of civil society and private sector actors—stakeholders crucial for understanding the complexities of digital policy. Furthermore, the GDC acknowledges the need for “effective disaster early warning, early action and crisis response,” but without robust channels for feedback, it may overlook the specific needs of those most affected by such policies.

Additionally, as the GDC seeks to establish norms for digital governance, its potential to create “cross-border data flows” while respecting “data protection and privacy safeguards” raises concerns about transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. Ultimately, without meaningful participation from diverse stakeholders, the GDC risks becoming a top-down initiative that fails to address the aspirations of those it intends to serve. This essay will explore these critical issues, emphasizing the need to safeguard the multistakeholder spirit in the face of an evolving digital governance landscape.

The Multistakeholder Approach: A Foundation for Success

The remarkable growth and transformative power of the Internet can largely be attributed to its decentralized, multistakeholder governance model. This approach—encompassing governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector—has fostered innovation, protected the free flow of information, and facilitated global connectivity. Bodies like the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) are prime examples of how multistakeholder governance has preserved the Internet’s openness and inclusivity.

However, the GDC, driven by a desire for greater state control, appears to disregard this history. By prioritizing governments as the primary decision-makers through intergovernmental consultations, the GDC risks marginalizing the voices of other key stakeholders who have played a critical role in shaping the Internet. If this trend continues, it could undermine the collaborative spirit that has made the Internet such a powerful engine for innovation and progress.

A Shift Towards State-Centric Control

This shift towards state-centric governance raises serious concerns, especially given the growing influence of certain actors within the UN system who advocate for a more controlled and less open Internet. The GDC, with its emphasis on state sovereignty and limited engagement with civil society, could inadvertently provide a platform for these visions to gain traction. For instance, the intergovernmental process proposed for establishing an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI risks sidelining technical expertise and broader stakeholder involvement, favoring political interests over inclusive governance.

The result could be a fragmented Internet where fundamental freedoms are increasingly curtailed, and censorship and surveillance become more common. A fragmented Internet is not just a theoretical risk; it has already materialized in some regions. Examples such as China’s “Great Firewall” and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) illustrate how divergent governance models can create isolated digital environments. If the GDC does not prioritize global interoperability and open standards, we may witness the further splintering of the Internet, with countries like Russia and China advocating for a more controlled and censored digital space.

Additionally, the location of future GDC discussions and implementation is crucial. Some UN locations may limit access for non-governmental stakeholders, potentially skewing the process toward state actors. A venue like Geneva, known for fostering inclusive multistakeholder participation, would signal the UN’s commitment to genuine collaboration.

Consequences for SMEs

The consequences of such a fragmented Internet could be far-reaching. SMEs, which rely on a global and open Internet to reach customers and compete with larger corporations, may find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. Navigating a complex web of national regulations and restrictions could stifle innovation and hinder their growth. While large tech companies, with their vast resources and lobbying power, may be better equipped to weather the storm, the GDC’s shift toward intergovernmental efforts and state-led processes will throw a wrench in the works for SMEs and smaller innovators around the world.

For example, the differing data privacy standards between the EU’s GDPR and US regulations have already created significant challenges for SMEs attempting to operate across both markets. Without adequate protections in the GDC, SMEs may find it even harder to keep their heads above water in a fragmented digital environment. Furthermore, while large tech companies will continue to wield their influence due to their substantial power and resources, the reliance on voluntary funding for forums like the IGF may limit participation from developing countries and smaller stakeholders, thereby silencing diverse voices and paving the way for the dominance of larger corporations.

Code for Collaboration and Pro-Innovation GDC

The GDC must move beyond lip service and actively incorporate meaningful participation from civil society, technical experts, and the private sector at all stages. Clear mechanisms for consultation, feedback, and joint decision-making are essential. The UN must urgently recognize that the success of digital governance lies in empowering time-tested multistakeholder forums like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Rather than marginalizing these platforms, the Global Digital Compact must elevate their role and grant them more responsibility. These forums have continually provided the diverse perspectives and expertise essential for navigating the complexities of the digital age.

The GDC’s shift toward vague, monolithic intergovernmental processes is not just a regression but a direct threat to the Internet’s foundational openness and inclusivity. By sidelining multistakeholder collaboration, the GDC risks fostering a fragmented and heavily regulated digital ecosystem, where innovation and free expression are stifled.

The Internet’s future cannot be dictated by governments alone. It must be shaped by the full spectrum of stakeholders—civil society, technical experts, SMEs, and the private sector—who have been the true stewards of its success. The UN must now fortify these established frameworks, not replace them, and ensure the Internet remains a global public good, governed by those who represent its many dimensions.