Book launch: What changes and remains the same in 20 years in the life of Kurbalija’s book on internet governance?

Summary

This discussion centered on the launch of the eighth edition of Jovan Kurbalija’s “Introduction to Internet Governance,” a foundational textbook that has been published in multiple languages and used worldwide since 2004. Sorina Teleanu from the Diplo Foundation introduced the session, highlighting the book’s impact on internet governance education over nearly two decades. The main focus was addressing why Kurbalija chose to maintain the title “Internet Governance” rather than adopting newer terminology like “digital governance” or “AI governance” that has become popular in recent years.

Kurbalija explained that he returned to writing after a nine-year hiatus because the rise of AI had created significant confusion in the field, similar to the early days when people didn’t understand what internet governance entailed. He defended his choice to keep “Internet Governance” as the title through semantic analysis, arguing that most digital governance issues ultimately relate to the internet through TCP/IP protocols, making “internet” the most precise term rather than broader concepts like “digital.” The author introduced a new “Kaizen publishing” approach, using continuous updates rather than traditional publishing cycles, recognizing that digital topics become obsolete quickly.

Kurbalija provided historical perspective, noting that US digital policy has remained consistent since 1892, and that key internet governance institutions were all established within three months in 1998. He identified four major developments since 2016: the shift of data to cloud computing, COVID-19’s acceleration of digitalization, the transition from CPUs to GPUs, and the rise of artificial intelligence. The discussion concluded with observations about the shift from knowledge-focused to data-focused policy documents and the return of geopolitical considerations to internet governance.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Launch of the 8th Edition of “Introduction to Internet Governance”** – Jovan Kurbalija presents his updated book after a 9-year gap since the 7th edition, explaining his motivation to write again due to increased confusion around AI and digital governance

– **Terminology Debate: “Internet Governance” vs “Digital Governance”** – Kurbalija defends his decision to maintain “Internet governance” as the book title rather than switching to “digital governance” or “AI governance,” arguing that most digital governance issues ultimately relate to the Internet through TCP/IP protocols

– **Historical Continuity in Digital Policy** – Discussion of how current digital governance frameworks were largely established in autumn 1998 (Google, ICANN, UN cybersecurity resolutions, WTO e-commerce moratorium) and how US digital policy has remained consistent since 1892

– **Four Major Developments Since 2016** – Kurbalija identifies key changes: massive shift of data to cloud computing, COVID-19 pandemic acceleration of digitalization, shift from CPUs to GPUs in processing, satellite connectivity expansion, and artificial intelligence emergence

– **AI Governance Evolution and Risk Assessment** – Analysis of how AI governance discussions evolved from doomsday scenarios at Bletchley to more balanced approaches, emphasizing the need to consider immediate, mid-term, and long-term risks in proper context

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion serves as a book launch event and educational session explaining why “Internet governance” remains the appropriate framework for understanding current digital policy challenges, despite the proliferation of new terminology around AI and digital governance.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone is academic and informative, with Kurbalija speaking as an expert educator sharing insights from decades of experience. The atmosphere is collegial and somewhat informal, with personal anecdotes and conversational elements. The tone remains consistent throughout – thoughtful, analytical, and slightly cautionary about overhyping current technological changes while acknowledging their significance.

Speakers

– **Sorina Teleanu**: Works with Diplo Foundation and the Geneva Internet Platform, serves as session moderator

– **Jovan Kurbalija**: Author of “Introduction to Internet Governance” (8 editions), works with Diplo Foundation, expert in internet governance and digital governance, academic and researcher in the field

Additional speakers:

– **Tereza Horejsova**: Mentioned by Jovan Kurbalija during his remarks (role/title not specified)

# Report: Launch of the Eighth Edition of “Introduction to Internet Governance”

## Introduction and Context

This session focused on the launch of the eighth edition of Jovan Kurbalija’s “Introduction to Internet Governance,” moderated by Sorina Teleanu from the Diplo Foundation and the Geneva Internet Platform. The book, first published in 2004 (Teleanu initially misstated this as 2006 but corrected herself), has been translated into eleven languages and adopted as a textbook worldwide, establishing itself as a foundational resource in internet governance education over nearly two decades.

The eighth edition represents Kurbalija’s return to writing after a nine-year hiatus since the seventh edition. He was motivated by what he described as increasing confusion in the field, particularly surrounding artificial intelligence and digital governance developments over the past two years.

## The Decision to Maintain “Internet Governance” Terminology

Teleanu asked why Kurbalija chose to maintain “Internet Governance” as the book’s title rather than adopting more contemporary terminology such as “digital governance,” “AI governance,” or “data governance” that has gained prominence in recent policy discussions. She noted this terminology question has been discussed in the field for about two years.

Kurbalija explained that a friend had suggested alternative titles, but he decided to keep “Internet Governance” because he believes it remains the most precise term available. His reasoning centered on the technical reality that most digital governance issues ultimately relate to the Internet through TCP/IP protocols, making “internet” more specific and accurate than broader concepts like “digital.” He emphasized that in logic and epistemology, using specific rather than general terms is preferable, positioning his terminological choice as a matter of analytical precision.

## Innovation in Academic Publishing: The “Kaizen Publishing” Approach

Kurbalija introduced what he termed “Kaizen publishing,” borrowing the Japanese concept of continuous improvement. This methodological innovation emerged from his recognition that traditional academic publishing cycles have become obsolete in rapidly evolving digital fields. He explained that content was becoming obsolete “by basically the ink dried,” necessitating a fundamental rethinking of how knowledge is created and disseminated.

The new approach involves continuous online updates rather than traditional publishing cycles, acknowledging that digital topics require dynamic rather than static treatment. The book is structured as a pyramid with “seven floors, 50 issues” and will be continuously updated online.

## AI’s Role in the Writing Process

Kurbalija detailed how artificial intelligence assisted him in the writing process. He developed a model based on his writing style and zoom calls, which helped him in creating the content. This represents a practical application of AI tools in academic writing and publishing.

## Historical Perspective and Continuity

### Long-term Policy Patterns

Kurbalija provided historical depth to contemporary digital governance discussions, arguing that US digital policy has remained fundamentally unchanged since 1892, when the United States joined the St. Petersburg meeting of the International Telecommunication Union. He described this as maintaining consistent rhetoric around innovation, law governance, and business interests.

He noted that the only significant change in US digital policy was what he termed the “Titanic moment,” though he did not elaborate extensively on this reference in the session.

### The Critical Juncture of 1998

Kurbalija identified a specific three-month period in 1998 when all major digital governance regimes currently in operation were established. In September 1998, Google was founded, ICANN was established, Russia tabled its cybersecurity resolution at the United Nations on September 30th, and the WTO decided on its moratorium on customs duties for e-commerce.

This observation suggests that governance evolution may occur in concentrated bursts during critical junctures rather than through gradual progression.

## Four Major Developments Since 2016

Kurbalija identified four key developments that have shaped the digital landscape since the seventh edition in 2016:

1. **Data Migration to Cloud Computing**: A massive shift of data from personal computers to cloud infrastructure, with significant consequences for governance, freedom, knowledge, and policy.

2. **COVID-19 Pandemic Acceleration**: The pandemic significantly accelerated digitalization processes across multiple sectors.

3. **Processing Architecture Shift**: The transition from CPU-based to GPU-based computing, fundamentally altering how computational power is organized and accessed.

4. **Artificial Intelligence Emergence**: The rise of AI as a dominant technological and policy concern, creating new governance challenges while building on existing digital infrastructure.

## AI Governance Evolution and Risk Assessment

Kurbalija addressed the evolution of AI governance conversations from what he characterized as “doomsday scenarios” at the Bletchley conference to more balanced approaches in subsequent Seoul and Paris conferences. He proposed a risk assessment framework categorizing AI concerns into three temporal categories:

– **Immediate risks**: Including impacts on educational systems, publishing processes, and employment

– **Mid-term risks**: Particularly the concentration of knowledge in the hands of few companies

– **Long-term risks**: Existential concerns that should not overshadow more immediate challenges

He suggested using climate change assessment models for long-term AI risks and mentioned the UN AI panel as a potentially promising approach.

## The Shift from Knowledge to Data in Policy Language

Kurbalija made an important observation about language evolution in policy documents. He noted that World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) documents were “full of knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, no data here and there,” while contemporary policy documents are “full of data, no knowledge.”

This shift is significant because, as Kurbalija emphasized, “AI is about knowledge.” The transition from knowledge-focused to data-focused policy discourse may represent a fundamental change in how we understand digital transformation challenges.

## Geopolitical Dimensions

The discussion acknowledged significant geopolitical shifts in digital governance, moving from Western-centered narratives toward more diverse global perspectives incorporating Asian, Latin American, and African viewpoints. Kurbalija suggested that the Internet is “returning to its geopolitical origins,” connecting contemporary digital governance challenges to broader patterns of technological competition and international relations.

## Practical Information and Access

The session concluded with practical information about accessing the book. Registration is available for the online version and access to the continuous update platform. A book excerpt was made available immediately, with the full version to be distributed to registered participants. Diplo committed to providing comprehensive reporting from the meeting, including what Kurbalija termed a “cliché detector” and narrative analysis tools.

Continued discussion was made available at Diplo’s booth for interested participants. Unfortunately, no audience questions were addressed due to time constraints.

## Conclusion

This session successfully combined a book launch with an educational examination of fundamental questions in digital governance. Kurbalija’s presentation provided historical context for contemporary challenges while introducing innovative approaches to academic publishing and knowledge dissemination. The discussion highlighted the continued importance of foundational educational resources in a field characterized by rapid change and offered analytical frameworks for understanding AI governance and digital policy evolution.

The session’s primary contribution was challenging prevailing narratives about digital transformation being entirely unprecedented by revealing deep continuities and patterns across time, suggesting that evolutionary rather than revolutionary approaches may be more appropriate for digital governance challenges.

Sorina Teleanu: Good morning and welcome to our session which has kind of a long title but we’ll unpack it a little later. My name is Sorina Telanu, I work with Diplo Foundation and the Geneva Internet Platform and it is an honor to actually welcome you here today for the launch of the eighth edition of what we call a classical in internet governance which is Jovan’s introduction to internet governance. When was the book first published? 2006? 4. So over the years the past seven editions have been published in many languages, they have been used as textbooks in many universities around the world. I have met quite a lot of people this week who have told me you know this is how I actually started learning about internet governance through Jovan’s book and then through some of Diplo’s courses. So Jovan, congrats for that as well. So today we’re launching the new edition of this book, Jovan will tell us a bit about it and while he will do so he will also explain probably one of the controversial things that has been discussed in this space for the past two years at least. Internet governance, is it versus digital governance, is it and digital governance, is there a dichotomy between them or not and why is Jovan still calling his book introduction to internet governance when everyone is talking about you know AI governance, data governance, digital governance and a bunch of other stuff. I’m not very good in phrasing, I should have prepared a better speech but really I do encourage everyone to take a look at this short excerpt and then the book will be available soon online and we will have a list, I think my colleague has a list around, you can share your email addresses and we’ll make sure to send the full book with, to share the full book with you. Jovan, over to you, why did you still want to write a book, how many years after the previous editions? Nine years. And why still internet governance?

Jovan Kurbalija: This is what I’m asking myself to tell you the truth, but fortunately and I think it’s interesting dilemma, I thought okay that’s done, I wrote it till last edition was 2016 and it helps some people to understand what is going on, to get into internet governance, I said it’s enough, seventh edition, it was translated in 11 languages and I was proud and what Tereza Horejsova said, what really makes me happy and particularly honored and returns me purpose in my work is when people stop me and say hey, this book helped me to get into internet governance and digital governance and I can tell you this is the biggest achievement probably in my career, it could sound a small thing but it’s remarkable. Sometimes this book started, the first edition started when probably you heard it when friends of mine, when I was telling them what I was doing, they were inviting me to fix their printer, to install their software back 23 or four years ago and I said it’s not exactly what I’m doing, I usually install their printer and software and these things and then explain what it is about. Two years ago with the AI wave, I realized that confusion is increasing and I said wow, I should again get back and start writing something. Then, you know, I’m born procrastinator, it took time, I’m a bit lazy and then AI help also and I’ll tell you how AI helped me, it is not written by AI, don’t worry, but I came, I said okay, I will write this eighth edition and when I was started writing it, I realized that one part I wrote and it became obsolete by basically the ink dried and I said I cannot write it this way, I have to invent something else and I use the Japanese word Kaizen. Kaizen explains the constant improvements and constant developments, therefore one interesting aspect before I move to the book is that basically overall way how I did it and I said okay, I cannot write it, send to editors, spend two years and basically everything will be different in digital world. Frankly speaking, most digital and AI books these days are becoming obsolete before they’re published, you have whole graveyards of rhetorics and this is a question for colleagues from academia, to rethink the way of publishing, here is how I did it. I said okay, I have IG book, this is my starting point, it has to be revisited and I will focus on changes over nine years, which is important to see things into perspective and I said I will use AI. We at Diplo developed a model based on my writing and my zoom calls, my way of framing issues, how I do, am I inductive or deductive thinker, what type of sentences I use, long and short, what type of cadenza of music in the writing I’ve been using. They said okay, let me use it, at least nobody can blame it, the book is written by AI because I wrote seventh editions and then I realized okay, what we have to do is to have at one point in time and this is this point, closure and this is why printed version is useful. You create the closure, at this point this is my thinking in June 2025 on the issues AI governance, digital governance, cyber security and then you continue continuous update in this Kaizen publishing style. AI is going on the net and say huh, here is article in academia, here is a policy statement at the versus and basically you have the constant updates till the moment where you create again closure and this is basically how the publishing works. Now I’m also with one my leg in academic community and the research community and I can tell you that that community will have to undergo profound changes because of the impact of the AI. The old way of publishing isn’t going to work. Yes, we need peer review, yes we need quality control, yes we need checking the things, but not in these rituals where book before it’s published it takes one and a half, two years, that doesn’t make sense. Therefore this is Kaizen publishing. What you will get is excerpt from the book, you can register by signing and you will receive link to the online version which you can download and you will receive also link to this Kaizen space where the continuous updates are done. Let me give you one example. I had a section on the future of the versus and I covered more or less all aspects, but then you come here and you have completely new insights, you have the new views and then what I wrote as my summary of the future of the versus just 10 days ago, it’s already obsolete. Obsolete in a sense that there is refinement of the arguments, new metaphors, new framing of the issues and as you know I’m particularly particularly focused on the framing. Framing of the issues and this cognitive apparatus, how we deal with the policy dynamic is critical. This is the history overall survey how the book how the book started and why I decided to write it, start writing two years ago, because I realized confusion around AI is enormous. and one has to sort it out somehow. Then I said, OK, how to call the book? And my friend, who is a brand specialist, said, don’t call Internet governance. Nobody knows what is Internet. Everything is digital, AI governance, cutting-edge governance, and this and that. I said, OK, that’s a legitimate point. And then I started moving in very semantic analysis, which you will find at the very beginning of the publication. Basically, I answered the question why it is still Internet governance. I went into analysis. And you know that I like to use the pyramids. And I went to the basement. It is basic terminology, information and communication technology. It’s anything from the pigeon to the telegraph till AI. And if you see UN is still using, ICT. It’s interesting. UN is basically the most precise, the broader terms. Then when you move up, you have electric signals, telegraph, basically. And then you move up, you have a digital, zeros and ones. And then you move up, you come to Internet. And up, you come to AI.

Sorina Teleanu: Now, calling it ICT would be too broader. Calling it electric would be also too broad. Digital was a candidate. And I had dilemma between digital and Internet. And there are arguments for both. My arguments for Internet prevailed because most of the governance issues related to digital are related to the Internet. Yes, you can have AI farm or you can have whatever. But ultimately, it comes to us through TCP IP, through Internet protocol. Whether it is disinformation, whether it is e-commerce, whether it is content governance and everything else. Therefore, I think the Internet is still the least imprecise, let’s say, not prefix, but I know Ginger will correct me, description on what we are discussing today. Digital is, would be correct, but a bit broader. And you know, in the logic and epistemology, if you can find a specific term, use specific term. Don’t go for the broader terms. Now, as you know, the confusion is on the steroids. You have AI governance, cyber governance, digital, and you know how it works. Academics, when they want to create a new research field, a new book, they just invent the new terms. Policymakers, when they want to make initiative, they become AI ambassador, tech ambassador, digital ambassador and the other things. That’s basically how it is and it’s very human, let’s put it this way. Therefore, that could be an interesting point. If you agree with my point, why I still call it Internet governance, not digital governance, definitely not AI governance, although advice from the brand advisor was to use AI governance because it’s very topical. Now, in the book, I start with my old, well, I should have used PowerPoint, but that’s it, my building, you know, building with seven floors, 50 issues. And then the first part is Internet evolution. And here is a fascinating insight. We are sometimes obsessed that everything is happening now in here. It’s a bit of chrono-narcissism because it’s very natural. We are here in Oslo, I’m sorry, we are excited, the world is changing, we are part of the process and we think everything is happening here. But when you really step back, you realize few things. That technological governance is very, let’s say, constant across the time. I’ll give you two examples. Nowadays, we discuss impact of the Trump administration

Jovan Kurbalija: on digitalization and AI. But if you really analyze, you can see that US digital policy has not changed since, and I’m highlighting, since 1892, in the 19th century, when United States joined the St. Petersburg meeting of the International Telecommunication Union. The rhetoric is the same. Innovation, law governance, business interests. At that time, in the other blocks were European countries with the postal and telegraph unions. UK, France, Germany, that was dichotomy between two actors. Fast forward, the only change in the US policy was so-called Titanic moment. Then they decided, because of sheer power of the shock that Titanic sinking created, they decided to adopt radio telecommunication, which is still in the force till today, and apparently increasingly controversial because of satellites business. Now, fast forward, you come to 1998. And all digital internet ICT governance regimes that we discuss today were set within the three months of the 1998. In September, at the beginning of September 1998, Google was established. ICANN was in the third week of September 1998. Russia tabled cybersecurity resolution on the 30th September 1998, which led to the UN government group of experts, open-ended working group, the process which is still going on. I think next week they will be meeting. WTO, in the same last week of the 1998, September 1998, decided about moratorium on the custom duties on e-commerce. And just slightly later, in November 1998, ITU decided to held the versus during the plenipotentiary meeting in Minneapolis. Therefore, if you really step back, frankly speaking, those pillars, WTO for e-commerce, UNGG for the cybersecurity, ICANN for the names and numbers, and the versus for overall digital governance are still in the place till today. Now, that’s the first really strong call for all of us not to be over-impressed by immediate. Even it looks drastic, the rhetoric is everything is changing. We are pushing the frontier. Nothing will be the same. We need a new governance for the new technology. You know the rhetoric, how it goes. It’s not as dramatic as it looks. And there are two examples, US constant digital policy and the autumn 1998 as basis for it. Now, fast forward. I need some water. Thank you. Fast forward 2016, when I published the last edition of my book. Now, I compare what’s happened in the meantime. And I realized there were basically four main developments. First one, massive shift of data from our personal computers to cloud. It started a bit before with social media, but it accelerated over the last nine years with enormous consequences for governance, freedom, knowledge, policy. Second one was COVID pandemic, which accelerated this process, where we have to move online and work online. Another one is a shift from CPUs, central processing unit, which dominated the space to GPUs and made people from NVIDIA and other companies. and other companies are extremely rich. CPUs were central processing units, Intel and AMD and others dominated it, GPUs, which NVIDIA started developing for games, then they got the first boost with Bitcoin, with the blockchain, and another boost later on with AI. That’s the major shift, I would say, on a harder basis. Another is satellite connectivity, especially with low-orbit satellites, and the last one is obviously artificial intelligence. Now, if you go through each of these, you can see that they are long-term trajectories, they are not just a shift of data towards cloud as an enormous impact on the digital governance. What’s happening in the governance field? First, the UN started, and I was part of the process with the high-level panel, started this parallel process. I know there have been many criticisms, now it’s still with GDC versus the elephant in the room, small, big one, I don’t know, but I was part of that process, and when I had the chance to influence some discussions, I was always insisting that we need evolution, not revolution. We need IGF+, which exists, not to reboot everything. But what I have to highlight for the internet governance community, there was a need for something like this. There was a bit of, and sometimes you cannot go into rational decisions, oh, we have IGF, we have this, we have that, yes, we have that, but policy and politics is sometimes irrational. You need new energy, you need a boost. People were asking diplomats, we need to do something, especially with this digital governance, what I’m going to report back to the capital. Therefore, GDC and that process, which started in 2018, was needed. I wish we could have steered it a bit more in convergence element, but that’s for another discussion. Then we had AI safety aligned with the Bletchley conference. Again, 2003, AI magic. It’s going to kill humanity. We have to be careful. We need regulation. AI is like atomic nuclear energy, nuclear bomb, all of these metaphors that were used. A letter by thousands of scientists, we have to ban development of AI and this and that. I was sitting on the gallery at that time, thinking gallery, and said, my God, how far is it going to go? Because discussion became completely irrational. It calmed down. At that point, there was a Bletchley summit, safety line, there was another, and if you follow just that, you can see how AI evolved. Bletchley, security, doomsday scenario, large language models, and basically narrative of main tech companies. We know how dangerous it is. We want governments to regulate, to stop developments, and to trust us that we will save humanity. Fortunately, for different reasons, we didn’t react to that. Then there was a Seoul conference, which calmed down, and Paris review in February, which basically removed completely Bletchley, this line of thinking. Now, why is this important? The question of AI governance is important, and that evolution is another elephant in the room. Yes, we have long-term risks, but we have to judge these risks in the context. What are the immediate risks for educational system? The question for publishing processes, a way of justifying through peer review, our thinking and our validity in academic world, jobs and the other issues, those are immediate risks. Then you have mid-term risks of huge concentration of our knowledge in the hands of few companies, and I’m highlighting knowledge, not data. This is very important. And I’ll come back to this knowledge-data dynamics. And then you have a third point, yes, long-term risks. They exist. AI may destroy us. AI may get the power, although we can discuss that. It’s a very controversial topic, but let’s discuss it in the informed way. And there are tools like climate change, there are tools where you can discuss it in informed way. And I think AI panel, which UN is proposing, is a good way to have a reasonable discussion in this context. Then we had… You have six more minutes. That’s it. Last point, data knowledge, shift from data to knowledge. If you read WSIS document, full of knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, no data here and there. If you read today’s policy documents, full of data, no knowledge. And AI is about knowledge. Just think about that shift. Why we kicked out knowledge from the policy documents and why we replaced with data. That’s an interesting point. And the last point before is that geopolitics. Internet started, was triggered by geopolitics, by Sputnik moment, 1957, when 4th October, when US political elite thought, wrongly so, that they were losing scientific competition with Soviet Union. They created NASA, and it was one of the most fascinating scientific project that started especially during Kennedy’s time in the United States. Now, if you really think that carefully, we are closing the circle. Digital and Internet is becoming again geopolitical issues with predominantly negative consequences, but also some reality check. And that’s basically the last point in this summary, which you can find in the book, is this shift from the, let’s say, major Western-centered shaping of discussion towards more Asian, Latin American, Africa is also coming, shaping of narratives. Narratives are the key, use of metaphors, narratives and other issues, which you can find in the book, Analysis of Narratives. We can discuss now AI, but if you want to see deeper, you go through the narratives, and on that point I advise you to follow Diplo’s reporting from this meeting, which, among other things, have two elements, you will get it at the end of the reporting. One is cliché detector, how many clichés are repeated during the meeting, and the other is narrative shaping. What are the narratives, metaphors used to shape? That’s basically toolkit, let’s say Swiss knife for digital governance. When you get the toolkit, you can use a metaphor, you know why that person is using metaphor, what is the policy behind, what is the idea, and you can have more inclusive, informed and impactful digital governance. Sorina?

Sorina Teleanu: Thank you, Jovan, we have three more minutes, so that’s going to be a challenge. I don’t know if anyone in the room wants to add some sort of reflections on what Jovan has been saying, or to ask a question, we really have a short time, but should we try, anyone? I encourage you to join us at our booth, and we can continue to have the conversation there. You know, I’m in the village, I don’t remember the number of the booth, but my colleague is there, and you’ve also shared the… 40-something. You’ve shared the list with emails, right? So we will be sending the link to all of you who have registered. You can browse a few copies. And we have a few copies of the excerpt of the book here, if you want to look at it. Nothing? All right, then thank you so much, everyone. Thank you, Jovan, and please join us at the booth.

Agreement points

The book has had significant educational impact and widespread adoption

Speakers

– Sorina Teleanu
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The book has been published in seven previous editions since 2004, translated into 11 languages, and used as textbooks worldwide

The eighth edition was motivated by increasing confusion around AI and digital governance over the past two years

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge the book’s success and continued relevance, with Sorina highlighting its historical impact and Jovan explaining why a new edition was needed

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

There is ongoing confusion in the digital governance field that needs addressing

Speakers

– Sorina Teleanu
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The question of whether to use ‘internet governance’ or ‘digital governance’ has been controversial for at least two years

The eighth edition was motivated by increasing confusion around AI and digital governance over the past two years

Summary

Both speakers recognize that the field is experiencing significant confusion, particularly around terminology and the impact of AI developments

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers engage with the terminology debate constructively, with Sorina raising the question and Jovan providing a detailed justification for his choice

Speakers

– Sorina Teleanu
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The question of whether to use ‘internet governance’ or ‘digital governance’ has been controversial for at least two years

Internet governance remains the most precise term because most digital governance issues ultimately relate to the Internet through TCP/IP protocols

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers value the educational mission of the book and understand the need for adaptation in how knowledge is shared in the digital age

Speakers

– Sorina Teleanu
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The book has been published in seven previous editions since 2004, translated into 11 languages, and used as textbooks worldwide

Traditional publishing methods are becoming obsolete in the digital age, requiring a new ‘Kaizen’ approach with continuous updates

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

The need for innovation in academic publishing methods

Speakers

– Sorina Teleanu
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

Traditional publishing methods are becoming obsolete in the digital age, requiring a new ‘Kaizen’ approach with continuous updates

Explanation

While this was primarily Jovan’s argument, Sorina’s supportive framing and lack of challenge suggests implicit agreement on the need for publishing innovation, which is unexpected given the conservative nature of academic publishing

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the book’s value, the existence of confusion in the field, and the need for continued educational resources. They approach the terminology debate collaboratively rather than confrontationally.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. This suggests a mature, collaborative approach to addressing challenges in internet governance education and terminology, which could facilitate more productive discussions in the broader field.

Different viewpoints

Terminology choice between ‘internet governance’ and ‘digital governance’

Speakers

– Sorina Teleanu
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The question of whether to use ‘internet governance’ or ‘digital governance’ has been controversial for at least two years

Internet governance remains the most precise term because most digital governance issues ultimately relate to the Internet through TCP/IP protocols

Using specific rather than broader terms is preferable in logic and epistemology

Summary

Sorina questions why Jovan continues using ‘internet governance’ when everyone is discussing digital governance, AI governance, and data governance. Jovan defends his choice by arguing that internet governance is more precise since most digital issues ultimately flow through internet protocols, and that specific terms should be preferred over broader ones.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The main disagreement centers on terminology and conceptual framing rather than substantive policy issues. The speakers agree on the existence of confusion in the field but differ on how to address it through naming conventions.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement with minimal implications. This appears to be more of a scholarly debate about precision in terminology rather than fundamental policy disagreements. The disagreement is constructive and focused on improving clarity in the field rather than opposing policy directions. Both speakers seem to share similar goals of reducing confusion and improving understanding in digital/internet governance.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers engage with the terminology debate constructively, with Sorina raising the question and Jovan providing a detailed justification for his choice

Speakers

– Sorina Teleanu
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The question of whether to use ‘internet governance’ or ‘digital governance’ has been controversial for at least two years

Internet governance remains the most precise term because most digital governance issues ultimately relate to the Internet through TCP/IP protocols

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers value the educational mission of the book and understand the need for adaptation in how knowledge is shared in the digital age

Speakers

– Sorina Teleanu
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The book has been published in seven previous editions since 2004, translated into 11 languages, and used as textbooks worldwide

Traditional publishing methods are becoming obsolete in the digital age, requiring a new ‘Kaizen’ approach with continuous updates

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

The eighth edition of ‘Introduction to Internet Governance’ introduces a ‘Kaizen publishing’ approach with continuous online updates to address the rapid obsolescence of digital governance publications

Internet governance remains the most precise terminology over digital governance because most digital governance issues ultimately flow through TCP/IP protocols and the Internet infrastructure

Digital policy shows remarkable historical continuity – US digital policy has remained fundamentally unchanged since 1892, and current governance frameworks were established in a three-month period in 1998

Four major technological developments have shaped the landscape since 2016: data migration to cloud, COVID acceleration, CPU to GPU transition, satellite connectivity expansion, and artificial intelligence emergence

AI governance discussions have evolved from initial doomsday scenarios to more balanced risk assessment frameworks categorizing immediate, mid-term, and long-term risks

There is a significant shift from Western-centered digital governance narratives toward more diverse global perspectives from Asia, Latin America, and Africa

A critical shift has occurred in policy language from ‘knowledge’ (prominent in WSIS documents) to ‘data’ in current policy documents, while AI is fundamentally about knowledge management

Resolutions and action items

Participants can register to receive the online version of the book and access to the continuous update platform

The book excerpt is available immediately, with the full version to be distributed to registered participants

Diplo will provide reporting from the meeting including a ‘cliché detector’ and narrative analysis tools

Continued discussion is available at Diplo’s booth for interested participants

Unresolved issues

The broader academic and research community’s adaptation to AI-driven changes in publishing and peer review processes remains unaddressed

The tension between the need for new energy in digital governance (leading to initiatives like GDC) versus evolutionary approaches to existing frameworks like IGF+ was acknowledged but not resolved

The question of why ‘knowledge’ was replaced by ‘data’ in policy documents was raised but not fully explored

The effectiveness of the proposed UN AI panel for addressing long-term AI risks remains to be determined

No audience questions were addressed due to time constraints, leaving potential concerns unvoiced

Suggested compromises

The acknowledgment that while IGF+ and existing frameworks could have been sufficient, new initiatives like GDC were politically necessary to provide fresh energy and satisfy diplomatic needs for action

The recognition that both immediate practical risks and long-term existential risks of AI need to be addressed through balanced, informed discussion rather than extreme positions

The acceptance that governance evolution rather than revolution is preferable, building on existing frameworks while adapting to new realities

I realized that confusion is increasing and I said wow, I should again get back and start writing something… I realized that one part I wrote and it became obsolete by basically the ink dried and I said I cannot write it this way, I have to invent something else and I use the Japanese word Kaizen.

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies a fundamental problem in academic publishing in the digital age – the accelerating pace of change makes traditional publishing models obsolete. The introduction of ‘Kaizen publishing’ (continuous improvement) represents a paradigm shift in how knowledge should be disseminated in rapidly evolving fields.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from simply announcing a book launch to examining the broader crisis in academic publishing. It introduced a methodological innovation that challenges how we think about knowledge creation and distribution in the AI era, setting up the framework for understanding why traditional approaches to governance literature are failing.

US digital policy has not changed since, and I’m highlighting, since 1892, in the 19th century, when United States joined the St. Petersburg meeting of the International Telecommunication Union. The rhetoric is the same. Innovation, law governance, business interests.

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This is a profound historical insight that challenges the common narrative that we’re living through unprecedented change. By tracing policy continuity across more than a century, it reveals that what appears revolutionary may actually follow established patterns, providing crucial perspective on current digital governance debates.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion by introducing historical depth and challenging ‘chrono-narcissism’ – the belief that current events are uniquely transformative. It provided a sobering counterpoint to the hype around AI and digital transformation, suggesting that governance frameworks may be more stable than commonly believed.

All digital internet ICT governance regimes that we discuss today were set within the three months of the 1998. In September… Google was established. ICANN was in the third week of September 1998. Russia tabled cybersecurity resolution on the 30th September 1998… WTO decided about moratorium on the custom duties on e-commerce.

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This observation is remarkable because it identifies a specific historical moment when multiple foundational governance structures emerged simultaneously. It suggests that governance evolution may happen in concentrated bursts rather than gradual progression, which has profound implications for understanding how new technologies get institutionalized.

Impact

This comment provided concrete evidence for the historical continuity argument and introduced the concept that governance structures can crystallize rapidly during critical junctures. It shifted the conversation toward understanding pattern recognition in governance evolution rather than treating each new technology as requiring completely novel approaches.

The question of AI governance is important, and that evolution is another elephant in the room… What are the immediate risks for educational system? The question for publishing processes… those are immediate risks. Then you have mid-term risks of huge concentration of our knowledge in the hands of few companies, and I’m highlighting knowledge, not data.

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This comment is insightful because it provides a nuanced risk assessment framework that moves beyond apocalyptic AI narratives to practical, tiered concerns. The distinction between knowledge and data concentration is particularly profound, as it shifts focus from privacy concerns to epistemological control.

Impact

This reframed the AI governance discussion from abstract existential risks to concrete, actionable concerns across different time horizons. It introduced a more sophisticated analytical framework that participants could use to evaluate policy priorities, moving the conversation from fear-based to evidence-based reasoning.

If you read WSIS document, full of knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, no data here and there. If you read today’s policy documents, full of data, no knowledge. And AI is about knowledge. Just think about that shift. Why we kicked out knowledge from the policy documents and why we replaced with data.

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This observation reveals a fundamental conceptual shift in how we frame digital governance issues. The transition from ‘knowledge’ to ‘data’ in policy discourse represents a profound change in how we understand information, power, and governance. It suggests we may have lost sight of what’s actually at stake in the digital transformation.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical analytical lens for understanding policy evolution and highlighted a potential blind spot in current governance approaches. It challenged participants to reconsider the language and concepts they use, suggesting that terminology choices have profound implications for policy outcomes.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a routine book launch into a sophisticated meta-analysis of digital governance evolution. Kurbalija’s insights created a multi-layered discussion that operated simultaneously on methodological (how we study governance), historical (patterns across time), and conceptual (knowledge vs. data) levels. The comments worked together to challenge prevailing narratives about digital transformation being unprecedented, instead revealing deep continuities and patterns. This reframing provided participants with analytical tools for understanding current developments within broader historical and conceptual contexts, moving the conversation from reactive policy discussions to proactive pattern recognition. The discussion’s impact extends beyond the immediate audience to question fundamental assumptions about how we approach governance in rapidly changing technological environments.

How should the academic and research community adapt their publishing processes due to AI impact?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Explanation

Kurbalija noted that the academic community will have to undergo profound changes because of AI impact, as traditional publishing rituals taking 1.5-2 years don’t make sense when content becomes obsolete quickly

Why did policy documents shift from emphasizing ‘knowledge’ to emphasizing ‘data’?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Explanation

Kurbalija observed that WSIS documents were full of references to knowledge with little mention of data, while today’s policy documents are full of data references with no knowledge mentioned, despite AI being fundamentally about knowledge

How can we have more informed discussion about long-term AI risks using tools similar to climate change assessment?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Explanation

Kurbalija suggested that long-term AI risks should be discussed in an informed way similar to climate change discussions, and mentioned the UN AI panel as a potential good approach

What are the governance implications of the massive shift of data from personal computers to cloud?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Explanation

Kurbalija identified this as one of four major developments since 2016 with enormous consequences for governance, freedom, knowledge, and policy, but didn’t elaborate on the specific implications

How do narratives and metaphors shape digital governance policy discussions?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Explanation

Kurbalija emphasized that narratives are key and mentioned Diplo’s toolkit for analyzing narrative shaping and cliché detection, suggesting this is crucial for more inclusive and informed digital governance

What are the immediate and mid-term risks of AI that require more attention than long-term existential risks?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Explanation

Kurbalija mentioned immediate risks to educational systems, publishing processes, and jobs, plus mid-term risks of knowledge concentration in few companies, but didn’t provide detailed analysis of these more pressing concerns