About

Milton L Mueller is a Professor and Program Director at the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech. He is also the Program Director for the Masters of Science in Cybersecurity Policy. His research focuses on science, technology, and innovation policy, with particular emphasis on internet governance, cybersecurity, and the intersection of technology and public policy. Mueller's work involves analyzing policy processes, leadership, and the regulation of digital communication and information technology, contributing to the understanding of how technological advancements influence societal and governmental structures.

Research topics

• Business
• Political science
• Computer science
• Internet privacy
• Telecommunications

Selected publications

• Weighing Security, Privacy, and Economic Rationales in Cross-border Data Flow Regulation: The Case of Connected Vehicles Data in China, the U.S., and the EU

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2026-01-01

  preprintOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Dr. Karim Farhat

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2026-01-01

  preprintOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• AGI: the illusion that distorts and distracts digital governance

  Journal of Cyber Policy · 2025-05-04

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Interconnection and Rivalry in Global Monetary Networks

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2025-01-01

  preprintOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Interconnection and Rivalry in Global Monetary Networks

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2025-01-01

  preprintOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• It's just distributed computing: Rethinking AI governance

  Telecommunications Policy · 2025-02-06 · 17 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  What we now lump under the unitary label “artificial intelligence” is not a single technology, but a highly varied set of machine learning applications enabled and supported by a globally ubiquitous system of distributed computing. The paper introduces a 4 part conceptual framework for analyzing the structure of that system, which it labels the digital ecosystem. What we now call “AI” is then shown to be a general functionality of distributed computing. "AI” has been present in primitive forms from the origins of digital computing in the 1950s. Three short case studies show that large-scale machine learning applications have been present in the digital ecosystem ever since the rise of the Internet. and provoked the same public policy concerns that we now associate with “AI.” The governance problems of “AI” are really caused by the development of this digital ecosystem, not by LLMs or other recent applications of machine learning. The paper then examines five recent proposals to “govern AI”and maps them to the constituent elements of the digital ecosystem model. This mapping shows that real-world attempts to assert governance authority over AI capabilities requires systemic control of all four elements of the digital ecosystem: data, computing power, networks and software. “Governing AI,” in other words, means total control of distributed computing. A better alternative is to focus governance and regulation upon specific applications of machine learning. An application-specific approach to governance allows for a more decentralized, freer and more effective method of solving policy conflicts. • Existing initiatives to govern “artificial intelligence” are based on a flawed understanding of the object of governance. • What we call "AI" is really a digital ecosystem, a decentralized, globally distributed system of computing devices, networks, data and software. • Machine learning applications are already pervasive and have been manifest in the digital ecosystem for three decades. • Attempts to control AI can have negative impacts on free expression, competition, and innovation.

  PublisherDOI

• Interview with ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin

  Journal of Cyber Policy · 2025-05-04

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Non-governmental governance of trust on the internet: WebPKI as public good

  Journal of Cybersecurity · 2025-01-01 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract This paper provides a detailed analysis of how private actors cooperate to facilitate authentication and provide trust and security to the Web. The World Wide Web’s Public Key Infrastructure (WebPKI) is a global governance structure forged through collective action among industry actors. Drawing on collective action theory and institutional analysis, we show how this regime of non-state actors produces a public good—global authentication of website identities—in a way that enhances security, privacy, and trust for websites and their users. Stakeholder analysis demonstrates how the production of digital certificates and the utilization of certificates for authentication and encryption necessitate interdependencies among Certificate Authorities (CAs) and Browsers/Operating Systems. These relationships are institutionalized by the Certificate Authority/Browser (CA/B) Forum and other voluntary industry organizations. Since their founding, these institutions have developed through stages of formalization, specialization, and expansion of their scope, and have sought to address various security and efficiency challenges through new standards. We conclude by exploring some measures for evaluating the efficacy of this governance regime. Quantitative findings include assessments of CA market concentration, institutional membership and participation trends, stakeholder voting behavior, and the composition of Browser root stores.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Investment and Service Innovation

  2023-04-11

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Telephone Companies in Paradise

  2023-04-11

  book1st authorCorresponding

  Computerization has generated dramatic advances In telecommunications, such as mobile telephones and video conferencing. Coupled with this are major changes in regulation, as telephone companies face new competitors. States are experimenting with new forms of utility regulation and deregulation in order to cope with the demands of rising competition. Here Mueller examines in detail the results of a radical telephone regulation law.In 1986, the state of Nebraska completely discarded traditional utility regulation, deregulating rates and profits of its local telephone companies. The Nebraska experiment has become a benchmark for reassessing the role of state regulation In the future of telecommunications. Using comparative data from five midwestern states, Mueller shows how deregulation affected rates, investment, infrastructure modernization, and profits. He uncovers both positive and negative results. Mueller found established telephone companies to be basically conservative, not aggressive and expansionist, and concludes that new competition, not regulation or deregulation, is transforming the telecommunications industry.This book is the first systematic empirical study of the controversial Nebraska law and its broader effects. It will be a significant addition to the much debated issue of telecommunications deregulation. Economists, policymakers, and telecommunications managers will find in this volume a substantial resource. According to Robert Atkinson, senior vice president of Teleport Communications Group: "Nebraska's experiences with telecommunications deregulation - the good, the bad and the ugly - need to be understood by all telecommunications policymakers across the country so that they can emulate Nebraska's successes and avoid its mistakes. Mueller provides the roadmap."

  PublisherDOI

Recent grants

• SBE: Small: Beyond technical solutions: Understanding the role of governance structures in Internet routing security

  NSF · $198k · 2015–2016

• Standard Research Grant: Deep Packet Inspection and the Governance of the Internet

  NSF · $304k · 2010–2013

• SBE: Small: Beyond technical solutions: Understanding the role of governance structures in Internet routing security

  NSF · $339k · 2014–2016

Frequent coauthors

• Brenden Kuerbis

  Georgia Institute of Technology

  26 shared

• Hadi Asghari

  13 shared

• Andreas Kuehn

  12 shared

• Michel van Eeten

  Delft University of Technology

  8 shared

• Farzaneh Badiei

  5 shared

• John Mathiason

  5 shared

• Karl Grindal

  Georgia Institute of Technology

  4 shared

• Mawaki Chango

  3 shared