Part 6: Governing the metaverse through standards

This post is part of the series UN 2.0 and the Metaverse: Are We Seeing What Is Possible?

1. Part 1: Harnessing technology, driving SDGs
2. Part 2: ‘CitiVerse: Turning the world into a global village (or rather sandbox?)’
3. Part 3: ‘Readiness across the spectrum: Countries’
4. Part 4: SDGs as ethical, human rights-based, and technological boundaries of the metaverse
5. Part 5: Rethinking legal governance in the metaverse
6. Part 6: Governing the metaverse through standards

As we navigate the development of the metaverse, it is crucial to remember that standards are not just about technology – they are about people. Standards are shared rules that enable systems and societies to function together. This article explores how the standard-setting process can help shape a new relationship between technology and society. We examine how lessons from disaster regulation, along with insights from the UN Virtual Worlds Day, can inform the creation of an innovative and inclusive digital ecosystem that benefits all.

A. Previously in the UN 2.0 and the Metaverse series

The series began by exploring how the metaverse could support the UN’s transformation under UN 2.0, positioning virtual worlds as socio-technical ecosystems capable of advancing the SDGs (Part 1). We then introduced the CitiVerse as a vision for digitally enhanced urban governance, revealing how these emerging environments require shared parameters and inclusive design principles (Part 2).

As we moved into the global landscape, we examined countries’ varying levels of metaverse readiness, uncovering the urgent need for common frameworks to bridge digital divides and ensure interoperability (Part 3). This led to a deeper reflection on the role of the SDGs, not just as goals, but as normative and technological boundaries for responsible digital development (Part 4).

Recognising that values alone are insufficient without enforceable structures, we re-evaluated legal governance in the metaverse. Through the lens of the Groundhog Dilemma, we saw how legal systems risk falling behind if they merely react to technological change, rather than shape it through anticipatory regulation (Part 5). This brings us to the often overlooked, yet essential, scaffolding behind any socio-technical system: standards.

B. Standards: The hidden architecture of connection

Standards come in many forms, from standardised paper sizes to the seemingly magical protocols of the internet, and even life-saving procedures for natural disaster management, such as the Focus Group on AI for Natural Disaster Management (FG-AI4NDM). They all make everyday functionality possible: printers operate thanks to these paper sizes, video streaming works due to agreed protocols, and emergency services arrive on time. In essence, standards are the invisible architecture that enables systems and people to function in coordination.

When state power renders standards enforceable, they become law. Legal systems enable peaceful coexistence. They regulate the relationships between individuals, organisations, technology, and even nature. Standards are more than technical blueprints; they are foundational to the order and reliability of systems.

1. Converging ecosystems: Standards in the metaverse

The metaverse represents a utopian vision of integrating physical and digital systems into a new form of socio-technical ecosystem. Achieving this vision requires all components to function seamlessly together – a condition commonly referred to as ‘interoperability’.

a. Global Initiative

The Global Initiative on Virtual Worlds and AI has developed the comprehensive standardisation roadmap (FGMV-51: Standardisation Roadmap for the Metaverse), along with an overview of the current metaverse landscape (FGMV-52: Landscape of Existing Standards and Gaps for the Metaverse). These documents outline the frameworks, specifications, and protocols needed to ensure consistency, quality, and inclusive development.

FGMV-51 is more than technical planning – it represents strategic coordination, as it:

• Defines motivations for standardisation
• Breaks broad goals into actionable steps
• Aligns stakeholders such as standards development organisations (SDOs) and industry bodies
• Promotes pre-standardisation groundwork

b. The Metaverse Standards Forum (MSF)

Another key initiative contributing to this evolving standards landscape is the Metaverse Standards Forum (MSF). The MSF functions as a collaborative industry forum, bringing together technology companies, researchers, and consortia to accelerate the development of open, interoperable standards for the metaverse.

While it does not create standards itself, it plays a critical coordinating role by identifying gaps, aligning efforts across sectors, and fostering cooperation between public and private actors. Its action-oriented approach complements formal processes, such as those led by ITU, reinforcing the importance of pragmatic, inclusive collaboration in shaping a unified metaverse infrastructure.

2. Four categories

To structure this complex environment, FGMV-51 groups metaverse standards into four key categories:

1. General standards, which address frameworks, terminology, definitions, evaluation, sustainability, security, and accessibility.
2. Application and service standards, tailored to different industries to balance productivity with sustainability.
3. Enabling technology standards, covering tools such as AI and blockchain, as well as digital twins and virtual reality, which support immersive, synchronised, and secure experiences.
4. Interoperability and ICT-related infrastructure standards, which ensure a robust ICT architecture capable of meeting the demands of the metaverse.

The roadmap acknowledges varying levels of readiness across domains. While general frameworks have already been initiated (as of 2023), more advanced standards are being developed in a phased manner, building on these foundational deliverables.

3. From vision to reality: The existing landscape

The FGMV-52 report presents a landscape analysis that highlights both progress and remaining gaps. While general understanding has advanced – particularly around terminology – specific applications still lack adequate coverage.

FGMV-52 found that the following is missing:

• Comprehensive frameworks tailored to niche use cases
• Protocols with built-in adaptability for future advancement
• Stronger safeguards around security, privacy, and inclusivity

These gaps reflect the broader challenge of governing a fast-moving, decentralised ecosystem.

4. Societal readiness: A new dimension of standards

At the First UN Virtual Worlds Day in June 2024, Isabelle Hupont from the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission explained why the EU is now interested in virtual worlds: ‘Of course, the obvious answer is because we are technologically ready. Yes, but are we societally ready as well?’ Standards are not just technical – they reflect societal values and readiness for transformation. Nowhere is this more evident than in disaster management.

5. Case study: Standards for disaster management

Disaster scenarios demand rapid coordination. Recognising the lack of international standards for AI, big data, and digital twins, ITU – in partnership with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) – established the Focus Group on AI for Natural Disaster Management (FG-AI4NDM).

a. The human dimensions

The Standardization Roadmap on Natural Disaster Management surveys past, present, and planned pre-standardisation and standardisation activities, highlighting how AI enhances resilience through prediction, monitoring, and decision support. More importantly, it underscores the human dimension, as emergency response and humanitarian aid still rely heavily on people. Close collaboration between standards development organisations (SDOs) and UN bodies is essential to avoid duplication and address existing gaps.

b. Trends and gaps

The AI4NDM analysis identifies several emerging trends, including:

• A focus on response and relief efforts
• Attention to geophysical and hydrological disasters
• Increased use of IoT technologies and remote sensing
• Growing concerns around data storage and privacy

However, significant gaps remain:

• Early disaster phases, such as preparedness, are under-addressed
• Certain disaster types – particularly biological and man-made – are often overlooked
• Emerging technologies like AI, machine learning, and digital twins require more focused standards

Metaverse technologies such as virtual and augmented reality are already in use across various sectors – including the military, police, and fire services – as well as in preparing civilians in earthquake-prone areas. Digital twins play a crucial role in the real-time processing of data and the earliest possible detection of warning signs.

6. When standards fail: Valencia 2024

The tragic flooding in the region of Valencia in 2024 revealed the cost of failed communication. Despite forecasted heavy rainfall, people were not warned in time. A 2020 United for Smart Sustainable Cities (U4SSC) report had already flagged such risks, yet even the nearby smart city of Valencia lacked an effective warning system. As Jovan Kurbalija noted: ‘The Valencia incident reveals a paradox: in pursuing cutting-edge technology, we often overlook the essentials, starting with human safety.’

C. Standards save lives – online and offline

Disaster strikes differently in cyberspace. We are witnessing the deadly consequences of an increasing flood of harmful deepfakes and sextortion. Interpol warns of surging cybercrime, yet conviction rates remain as low as 0.33% (see Part 5). This is a digital flood with no properly functioning disaster management system in place.

1. Law: An invisible standard

Law itself is a standard – backed by enforceability and driven by collective agreement. In the metaverse context, legal considerations are woven into multiple layers:

• Privacy and data protection
• Financial regulations
• Sector-specific compliance

These legal intersections are most often discussed under the category of Application and Service Standards, as they align with industry-specific needs. However, legal concerns are not isolated in FGMV-52. Instead, they appear as systemic gaps, including:

• The need for identity verification, AI forensics, and age verification
• Cross-border data governance and clarity on data ownership
• Guidelines for speech, moderation, and economic affairs
• Effective legal frameworks for addressing harassment, fraud, cyberthreats, and other safety and security issues

2. Dynamic monitoring and legal adaptability

The U4SSC’s Dynamic Policy Benchmark Model is an example of iterative, adaptive governance. It echoes David Collingridge’s insight from his 1982s book The Social Control of Technology: to control technology, we must retain the ability to modify it after deployment. This requires the early detection of frictions (see Parts 2 and 5).

3. ‘Sand im Getriebe’: Disruption as a legal imperative

In Part 5, we explored the Groundhog Dilemma – our tendency to repeat the same mistakes in the regulation of emerging technology. It is time to shift the debate from when to regulate to how to break the cycle. Standards are not just about enabling technology; they can also disrupt it. Law, as Sand im Getriebe, can provide necessary friction to ensure alignment with human values. Sand im Getriebe is a German phrase meaning ‘sand in the gears’, symbolising law’s deliberate power to slow things down when necessary.

D. Conclusion of Part 6: Standards as the infrastructure of trust

The metaverse standardisation efforts of the Global Initiative go far beyond enabling technical interoperability. They offer a blueprint for governing a layered reality in which digital, physical, and social systems increasingly overlap. Just as internet protocols once shaped the architecture of cyberspace, today’s emerging standards define how we navigate, structure, and regulate our digitally augmented lives.

As we move from abstract frameworks to lived experience, we must remember that the ultimate test of any standard is not merely how systems interact, but how people are treated. It is not enough for things to function smoothly together; people must be able to flourish within that system. This is where governance becomes more than protocol – it becomes relational.

These efforts also reflect the broader transformation envisioned in UN 2.0 and the Pact for the Future, in which technology is positioned not as an end in itself, but as a catalyst for inclusive, rights-based development.

Standard-setting in the metaverse is not a technical detour – it is central to the UN’s commitment to building a future that is sustainable, participatory, and grounded in human dignity.

E. Next up: Disrupting the illusion

As we have seen, standards help structure systems. However, it is the relationship between people, institutions, and technologies that gives those systems meaning. But what happens when those relationships are based on illusions? In Part 7, we examine one of the most persistent illusions of the digital age: the belief that cyberspace exists separately from the physical world. As internet pioneer Jovan Kurbalija reminds us, there is no cyberspace outside legal and territorial boundaries.

Ironically, the metaverse – often imagined as the height of digital detachment – compels us to confront this illusion. Cyberspace is not a separate realm, but a digitally augmented layer of our physical and legal reality. The convergence of digital and physical domains does not sustain the illusion; it dismantles it.

F. Ask Diplo’s AI Assistant

Are you curious to explore the 52 technical reports by the Focus Group Metaverse and other relevant documents? To make research more accessible for our readers, we have developed a dedicated DiploAI Assistant for UN Virtual Worlds . If you have any questions, simply ask the DiploAI Assistant.