What is the nature of the internet? Different Approaches | IGF 2023 WS #445

Pablo Castro

The internet is becoming increasingly integral to people’s quality of life as it enables them to connect with family and friends, while also facilitating the exercise of fundamental rights. This positive sentiment towards the internet is expressed through the argument that it should remain open, safe, interconnected, and accessible to all. It is believed that the internet is essential in enabling the exercise of other rights as well.

Although there is general agreement about the importance of the internet, there is a debate surrounding whether internet access should be considered as a standalone right in public policy debates. Some argue that the internet should be viewed as a tool for exercising other rights, rather than being a right on its own. Questions arise about who should be responsible for guaranteeing internet access if it is indeed considered a right in itself.

Reducing the economic, geographic, and technological barriers to internet access is seen as a significant policy challenge. It is recognized that these barriers limit access to the internet and hinder people’s ability to fully benefit from its advantages. Efforts are being made to address these challenges and ensure that internet access becomes more readily available to all individuals.

In Chile, the issue of internet accessibility is being addressed through the discussion of a proposed bill that acknowledges the internet as a public service. The aim of this bill is to reduce the accessibility gap that exists, particularly in the 35% of Chilean homes that currently lack internet access. By recognizing the internet as a public service, it is hoped that measures can be put in place to bridge this accessibility gap and ensure that all individuals have equal opportunities to benefit from the internet.

The role of internet providers is also a topic of discussion. There are concerns about balancing the public interest with the protection of individual rights when it comes to regulating these providers. Internet providers are seen as agents that give access to an essential service, raising questions about how they should be regulated and their responsibilities towards ensuring equal and fair access to the internet.

In conclusion, the internet is increasingly seen as vital to people’s quality of life, connecting them with loved ones and enabling the exercise of their rights. The debate surrounding internet access as a standalone right continues, with efforts being made to reduce barriers and ensure equal access for all. The discussion of Chile’s proposed bill recognizing the internet as a public service highlights efforts to address the accessibility gap. Balancing the role of internet providers in ensuring equal access is also a point of contention. Overall, the internet’s importance and the need to ensure its accessibility and regulation are key considerations in public policy debates.

Bruna Martin-Santos

The discussions surrounding internet governance have emphasized the need for a normative framework that focuses on rules and values. The internet is considered critical for societies and development, and there is a rich heritage and experience in understanding how it works. This positive sentiment suggests that the existing discussions have guided us well through the processes.

However, the resilience of the internet is being affected by complex societal issues and problematic governmental interventions. There are significant problems and discrepancies related to access and empowerment, and merely having access to platforms like Facebook is not equivalent to having access to the internet. This negative sentiment highlights the challenges posed by societal complexities and the need to address governmental interventions.

An argument is made that the internet should be recognized as a global public resource that is universally accessible and affordable. Its governance should be based on human rights standards and public interest principles. The internet plays a crucial role in addressing global challenges, and global calls to action are needed to advance access to technology and promote country-level development. This positive sentiment emphasizes the importance of viewing the internet as a public good.

The proactive engagement of the technical community is identified as a key requirement in internet governance. The operation of the internet relies on technical expertise, and the success of spaces like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) relies on the involvement of this community. This positive sentiment underlines the significance of technical expertise in shaping internet governance.

Furthermore, it is argued that the global equity crisis needs to be a central aspect of internet-related discussions. Internet-related problems are rooted in inequality, and the abuse of power and insufficient collaboration further exacerbate these issues. Narratives from regions hardest hit by interventions should play a role in shaping policies. This negative sentiment highlights the urgency of addressing the global equity crisis in internet governance.

There are gaps in internet governance that need to be addressed urgently. These gaps have existed since the inception of internet governance and still persist today, indicating a negative sentiment. It is essential to work towards filling these gaps.

Safeguards are necessary to protect rights, privacy, and data, as well as to ensure the inclusion of all communities, genders, and regions. This positive sentiment highlights the need to discuss appropriate measures that guarantee the protection of individual rights while fostering inclusivity in the digital space.

Lastly, there is a call for the recognition of the internet and information as a commons or a public good. This positive sentiment suggests that more recognition is needed for the internet and information as collective resources that require appropriate governance and management.

In conclusion, internet governance discussions have highlighted the importance of establishing a normative framework based on rules and values. However, challenges related to complex societal issues and governmental interventions impact the internet’s resilience. There is a need for the internet to be considered a global public resource that is universally accessible and affordable, with governance based on human rights and public interest principles. The involvement of the technical community plays a crucial role in shaping internet governance. Addressing the global equity crisis and implementing safeguards to protect rights and ensure inclusivity are other significant aspects of internet-related discussions. Recognition of the internet and information as a commons or public good tops off the list of essential considerations in internet governance. Cooperation is crucial in advancing the development and use of digital public goods. The analysis reveals a range of sentiments, both positive and negative, showcasing the multifaceted nature of internet governance and the need for comprehensive and inclusive solutions.

Audience

The analysis highlights the issue of internet inaccessibility for individuals who cannot read or write. It reveals that globally, approximately 3 billion people lack basic literacy skills, with 1 billion residing in India facing difficulties in performing tasks such as conducting Google searches and comprehending results. This underscores the need to address the digital divide in society.

One speaker expresses a negative sentiment, emphasizing that the internet is inaccessible to those who lack literacy skills. This poses a barrier to accessing information, participating in online activities, and benefiting from online resources and opportunities. The speaker calls for innovative solutions to bridge this gap and make the internet accessible to all.

Contrasting the negative sentiment, another speaker takes a positive stance, suggesting that technical experts focus on developing solutions for hyperlinks that do not rely on text. This would enable individuals with low literacy levels to navigate the web and access information without the need for reading text-based links. By removing this barrier, the internet can become more inclusive and provide opportunities for personal growth, education, and economic development.

The analysis also introduces the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as potentially influential in advocating for technology that supports web accessibility for low-literate individuals. Collaborative efforts between governments, technology companies, and civil society organizations are vital in addressing internet inaccessibility. By uniting diverse perspectives, progress can be made in developing technology solutions that enhance internet accessibility and reduce inequalities in accessing digital resources.

In conclusion, the analysis illuminates the pressing issue of internet inaccessibility for those who cannot read or write. It emphasizes the impact on billions of people globally and particularly in India. However, it also presents potential solutions and initiatives to improve internet accessibility. By tackling this challenge, we can work towards a more inclusive and equitable digital world where everyone can benefit from the internet’s resources and opportunities.

Anriette Esterhuysen

Anriette Esterhuysen, a staunch advocate for reclaiming the Internet as a connector of people and a disruptor of power concentration, argues that the concepts of the commons, rights, and the public good can work harmoniously together to create a more inclusive and equitable online environment. She believes that these concepts should not be seen as opposing forces, but rather as synergistic entities.

Esterhuysen supports the protection of the public core of the Internet, emphasizing the need for effective governance involving not only the state but also commercial and common interest parties. She recognizes the importance of coexistence and collaboration among different stakeholders to ensure affordable and accessible Internet connectivity without government and corporate interference.

While Esterhuysen opposes the nationalization of the Internet, she expresses concern about surveillance capitalism and the commercial exploitation of data. She calls for greater control over the collection and use of personal information, advocating for regulations that safeguard individuals’ privacy and prevent their data from being solely used for commercial gain. She commends the European Union’s efforts to regulate data access for researchers.

Highlighting the shortcomings of current Internet regulations, Esterhuysen suggests a shift in focus from targeting users to addressing the concentration of power among corporations and manufacturers. By holding these entities more accountable and responsible, she believes that regulations can play a more effective role in ensuring a fair and democratic Internet.

Esterhuysen also raises concerns about the environmental impact of the Internet, calling for regulatory measures to limit the proliferation of electronic waste (e-waste). She proposes the introduction of standards for device production to extend their lifespan and reduce e-waste, aligning with the principles of responsible consumption and production.

Challenging the notion that economic growth alone equals development, Esterhuysen argues for a more holistic approach that incorporates poverty alleviation and reduced inequalities. She suggests redefining the concept of development to address social and economic disparities and create a more equitable society.

In terms of community empowerment, Esterhuysen advocates for communities to have agency in determining their level of interaction with the Internet. This includes recognizing the value of local Internet access over global connectivity, allowing certain communities to prioritize specific online services according to their needs and preferences.

Lastly, Esterhuysen stresses the need for increased accountability and transparency from governments in regulating the Internet. She highlights the tendency of government entities to prioritize their own interests over the public’s best interest, emphasizing the importance of stringent oversight and regulation to ensure Internet governance serves the public interest.

In conclusion, Anriette Esterhuysen presents a comprehensive approach to reclaiming and governing the Internet. By emphasizing the concepts of the commons, rights, and the public good and addressing issues such as power concentration, data exploitation, environmental impact, and development, she advocates for a more inclusive, equitable, and democratic Internet. Her insights and analysis provide valuable perspectives on the future of the Internet, its potential to empower communities, and its role in fostering social and economic equality.

Azin Tadjdini

The debate surrounding whether internet access should be considered a human right is complex and ongoing. Some argue that internet access is a tool or means to an end, rather than an inherent right. However, others believe that internet access is essential for individuals to exercise their other rights, such as freedom of expression and access to information.

Restrictions on internet access raise concerns about the potential violation of human rights, as they can unduly interfere with rights such as freedom of expression and assembly. Denying individuals access to the internet significantly impacts their ability to participate in public discourse, seek and share information, and engage in political and social activities.

Several countries, including Greece, France, Costa Rica, Finland, and Estonia, have recognized internet access as either an individual or constitutional right. These countries have implemented laws that place a positive duty on the state to ensure universal and affordable internet access, reflecting a commitment to promoting equal opportunities for all citizens.

At the international level, there is a growing recognition of the importance of internet access in enabling individuals to enjoy and exercise their rights. The Human Rights Council passed a resolution in 2012 calling upon states to promote and facilitate access to the internet. Additionally, human rights mechanisms have increasingly acknowledged the significance of the internet in relation to the enjoyment and exercise of rights.

Despite these developments, further exploration is needed to define the parameters of a human right to internet access. Questions remain regarding the conditions for imposing restrictions, the roles of the state and private sector in ensuring access, and the state’s duty to protect individuals from cyber attacks. Continued discussion and analysis are required to establish a comprehensive framework for the right to internet access.

In the context of internet governance, the development of a rights framework has influenced discussions and decision-making processes. However, it is important to note that the existing rights framework does not cover all aspects of internet governance. Therefore, further exploration and adaptation of the rights framework are necessary to address the dynamic challenges and complexities of the digital era.

In summary, the debate on whether internet access should be considered a human right is multifaceted. While some view it as a means to an end, others emphasize its role in enabling the exercise of other rights. Restrictions on internet access can pose obstacles to the enjoyment of human rights, and several countries have recognized the importance of universal and affordable internet access. At the international level, there is a growing recognition of the significance of internet access, but further exploration is needed to establish a comprehensive framework. The ongoing development and application of a rights framework to internet governance require continuous examination and adaptation to address emerging challenges.

Valeria Betancourt

Various spaces and processes have emerged to address the complex landscape of Internet policy, governance, and digital governance. This proliferation reflects the ongoing evolution of Internet governance, which is closely interconnected with the governance of the digital realm. However, important unresolved questions remain regarding what the internet is and how it should be governed, giving rise to the need for compromises among stakeholders and guiding principles.

Efforts to imagine the future of Internet governance have been initiated, aiming to foster a constructive dialogue among multiple actors. These conversations intend to nurture the development of necessary compromises, acknowledging the diverse perspectives and interests involved. The push for compromises is essential in navigating the complexities of internet governance and addressing the challenges that arise from this rapidly evolving environment.

Proper governance of the internet is crucial to avoid potential harm and ensure accountability. In the absence of adequate governance mechanisms, there is a risk of further harm, as well as the concentration of power in the hands of corporations. This concentration may have detrimental consequences for individuals and society as a whole. It is also essential to hold public actors accountable in the digital realm to safeguard the interests and rights of the public.

Recognising the potential of the internet to contribute to a dignified life for all, it is important to address the unresolved questions surrounding its governance. By doing so, we can work towards achieving basic compromises that can help redress structural inequalities. The internet can play a significant role in reducing inequality and promoting sustainable development, ensuring that everyone has equal access to the benefits of this powerful tool.

In conclusion, the evolution of Internet governance intertwines with the governance of the digital realm. To address unresolved questions and overcome challenges, compromises between stakeholders and guiding principles are necessary. Proper governance is required to prevent harm, prevent the concentration of power in corporations, and ensure accountability of public actors. The internet should serve the purpose of fostering a dignified life for everyone and addressing structural inequality. By actively engaging with these issues, we can create a more inclusive and equitable digital future.

Paula Martins

The analysis emphasises the importance of comprehensively discussing the nature of the internet and the necessary policy responses. It highlights the need to consider both the current state and future implications of the internet. The primary focus is on exploring the policy consequences and formulating responses that are aligned with the unique characteristics of the internet. This perspective is viewed positively, demonstrating recognition of the importance of addressing and adapting to the evolving nature of the internet.

Importantly, the discussion moves beyond theoretical contemplation and delves into practical applications and implications. It acknowledges the need to establish policies that are not only effective but also feasible in addressing the challenges posed by the internet. By adopting this practical approach, policymakers can navigate the complexities associated with the internet and optimise its potential benefits.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the relevance of Sustainable Development Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. This goal underscores the need to foster inclusive and sustainable economic growth through advancements in technology and infrastructure development. By aligning policy responses to the nature of the internet with SDG 9, policymakers can contribute to achieving broader global objectives and promoting positive societal outcomes.

Overall, the analysis reinforces the necessity of engaging in a comprehensive and nuanced dialogue on the nature of the internet and subsequent policy responses. It encourages policymakers to consider the practical implications and adapt their strategies accordingly. By leveraging the potential of the internet while addressing its challenges, policymakers can effectively shape the present and future landscape, fostering inclusive and sustainable development in the process.

Nandini Chami

This analysis explores various aspects of internet governance and its impact on society. One argument posits that the internet should be treated and governed as a global communication commons, emphasising unmediated communication as fundamental to its nature. Progressive movements and feminists view the internet as a promising space for unrestricted communication.

However, concerns arise regarding the control exerted by large corporations over internet infrastructure, obstructing the concept of commoning. It is noted that four companies currently own 67% of the cloud services infrastructure. Additionally, companies in the network infrastructure sector are encroaching into the communication services sector, raising concerns about the obstruction of commoning practices.

Furthermore, the negative effects of surveillance advertising on the generative power of the web are discussed. Surveillance advertising has transformed the open expanse of the internet into echo chambers, limiting diverse and open dialogue. The Digital Services Act, currently in place, is deemed insufficient to effectively address this issue.

The analysis also raises concerns about the internationalization of internet governance. Specifically, the incomplete internationalization of the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is pointed out, highlighting single-state control. It further emphasizes the political nature of technical choices, indicating that decisions made in internet governance have significant political implications.

The significance of a public goods approach and commons approach to internet governance is explored. It is argued that these approaches are not antagonistic but rather complementary. The provision of infrastructure for commoning supports the public goods approach. It is suggested that an ideal internet governance model should incorporate a mixture of public, private, and cooperative enterprises.

In terms of accessibility, the analysis underscores the necessity of a proper public financing model to ensure universal and affordable internet access. The World Summit on the Information Society is mentioned as a longstanding effort to develop an appropriate model, with particular concern for marginalized communities. Insufficient financing may limit these communities to walled garden-type internet services.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the importance of equitable connectivity in order for everyone to access the development dividends of the internet. Research from ICT Africa suggests that the current state of connectivity often worsens digital inequality. The need for connectivity to guarantee a fair share in data and development dividends for all is highlighted.

Lastly, the analysis underscores the importance of defining and addressing “Access to what” when discussing internet access. The current landscape often provides connectivity without yielding substantive benefits for the community, leading to a “connectivity paradox.” This highlights the need to consider the purpose and impact of internet access to effectively address digital inequality.

In conclusion, this analysis sheds light on various aspects of internet governance and its implications. It highlights the need for a global communication commons, concerns about corporate control, the detrimental effects of surveillance advertising, the necessity of internationalization, the complementary nature of public goods and commons approaches, the significance of proper public financing for universal access, and the importance of equitable connectivity. These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding internet governance.

David Norman Souter

The analysis delves into the conceptualisation of the internet and raises concerns about the potential dangers of becoming entangled in the semantics of different conceptualisations. It asserts that it is crucial to move away from such debates and instead view the internet as a public good. The initial perception of the internet as a utility that provides a service to everyone supports this argument, underlining the belief that the internet should be universally accessible and available at affordable prices.

The study also acknowledges the presence of infrastructure, intermediaries, and power structures within large-scale systems like the internet. It recognises that these elements are necessary for the functioning of the internet. This understanding further emphasises the need for regulatory structures based on traditional economic models, taking into consideration the inevitable power structures that arise.

However, while traditional economic models are viewed as essential for regulatory frameworks, the analysis points out the limitations of the rights framework in this context. It argues that the rights framework primarily focuses on states rather than corporations. Furthermore, it highlights the under-emphasis of economic, social, and cultural rights within the rights framework. This observation suggests that the rights framework may not adequately cover all the aspects needed in the context of the internet.

Additionally, the study explores the complexity of empowerment through the internet. It points out that while the internet can empower individuals, including those who are traditionally marginalised, it also has the potential to empower those who abuse their power. This observation highlights the need for careful consideration and balancing of power dynamics in internet governance, recognising the potential for misuse of power.

Lastly, the analysis draws attention to the environmental impacts of the digital sector and proposes the adoption of a broader perspective. It identifies three key areas of unsustainability: overexploitation of scarce resources, high energy consumption, and improper management of e-waste, often leading to its improper disposal in developing countries. In response, the study suggests the introduction of an environmental ethos in internet governance, directing decision-making processes such as setting standards, developing new applications, and deploying networks towards more sustainable practices.

Overall, the analysis sheds light on various facets of the conceptualisation of the internet. It underscores the need to move beyond the semantics of different conceptualisations and recognise the internet as a public good. It highlights the presence of infrastructure, intermediaries, and power structures in the internet ecosystem, necessitating the consideration of traditional economic models in regulatory frameworks. It also urges a critical examination of the limitations of the rights framework in addressing the complexities of the internet. Moreover, it emphasises the necessity of vigilance in ensuring that empowerment through the internet does not enable the abuse of power. Finally, it urges a broader perspective on the environmental impacts of the digital sector, advocating for the integration of sustainability principles into internet governance.

Luca Belli

The impact of the internet on public goods and social good is a complex issue with mixed sentiments. On one hand, the internet has the potential to facilitate justice, democracy, security, and public health. It provides a platform for citizens to engage in democratic processes, access information and services, and participate in public discourse. The internet has been instrumental in promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment.

However, the internet also poses challenges and threats to public goods. The rise of infodemics, or the spread of misinformation and disinformation, has become a significant problem with the proliferation of fake news and manipulation tactics. This can negatively affect public perception, distort facts, and ultimately undermine the democratic process. Moreover, cybersecurity attacks pose a serious threat to the security of individuals and nations. These attacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, compromise sensitive information, and hinder the functioning of democratic institutions.

In addition to its impact on justice and democracy, the internet is also considered a global public good. It has broken down cultural barriers by making culture more accessible than ever before. However, the benefits of internet access are not evenly distributed. Factors such as availability and affordability of good internet connectivity greatly influence the extent to which individuals can benefit from the internet as a global public good. This digital divide creates disparities in access to information and opportunities, exacerbating existing inequalities.

Furthermore, the internet has a dual nature, simultaneously serving as a tool for strengthening public goods while also undermining them. The manipulation of individuals through the internet puts at risk the principles of democracy, human rights, and economies. By locking people into a few social media platforms and exposing them to fake news, there is a decrease in diversity of information sources, leading to echo chambers and a reduction in critical thinking. This not only undermines democracy but also impacts the economy by distorting public perceptions and decision-making processes.

Cooperation is essential for the effective management of the internet as a public good. As public goods often transform into utilities, the market is unable to effectively price them, leading to the need for state provision. The challenge lies in determining how to manage and govern the internet in a way that protects public goods while balancing the interests of different stakeholders.

Measuring the impact of internet restrictions on public goods, such as democracy and the economy, is a challenging task. The internet is a complex and dynamic system, making it difficult to quantify its precise impact. Additionally, determining who should bear the cost of internet restrictions is another challenge. Balancing the interests of governments, internet service providers, and users is crucial for finding effective solutions.

Overall, the internet has the potential to be a powerful tool for promoting public goods and social good. However, it also comes with risks and challenges that need to be addressed proactively. Cooperation and effective governance are key in harnessing the positive impacts of the internet while mitigating its negative effects.

Pablo Castro:
increasingly linked with people’s quality of life, enabling them not only to connect with family and friends, but also to exercise fundamental rights. It is essential that the internet, including its support and infrastructure, remains open, safe, interconnected, and accessible to all. From our country’s perspective, it is only possible to address this significant challenge through increasing international cooperations among different stakeholders. In recent years, there has been a debate around the nature of the internet. Is it a right by itself, or a tool to exercise these other rights? The answer to these questions could have deep implications for the formulations and development of public policies related with the internet and for definitions of the obligation that each state has regarding this technology. On one hand, if we consider the internet as a right by itself, different questions arise in relation to whom should guarantee access to it, and under what conditions, as well as the implication to share the infrastructures and regulations on internet providers. On the other hand, if we consider the internet as a tool to exercise of other rights, such as freedom of expression or access to information, then the obligations states should have will be focused on guaranteeing that people have the capacity to use the internet for this purpose. This includes reducing the economic, geographic, and technological barriers that limit access to the internet. The question of whether internet providers from the private sector are concessions holders of public service is another key issue surrounding this debate. If the internet is considered a public good, that internet providers can be seen as agents that give access to an essential service, which poses questions about regulation, insurance, equitable access. In Chile, Congress is discussing a bill related to acknowledging the internet as a public service. The goal that underpins the discussion is to reduce the gap in internet accessibility that keeps nearly 35% of Chileans’ homes without access to this network. The project is considered imposing certain obligations regarding universality in relations to the areas of coverage at the time to connect them. Related to this is the possibility of given subsidies for the demand for the connection service. The motivation behind the discussions, which affects both public and private investment, is to allow most citizens to have access to all services offered through the internet. Furthermore, the intervention of a state in the name of public interest is an issue that must be analyzed with caution. Even though it is necessary to guarantee equitable access and protection of citizens’ rights, it can be also invoked risk, such as censorships and limitation to freedom of line. Ultimately, common goods governance, such as the internet, is a complex challenge. It requires a balance between the protection of individual rights and the promotion of the public interest. It also implies collaboration among different stakeholders. In this dialogue, we invite you to think about this question, the search for answers that can reflect the evolving essential nature of the Internet of our current society. Thank you very much for all your attention. Thank you, Mr. Castro, for setting the scene. And I would like to invite you to take a moment to reflect on the importance of the Internet as a resource for all of us.

Paula Martins:
Thank you very much, Mr. Castro, for setting the scene. And what we’ll have now is the first round of comments. So we have some speakers that will talk about different approaches to looking at the Internet. We’ll have each speaker talking about one specific approach. And then in a second round of contributions, we’ll have speakers from all over the world. And as I said, I’m going to move on introducing them as I pass on the microphone to each of them. And we’ll start looking at the Internet as a public good, something that Mr. Castro already referred to in his opening remarks. And I’ll invite Luca Belli. Luca Belli is professor of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas Law School in Brazil and coordinator of the Center for Technology and Society. And he’s going to talk about the importance of the Internet as a public good. So, Luca, what does it mean to refer to the Internet as a public good? What are the concrete policy consequences of doing that? The concrete responsibilities that arise to different stakeholders based on that?

Luca Belli:
Thank you very much, Paula, for the questions, and apologies for being late. I was lost in the conference venue. So, let’s start with the first question, which is, how do we understand the importance of the Internet and its relation with public goods, or whether the Internet itself can be considered as a public good? The first one, the first dimension is that the Internet is a facilitator of public good. But at the same time, it’s also a facilitator of social good. So, the Internet is a facilitator of social good. can also undermine public good. So if we think of public goods like justice, democracy, security, public health, they can all be facilitated by ICTs and by the internet. But at the same time, if we think about all the infodemics that we have just lived during the pandemic, if we think about cybersecurity attack, if you think about meddling in democratic processes, they can also be undermined by the internet. So this first dimension of the internet as a potential instrument to strengthen public goods or to undermine them is very important and depends as a function of the kind of governance that was just mentioned, the kind of regulation that ensues from the governance that we are able to define. The other dimension is the internet itself as a global public good. There are people that are much smarter than me, like Stiglitz, that spoke about this already in the late 90s when he was theorizing, Joseph Stiglitz was theorizing a culture as a global public good that is non-rival in its access. And the benefits are not exclusionary. But there is a huge transaction cost to have culture. And the internet breaks this transaction cost. But here again, it really depends on which kind of internet we are speaking of. Because if we think about Joseph Stiglitz having a very good broadband connection, a nice PC, and living in a wealthy area where it’s easy and affordable to have good internet connectivity, that is an excellent example of how the internet is a global public good, because it allows him to directly connect with the global community and freely exchange, seek, and impart ideas, and distribute or obtain culture. If you think about how the majority world access the internet through a smartphone, usually through prepaid internet access plans where you have sponsored, zero-rated social media that are sponsored for free, for free. Of course, paid with your data, but not paid with money, whereas all the rest is capped. That is not really what Joseph Stiglitz had in his mind, and that strongly undermines, actually, public goods. So at the same point, the internet could be an enormous engine for strengthening public goods, a public good itself, but also an incredible machine for undermining public goods, and also just to capture individuals into a set of tools that basically data-fy them to then manipulate them, and therefore undermining democracy, human rights, the economy of entire states, right? So I think that we have to consider this double nature of the internet when we think about the internet in comparison with public goods.

Paula Martins:
Thank you so much, Luca, and thank you for calling attention to the different ways of looking at the internet as both an instrument for accessing public goods and the internet itself as a public good and what kind of internet we are talking about. So I’ll now pass on the floor to one of our online speakers, and we’ll have now two speakers that will be discussing the internet as a commons. Where is this concept coming from? How do you apply it to the internet? And again, what are the concrete consequences of applying it to the internet, especially when we use it in policy spaces? So I will start with Nandini Chami. Nandini is Deputy Director of IT for Change, and she’ll be joining us online. Nandini. Hi, are you able to hear me? We are.

Nandini Chami:
Yeah, okay. So. Just like quickly like getting into the subject at hand and what does it mean to apply a commons perspective to the internet? I think at a very foundational level, all of us recognize that the entire charm and promise of the internet is its affordance of being a communication commons for the entire world. And compared to all the other communication technologies that came before it, there is this possibility of many to many communication that is unmediated by a central broadcaster. And right from the beginning, this is the promise that feminists and progressive movements have always seen. And this is the web that we all celebrate. But when reflecting on the internet as a commons, I want to come to this with a reality check orientation also, that the community communicative ecology of the internet today is such that as somebody once made a quip about, you know, realistic perspectives on the world, the end of the world seems like far more easier for us to imagine than to think of the end of the big tech business model and its triangle hold over the internet. We are staring at a reality like that. I think that if we have to reclaim the internet as a global communication commons, there are three critical areas that I place before all of you for consideration. And I think we need to fix that. So the first is the issue of like, you know, the infrastructure layer and it’s captured by a few powerful corporations. We all know who holds the lion’s share of the world’s, you know, deep sea cables. And in the other, like, you know, layer of the web, when we look at like cloud services, we know that just like four companies own 67% of the cloud services like infrastructure today. And if the infrastructure is controlled by private sector in such a massive way, what is the scope for commoning? And then we also know that there are these egregious moves where the companies operating in the network infrastructure sector are also getting into the communication services sector. In my own country, there is a debate on net neutrality violations about what happens if telecom companies that hold the lion’s share of the Indian market are going to operate in the network like, you know, services, digital services layer, and also demand a network usage fee from the digital services. There is a policy moving push like that. So what does it really mean for net neutrality? And what does it mean for the voices of everyone? And the other problem we are all familiar with about like what happens when big tech who started out in the communication services layer is controlling the deep sea cables that reach the internet to the most marginalized regions of the world as well. And we know this issue and we have to do something about it. The second issue, when you look at the digital services itself, the entire point that, you know, there is a surveillance advertising model and this has completely destroyed the generative power of the hyperlink, which was the open sea of the web where the web ran on serendipity. And instead you have like, you know, this kind of social media model of the stream where we are all locked in our own like echo chambers and bubbles and there is no possibility of commoning or any community building. We have discussed this problem ad nauseam, so I will not like get into that problem again. But in terms of looking at solutions, if the most radical thing we can come up with is like the model, like a digital services act, that votes very ill for all of us, I think, about how do you actually get out of surveillance advertising and think of something different to reclaim communication platforms and the digital spaces? I think this is a question that stares us in the face. The third point that I would like to make and some. Some of you may have seen this op-ed piece that came out a couple of days ago, which was co-authored by the chair of the IGF leadership panel and the technology envoy, where they actually argue about how in the future of Internet governance, there needs to be a protective mode around the technical governance in terms of preserving the political structure and functioning. But looking back at what has transpired and the history that has occurred, is Internet governance really political? We all know the story of the incomplete internationalization of ICANN, and we know the default is one state is able to control the critical Internet resources still. So if we are not truly internationalizing Internet governance, and we are still continuing to hold on to a somewhat like, you know, fictionalized idea of a political technical governance, where at another level we all recognize that all technical choices are political choices. As Lawrence Lessig said, code is law and architecture is a policy choice. And we see that the different geopolitical or economic visions of development have led us to a situation where, in contrast to the Internet we have known, there is another vision of the Internet that stands before us today, imagined by another state with a different political model. And we don’t want to be caught in a geopolitical war of like, you know, where different political visions lead to Internet fragmentation. But if we have to address this question, we have to talk about what are these political choices and not like rest in this like same old like idea of a political Internet governance. We must move beyond that and look at like what would it mean to truly internationalize Internet governance. The final point, and I’ll just like take very little time, I think that when we look at the approaches, it may be important to not to see the global public goods and commons as oppositional approaches, as is traditionally done, you know, like when you talk about commons and when you talk about public goods. At some level, there is like, you know, this interesting research work that is coming out of Utrecht University, which is talking about the fact that oftentimes a public goods approach will provision the infrastructure on which commoning can take place, because it’s important to think of like commoning as a noun and also remember the communities, the people who are commoning, and then we have to make choices where we may be kind of like having this realistic approach where like when you think about economy and India, my country has traditionally thought of mixed economy. You have public enterprise, you have private enterprise, you have cooperativist enterprise. So when we think of Internet governance model, we must be actually asking ourselves how do we get the public infrastructure and the public financing and generally like the governance of the standards in a way that is truly public, so you build a commons that is truly belonging to the people and not a pro-capitalist commons that is then just cannibalized by big tech. So looking forward to hearing from everyone, I’ll just stop here.

Paula Martins:
Thank you Nandini for calling attention about the idea of the commons and the reality check of the critical areas that we need fixing so that we can actually have a commons and for already touching on what will be the second part of our discussions here today. And I’ll invite now Bruna, Bruna will also talk about the Internet as a commons, Bruna Martins Santos is a global campaigns manager at Digital Action. Bruna, you have the floor.

Bruna Martin-Santos:
Always forget to turn it on. Thanks a lot Paula and thanks APC for the invitation as well and to bring such a relevant debate to the IGF, right? I guess in the past years all of us had spent at least a week in one of these forests or spaces discussing the most relevant issues, but we all live these places feeling really bad and heavy from the pessimistic approach that normally the Internet governance discussion has taken, so it’s good for once to be doing more positive debate and one that looks towards to the future. I would say, I’ll maybe start by saying that for the past 30, 20, 30 years, Internet governance discussions have all guided us through the processes, right? And operated under the normative framework that’s focused on rules and values, all of that because it acknowledges how relevant the Internet is for societies and for its development. There is a rich story and experience on how the Internet works, what are the bodies that are involved in it, but we do lack sometimes the further inclusion of some other parts and some other groups in society, or even we do fail in bringing in this very strong global majority narrative to the conversation that’s so relevant for everyone involved in this discussion to understand what are the problems in reality. But despite of that, we have also been watching the world go more and more complex in the past years, and the equation around things such as elections or human rights gets even more complex with many stakeholders being called to the responsibility to protect ecosystems and rights, and to me this is very much connected to this discussion, right? But at the same time, I think it’s also possible for us to say that despite a lot of the society issues we face nowadays and sometimes problematic governmental intervention, the Internet remains resilient and its core characteristics and aspects are still there, and it still allows for everyone to exist and express itself, and it’s still perceived as a basic and common and really core aspect of every place that we’re at. I would like to also add that it’s interesting to see how the community is evolving towards reflections and debates about things such as the failure of some companies and corporations, but in the end of the day, this is really a conversation about what are the discrepancies, what is lacking in access when we talk about access, what is lacking when we talk about empowering stakeholders and bringing more voices. As the good and old saying says, access to Facebook is not access to the Internet, and we should not really rest until everybody understands and adds layers to that. Just to maybe start going towards the topic more further, as a global public resource, I would say the Internet has to be universal and affordable, and its governance should be grounded in international and human rights standards and public interest principles. Technologies and the Internet itself, they do play a crucial role in addressing a lot of the global challenges, and we do need global calls to action to advance access to them and encourage countries to build what is needed in terms of technologies for everybody. This says a lot about enhancing safeguards, addressing governance issues, and mitigating some of the abuse and some of the problems in this space as Luca was also referring to. Last but not least, I would say that more proactive engagement of the technical community is also required in this debate. The Internet doesn’t magically exist or simply operate. We do rely on a lot of folks and expertise for it to exist, so the success of all of that and the success of spaces such as the IGF is also reliant on these types of communities such as the technical one. The last thing that I would say is that when we talk about all of this, the global equity crisis needs to be a key aspect of such discussions. A lot of the Internet-related problems are rooted in inequality. This is one of them. Abuse of power is another of the issues, and insufficient collaboration is another one of the topics. The fact that the narratives from the parts of the world that suffer most with said interventions are not the ones shaping the policies is problematic, so we need the global majority to be making the calls and leading the processes, and I do hope that in the future of spaces such as the GDC and Summit of the Future, we take that into consideration. So I guess I’ll stop here, and thanks a lot, Paula.

Paula Martins:
Thanks to you, Bruna. Thanks for talking about the importance of actually not only reflecting about different approaches but also different realities, the role of inequalities and power politics behind the policy choices. And with that, I’ll move on to our final speaker of this round that will be, again, joining us online, and I’ll invite Azin Tadjdini. Azeem is Human Rights Officer from the Rule of Law and Democracy section of the Office of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Azeem, can you hear us? You have the floor. Very well.

Azin Tadjdini:
Thank you so much, and I hope you can hear me as well. It’s a great pleasure to be with you and to also listen to people whose work I admire so much. So I’ll say a few words about internet access as a human rights or as an enabler of human rights, and this is a question that also Mr. Castro alluded to in the beginning about how to actually legally conceptualize the internet and internet access, which is a big debate. It’s also a big debate also in the human rights world. Is it a human right in itself? Is it not? And what difference would it make? So there is these two poles that we have. On the one side, the view that internet is a technology and it’s a means to an end, but not an end in itself, and so it is not a human right and it shouldn’t be a human right. And the view that, well, it’s an enabler of human rights is what is currently reflected in the state of international human rights law where internet access yet is not recognized as a right in itself, but it is recognized as an enabler right in the sense that restrictions to internet access can constitute undue interference with rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly, but also of socioeconomic rights such as the right to education, the right to health. So in other words, from this point of view, this conceptualization means that there is a negative duty on states not to unduly interfere with rights as exercised online, but there is not a positive duty to actually provide internet access. And on the other hand, there is the view that internet access is not only a tool, but it’s become so intertwined with our basic ability to exercise our rights that it should be considered. to human rights and then, in other words, there’s a positive duty on states to ensure access. And I’ll go a bit back to this, but even though I initially mentioned that internationally there’s no such, or we haven’t reached a state where international human rights law actually creates a legal obligation to ensure internet access, at the domestic level in some states this is already considered a right. So it’s an individual or a constitutional right in the sense that the law establishes a positive duty on the state to ensure universal access and, in some cases, also affordable access. So some examples that I think we have all heard of is, for example, the Constitution of Greece that states that the facilitation of access to electronically transmitted information and the production, exchange and diffusion of such information constitutes an obligation of the states. And there’s also a similar language from the Constitutional Court of France and the Constitutional Court of Costa Rica. And a bit similar to what also I think the bill that is proposed in Chile, there is a law in Finland that has declared broadband access a basic right. And similarly in Estonia, internet access is part of the universal service that the state has to provide to all its people. So at the domestic level there has been a development towards recognizing internet access as a right and as a positive obligation of the state. And at the international level that’s not the case. Although here I think it’s also important to bear in mind where we’ve come from. So the development of how international human rights law deals with the internet. And one milestone is, of course, the 2012 Human Rights Council resolution that was adopted to protect free speech on the internet and that called upon states to promote and facilitate access to the internet and international cooperation aimed at developing media and information communication facilities in all countries. So it was the first UN resolution of its kind. And since then there’s a growing attention by human rights mechanisms, treaty bodies, special procedures, as well as regional human rights mechanisms about the importance of the internet and internet access to the ability of people to enjoy and exercise their rights. And this is also recognized by the Sustainable Development Goals, which reinforces an obligation to work towards universal and accessible internet. So there is this development and I think from an international human rights perspective, what would be important to ask is, so if we recognize universal internet access as a right, what should that mean? Because there’s no one form of right. You have rights that can be realized progressively depending on the resources of the state. And so what would a human right to internet access actually look like? Would it be an absolute right? Probably not. But if not, what would be the conditions for restrictions? What would it mean for the interplay between state and private sector given precisely the sort of global nature of the internet? And what would it mean, for example, for a state duty to protect people from cyber attack that inhibit their access to the internet? So even if we move towards or if international human rights law moves towards increasingly recognizing universal access as a human right, the question still remains, well, what kind of right do we want it to be? And what kind of obligations should it actually create? I’ll stop there and I look forward to the discussion. Thank you.

Paula Martins:
Thank you so much for, well, telling us a little bit of the state of the art, where we are exactly in the discussions. We still have two views on the internet as a right in itself and the internet as an enabler. But I understand that not only in the examples of national legislation, but the other examples of global policy that you mentioned, this direction that it seems that we are taking to recognize it, access to the internet as a right in itself. And with that, we’ll move on to the second part of our discussion here today, that is inviting some commentators to react to these different approaches that were shared with us. And the question is, like, what are the key, the main takeaways from what you’ve heard? What are the main commonalities, the divergences? And how these different concepts can be combined, complemented, how they relate to each other and how we could use them in global policy spaces? Easy questions. So, I’ll start with you. Esther Heusen is Senior Advisor for Global and Regional Internet Governance with the Association for Progressive Communications.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks. I was just trying to convince David to go first. Thanks very much. And I’m sorry I was late. I had another session that ran a little bit late. I don’t know if I have anything useful to say, even though this is a concept that I’ve personally been grappling with for a long time. And I think what I really want to celebrate and thank APC for doing is to actually get us to talk about this at the IGF, because I think what this is responding to is a conversation that internet governance should have started with, not actually be trying to end with, or go into its next evolution cycle with. I think that, I mean, anyone from the technical community who, if they were here, would say to you, the internet is not one thing. But actually, as I listened to the speakers, it resonated with me. The internet is not one thing. And for me, that also resonated with Nandini’s comment about not looking at commons and public good as being in opposition. And I think similarly, looking at internet or access to the internet as a human right or as an enabler of other human rights, that’s also not a conflictual. So I think that there’s real synergy between these three different concepts that are being discussed. And I think what they all speak to is the fundamental problem. And I think Nandini articulated that well, and maybe also before I came. But the fact that how we imagined this internet as a connector of people, as a disruptor of concentration of power, as a leveler of distributing more voice and more influence, we’ve lost that to a large extent. And I think what we are really talking about here, whether we are entering it from the commons perspective, the rights perspective, or the public good perspective, is to look at a framework that will allow us to reclaim that. And then I want to just go back to reflect on maybe this is about the internet not being one thing, and I think we also have to keep in mind that it evolves, and that if we are going to try and make a contribution to internet governance, and encourage some kind of paradigm shift if we can get as far as that, I think it has to be something that is future-oriented, that can address the challenges of how a technology that emerges within the public domain, for example, can then become appropriated by commercial interests, further developed, and invest. It’s a little bit like the pharmaceutical industry, we wouldn’t have medication if it wasn’t for private sector money going into it, but we also wouldn’t have drugs and retrovirals in my country if governments did not intervene to ensure that those patents were available. So you need a shift of some kind. So I’m going to let David give you all the answers, but what I want to say is that I think we can look at the concept of the public core of the internet, that is a norm that has been developed, I was personally involved in that, the Dutch government, Dennis Bruder did some work on this, a Dutch academic, but trying to identify if there are parts of this distributed, interconnected internet which we can actually govern and regulate and manage as a public good, a public infrastructure, there are analogies, we can look at places where water is supplied in a municipality by private companies, but there are standards and procedures that private companies have to adhere to, to ensure that that water is affordable, that it’s available, that it’s clean, so and then we have the notion of the protection of the public core as well, which it requires both governments and companies not to interfere with it in particular ways. Then I think there’s the idea of the commons, and I like Nandini. telling us that we don’t have to think of them as alternatives, public good, which generally comes with more of a sense of the public sector and the state having to play a stewardship role, and the commons, which is much more of a bottom-up process. They are part of the Internet, which I think is the commons, but then they are also part of the Internet that is run by the private sector and that’s built out by the private sector, and we have to accommodate that. We can’t change that. I don’t believe in nationalizing the Internet, but I also don’t believe in surveillance, capitalism, and models where our data, our behavior, our communications are being extracted for commercial gain, and I think there are ways of looking at that, very practical ways, for example, such as the data that emerges from all these companies. The European Union now has regulation that ensures researchers have access to that data. If you’re in Brazil and you want to access what happened during the election with social media last year, was it last year or the year before? Last year, you’d have to pay millions of dollars to get access to that data, so there are lots of things, they’re parts of the Internet that I think that we should be able to claim as being in the public domain, and then I think, then I’m just going to end with two bullet points before I give this to David. I think it is important to recognize that the architecture of both the Internet and of Internet governance, so the technical architecture and the governance, including the technical governance, is not apolitical. I think that’s a very important starting point, and I think Bruna also made that point, that point about power, and I think that’s important. Then my final bullet point is, Mr. Castro, I didn’t hear your comments, but I think Luca’s point about both the positive and the negative outcomes of looking at the Internet as a public good, I think all governance models, including the status quo governance models, we need to look at both the intended and the unintended positive and negative. consequences, and I don’t think we’re doing enough of that with the status quo, but as we develop alternative models we also need to look at intended and unintended consequences.

Paula Martins:
Thank you. David, we are ready for all the answers now, so I invite you to share with us. Let me just introduce you, wait, let me just introduce, because I failed to do so. So David Soter is Managing Director of ICT Development Associates. David, now you go.

David Norman Souter:
Sometimes I have the misfortune to examine PhD theses in the social sciences, and to some extent I felt like this is like the first, the opening chapters of those theses, where the poor student has to go through every kind of theory that there has been in the area in which they’re trying to work on, and then bring those things together and come up with something, some kind of new concept, a new contribution, which draws on each of those other areas of previous work, and in very many cases they get trapped in the semantics of this, and I think there is a danger here of being trapped in the semantics of this. Okay, so we’re different conceptualizations here, and you can draw on all of them. A is better than C, or A plus B plus C is essential. You can draw on these things without putting them together, and that’s, say, I was trained as an historian, not as a social scientist, and historians start by looking at the evidence and only come to the conceptualizations that social scientists use at the end of their analysis of the process, so that’s how I tend to look at things. So, I’m saying don’t be trapped in the semantics. I think there are, these are fairly random thoughts about the three points that were made, so there is no constructed theory here, because you can’t write an essay while sitting listening to the presentations. Just in terms of, first in terms of public goods, I mean when this was first talked about on the internet, public goods, about 20 years ago, there was a lot of confusion, because there is the economic definition of public goods as non-excludable and non-rival, which was understood by economists, but then non-economists were using the term to refer to things that were for the good of the public, and in particular to see the internet as a delivery mechanism for things that were for the good of the public, and that very much puts it in the kind of area of traditional regulation of utilities. It’s saying it’s a utility which provides a service to people and therefore should be universally accessible and available at affordable prices, so that everyone can benefit from it. It seems to me that that’s the kind of genesis of that concept of public good, whereas the concept from the common seems to me to be derived more from the internet as a communications medium, and in that context, so it’s a communications medium and it should be universally available because it is a communications medium and enables everybody to talk to everybody else, as opposed to a medium that delivers to them products and services. And I think the issue here is to do, to some extent, with the evolution of the internet, so that, you know, once upon a time it was small and now it is large, and in things that are as large as the internet, you have infrastructure and you have intermediaries. It’s not possible for something that large to be conducted without those things, and if you have infrastructure and intermediaries, you have the power structures that go with that. You have a requirement for capital investment, and there are not many places where that capital investment can come from. And in the case of the internet, you also, and other communications media, you also have network externality, so the more people there are on Facebook, the more valuable it is by a factor that is more than equivalent to the numbers. If you have 10 million people on something, it is much more valuable to you, one person, than if there are only 10,000 on it. And those things drive the power of data corporations. It’s very difficult to see how you can avoid those power structures, so if you can’t avoid those power structures, well, it’s not possible to say I can avoid them if you have to regulate them. I think, back to the regulatory structures that are required, and there are traditional economic models for doing that as well. The rights perspective is obviously crucially important, but the rights framework, the international rights framework, doesn’t cover everything that needs to be considered here, and that’s, I think, part of the difficulty in trying to root things in a purely rights perspective. So the rights perspective focuses, the rights framework focuses on states, not on corporations, and increasingly it’s corporations where the real power lies. So where are the responsibilities and obligations that are placed on those corporations? Generally, there’s been a discussion in a rights context about particular rights, and there’s been an under-emphasis on economic, social, and cultural rights, and so on the development and environment kind of domains. And I think the rights perspective is a different lens to that which is used by the most powerful actors within the internet world. So it’s a different lens to that used by governments, it’s a different lens to that used by corporations, it’s a different lens in particular to that used by some governments and some corporations. So it’s an extremely important perspective, but it’s not sufficient in itself to cover all that is required. Those are random thoughts, not yet in essay form.

Paula Martins:
Thank you, David, and I think our proposal is not to get lost in translation. It’s not merely a theoretical exercise, what we are proposing for the discussion here today, but really to think about the policy consequences and use these entry points to discuss the nature of the internet and what kind of policy responses we’re looking for for the upcoming years and for right now, actually for the present, not only for the future. What we have now is we’ll open the floor for questions. So Nadine, in a second I’ll give you the floor to share if there are any questions online, then I’ll ask here if there are any questions in the room, and after that I’ll give you all, speakers from the first round, a final chance to react again to the comments that you heard from the commentators. You have two minutes each, so it’s like firing back, maybe if there are any specific questions to you, and then we’ll wrap up with my colleague Valeria, that will try to systematize the key points coming out of the discussion. So Nadine, do we have any questions from the online participants?

Nandini Chami:
Yeah, there are about like four questions, so how many can we take, Paula? Let me see, how many questions we have in the room? One.

Paula Martins:
If you are going to read them quickly, they are all questions or comments? They’re all questions. Okay, so yeah, just read them all. We’ll give the floor here in the room, and I’ll just invite you to do your best to respond to them. Go ahead, Nadine.

Nandini Chami:
Yeah, so the first question is about like, you know, how do we ensure that, what are the best approaches to ensure that we bring affordable connectivity to the largest number of people? The second question is actually, yeah, the second one is a comment about the internet as a tool for empowerment, so I’ll skip that, and the third is a question about what do we do about the energy footprint and the consequences of the greenhouse gas emissions and everything of like digital technologies, and how do you think of the sustainability question in the era of 4IR? And the last question is about when is it possible to make internet available and accessible for the underprivileged in developing countries, and what actually be done about it, like what can we do next? Thank you, Nandini. Dinesh, if you could

Paula Martins:
Thank you, Nandini. Dinesh, if you could use the microphone to your left. Thanks, Nandini. I think

Audience:
What you said actually kind of addresses, like mentions what I want to ask, but I want to be very specific in what I want to say, which is internet for all of us is the web and not accessibility in terms of infrastructure, the fiber, the something and all that. Internet is the web, which is hyperlinks, interlinking, hypertext and all those things. Now there are 3 billion people in the world who cannot read and write, 1 billion in India who cannot do Google search, make sense of the results, and if you can’t read and write, what is internet for you? Why are we not pushing technical people to look at this and see what is hyperlinking when you don’t have text, what is, you know, and there’s so much we can do, and we as a group of very highly literate people stop asking questions when it comes to the web and internet. For example, when you give a book, you write on the margins, how many of you have asked why don’t I have it on the web? This is a starting of a beginning, like why we need to push things, this is all I want to say, and we need to look at it, IGF is a forum, not like the Silicon Valley, not like the corporate, not like something where we can actually take a decision on what is the technology that helps push the web to the low literate people.

Paula Martins:
Thank you, Dinesh. Mr. Castro, can we start with you? We have two minutes, everybody will have two minutes to react, both to respond to questions and also some reactions, would you like to, yeah? Okay, so Luca, we’ll start with you.

Luca Belli:
All right, so I just, I want to react quickly to the comment that has just been done about the fact that for most people the internet is the web, I think I disagree, and my point before was precisely that for most people actually the internet is not the web, because for those who have the privilege to have fixed internet access, and you can use the web as an app to browse through the internet, and that is a chance, but for most people, actually a couple of billions, at least, of people in the world, a web is not the web. The web is only a small part of what they do in the internet. What they primarily do in the internet is using two or three applications, which is on their mobile phones. So it’s a very tiny part of the internet. And it’s really an enormous walled garden in which they don’t have the privilege of being internet users browsing through the web. But they are data-fied, basically, the entire day. And they are fed with algorithmically-recommended content based either on their profile or based on who pays the most. So I think that if we want to start then to get into what the IGF could do, well, what it has been doing over the past years is allowing a platform for these issues to be discussed. What the IGF has not been doing but should have been done is also to try to recommend solutions that could be utilized to, if not solve, at least mitigate these kind of issues. And these kind of issues, they require cooperation. If you take my point on the possibility to consider internet as a public good, any kind of public good requires cooperation then to be managed, right? The commentator explained about the fact that then at the end of the day, public goods end up being utilities, of course, because the market does not know how to price them. And then you have usually the state intervening to provide them. But it is also actually a huge problem when you undermine them. Because if you lock, for instance, 3 billion people into a couple of social media platform and you feed them only with fake news, then you are undermining democracy, you’re undermining human rights, you’re undermining the economy. But you cannot price it. You cannot say, you can say 10% more connectivity penetration equals to 3.6% increase in GDP. But you cannot say 70% of people in a country only having access to Facebook equals to minus 50% of democracy. Because you cannot price democracy. You cannot price. You cannot meter. So, I think we have to be a little bit creative, not only discussing these issues, but also understanding my point on public goods is not necessarily, I’m not advocating for considering the Internet a public good, I think one has to consider both sides of the coin, and then the interesting part of it would be then not to understand whether the Internet should be considered a public good, but whether when it undermines public goods, how to meter it and which kind of solution, who should pay this cost.

Paula Martins:
Thank you, Luca. Nandini, thank you so much for doubling as our speaker and our online moderator, I would like to give you the floor now to have your final remarks.

Nandini Chami:
Yeah, so I would just like to take on one of the questions that came from the Bangladesh remote hub, that what is it that it means to make the Internet accessible and available and affordable for the most marginalised? Because I think it speaks to everything we have been talking about so far, including the Internet as a right, the public good questions and the provisioning, Internet as a communication commons that is not like cannibalised by surveillance capital, it speaks to all dimensions of the question. Here, I think that right from the time of the World Summit on the Information Society, we have been like, you know, we failed to find a proper public financing model that can ensure that the Internet in its foundational sense and not like a zero services type of walled garden version is available to everyone in the world, and 20 years after the Vissers or Moore, we are still talking about that agenda, so I think we need to kind of like have a way to discuss the financing question about that. And secondly, I think when we are talking about Internet access, the question of access to what, which many of us have been talking about today, that needs to also be addressed, because what is it that this access is supposed to do? Like there’s a study by Research ICT Africa, which actually talks about the connectivity paradox where connectivity actually means like more digital inequality. Is that what we want, or do we, are we talking about a world where connectivity means equitable access to the data dividends and the development dividends of the Internet for everyone? So we might have… So I think we have to kind of like push this, like in however we engage with in the Global Digital Compact process and the World Summit on the Information Society action lines that may come up. So I feel we have all a lot of work to do here. And thank you again for organizing this very, very important and critical discussion.

Paula Martins:
Thank you, Nandini. Bruna?

Bruna Martin-Santos:
Thanks, Paula. Yeah, just to add some more thoughts to this, I think I agree with some of both our commentators’ additions to the conversation about from Henriette that this is a debate where Internet governance might have started, right? But it’s also important to be coming back to this at this point in history where we still see the gaps, right? And I also agree that some of the concepts are definitely not opposing as well as with the idea of not getting lost in the semantics of the whole conversation. At the same time, addressing the gaps is urgent, mitigating the abuses and discrepancies as well. We are at a moment in history where it seems to be a need to cooperate even further in order to advance the development and use of digital public goods or Internet as a common or as a human right. At the same time, it’s important to discuss appropriate safeguards to ensure the protection of rights, privacy, data protection, as well as inclusion of all communities and genders and regions and claims. This will help us build trust around this space, foster an inclusive technology ecosystem that also meets the needs of the local populations because it’s what we’re talking about. And last but not least, I would say we do need, and I hope we get out of the GDC, more recognition of the Internet and information as a commons or a public good and how we’re moving forward in governing that and managing that as a collective resource. So, thanks a lot.

Paula Martins:
Thank you, Bruna. Azin, can we hear from you?

Azin Tadjdini:
Thank you. And thanks to everyone, including the questions online. So, yeah, just to start, I think I completely agree with David’s point that the rights framework doesn’t and cannot cover all the elements of Internet governance, all the questions that arise there. But I think it’s still the development in the rights landscape will also impact very much on the reality. So, rights will not just reflect the facts. Very often they don’t. But the way in which these discussions are later articulated in terms of rights, legally conceptualized rights, will also impact how, of course, Internet governance takes place. And so, it’s a very central part of the discussion. And also, just on the sort of question about infrastructure versus access, I think one added value of the rights framework is particularly the question about what type of Internet or what type of access do we actually speak about? And what kind of content do we speak about, considering that so much of the content in places where people actually do have access to the Internet is very heavily interfered with by states, but also by private sector. So, that’s where I think there’s an added value of the rights framework, which provides for the free flow of ideas of all kinds.

Paula Martins:
Thank you, Azin. I only refer to the speakers, but we still have some time. So, I’ll give our commentators also the chance to share some final remarks before we have a quick systematization of the key takeaways. David, who wants to start? I’m asking if you want to.

David Norman Souter:
Thank goodness for that. Maybe I’ll just pick up on a couple of the questions and kind of raise some complications with them. So, firstly, on empowerment and tools for empowerment, I’ve always had a slight problem with the way in which this concept is used, because innovations like the Internet, for example, have been used for a long time. the Internet empower everyone, not just those who are disempowered, and not just those who we might hope to empower because they are disempowered or for progressive reasons. The Internet empowers everybody, including people who are powerful and abuse their power. So in particular, it can empower people in the sense that people who are disadvantaged in the sense that it gives them additional resources which they can use in effective ways, but at the same time, it can empower those who have power over them more than it empowers them. So think of that in terms of employer-employee relationships, say, or landlord-tenant relationships, or some gender relationships, family relationships. So empowerment is a more complicated issue, I think, than is often discussed here. On the environmental point, I didn’t quite catch the question, I’m afraid, but I sort of spoke in the main session from the platform this morning in the main session on the environment. And so I do think this is a particularly important dimension and is often missing from, still missing from our discussions about the direction of Internet development and more generally digital development, which is now much larger than Internet development. And I think there are many dimensions to it. It’s often discussed in digital fora on the basis of what can be done with digital technology to address particularly climate change. But it’s important to look at this in a broader perspective. So there are three ways in which the digital sector is currently unsustainable in the way that it is progressing, and those are to do with the overexploitation of scarce resources which are used in digital devices, the energy consumption gross rate, and e-waste, which is rarely recycled and substantially dumped in developing countries. So all of those things need to be addressed, and what I was proposing in the session this morning was that we need to introduce into across the board in Internet governance and in the thinking of governments and businesses and the technical sector an environmental ethos which thinks about environmental impacts as part of decision-making processes, for example, in setting standards, in developing new applications, in deploying networks. So the goal is both to maximize the potential value of those innovations and to minimize their environmental footprint.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks very much. Well, I mean, thanks for the questions, and I mean, I think much as we want a paradigm shift, we’re not going to get one, so we have to start somewhere. And I think the one thing that we – there is a lot of regulation of the Internet. I mean, we’ve talked about the European Digital Services, Digital Market Act, there’s regulation at many, many country levels as well. But I think the problem is that the regulation, a lot of the regulation is actually not targeting the powerful, it’s targeting people, it’s targeting users. It’s not targeting the manufacturers of the devices or the builders of the infrastructure. So I think maybe a shift away, yes, regulatory response is necessary, but shift that regulatory response in such a way that it actually tries to address concentration of power in a more effective way. And this applies also to the issue of the environment and environmental impact. So we need more common acknowledgment and some principles that we need to regulate how companies do business on the Internet, and not just in the European Union and not just targeting the big tech companies. Actually, we need to look at business as a whole and look at diversifying and opening markets more and opening innovation more. You know, this notion of permissionless innovation is another thing. We need to be able to regulate innovation in such a way, not to prevent it, but to prevent harm. And we have principles from the pharmaceutical industry, the idea of the precautionary principle. If new apps are developed, that could change how children learn or how people interact with one another. And why should those not be first tested before they can go into operation? I think we need to also regulate how infrastructure is built from an environmental impact and energy perspective. And yes, I’ve mentioned devices already, and this includes the disposal of the devices, but the endurance of the devices. I mean, surely we should have regulations that stop e-waste from proliferating at the rate that it does. But one can introduce standards for the manufacturing of devices so that they last longer, so that they can be updated. It is possible to change that. But I think to change that, we also need to shift our understanding of development, this whole notion that growth equals development. that will alleviate poverty by creating more rich people. We need to shift away from those conceptions. But then I think one of the real challenges here is that because we’re dealing with a globalized network and a globalized market, we cannot rely on our traditional, I think the rights, as in, by the way, I think the rights framework does give us what we want, but there’s one thing in the rights framework that doesn’t work that well for us, and that’s the concept of the state as duty bearers and the rest of us as rights holders, and that it’s the state’s responsibility to ensure that private sector actors comply with rights frameworks. It’s very hard to make that work within the current internet context, both because the companies are so powerful and because the states are so unaccountable. It becomes very hard to trust states to play the role of holding business accountable when states themselves are not accountable for acting in the public interest and managing and growing the internet and regulating the internet in the public interest. And then I think we also need to have a third dimension here, and that is about empowering communities and allowing communities to create their own approach to internet. I mean, one of the things that we’ve learned in APC by working with community networks is that there are communities who only want internet in their village. They don’t actually want to connect to the global internet. They’re quite happy just to be able to have free WhatsApp calls in their own area. So I think that’s the third thing. So I want to stop at that, but I do want to say I think, as in mentioned, the complexity of the human rights framework, I think it gives us a lot to work with. I disagree with you in that, David. And I think she didn’t mention specifically, but the business, the guidelines on business and human rights, will probably never become a treaty because some governments will block it, but it’s providing us with really good guidelines on how to ensure that companies are accountable.

Paula Martins:
Thank you all for the very insightful contributions. Very, very interesting. And I’ll give now the floor to my colleague, Valeria, that took lots of notes, and she’s gonna tell us how we are going to use all these insights that we just compiled here today. Valeria.

Valeria Betancourt:
Thank you so much, Paola, and thank you so much to all of you for your insights. Actually, Andrea did my, you did my job, so thank you so much, Andrea, because, yes, so I won’t repeat what has been said. I just want to say that we were motivated to convene this conversation because obviously there are questions that are not resolved, starting by the basic one about what the, Internet is and also how we can deal moving forward with the governance of not only the Internet itself but the governance of the implications and impacts of its use. And we are in a very particular moment in which also the evolution of Internet governance is proving that it is interplaying very directly and deeply with the broader governance of the digital realm. So in this current moment in which several spaces and processes dealing with issues of the Internet policy and Internet governance and digital governance have proliferated. So what we can do? What’s next? How we can keep contributing to it? Like two years ago we started a process to imagine the future of Internet governance and this session kind of closes that initial phase of our reflection and also the thinking and analysis of how we can fit into these several processes that are looking at the configuration of the digital future. So in this moment I think, well the speakers have said it all, I think what we can push for and how we expect to use the outcomes of this conversation is to precisely nurture and feed into the thinking of what are the compromises that are needed between the different stakeholders and what’s the principles that should guide Internet governance and digital governance moving forward to precisely set, to precisely avoid what Andrea was saying, to avoid like causing further harm and putting people in the center and regulating in a way that we address the structural problems and particularly the concentration of power in corporations but also the lack of accountability of public actors in particularly government. So we expect to use those not only in the framework of the IGF and the conversations happening here but also in the framework of the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS plus 20 review and the commitments emerging in the context of the acceleration of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. So the role that we want to play and how we want to use these inputs is to make sure that these questions that have kept unresolved for so long are still addressed, and that we address in a way that helps us to move towards basic compromises to address structural inequality, towards ensuring that the internet can serve the purposes of ensuring a dignified life for everyone. So that’s what I want to say, and then I pass it to you, Paula, for closing.

Paula Martins:
And I would just like to thank you all again. Thank you, you, Valeria, the participants online, the speakers online. And with that, we wrap up the session of today. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.