Main Session 2: Protecting Internet infrastructure and general access during times of crisis and conflict
Main Session 2: Protecting Internet infrastructure and general access during times of crisis and conflict
Session at a Glance
Summary
This Internet Governance Forum 2024 session focused on protecting and ensuring access to internet infrastructure during conflicts and crises. Panelists discussed the impacts of internet shutdowns and infrastructure destruction on civilians, highlighting how these actions violate human rights and hinder humanitarian efforts. They examined existing normative frameworks, including international laws and UN resolutions, that address internet access and critical infrastructure protection.
The discussion emphasized the disproportionate harm caused by internet shutdowns and the need for governments to refrain from such actions. Panelists explored various responses and alternatives, including technical solutions from private sector companies and initiatives by international organizations like the ITU. The role of humanitarian agencies in providing internet access during crises was also debated.
Participants stressed the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration to address these challenges. They called for better implementation of existing norms rather than creating new ones. Suggestions for action included stigmatizing internet shutdowns, penalizing governments that implement them, and improving coordination among various stakeholders.
The session concluded with proposals for the IGF community to take more concrete steps. These included potentially creating a best practice forum on the topic, incorporating internet access considerations into conflict monitoring by bodies like the UN Security Council, and leveraging the upcoming WSIS+20 review process to highlight these issues. Overall, the discussion underscored the critical need to protect internet access and infrastructure as essential resources for civilian populations, especially during conflicts and crises.
Keypoints
Major discussion points:
– The impact of internet shutdowns and infrastructure destruction on civilians, especially in conflict zones
– Existing international laws and norms regarding protection of internet access and infrastructure
– The role of different stakeholders (governments, companies, civil society) in responding to and preventing shutdowns
– Technical and policy solutions to maintain connectivity during crises
– The need for more coordinated, consistent responses from the international community
The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how to protect and ensure internet access for civilians during conflicts, natural disasters, and other crises. The panelists aimed to identify gaps in current frameworks and propose concrete actions the Internet Governance Forum community could take.
The tone of the discussion was largely serious and concerned, given the gravity of the issues being discussed. However, there were also moments of constructive problem-solving and cautious optimism about potential solutions. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as participants proposed specific next steps.
Speakers
– Anriette Esterhuysen: Director of the IGF, from South Africa
– Mohamed Shareef: Private sector, Digital Telecommunications company, former minister of state for digital and communications in the Maldives
– Cynthia Lesufi: Minister counsellor in the South African mission in Geneva, ITU council working group chair
– Lama Fakih: Director of Middle East and North Africa work at Human Rights Watch
– Kojo Boakye: Meta Vice President for policy for Africa and the Middle East
– Nadim Nashif: Executive director of 7amleh, the Arab Centre for Social Media Advancement, from Palestine
– Peter Micek: From Access Now, teaches at Columbia University
Additional speakers:
– Ernst Noorman: Cyber ambassador of the Netherlands
– Audience members who asked questions (unnamed)
Full session report
Internet Governance Forum 2024 Session: Protecting Internet Access During Conflicts and Crises
This Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 session addressed the critical issue of protecting and ensuring access to internet infrastructure during conflicts and crises. The discussion brought together experts from government, private sector, civil society, and international organisations to explore challenges and potential solutions for maintaining internet connectivity in times of upheaval.
Key Impacts of Internet Disruptions and Infrastructure Destruction
The panellists unanimously agreed that internet disruptions and infrastructure destruction have severe humanitarian consequences and violate human rights. Lama Fakih, Director of Middle East and North Africa work at Human Rights Watch, emphasised that such disruptions not only infringe upon human rights but also hinder humanitarian aid efforts, citing specific examples from Gaza where internet shutdowns have impeded access to vital information and services. Nadim Nashif from 7amleh highlighted the devastating impact of infrastructure destruction in Gaza on the civilian population, including the loss of communication with family members and access to essential online services.
Kojo Boakye from Meta highlighted the significant economic costs of internet shutdowns, noting that they can cost countries up to 1.9% of their daily GDP.
Normative Frameworks and Legal Obligations
The session explored existing normative frameworks and legal obligations regarding the protection of internet access and infrastructure. Ernst Noorman, Cyber Ambassador of the Netherlands, pointed out that the UN General Assembly has endorsed 11 norms prohibiting damaging critical infrastructure in cyberspace. He also discussed the Freedom Online Coalition’s work in promoting internet freedom and human rights online.
Lama Fakih elaborated that international human rights law requires internet restrictions to be necessary and proportionate. Cynthia Lesufi, from the South African mission in Geneva, highlighted ITU resolutions calling for assistance in rebuilding telecommunications infrastructure after conflicts or disasters, specifically mentioning the ITU Council resolution on assistance to Palestine for rebuilding its telecom networks.
Responses and Alternatives to Internet Disruptions
The discussion then turned to potential responses and alternatives to internet disruptions. Kojo Boakye described how the private sector is developing technical solutions, such as WhatsApp proxy, to maintain connectivity during shutdowns. Peter Micek from Access Now highlighted the role of humanitarian agencies in providing connectivity in crisis situations and suggested the creation of a UN cable-laying fleet to assist in infrastructure rebuilding efforts.
Civil society organisations were recognised for their important work in documenting violations and providing technical assistance. Anriette Esterhuysen, Director of the IGF, emphasised the need for rapid response capabilities to repair infrastructure in affected areas.
Role of the Internet Governance Community
The panellists agreed on the crucial role the internet governance community can play in addressing these challenges. Ernst Noorman suggested that the IGF could establish best practices for protecting internet access during conflicts and crises and emphasised the need for capacity building and multistakeholder involvement in implementing norms.
Lama Fakih called for efforts to stigmatise internet shutdowns by governments, framing them as unacceptable actions by states. Kojo Boakye suggested penalizing governments that implement internet shutdowns.
Cynthia Lesufi highlighted the importance of incorporating these issues into the upcoming WSIS+20 review process. Peter Micek referenced the Global Digital Compact as a potential framework for addressing internet shutdown issues.
Areas of Disagreement and Partial Agreement
While there was broad consensus on the importance of maintaining internet access, some differences emerged regarding the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders. For instance, while Lama Fakih emphasised the legal obligations of governments under international human rights law, Kojo Boakye focused on the role of private sector companies in developing technical solutions.
Thought-Provoking Comments and Future Directions
Several thought-provoking comments shaped the discussion, including Lama Fakih’s description of ongoing internet disruptions in Gaza and Mohamed Shareef’s insights on the unique challenges faced by small island nations.
An audience member from Sudan provided a powerful testimony about the impact of internet shutdowns in their country, highlighting the severe consequences for civilian populations and the challenges faced by humanitarian agencies in providing connectivity during crises.
The session concluded with proposals for concrete actions, including exploring the establishment of an IGF best practice forum on protecting internet access in conflicts and crises, highlighting internet infrastructure protection issues in the WSIS+20 review process, and developing a working group to implement Global Digital Compact language on internet shutdowns.
Unresolved issues remained, such as how to effectively enforce international laws and norms against internet shutdowns, and how to balance legitimate security concerns with maintaining internet access. The discussion also raised important questions about content moderation in crisis situations, the role of platforms in ensuring equitable access globally, and the potential for technical solutions like ESIM infrastructure and community networks built on decentralised power grids.
In conclusion, the session underscored the critical need to protect internet access and infrastructure as essential resources for civilian populations, especially during conflicts and crises. It highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and the implementation of existing norms, while also identifying areas for further research and action by the IGF community.
Session Transcript
Anriette Esterhuysen: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this Internet Governance Forum 2024 main session under the theme of the contribution to the Internet, to peace and sustainability. My name is Anriette Esterhuysen, I’m from South Africa. I’m the director of the IGF, and I’m the director of the IGF’s international forum on international and global communications, and this session is, I think, one of the most significant and maybe one of the most topical sessions that we have at this year’s IGF. It’s trying to address the concern of how do we protect and ensure access to Internet access, and we’re going to explore this session from the perspective of what the impact is, what the impact is on ordinary people, on communities, when Internet infrastructure is destroyed or becomes unavailable. And we’re going to look at what are the norms? Are there norms, are there normative frameworks for responding or preventing this from happening? And then we’re also going to look at what are the alternatives? What measures can be taken? What actions can be taken to get this multi-stakeholder community to play the role that it is usually so fundamentally committed to, which is to ensure an open, free, interoperable Internet for everyone. And then finally, we will look at future-oriented actions. Where are the gaps? Are there gaps at the normative level? Are there gaps at the implementation level? And what can the IGF do? So, I’m balancing too many devices here. To introduce you to my panel, and then I’m also going to introduce you to my fellow moderator, which is Peter Micek from Access Now, who’s joining us from New York. I can hear an echo. Can everyone hear the echo? Is there anything we can do about the echo? Should I hold the microphone? Okay, so, I’m going to move a little bit further away. That helps, that helps. So, Peter Micek will join us from New York, and he’ll make some opening remarks, but I first wanted to introduce you to my panel. So, starting immediately from my left, we have Mohamed Shareef, who’s currently with the private sector, in a company called Digital Telecommunications, and he’s been a minister of state for digital and communications in the Maldives. Next to him, we have Ambassador Allen Snoherman, the cyber ambassador of the Netherlands. And next to him, I’m very pleased and proud to have my compatriot, Ms. Cynthia Lesufi, who’s minister counsellor in the South African mission in Geneva, and she’s also the international telecommunications union council working group chair for the world summit on the information society, and the sustainable development goals. Next to Cynthia, we have Lama Fakih from Human Rights Watch, who leads their work. She’s the director of Middle East and North Africa work at Human Rights Watch. And next to Lama, we have Kodjo Boakye, who is the Meta Vice President of the Middle East and North Africa, and she’s also the director of Human Rights Watch. And next to Kodjo Boakye, who is the Meta Vice President for policy for Africa and the Middle East. And then joining us online, we have from Palestine, Nadim Nassif, executive director of Hamleh, the centre, the Arab Centre for Social Media Advancement, and also joining us online is Professor Madeleine Carr. Is Madeleine with us already? Good. And also, Professor Nassif, who is the director of the Centre for Social Policy and Cybersecurity at University College London. To get us welcome, Peter and Nadim and Madeleine and everyone else who’s with us online. Peter, do you want to start us off with some of the reflections and talking points that we feel we should try and address in this session?
Peter Micek: I’m excited to explore this intersection of connectivity, infrastructure, and instability, and how they relate to peace, development, and sustainability. It’s core to the work of my organization, Access Now, and my teaching at Columbia University. Taking this beyond to start the context of Internet governance, but to sustainable development broadly, we have sobering new facts. The global multidimensional poverty index published by the UNDP in October.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Peter, just pause a little bit. We have an audio issue. Can our tech support team please help? Peter, try speaking again. Let’s test if it works. Go ahead, speak.
Peter Micek: I don’t think we can hear you right now. Can you hear me, not if you can hear me?
Anriette Esterhuysen: Okay, try speaking. We can’t hear you. My colleagues here who helped organize this session, can you just check and help us fix this? Okay, I think while Peter, let’s try once more. Try speaking again.
Peter Micek: As I was saying, the new multidimensional poverty index by UNDP in Oxford found that 1. 1 billion people are living in acute poverty, and a staggering 455 million of them are in countries experiencing war or fragility. That’s nearly half of people in acute poverty are experiencing war, and these conflicts have intensified. These don’t always go in the right direction. In 2023, last year, the keep it on coalition that my organization used documented the highest number of Internet shutdowns in the world. These Internet shutdowns occurred in 39 countries, and nearly half of them were in countries experiencing war or fragility. These Internet shutdowns are intentional disruptions, and unfortunately, it looks like 2024 saw even higher numbers than 2023, despite states in the global digital compact saying we must, quote, refrain from Internet shutdowns and measures that target Internet access. So with all of these problems, what do we do? In response, we attempt to mitigate the impact of these shutdowns, and we do this by using the technical innovations of the ITF. In response, we attempt to mitigate. We scramble to create works around through technological innovation, public and private donors devote energy and resources to whip up networks in dire conditions, while humanitarian actors increasingly relying on digital, say, cloud -based systems or biometric solutions, remote delivery platforms, and community engagement platforms, are automated. They are just like we are looking to these technical fixes, whether it’s satellite, internet, or joining emergency telecommunications clusters to provide quick import of hardware and assets. We’re looking at ways to make sure that we’re not just automating the systems, but we’re also automating the technology. We’re looking at ways to make sure that we’re not just selling hardware and assets and seeking unlikely partnerships across all industries in real-time. This is tough work and it’s a scramble, so there has to be a better way. All of our societal systems rely in some way on connectivity and electricity. We recognize the sheer and growing importance of connectivity in civilian life, and, perhaps, more so when everything around you is engulfed in violence and war. So, I want to put out there that we need to focus on connectivity and providing it and protecting that infrastructure, because it’s a lot harder to bring back, and these Sisyphean efforts in the moment of crisis encounter a lot of trouble. So, let’s start by looking at first principles in addition to the reactive workarounds that we’ve all been putting together. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot. Peter, I want to check French translation sorted out now. There were issues with the French interpretation, so I just am assuming that it is okay. I’m just checking on the Zoom to see if it is. And it looks now they cannot hear me. I’m not audible. So, I’m going to go back to the slides. And it looks now they cannot hear me. I’m not audible. The Zoom participants say that they cannot hear me. No audio for Zoom. I can’t see the tech team. Who’s doing the zoom? Can you hear me on through the headsets? People in the room can hear me. No one can hear me on remote. You still can’t hear me? No. Sorry, peace, can you please try and find someone who’s dealing with the zoom and sort this problem out? Thank you. The zoom participants have lost audio completely. Oh it’s back, it’s back. Peace, it’s fine, it’s back. I think it’s back now. Good. So let’s look at what the impacts are. So Lama, I want you to start. When we talk about these disruptions and the destruction of infrastructure or the interference of infrastructure or damage, what does this actually mean for people on the ground, for ordinary citizens, for civilians, for communities?
Lama Fakih: Thank you, I hope everyone can hear me well. During times of conflict, civilians, journalists, first responders.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Sorry, I am so sorry to interrupt you, but no, the zoom audio problem has not been sorted out. So we’ll continue, but please can we have our virtual participants able to hear this session? Can you see the transcript? Nadim and Peter, can you see the the captioning? Just nod if you are able to. Oh you can’t hear me, so let’s go ahead, Lama, I’ll type. Thank you.
Lama Fakih: So as I was saying, during times of conflict, civilians, journalists, first responders, they rely on the internet to document and share evidence of abuse and to provide life-saving assistance. During times of political crisis, protesters leverage the internet to organize online and to stand up for their rights. And yet time and again, we have seen states and armed groups take action to deliberately shut down access and to destroy telecommunication systems in ways that violate people’s rights. In conflicts, as Peter was laying out, there may be multiple causes of these disruptions to communications networks, and they are sometimes deployed in tandem. Palestinians in Gaza have endured over a year of ongoing phone and internet disruption as a result of relentless airstrikes by the Israeli government and other actions that the government has taken. These actions have included damage to core communication infrastructure, cuts to electricity, fuel blockades, and apparently deliberate shutdowns through technical means. According to UN OCHA, on October 10, airstrikes conducted by the Israeli military targeted several telecommunications installations, destroyed two of three main lines for mobile communication, and this left residents in Gaza reliant on just one line for mobile and internet connectivity. It resulted in disruptions to services, and on October 27, at the start of Israel’s ground incursion into Gaza, the connectivity came to a grinding halt during an approximately 34-hour communications blackout. Paltel, one of the few remaining service providers that is still operational in Gaza, confirmed to Human Rights Watch in November of 2023 that when service was restored without their intervention, it was clear that the disruptions were intentional. In times of conflict, authorities and armed groups should refrain from deliberately shutting down or destroying telecoms infrastructures because of the disproportionate harm that it has on civilians. When governments and armed groups target the infrastructure, they often justify these measures as necessary for public safety, curbing the spread of misinformation or for legitimate military reasons. But such sweeping measures are more like collective punishment. When the internet is off, people’s ability to express themselves is limited. The economy suffers. Journalists are not able to upload evidence of abuses that they are documenting. Students are cut off from their lessons. Taxes can’t be paid, and those needing health care often cannot access life-saving assistance. When India blocked access to the internet in Kashmir for months in late 2019, Indian officials justified the action by saying it was necessary to temporarily limit access to the internet during the period of crisis to avoid permanent loss of life. Four UN special rapporteurs condemned the move, however, warning that the shutdown in Kashmir was inconsistent with the norms of necessity and proportionality. In other words, inconsistent with the law. Practically, at least one study by a researcher at the Stanford Global Digital Policy Incubator has found that shutdowns are actually counterproductive to deterring violent incidents. It tracked a quadrupling of violence when networks were disrupted as compared to cases when the internet stayed on. Shutdowns, they draw headlines, but subtler, equally devastating techniques to manipulate the internet deserve attention too. Authorities possess an arsenal, ranging from blocking specific social media applications or messaging applications, to throttling traffic, to restricting live streaming. And these are all the types of weapons that we need to contend with in ensuring that people have connectivity during times of crisis and conflict. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Lama. And I believe that our Zoom participants can hear now if they use not original audio, but if they go to one of the language tracks. So audio works in English, and you can also select captioning to those of you who are online by clicking on more at the bottom of your Zoom screen and selecting captions. And Nadeem, can you tell us a little bit more about the very specific context, and I know Hamle has done research on this, on the impact of the destruction of telecommunications infrastructure in Gaza, and what that is doing to people.
Nadim Nassif: Hi, everybody. I’m not sure if you are hearing me or not, because there are issues with the audio. We can hear you. So thank you, everybody, for having us today and having the possibility to speak and to be part of this event. I am here also and was asked to speak also about the current situation, specifically in Gaza, and basically regarding the destruction of the infrastructure, the telecom infrastructure, as was mentioned before. But I think it’s important also to go a little bit back at this, because the infrastructure in Gaza has been held captive and controlled by the Israeli occupation since 1967, right? So the occupation, the Israeli occupation, controlled the Palestinian telecom infrastructure since the occupation of 1967. And since then, basically, it’s a kind of a hostage infrastructure that was not allowed to perform, to progress. Historically also, when also agreements were signed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel, it was agreed, basically, that this arrangement will develop into a Palestinian telecommunication industry or sector that will be independent, finally, as there will be an independent Palestinian state. I’m talking now about early 90s, 93, 94, with the Oslo agreements, with Paris Accords, all of these agreements that happened at that time never were realized. And until today, as we know, I mean, obviously, there was no Palestinian independent state and the telecom infrastructure is yet to be controlled by the Israeli side, which means basically that all the components of the Palestinian telecom, whether it would be for cell towers or for other components, has to get approval by the Israeli side, right? And for many years and for economic reasons and for assuming that also Palestinian users would prefer Israeli telecommunication companies rather than Palestinian ones, they prevented the Palestinian telecommunication sector from developing. So that sector was held captive. But we also need to remember that also there is no independence in the sense of being connected with the world. All the infrastructure basically goes through the Israeli side, right? And the Israeli side is giving… the Palestinian side, the access to the worldwide internet. And simply as they have the access, they can also cut the access. And this is basically what happened in Gaza. So during the war, during the genocide that is happening in Gaza, it’s not only about destruction of the infrastructure that Israel did, and deliberate attacks on the infrastructure, on the cell towers, it also performed at least 17 times of deliberate shutdown, total shutdown of the whole internet and telecommunication of the Palestinians in Gaza. Now, in our research, in our last research that we published in Hamle, we basically speak about an infrastructure that the assumption or the estimate is basically 75%. At that time, we speaking about the research that was done in summer this year, that 75% of the infrastructure was damaged, and 50% of the telecommunication infrastructure was totally destroyed. That does not exist. We assume that since then the level of destruction is even much worse. So this is where we are now, we are at a situation where there’s a whole destruction of the telecommunication. And we know the impact, I mean, the humanitarian impact, how connectivity is a lifeline in the crisis, how families cannot call their loved one to make sure that they are okay, they cannot call for hospitals, for help. Even people who were under the rubble and need some time to call when they are in that situation for help, they cannot do this. So you can imagine how much this is a devastating situation that people cannot call for any kind of help, cannot communicate with their families in times of crisis, in times where this communication is most needed. I think it’s important really to think about what’s happening on the broader context, because if this is being a precedent, and in wartime, countries and governments like the Israeli government can do this, this probably will be repeated in other places, because I think many things and many borders and limits that we were used to be respected in the international law, in the international humanitarian law are being broke by Israel and violated by the Israeli government. I think we also need to think what’s the impact globally on other wars, on other conflict zones, when such thing happen in the future, and why collectively we need to think about mechanisms, how we can stop that, how we can prevent this, their situation from happening in other places. I think for Gazans, there’s a need for obviously for ceasefire to stop the attack, to stop the genocide, to stop the war. But beyond that, there are immediate solutions that need to be given to Gazans in order to overcome the right now situation, specifically when we speak about emergency people, specifically when we speak about journalists and media people who need the connection. So E-SIMS was and still one of the solutions, and there are other technical solutions that the telecom company, the Palestinian company, speaking about like cells on wheels and other kind of technical solution. But obviously there’s a need for long-term solution, and I think it’s really important to emphasize when we speak about the future, and hopefully the day after when there will be ceasefire, that there will be a reconstruction of the Palestinian telecommunication sector, that this telecommunication sector will get the newest technologies in order to move on. One thing that I did not mention at the beginning, that we’re speaking about the telecom infrastructure in Gaza that was destroyed, but this telecom infrastructure that was destroyed, we are talking about second generation, right? I think Gaza before the war was one of the last places on the globe having only second generation. So the need now is basically that the international community will put enough pressure that there will be a reconstruction after the ceasefire also on the telecom, and that Israel will allow the newest technology to enter Gaza to be rebuilt and to make sure that the people there are reconnecting, and there is a long-term solution happening there. Again, I think many people spoke about Palestine and what was happening in Palestine as one kind of one big laboratory in terms of surveillance, in terms of infrastructure, but what’s happening there is really something that is impacting globally. It’s not only a Palestinian’s problem. Lots of the impact there, lots of the precedent that’s happening in Gaza, unfortunately, we will see them in other places if we don’t put the right mechanisms to stop that and to have enough pressure on Israel to stop the war on their side. Thank you for having me.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Nadim, for that. Peter, I’ve been kind of kicked out of the Zoom, or my Zoom is frozen, so I’m relying on you to watch what happens online. I mean, we’ve talked about shutouts, we’ve talked about the destruction of infrastructure. I’m not sure, Lama, I was so busy with the tech issues. If you mentioned sanctions, because I think that’s another form of excluding people, such as in the case of Sudan, which has been not just impacted by war and conflict, but also for a long time by sanctions, which has made people not able to access certain applications and services. But, Sharif, I wanted you to talk about climate change, and specifically the situation of small island developing states, who are incredibly vulnerable to cyclones, to other forms of disruptions, tsunamis. How does that kind of, when you have one fiber-optic cable link, how does that affect people if it’s disrupted?
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks for that, Sharif. Let’s talk a little bit now about what the Normative Framework is that exists. Unfortunately, Madeline Carr cannot join us. She’s having an issue with her registration. But we have Ambassador Norman and Lama Yu as well. But starting with you, Ambassador, you are part of, the Dutch government has come I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about the multistakeholder community, the multistakeholder community, which is currently chairing the Freedom Online Coalition. I know this is an issue that you have looked at, and also, the Netherlands introduced this idea of the norm to protect the public core of the Internet. What do you feel we have within this multistakeholder community from a normative framework that gives guidelines? Well, the norm of the public core, I think, is very clear. It says that no state or non-state actor should interfere with the public core of the Internet. And it says then explicitly, it defines that public core as including transmission media, naming and numbering systems, as critical Internet resources. But from your perspective, what do we have from a normative, at the level of normative frameworks? And what do we have from a multistakeholder community? And what do we have from a multistakeholder community?
Ernst Noorman: Thank you. Thank you very much for also mentioning the public core, which was indeed a concept introduced by the Netherlands in 2015. But actually, I also have to talk about the UN, because we talk a lot right now also in the so-called open-ended working world, but also, I want to talk a little bit about the open-ended working world. So, as I mentioned, we know that the UN, the older states, have established several non-binding norms on the responsible state behavior in cyberspace. And these 11 norms have been endorsed by the General Assembly. And are part of a framework of the responsible state behavior in cyberspace. And these 11 norms have been endorsed by the General Assembly. And these 11 norms have been endorsed by the General Assembly. And these 11 norms have to do with critical infrastructure. First, states that, first, it states that states should not conduct or knowingly support ICT activity contrary to its obligations on the international law that intentionally damages critical infrastructure. And according to the third norm, states should respond to appropriate requests for assistance by another state whose critical infrastructure is subject to malicious ICT acts. Now, what’s interesting is that norms, that while norms provide that it’s up to states to designate the national critical infrastructure, which is kind of logic, you know, like the Netherlands, for us, the Port of Rotterdam is critical, while for Switzerland, of course, it’s critical. And, of course, the port is less important. So, yeah, it depends really on the country itself. But they do include as examples of critical infrastructure, the technical infrastructure essential to the general availability or integrity of the Internet. And while these norms are nonbinding, they do articulate a clear expectation by the international community with regard to the behavior of states. So, the first step is to designate the critical infrastructure, which is the critical infrastructure, and for the normative framework to be valuable, it needs to be implemented effectively. And effective implementation means complementary initiatives and enhance each organization and stakeholders to support the resilience of critical infrastructure, also in time of conflict. So, the second step is to designate the critical infrastructure, which is the critical infrastructure, and for the technical community, also part of the FOC, by the way, the Freedom Online Coalition. Of course, these organizations in charge of the functioning of the Internet have a role in ensuring a resilient infrastructure and general availability in the integrity of the Internet. Now, who should better understand what is needed other than these organizations? The first step is to designate the critical infrastructure, which is the critical infrastructure, and for the technical community, it needs to be implemented effectively. And I briefly, I believe that there’s an important role for the ITU in coordinating responses, which is probably a lesser-known function of the ITU. They do important work in disaster relief, but also in crisis, such as in Ukraine and Gaza, and we need collective expertise in coalitions, but also in multilateral agreements, and for now my colleague zenie who’s in the room, I shall introduce him to you very shortly. So, at the third chair, my name is
Anriette Esterhuysen:
Ernst Noorman: My name is off. I’m a member of the European Union, and I’m a member of the European Union, and I’m a member of the European Union, and I would like to share with you a little bit about how we as a European Union can contribute as a advisory body, and further thinking on ensuring how submarine cables can be protected, how they can become more resilient, and how we can quicker repair also in case of malfunctioning or damaging the submarine cables, and how we can make sure that they are protected. Now, most importantly also with technical organizations such as ITU, but also ICANN and NCC and other regional organizations need to remain neutral for them to be able to function effectively. They also mean for all of us that we need to show some restraint in asking these organizations to intervene in functioning of the public core of the Internet, or the global digital networks that carry out data. So you talk about sanctions, but on this level, we say you should leave them, do their neutral work to protect the core of the Internet, to make sure that, indeed, human rights workers, activists, journalists, healthcare workers, can keep working on and using the Internet. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you, Ambassador Dohm. You actually make it sound so clear and simple, and yet we know in practice it’s not. But, Lama, are there human rights norms and international human rights law that applies in these contexts?
Lama Fakih: Thank you. And in parallel to the normative frameworks that the Ambassador clearly laid out, we have a lso the legal frameworks of international human rights law and humanitarian law. And under international human rights law, governments have an obligation to ensure that Internet-based restrictions and attacks on infrastructure are both necessary and proportionate to a very specific security concern. General shutdowns and attacks on infrastructure violate multiple rights, including the rights of the freedom of expression and information, and hinder other rights, like the right to freedom of assembly. In their 2015 joint declaration on freedom of expression and responses to conflict situations, United Nations experts and rapporteurs declared that, even in times of conflict, using communications kill switches can never be justified unless there is an international human rights law. And, as a result of the international human rights law, constitutional human rights law. And, even in times of conflict, using communications kill switches can never be justified under human rights law. Multiple UN resolutions have condemned intentional disruption of Internet access, and they call on states to refrain from carrying them out, including during conflict. And now, when it comes to the laws of war, while computer warfare is an important part of the international human rights law, it is also an important part of the international human rights law. And, as was specifically addressed in the Geneva conventions, the basic principles and rules on the methods and means of warfare remain applicable. That means that attacks must be targeted against military objectives. They can neither be indiscriminate nor arbitrary. And, the principle of necessity under human rights law is likely to be unlawfully disproportionate, whether carried out by airstrikes or cyber warfare. The principle of necessity under human rights law permits measures that accomplish a legitimate military objective that are not otherwise prohibited by international humanitarian law. But, shutting down the Internet may serve a legitimate military objective. The principle of proportionality prohibits actions in which the expected civilian harm is excessive in relation to the military advantage. And we know that Internet and phone shutdowns and attacks on critical infrastructure can cause considerable harm to the civilian population, including leading to death and injury by preventing civilians from communicating with each other around safety considerations. They also hinder the work of journalists and human rights monitors, who can provide information on the situation on the ground, including reporting of possible laws of war as violations. And, importantly, the restrictions hamper the ability of humanitarian agencies to assess and provide assistance to populations at risk. The lack of information regarding the conditions and circumstances of human rights violations is a problem. And, as I said, the principle of proportionality prohibits actions in which the expected civilian harm is excessive in relation to the military advantage. may also increase the likelihood of injury and death. I think this is very acute in the in the case of Gaza which Nadeem has also laid out for us. A complete shutdown of internet and phone communications to large areas can also amount to a form of collective punishment by imposing penalties on people without a clear legal basis. And with regard to the ITU, article 34 of the ITU’s constitution on the stoppage of telecommunications gives license to ITU member countries to block telecommunications in quote which may appear dangerous to the security of the state or contrary to its laws to public order or to decency end quote. While article 35 on the suspension of services gives member states quote the right to suspend the International Telecommunication Service. These articles have been invoked by some states as granting legal authority to block communications including to implement internet shutdowns. These provisions must however be applied together with and subject to the additional obligations that states have under international human rights law to respect the rights of freedom of expression and other applicable rights. Both the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association have called on states to consider revising those provisions in order to align them explicitly with international human rights standards. The Special Rapporteur has also recommended that the ITU issue guidance clarifying that those provisions should never be understood as authorizing internet shutdowns. In a welcome move the ITU did take the historic step of condemning the communications blackout in Gaza and called for life-saving access to networks to be restored there.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much for that Lama and I mean it’s actually I think really notable that there is an elaborate body of international laws and norms that do apply in these contexts. Before I open it to the audience I want to ask Peter, Nadim and our panelists in the room if you have anything to add before we move on to the next segment which will be looking at alternatives and responses. But anything to add at this point or any questions you have for one another? Anyone from the audience with a question? If you have a question you have to move to the front to the stage and Peter if you can solicit comments online please.
Peter Micek: Definitely we do have comments online talking about the alarming trend of internet shutdowns including during critical times like protests, elections and civil unrest. If I could use my prerogative I would just add that those ITU rules even do require some process, some procedural requirements that states notify the ITU for example of the disruptions and the reason for the temporary stoppage and blockage in telecoms and often these procedural these procedural requirements are not followed and you’ll see that even in states that do allow for internet shutdowns under law that they’re often not followed according to procedure and so there’s no notice to the population of the reason, of the duration, the extent of the blocking and yeah as a lawyer personally that has given courts the opportunity to step in and say you may have this power but you are not exercising it according to the methods and the protocols set out in law. So just one more aspect. Ambassador Norman and then Korto.
Ernst Noorman: Thank you. One point I would like to add because I didn’t go into the Freedom Online Coalition actually which we’re chairing this year maybe not all knows about the Freedom Online Coalition but it’s a coalition that exists since 2011 and that is a coalition of countries including also an advisory network of NGOs, academia but also the private sector in how to protect human rights online and we are chairing this year the Human Rights Coalition and now we have we added four members this year and now we are 42 member coalition and the the objective is to to strengthen ourselves also in the discussions at mainly UN level like now also with the WSIS plus 20 process with the angle of human rights how to protect the internet how to protect the open accessibility and operability of the internet the freedom on the net is an extremely important topic and also internet shutdowns has been discussed time and again also what’s how to bring it about also in the international discussions to see to ensure more responsible behavior of states as you know Lama already indicated also in her contribution on the rules which already exist on keeping the communication lines open we did a lot of effort also in the GDC to ensure a strong language also on the on the internet shutdowns we were looking for stronger language stronger linkage to to international law in the end that was not part of it but it was indeed that internet shutdown should be avoided but we are very much aware as a freedom online coalition we have to continue working on that it’s it’s not an issue that’s been settled in actually the freedom on the net report of Freedom House has showed it has been on the increase unfortunately thank you
Anriette Esterhuysen: thanks ambassador.
Kojo Boakye : Yet thanks for the interventions from my esteemed colleagues on the right and the overview from Peter a couple of things I wanted to point out in part because I’ve been I feel like I’ve been part of this WSIS process since 2005 and a crew and along that and along those years I’ve learned quite a lot from listening to people I think we broadly use the term internet shutdowns and there may be some people who are less learned that might think the whole place it goes dark I also want to point out there are partial internet shutdowns that arguably just as challenging or if not more so in some cases especially when you see particular apps or particular parts of the internet which are used for freedom of expression and exercising human rights I think the other piece that’s really important as well and I’ve sometimes we forget about it and I have to remind people not that many need reminding that there are so many people still offline so Peter’s great overview I think spoke about 1.1 billion people in abject poverty and 50% of those people being subject to their infrastructure or whatever being out of place it’s important to remind ourselves that despite the huge effort and impact we’ve had in connecting people so many people still remain offline and actually many of the problems we’ve spoken about especially with regard to sustainability and the challenges that come from that actually amount to people being in abject poverty not being connected not being able to get jobs and actually destroying parts of the ecosystem themselves as a result as they seek to eke out a life so I just wanted to point that out but I felt the opening comments were fantastic.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks Kodjo that’s always important for us to acknowledge we have two speakers from from the audience and introduce yourself and be brief.
Audience: Hello my name is JJ I come from New York City and I run an internet resilience research firm. This is one of the most robust conversations I’ve heard from this forum on the concept of shutdowns and you guys mentioned some really good points one gentleman I believe the Dutch man Dutch ambassador mentioned e-sims and then there was also discussion about COP and energy my question would be that I’ve lived through an internet shutdown I’m from Tigray and I’ve experienced what it looks like from a diasporic perspective to be shut off from your community so my question would be if we accept that the internet infrastructure is tied to the power infrastructure and we accept that e-sims in Gaza have allowed for still a constant live streaming of the atrocities then do you feel that as a coalition the UN and various member states have a duty to their citizens who are from those regions that they have encouraged to emigrate to their countries for various economic benefits and support do they have a duty to focus on e-sims and power infrastructure because their citizens deserve the ability to connect and communicate with their family members in these in these shutdowns regions and how do you see a coalition that actually focuses on these nation-states duty to their citizens to get involved in these conversations thank you thanks JJ the
Anriette Esterhuysen: Next person.
Audience: Thank you my name is Khaled Mansour I serve on meta oversight board as Lama made clear we have enough body of international human rights law to oblige countries not to cut the internet services especially when there are dire consequences humanitarian and not only human rights but humanitarian and lives of people who which are lost now the question is that there’s no enforcement or enforceability of this big body of international human rights law and also states and rightly so maybe still have the sovereign right to take decisions using other elements of the international law to justify that and I guess my question to Lama and maybe to Nadim and others what would be the way out in in light of the lack of enforceable We’ve got to find a new device, the basic of the platform, which is scared of slow development, mechanisms, but secondly in lack of a technical solution that probably will happen in a few years where Internet access will not be subject to sovereign authority. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Lama, one was directed to you, Nadim but anyone else want to comment on that?
Lama Fakih: I think issues around compliance with international human rights law are always a challenge. We do need to see enforcement from, you know, other countries. And in the context of Internet shutdowns, I mean, these are abuses that often take place in the context of other violations that are also being perpetrated. So, the government of Iraq may be using excessive force against the people of Iraq, but they’re also using excessive force against protesters. And the actions in response to that that stakes can take are varied, and they can include things like targeted sanctions, in some cases, stopping providing military assistance, condemnation, but also accountability does need to be a critical component of this, and, you know, we have seen in the context of war crimes that are being perpetrated, and we have seen with the crisis in Gaza, that there has been a real crisis in enforcement, and ensuring that there are accountability for crimes, but, at the same time, there are judicial processes that are moving forward, that I think we need to support and invest in, and collectively use our influence with other governments to use their legislation. So, I think, you know, we need to make sure that we’re using our influence, and we need to use our leverage to ensure more rights-respecting practice.
Ernst Noorman: Thank you, also, for that, those easy questions, and I felt, indeed, as one of the speakers said, that we have a lot of dialogue, a lot of diplomacy, and diplomacy means negotiation, but also a lot of dialogue, and enforcement of voluntary norms, or international law, has always been a challenge, but it doesn’t mean we are excluded from responsibility to really have serious, in-depth consultations with other countries. We, for instance, have, from my perspective, a lot of dialogue, and I think, you know, we need to make sure that we don’t exclude other countries, and especially also in the position of the chair of the Freedom Online Coalition, I always felt it rather actually easy to bring up a subject like human rights online, internet shutdowns, and our concerns, if that would happen in a certain country, and then, you know, ask a question, what they think about it, and I think also what Lama said, I think, you know, we are not excluded from responsibility, and we have to be able to do that, and I think that’s also the reason why we have such an argument for governments, and for me, then, to present those arguments, that it’s actually counterproductive, such a measure, but it’s, in the end, also, you know, in this world, it’s complicated, we have different interests, different views on topics, but it’s our role as diplomats to try to convince each other. » Thank you.
Peter Micek: We have a hand online. Nadim, can you come in?
Nadim Nassif: I think the main issue of the main one here is accountability, and it’s clearly that there’s a lack of accountability to governments and states who are violating, specifically when we are talking about the Gaza and the Israeli government, that is not being held accountable. I think, for me, as a Palestinian, it’s very sad to see the double standard that’s happening in this aspect, because the enforcement that happened when the Russians invaded and occupied Ukraine was very clear, it did not include negotiation, there was very clear opposition, also from governments, but also from companies, by the way, companies that were connected to that crisis in a very decisive way, in a way that they blocked certain content, allowed certain content, companies like Starlink and others suggested help and gave help, not in a conditional way. This was totally the opposite when it comes to the Palestinians and when it comes to the Israeli government and how we deal. And I think this is just, we learn from this that there is a lack of accountability in the way that some of the Western companies and some of the Western governments are dealing with the situation. I’m not saying that this was not, it’s great that it happened in Ukraine and it’s great that there was a decisive approach. The problem that this approach does not happen in the global majority countries when there’s a tragedy, a conflict, a genocide. I mean, I’m speaking about Palestine, but I can speak about other places and how those people who are supposed to be protecting democracy and human rights values and enforcing did not have any clear state or any clear action in those cases.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Nadim, for mentioning that. And I think that’s one of the issues we want to address in this session. How do we have a more coherent, consistent response, both in terms of international and international humanitarian law, but also from the Internet global multi-stakeholder community? Let’s now move on to, did you want to add something there quickly?
Lama Fakih: Quickly. I feel we didn’t respond to JJ’s question. And I just wanted to say I think in some respects the answer to Internet shutdowns has been, the response has been more from private sector engagement in terms of trying to find solutions for people on the ground. And I hear you in what you’re saying in terms of what more can states do to ensure that their residents or their citizens are able to maintain connectivity with others where they’re suffering from Internet shutdowns. But I do think it’s a space where innovative solutions coming from the private sector can really also reinforce what governments are doing to try to keep people connected. And I think, you know, looking at how ESIMs have been used in Gaza, but also thinking about how people have tried to circumvent shutdowns in places like Iran, there needs to be a strong alliance there in terms of thinking through the solutions.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Lama. Yes, what responses? Let’s move on to this. Khodro, to start with you, what are the alternatives? How do private sector companies, how can they respond? What are the concrete technical, operational and policy measures? And I see Peter is just also adding a question here. Can international laws regarding to shutdowns be taken to international courts?
Kojo Boakye : I mean, I think, Lama, you implied, yes, we can. But, Khodro, yes, the private sector, how does it respond and how can it respond in such contexts? I like to think that our approach and effort to responding is comprehensive, despite some of the challenges that people have outlined, not only in their comments, but also in their questions. I think as you spoke, you asked about policy. So, for us as a company, we have founded our work on human rights principles. We have a global human rights policy. We’re part of the global network initiative alongside other companies. We have the UN guiding principles on business and human rights as well that all our work is founded in. And I think having that mainstreamed into the company, not just within policy teams and not those teams that just focus on human rights, but into everything we do in terms of product development as well, is a super important start. And then I think it’s about analyzing some of those issues. The short-term shocks we have in terms of total Internet shutdowns and partial Internet shutdowns that I mentioned where particular services or parts of the Internet are shut down is something we’ve been thinking about for a long time. I think Lama just spoke about what do we do when governments, when governments shut down the Internet? I think the example was Iran. But we could cite a number of other governments who have sought to shut down the Internet either by destroying infrastructure or in some cases phoning mobile operators and telling them to turn the service off. We can think about how we might continue to deliver services to ensure that people don’t remain voiceless. One of the steps we’ve taken is with WhatsApp, for example, which I think everybody here I assume has used. We’ve built a proxy service to WhatsApp where volunteers and others around the world set up servers to enable people to continue using a version of WhatsApp that enables them in places like Iran to carry on connecting with people, to carry on delivering services and help and sharing information about what’s going on. I think that’s important. But I think I’ve also been struck by the fact that the way we’ve approached infrastructure. So one of the challenges that a number of people on the panel have mentioned, the challenges we have around infrastructure, certainly submarine cables, this was a vivid example where submarine cables are cut. I am heartened by the fact that our most recent builds like 2Africa, the longest submarine cable in the world, the first to connect east to west, west to east of Africa, however you want to do it, more connected to Africa. I can give you all the talk. I can give you all the talk. I can give you all the talk. to the point that I was just making, and I think that’s a really important point. I think we have a lot of different talking points, but what I’m heartened by is the fact that we buried that cable more than 50% deeper than other submarine cables or submarine cables are normally buried, in part because we’re trying to ensure that the cuts that we have seen, and my own family have suffered from in Ghana, when SAP free is cut and suddenly the Internet is cut off for five days as they seek to go to the other end of the world. So, I think that’s a really comprehensive approach to dealing with things. And then in the midst of crisis, I think there are ways, and I think we’ve spoken about a range of crisis, one, conflict, which obviously we’ve seen affect infrastructure and services everywhere, but also natural disasters, and I think in those instances, and most recently, I can think of earthquakes in Morocco, Turkey, devastating earthquakes everywhere, but certainly more devastating than some we might see in Turkey or in the Middle East, and I think that’s a really important approach to dealing with those. But I think that’s also a way of working with disaster agencies, sharing data for good with agencies like disaster relief to enable people to be helped in the way those disaster agencies do, and also sharing some of our network insights with some of our private sector partners in the mobile industry. Where is your network damaged most? How should you be routing particular traffic to ensure that people can stay connected? And how do you build networks that are more resilient to shocks? And how do you build networks that are more resilient to disruptive policy, and how do you mainstream that into the company? How do we work in the midst of crisis or Internet shutdowns as they happen, i.e., the WhatsApp proxy? And then thinking about the future, how do we build networks that are more resilient to the kind of shocks? And then for companies like ours that have a range of data that could be used to support people in the way that they do, how do we build networks that are more resilient to the kind of shocks? And how do we do that in a compliant way, but certainly how do we share that with organizations who are best placed to help? And I think we’ve done all of that, but there is, for us and many of our competitors, as well as our partners in government and civil society, much, much, much more work to do.
Anriette Esterhuysen: And thanks, Gordian. Just a follow-up question on that. I’m not sure if it’s a question of collaboration, but I’m just wondering, is there a collaborative mechanism of some kind between different private sector corporations?
Kojo Boakye : Yeah, I mean, META has always been about partnership. The keep-it-on initiative that Peter described is not news to us. We’ve been a key part of that and continue to be. We continue to work with, as I mentioned, NGOs, and any other kind of partners. Our infrastructure builds. We have a lot of partners in the private sector. We have a lot of partners in the civil society. We have a lot of partners in the civil society, et cetera, et cetera. So we will continue to approach it in this way through partnership. We think that’s key. And then in the context of these current conflicts, the conflict in Gaza, the conflict in the war in Russia and Ukraine, what measures have you taken in the Gaza context, for example? I think we have a range of partners looking at that. We have sought to keep voice and expression open when possible. I know there are a number of allegations about what ourselves and many other companies have done, but we have a team dedicated, not only our global human rights team, but also within my team, a community engagement and action team that is dedicated to continue engaging with those on the ground. If I gave you more insights into the work we’ve done with journalists, we know how many journalists have been killed in this conflict, and with other organisations on the ground, it would take far too much time. But we are proud of the work we’ve done, but clearly, as I said earlier, have much more work to do in this conflict, as you’ve mentioned, the Ukrainian conflict, and the other conflict that I have to stress, we should not forget, the conflict in Sudan at the moment as well, in which 12, more than 12 million people have been displaced, and we continue to work hard on that as well.
Anriette Esterhuysen: In fact, we have many Sudanese participants here at the IJF, so it’s good to hear from them as well. Cynthia, I want to turn to you, because I think one of the most significant responses, at least from the inter-governmental sector, has been the ITU Council resolution on assistance to Palestine in restoring infrastructure, and I think it’s been very significant that certainly from where I am, I look at this issue, we’ve probably had a more public and a more deliberate response from the inter-governmental community than from the multi-stakeholder community, which I think is a challenge to the IJF, but tell us a bit about that resolution, how it came about, and how you see it having an impact.
Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you, and I also want to take this opportunity to thank the organisers to give us this opportunity to come and speak here. Perhaps the first thing that one would want to highlight in terms of the role of the ITU in as far as the issue of Palestine is concerned is to firstly look at the preamble of the ITU constitution, which is quite clear in terms of the increasing significance of the telecommunications and the economic and social development of all nations, and the convention of the ITU goes further to state that its objective is to facilitate the development of telecommunications services, and also to provide the widespread benefit of new telecommunications technologies, and also to facilitate the development of new telecommunications technologies for all people around the globe. And, earlier on, we heard about the persisting digital divide that the world continues to experience, and maybe just to give specific numbers in terms of what the ITU has published to date in terms of the people who are on the internet, which is about 5.5 billion people who are online, which then would give us an estimate of about 68 per cent of the global population online. However, this does not mean that our problems are over, and I’m talking from the point of view of ITU, is that the digital divide persists to really haunt all of us. And, having said that, you mentioned that the ITU has been adopted a resolution, a council resolution, but perhaps there’s a need to also mention that before the adoption of the council resolution this year in 2024, the ITU have actually adopted a plan for building of the telecommunication infrastructure in countries which are in need. For instance, there’s a plenipotentiary conference which the ITU adopted, which is resolution 125, which, among others, is calling for a framework of activities by the three sectors of the ITU to continue and enhance in order to provide the assistance and the support to Palestine for building and developing its infrastructure. And, it is also, that resolution is also calling to enable Palestine to urgently extend and install and own and manage its own fibre and broadband telecommunication networks, and including fibre optics links between governments and major states. But, in addition to that, there’s another plenipotentiary resolution that the ITU has adopted, which is on assisting and supporting countries in special need for building their telecommunication sector. And, that resolution, in particular, it resolves that the special action undertaken by the General Secretary of the ITU and the Director of the Development Bureau with special assistance from the Radio Communication Bureau of the ITU and the standardisation sector should continue to be activated in order to provide appropriate assistance and support to countries in special need, referred to, there is an annexure to that resolution which lists all the countries that need assistance in terms of rebuilding their telecommunication infrastructure. But, again, as you’ve said, the ITU recently in its Council of 2024 adopted the ITU Council resolution, which is a new resolution in addition to what I’ve mentioned. And, the resolution, it is actually calling for continued assisting in the monitoring and providing regular reports on particular needs of Palestine in the field of telecommunication and to prepare proposals for effective technical assistance. And, among other things, that resolution resolves to direct or to instruct the directors of the three sectors of the ITU particularly to monitor and provide regular reports on particular needs of Palestine in the field of telecommunication and to prepare proposals for effective technical assistance. And, in addition to that, to carry out the assessment on the impact of the war in Palestine on ITU programmes and activities in the region and to provide the report to the Council. And thirdly, that resolution calls to ensure adequate financial and human resource mobilization, including under the budget of the ITU and the Information Communication Technology Development Fund for the implementation of the actions that are proposed by the number of ITU resolutions. And with this, it is quite clear that the ITU is really, and its members, is trying to put together the resolutions that are guiding its membership to ensure that the problems that are currently experienced in Gaza and any other country as a result of the devastating wars and the conflict that are happening in the world, the ITU is actually putting in place measures and procedures to ensure that those countries, they rebuild their telecommunication infrastructure. And I think I’ll stop at this. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot for that, Cynthia. And, you know, I think it’s also worth us looking and sharing if there are people in the audience or online from the internet technical community that have engaged in similar initiatives to respond and assist, to share that as well. Because I would assume also, Cynthia, that implementing that resolution will require collaboration. Not, you know, ITU member states are not going to be able to do that on their own. They’d have to work with the private sector, they’d have to work with national ministries, civil society and the technical community. But I want to hand over to Peter here. My battery is also running out. Any comments online that we should share? Any questions you have? Before we go into our final segment, we’re just looking at what can this community do to help get us to a more concrete place of securing access and infrastructure?
Peter Micek: Thank you so much. I do want to follow up on that great presentation of the work at the International Telecommunication Union. It’s really been remarkable and heartening to see that really swift action across the ITU in response to the conflict and the war in Gaza. And as you say, coming out with coordination programs that are applicable across many situations of conflict and crisis. So building on that, I wanted to ask what coordination should we expect from humanitarian aid agencies to provide populations they serve with access to the internet or to secure and open communications tools? Now, I know, you know, in Sudan, for example, most agencies have trouble fulfilling their missions of accessing people in need. And in those places, there are citizen led mutual aid groups standing up to play a role in ensuring access. While in Gaza, as we’ve heard, there are restrictions on the transfer of telecoms, hardware and assets to those in need. So what can we expect and what should we expect from these aid agencies?
Anriette Esterhuysen: Anyone wanting to respond to that? Cynthia? Lama? Kodjo, did you not hear the question? The question is what response from the international humanitarian agencies? Is that right, Peter? And you can repeat the question.
Peter Micek: Okay. Sure. So I was noting that in places like Sudan, humanitarian aid agencies are having trouble accessing the population in need. And their mutual aid groups have played a role in providing access to the internet. In Gaza, there are restrictions on transferring telecoms hardware to populations in need. In these situations, what should we expect of humanitarian and aid agencies to fulfill their mission of protection of civilians and the provision of aid? Should we expect them to provide access to the internet and secure telecoms?
Anriette Esterhuysen: I would say I think some of them try to do that. I think the International Red Cross and Red Crescent does try to do that. I think, can they do it alone? I think that is very, very difficult for them to do. I think they recognize that they need to do that, but it’s extremely difficult for them to do that. And not all of them have the capacity to do that. But Cynthia, I see you wanted to add that. Yes.
Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you. Earlier on, you said that in terms of the implementation of some of the resolutions that the ITU have adopted, it’s not easy to implement them. And that’s quite… You are quite correct. It’s not easy at all. And you pointed out to the continuation of the multi-stakeholder approach in terms of implementing some of this. And now I’m talking from the ITU perspective and trying to respond to the question is that I think from the ITU, as Ambassador has mentioned before, we are operating in a very… It’s a diplomatic environment and the decisions that we take are based on consensus based. And the continuous deliberation is quite important. So for the ITU, if I were to talk from that perspective, we believe in continuous facilitation of cross stakeholder dialogue towards co creating and aligning around common agenda for action and advocacy regarding the non fragmentation of the internet infrastructure during conflict. And from where we are standing as ITU member states is that this will ensure combining and leveraging the complementary roles and diverse capabilities of larger stakeholders and promote that inclusive participation in protecting the internet infrastructure. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Cynthia. Lama, do you want to add? Just briefly also, I mean, to respond, Peter, to your question.
Lama Fakih: I think governments have an obligation to facilitate deliveries of humanitarian assistance. And when they are encumbering internet access, they are encumbering those operations in unlawful ways. And I think there will be humanitarian agencies that do seek to provide connectivity for their staff and in the communities where they’re operating so that they can deliver on their mission. It’s not their obligation to do so. And I think what can help is the monitoring of the impact that the lack of connectivity also has on the delivery of assistance, because that also helps to underline where the government is also not adhering to its obligations under the law.
Kojo Boakye : Everything that Lama said, and then I think it’s not… I asked for a repeat of the question, but very mindful that it doesn’t feel like my place to call on humanitarian agencies to do much more than we at Metta see them doing already. We’ve supplied ad credits to a number of humanitarian agencies working on all the conflicts that you’ve mentioned and more. WhatsApp has become a key tool for many humanitarian agencies, and we see the effort they go to. I think some of the comments that have been made about the breakdown of the response of the international community to many of these crises probably highlight some of the challenges they face, and it would be great to have someone from that particular community, the disaster agency response community on this panel to speak to it. But thanks for repeating the question.
Anriette Esterhuysen: In fact, we did have real interest from Philippe Stoll from the Red Cross to be here, but he was not able to participate. They actually do very significant work in this field. I see there’s a question. I don’t know if they are online hands, Peter, but I see two people. Please go ahead briefly, introduce yourself and ask your question.
Audience: Thank you. My name is Michel Lambert. I’m working with the Canadian organization called Equality. We are dedicated to build alternative technology, particularly to respond to Internet shutdowns, network disruption, and we also manage the SplinterCon process. I hope most of you know it. The SplinterCon process is gathering every meeting, like hundreds of people with new technologies, particularly to respond to those situations. The last edition was last week in Berlin. My comment is, I mean, we have all kinds of technologies and they’re working, working well, working not well, but globally speaking, we are not having access to the resource to implement them properly as the political side or the big private sector is struggling to find ways to respond to the issues. We’re not having really… We could play a role there, but we’re still maintaining some sort of the margin. We just have some sort of resource to small project. It’s looking nice, it’s fun, but then at the end of the day, we’re not responding to the crisis to the level that we could eventually do it. So I feel that’s a bit of a lost opportunity that the world is having here and that we could engage more, particularly in… crisis where we know that tomorrow there’ll be another situation and we still are not involving, engaging enough to to use the resource that we have. So I’m just, it’s a call. We are here, that community is here, it’s an alternative to response and we could eventually contribute more if there would be some means to engage with us. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks Michel and I think we’re going to come back to you how this community can respond soon. The next speaker please.
Audience: Yes, hi everyone. My name is Mike Walton. I’m from the United Nations Refugee Agency. I just want to flag up the Connectivity for Refugees project that we work on and that is truly a multi-stakeholder approach and working with ITU, GSMA and many governments on this. So connectivity in crisis is critical. As soon as a connected then information is critical. We have 14 million refugees visiting our help websites. Without that access they would not be able to have access to that information. But I also want to flag up that as soon as those connectivity and those communication channels are up, they can also be the subject of misuse and across the multiple languages and the multiple platforms that exist, it’s a question to the panel. How can we make sure that we can moderate and we can ensure content policies are properly policed or managed when there are so many different languages and so many different capacities in place and what’s the balance between the people role in this and what’s the balance between the AI role in that if there is one at all?
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks for that. We actually fairly deliberately did not want to delve into content moderation because it is in itself such a challenging issue. But I’m gonna let Peter take over from me right now and I see Nadim has his
Peter Micek: hand up. Yes, just before there’s some comments in the chat about also an initiative in Ukraine of operators trying to provide hardware and support to keep the internet working. There’s also concern about states asserting kind of sovereignty and sovereign rights and to push back against I think efforts to serve populations in their states. So yeah, Nadim, please take it away.
Nadim Nassif: Thank you, Peter. I just wanted to add something. I know that you, Henriette, said you don’t want to get into content moderation, but just to say that it’s important also to speak about access on platforms, access that is a responsibility of the companies because we are speaking about physical infrastructure and to get the access through them. But what would happen if you do have the internet access but the platform is deplatforming you or preventing you from using it? And we saw this in social media platforms, including Meta, that is deplatforming and restricting accounts during the war in Palestine and in other places, not allowing newsworthiness, not allowing journalists to do their job, not allowing also human rights defenders to document the violations that are happening on the ground. But this is not only social media issue, this is also a payment platform, digital payment platform. We know that paper, for example, a major one, is not allowing certain countries to use its platform and this is very problematic. We know that there are crowdfunding platforms that have been deplatforming certain people when they try to make donations for Gaza or for other places. So just to say that it’s not only about the infrastructure, we need also to speak about the access that people have or do not have from which countries, especially when it comes to the global majority, that they are either not allowed to use this platform or even when they are on the platform, they are being deplatformed. And I think this is also an important issue to deal with.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Peter, anyone online that wants to respond? Anyone here that wants to respond? I think this gets at the fragmentation discussions a bit that we’ve seen previous internet governance forums. And also the IGF has the policy network on internet fragmentation, which I think has one of the aspects of their work that I think is very significant, is their highlighting of the fragmentation of user experience, which is something we can’t underestimate. Any of the panelists want to add anything before we go into our what next segment? Any other questions from the room? I saw a comment earlier in the Zoom, while I was still in the Zoom, with someone expressing concern that there’s also harmful use of infrastructure, or infrastructure can be used, or internet infrastructure can be used by people with bad intentions. I think that’s actually important point, but I want to come back because I think Lama covered that. And I was part of the Global Stability Commission, or Global Stability of Cybers… Global Commission Stability of Cyber States, who worked with the public core norm. And our conclusion was, is that when it comes to the internet, it’s very difficult to isolate what part of that infrastructure is being used by hospitals, by aid workers, as opposed to what’s being used by bad actors. And I think your point, Lama, about proportionality is very, very relevant here. And I think this notion that it’s legitimate to disrupt or destroy internet infrastructure, because bad actors are using it, I think illustrates how disproportional a response that is. But I think there was a… Peter, am I right?
Peter Micek: There was a comment to that effect in the chat. Yes, definitely, that under the guise of protecting internet infrastructure, states could be protecting combatants, or protecting their own sovereignty in ways that are ultimately harmful, or malicious even.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Well, let’s move on, if nobody is going to add anything. I think I also just want to recognize that we have probably not done justice to the range of responses, and alternatives, and solutions that are being developed by businesses, by civil society organizations, relief organizations, activists, national governments, local governments. I think there is a lot happening also in the internet technical community, but I think it’s very fragmented, and it’s very hard for us, I think, to see those responses connect to normative frameworks, and application and compliance of international law, and of voluntary norms. But let’s now think about the internet governance multi stakeholder community that comes together here at the IGF. And panelists, what do you think this community should be done? I think you all made it quite clear that the gap is not really at the level of norms, or is there a gap at norms, if you want to highlight that. What do you think the IGF can do, and participants in the IGF community from the internet technical community, as well as from governments, from the UN system, and civil society, what can we do to prevent what seems to be very ad hoc responses to these types of disruptions and destructions? Ad hoc, characterized by double standards, often too late, too little. So, I’m going… Kodja, you look like you have something to say, so I’m going to start with you.
Kojo Boakye : I was trying to capture the question in terms of what we can do, what we can do as a multi stakeholder group, or as individuals.
Anriette Esterhuysen: I think you’re very welcome to talk about what you can do as individuals or individual companies, but I think what we want to get at is a more structured intervention, a more coherent intervention, which can galvanize the diversity of role players and actors that we have in this forum, and that can create more compliance, more consistence, more coherence, and ultimately, that can ensure that people have access to the internet in context of conflict and crisis.
Kojo Boakye : I think that’s helpful. I think, having sat on this panel and learned from others coming in and previously, I think this diversity that you speak about is beautiful in many ways, but also creates some challenges in understanding exactly what different parties and indeed, the multi stakeholder group might do. And I think conversations like this are very, very helpful, but capturing the ways in which companies, civil society organizations, governments, international organizations, etc., are working toward this would be the first step. And to be frank, and because I’m a simple man and we like to simplify things sometimes in order to get them done, carving away some of the things that drive that diversity, if that makes sense. I think there are a myriad of things and that can create some confusion and ambiguity of exactly what we might do. And I think clarity over what works, and I know that there are infinite things that work, but clarity over what works, what’s optimal, and works would be really, really important. And whether that’s under the guise of the IGF, which I think continues to be a super important platform. the guise of the ITU or or the UN itself. I’m not, it’s above my pay grade to answer that particular question.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks Gorcho. Ambassador.
Ernst Noorman: I’m not sure it’s my pay grade but I will go into the UN part also. You know the discussions on norms are incredibly difficult and challenging and it’s of course geopolitics is in play with the subjects in all discussions. But now we have a set of norms which are not non-legally binding and but they are based on and complement international law. So we have a recognized, we have recognized that international law applies in cyberspace. This means that we have some legally binding obligations under the Charter but also under international humanitarian law and human rights law. So what we need now is not new norms as some countries are suggesting but we have to make sure that the 11 norms we have endorsed are now also being implemented. And to ensure implement implementation is efficient we need engagement of all stakeholders. This means of course a role for the UN agencies and the technical community as well as the private sector, civil society and academia. And next year the open-ended working group will end its mandate and we hope that will be followed by an action-oriented mechanism allowing for constructive and active participation of stakeholders and with the so-called program of action. So our focus right now should be on implementation. The implementation should not only be multi-stakeholder but also multidisciplinary and multisectoral. And we also need to develop a common understanding how international law applies and we have welcomed the resolution adopted recently at the conference of the ICRC that provides further elements on the application of international humanitarian law in the context of the use of ICTs. And we should work hard on capacity building and that’s also something we cannot do alone as states we do that have to do that all together. This means this is the basis for great implementation of the normative framework and we can leave no one behind and growing expertise on cyber is crucial. We always say you know cyber security and and cyberspace is teamwork we have to work to do that together to make it resilient and to keep it open and free and accessible. Maybe a nice example how we also do the capacity building at the UN level is the women in cyber program where we together with a number of countries have meanwhile trained about 47 women from countries who were not actively participating at discussion in New York and now we have turned 47 women and they are actively at the table well trained with good contribution which means that not only the female voices heard in 2023 more than 50% of the contribution were from women but it also countries who are previously not involved didn’t under really understand the discussions are now completely involved and understand the topics can play an important role. So in that sense I think it’s a common and shared responsibility also to make sure that everyone has a capacity and that’s some also a military stakeholder involvement which is one of the main topics at the IGF here today. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks Ambasar. At least part of what you said sounds like something that an internet governance forum, best practice forum, one of the intersessional modalities in the IGF could actually look at. My organization is very involved in a best practice forum on online gender-based violence about six, seven, eight years ago and it really helped map how our responses can take place without compromising human rights. But Sharif, what do you think can be done?
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot, Sharif. Lama?
Lama Fakih: Thank you. I think we need to stigmatize internet shutdowns so that it is, you know, it is the act of a pariah state to shut down the internet. The internet is so intertwined in our ability to realize our rights that undermining connectivity is, you know, so abhorrent that states in good standing do not exercise this kind of behavior. And I think we do that by enforcing the normative framework with things like the keep it on campaign which access now has spearheaded and we do work collectively to minimize the effectiveness of attempts to shut down the internet and I think a lot of the initiatives there have been generated from the private sector and we can think through more of what are ways to undermine governments who are trying to do this and there’s a role here also for internet service providers because it’s, you know, the governments that dictate the blackouts as internet service providers that are actually implementing them and what more can they do to push back against these requests to interpret them narrowly. Is there scope under domestic law to file lawsuits in response to these demands? You know, businesses also do have responsibilities under the guiding principles, the UN guiding principles, businesses and human rights which should anchor them in thinking about how to respond to these requests which can be far-reaching and also have far-reaching consequences on human rights.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks for that, Lama. Peter, there’s a comment online.
Peter Micek: Yes, just a very practical proposal for a project to fund and operate a mini fleet of UN cable laying ships. So it’s very expensive to lay these submarine cables and very expensive to operate the ships that repair them but to help LDCs and developing countries especially after climate crises to get faster service maybe a little UN cable keeping force.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Yeah, a rapid response. Kojo, yes, and by the way I didn’t buy that comment about the simple man, not for a minute by the way. So I’m gonna give you the mic again.
Kojo Boakye : Microphone. I’m so sorry, should always remember the microphone. No, I just wanted to add to what Lama was saying about stigmatize which I think is super important and I just had a quick chat with her off camera offline and we spoke about the need to penalize as well and I think one of the things that we’ve found really helpful in our engagements with those governments who have either decided to do full internet shutdowns or partial internet shutdowns of things like Instagram and Facebook is the actual cost to the economy and actually when all of us are well-tuned with speaking with policymakers it boils down to costs and benefits many of their decisions and some of the decisions we’ve spoken some of the things we’ve spoken about here today have boiled down to a government or a regime or whomever assuming will this enable me to keep stay in power or not others it’s you know an economic cost or whatever else and actually pointing out the cost and letting that information become part of their calculus of this cost-benefit analysis is so so important so I’m I align with Lama on stigmatize where possible penalize but really that engagement and ensuring that governments understand the cost is really really important and the fact that in many countries the digital economy is the economy now it underpins everything has become helpful in that.
Anriette Esterhuysen: it’s absolutely true but I also can you know having worked to oppose and counter shutdowns sometimes governments that shut down the internet is very much aware of the cost that does not stop them and and that’s
Kojo Boakye : what I meant sometimes you’re not going to get around a government who believe this is the only way I’m going to maintain national security or stay in power but increasingly you want those that information to be part of their calculus and I think that’s really really important
Cynthia Lesufi: yes thank you I’m just thinking aloud as I’m sitting here and listening I’m sitting here and thinking, as I’m listening to my fellow panellists, I’m trying to answer the question that you have asked. And I’m saying to myself, perhaps we, as the Internet Governance Forum community, we have a good opportunity in front of us. I mean, next year, we’re talking about the versus plus 20 review process. And some of these ideas that I’m sharing here, perhaps there is a need for us to consider highlighting them or reflecting them in the versus plus 20 review process. And just to make them more visible and try and solve some of the challenges that we spoke about here. So I think that’s what I thought we should consider as the IGF community to consider. Thank you.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much for that. Very relevant remarks, Cynthia. Nadim?
Nadim Nassif: Yes, I think, I mean, obviously, as a civil society organization, we are limited with our capacity and what we can do. But I think it’s important to keep our work in terms of the research, in terms of documenting the violations that are happening there, also from the side of governments, but also from the side of companies and to make sure that there is at least a process of accountability and that there is publicity to those violations that are happening. But beyond that, I think it’s also important for us as civil society, especially ones who are in the humanitarian field, to give the needed assistance possible. In terms of ESEMs, like short assistance and other technical small solutions maybe that are still in our capacity to help the residents, especially when we speak about segments of the population like journalists, media people, first responders and others, their work is urgent and it’s important to keep them online, to keep them connected with the rest of the world.
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Nadim. Peter?
Peter Micek: Thank you. So the chat, again, is getting very technical and concrete, which is great. There’s another suggestion for ESEM infrastructure and community networks that exist on top of a decentralized power grid. So I started by talking about how conflicts, you know, impact access to electricity, and there is a proposal for a fleet of Wi-Fi-capable networks that are portable batteries charged by mobile solar stations. And so, yeah, just very concrete proposals. But if I could use my prerogative and speak a bit to the normative and governance discussions, this has been really rich. I think, again, from our respective pathway to preserve civilian telecommunications is to have armed groups, armed groups of people, armed groups of society, and the normative and governance discussions is to have armed groups and armies respected as non-military in nature, and as the OHCHR recently said, and through our own documentation, we found the Internet is a resource indispensable to the survival of civilian populations. As Lama said, the principles of distinction and proportionality in the corporate and private sector absolutely plays a role. They’re being targeted with partial shutdowns, but they also can at times push back and help circumvent disruptions and even hold governments accountable. We’ve seen companies file lawsuits against governments for demanding disproportionate disruptions. As we’ve gathered today at the IGF, it’s, I think, a good time to re-assert if we’re going to reach the 2030 agenda and provide Internet access in all countries to protect our common digital home, recognize the protected status of the public core, and remind folks that to preserve connectivity and conflict, the responsibility lies first and foremost with the parties to the conflicts themselves, and those parties perhaps in the environmental and climate realm accountable for that climate change. This, of course, though, means, as we’ve heard, we can and must proceed in concert together. We can’t see destruction of ICTs normalized as part of conflict, but rather part of the solution. Protecting civilians in conflict and preserving access to good legitimate information sources requires robust connectivity. If I could just put out there what I’ve heard in terms of a few ways forward, I think the Global Digital Compact did set out good language on Internet shutdowns. Perhaps there’s a working group to implement that language that could come forth. There could be new best practice forum on this topic at the IGF. I know we’ll be convening again soon in Norway in June. The Freedom Online Coalition has spoken and will speak further, I think, about telecommunications access in conflict, and I expect them to continue coordination with those 41 member states. And then on accountability, I think it is incumbent on courts like the International Criminal Court and regional bodies, the OECD, which recently did fine against telecom A1 in Austria for contributing to a shutdown, to find accountability. And even the UN Security Council, I think, should incorporate attention to access to telecommunications and the conflicts that it monitors. So that’s enough from me, I think, using my prerogative. Thank you,
Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Peter. Yes, I think I just want to really add, I mean, Lama said we should stigmatize shutdowns. I would like us to stigmatize violation of international law. You know, I think we’ve become as a global community far too tolerant of the disregarding of international law by some of our member states in the UN community. I really do think there’s a role for the IGF in this place, because while I think that the international legal framework might clarify what some of the accountabilities of states are, I think we need to explore what the technical community can do. I think we might see an absence of a technical community voice in these contexts, and that might simply be because they’re not clear on exactly what their roles and accountabilities are. And I think that’s something that the IGF can explore. And I think Cynthia mentioned WSIS, and there are two concepts that were part of WSIS that I think is very relevant here, and that’s international cooperation and digital solidarity. I think if we can use the IGF and use this space to build that solidarity and build that cooperation, we’re in an era of people talk about the digital Cold War. I think that’s the work of the IGF, to counteract digital Cold Wars and to build the kind of collaboration across borders and across stakeholder groups to ensure that people have access always, everywhere. So thanks very much to everyone, to the panelists, and thank you to the MAG members, to Lito and Peace and others who assisted with organizing this session, to the captioners and the tech team, even though the Zoom was a disaster in the beginning, we forgive you, and to everyone who is here to join in this session. Thank you very much. And a big hand to the panel.
Audience: Excuse me, I’m here, I’m just short, I was waiting, sorry, but I think because I’m not tall, sorry, I just want to suggest something, I’m from Sudan, work as a researcher with the grassroots movement, from 2018 to 2022, the internet has been shut down in Sudan collectively for like up to four months, and when the war starts, tomorrow it will be one year out of the internet in Sudan, and when the international community talk about the humanitarian aid, especially inside Khartoum, the food plan asks people to apply online, and that’s when we say it’s not that flexible idea, and you need to talk with the grassroots people and emergency room people to know the solution for this stuff, but how we can ask people to apply online, and there is no internet to have the food aid. The second thing, when it comes to the internet, the RSF can bring the Starlink, and it’s equal for one hour, like two dollars, just for people to ask for help. I think when the international community can work with the Starlink people, or work with the grassroots movement, we can find the solution to help those people to ask for help at this online thing, and yes, I agree with the section for 30 years, that also affect in our rights as a human being to have an access to ask for help. Thank you.
Lama Fakih
Speech speed
156 words per minute
Speech length
2059 words
Speech time
787 seconds
Disruptions violate human rights and hinder humanitarian aid
Explanation
Internet disruptions and infrastructure destruction violate human rights and impede humanitarian assistance. These actions prevent civilians from accessing vital information and services during crises.
Evidence
Examples of impacts include journalists unable to document abuses, students cut off from lessons, and people unable to access healthcare.
Major Discussion Point
Impact of Internet Disruptions and Infrastructure Destruction
Agreed with
Nadim Nashif
Peter Micek
Agreed on
Internet disruptions violate human rights and hinder humanitarian aid
Internet shutdowns are counterproductive and increase violence
Explanation
Studies have shown that internet shutdowns are ineffective in deterring violence and can actually lead to an increase in violent incidents. This contradicts the justifications often given by governments for implementing shutdowns.
Evidence
A study by Stanford Global Digital Policy Incubator found a quadrupling of violence when networks were disrupted compared to when the internet stayed on.
Major Discussion Point
Impact of Internet Disruptions and Infrastructure Destruction
International human rights law requires internet restrictions be necessary and proportionate
Explanation
Under international human rights law, governments must ensure that any internet-based restrictions are both necessary and proportionate to a specific security concern. General shutdowns and attacks on infrastructure violate multiple rights.
Evidence
UN resolutions have condemned intentional disruption of internet access and call on states to refrain from carrying them out, including during conflict.
Major Discussion Point
Normative Frameworks and Legal Obligations
Differed with
Kojo Boakye
Differed on
Role of private sector in addressing internet disruptions
Laws of war principles of distinction and proportionality apply to internet infrastructure
Explanation
The principles of distinction and proportionality in international humanitarian law apply to attacks on internet infrastructure. Shutdowns and attacks on critical infrastructure can cause considerable harm to civilian populations and may be disproportionate to military objectives.
Evidence
Internet and phone shutdowns can lead to death and injury by preventing civilians from communicating about safety considerations and hindering humanitarian aid.
Major Discussion Point
Normative Frameworks and Legal Obligations
Nadim Nashif
Speech speed
151 words per minute
Speech length
1851 words
Speech time
730 seconds
Destruction of infrastructure in Gaza has devastating humanitarian impact
Explanation
The destruction of telecommunications infrastructure in Gaza has severe humanitarian consequences. It prevents people from communicating with loved ones, calling for help, or accessing vital services during the crisis.
Evidence
Research by Hamle estimates that 75% of the telecommunications infrastructure in Gaza was damaged, with 50% totally destroyed.
Major Discussion Point
Impact of Internet Disruptions and Infrastructure Destruction
Agreed with
Lama Fakih
Peter Micek
Agreed on
Internet disruptions violate human rights and hinder humanitarian aid
Civil society documenting violations and providing technical assistance
Explanation
Civil society organizations play a crucial role in documenting violations of internet access and providing technical assistance to affected populations. This work is important for accountability and helping people stay connected in crisis situations.
Evidence
Mention of providing ESIMs and other technical solutions to help journalists, media people, and first responders stay online and connected with the rest of the world.
Major Discussion Point
Responses and Alternatives to Internet Disruptions
Speech speed
112 words per minute
Speech length
504 words
Speech time
269 seconds
Climate change threatens internet infrastructure in small island states
Explanation
Small island developing states are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts on their internet infrastructure. Rising sea levels and increased frequency of extreme weather events pose significant threats to submarine cables and other critical infrastructure.
Evidence
Example of the Maldives, where submarine cables may need to be redeployed inland due to sea level rise, but limited land area poses challenges.
Major Discussion Point
Impact of Internet Disruptions and Infrastructure Destruction
Ernst Noorman
Speech speed
162 words per minute
Speech length
1814 words
Speech time
668 seconds
UN norms prohibit damaging critical infrastructure in cyberspace
Explanation
The United Nations has established non-binding norms on responsible state behavior in cyberspace. These norms include prohibitions on intentionally damaging critical infrastructure through ICT activities.
Evidence
Reference to 11 norms endorsed by the UN General Assembly, including those related to critical infrastructure protection.
Major Discussion Point
Normative Frameworks and Legal Obligations
IGF could establish best practices for protecting internet access
Explanation
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could play a role in establishing best practices for protecting internet access. This could involve multi-stakeholder engagement and focus on implementing existing norms rather than creating new ones.
Evidence
Mention of the need for multi-stakeholder, multidisciplinary, and multisectoral implementation of existing norms and international law.
Major Discussion Point
Role of the Internet Governance Community
Agreed with
Cynthia Lesufi
Anriette Esterhuysen
Agreed on
Need for multi-stakeholder approach to protect internet access
Cynthia Lesufi
Speech speed
121 words per minute
Speech length
1098 words
Speech time
543 seconds
ITU resolutions call for assistance in rebuilding telecom infrastructure
Explanation
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has adopted resolutions calling for assistance in rebuilding telecommunications infrastructure in countries affected by conflict or disasters. These resolutions aim to support countries in special need for building their telecommunication sector.
Evidence
Reference to ITU Resolution 125 and a recent ITU Council resolution on assisting Palestine in restoring infrastructure.
Major Discussion Point
Normative Frameworks and Legal Obligations
Importance of highlighting issues in WSIS+20 review process
Explanation
The upcoming WSIS+20 review process presents an opportunity to highlight issues related to protecting internet infrastructure during conflicts. This could help address challenges discussed and make them more visible in international discussions.
Major Discussion Point
Role of the Internet Governance Community
Agreed with
Ernst Noorman
Anriette Esterhuysen
Agreed on
Need for multi-stakeholder approach to protect internet access
Kojo Boakye
Speech speed
0 words per minute
Speech length
0 words
Speech time
1 seconds
Private sector developing technical solutions like WhatsApp proxy
Explanation
Private sector companies are developing technical solutions to help maintain internet access during shutdowns or disruptions. These solutions aim to provide alternative means of communication when traditional channels are blocked.
Evidence
Example of WhatsApp developing a proxy service to enable continued use of the app in places like Iran where internet access is restricted.
Major Discussion Point
Responses and Alternatives to Internet Disruptions
Differed with
Lama Fakih
Differed on
Role of private sector in addressing internet disruptions
Peter Micek
Speech speed
142 words per minute
Speech length
1626 words
Speech time
683 seconds
Humanitarian agencies working to provide connectivity in crises
Explanation
Humanitarian agencies are increasingly recognizing the importance of providing connectivity in crisis situations. They are exploring ways to ensure access to the internet and secure communication tools for the populations they serve.
Evidence
Reference to agencies scrambling to create workarounds through technological innovation and joining emergency telecommunications clusters.
Major Discussion Point
Responses and Alternatives to Internet Disruptions
Agreed with
Lama Fakih
Nadim Nashif
Agreed on
Internet disruptions violate human rights and hinder humanitarian aid
Anriette Esterhuysen
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
3419 words
Speech time
1388 seconds
Need for rapid response capabilities to repair infrastructure
Explanation
There is a need for rapid response capabilities to repair internet infrastructure damaged during conflicts or disasters. This could involve international cooperation and dedicated resources for quick deployment.
Evidence
Mention of a proposal for a mini fleet of UN cable laying ships to help developing countries get faster service after climate crises.
Major Discussion Point
Responses and Alternatives to Internet Disruptions
IGF should explore roles and responsibilities of technical community
Explanation
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should explore the roles and responsibilities of the technical community in protecting internet access during conflicts and crises. This could help clarify accountabilities and encourage more active involvement from the technical community.
Major Discussion Point
Role of the Internet Governance Community
Agreed with
Ernst Noorman
Cynthia Lesufi
Agreed on
Need for multi-stakeholder approach to protect internet access
Agreements
Agreement Points
Internet disruptions violate human rights and hinder humanitarian aid
Lama Fakih
Nadim Nashif
Peter Micek
Disruptions violate human rights and hinder humanitarian aid
Destruction of infrastructure in Gaza has devastating humanitarian impact
Humanitarian agencies working to provide connectivity in crises
The speakers agree that internet disruptions and infrastructure destruction have severe humanitarian consequences, violating human rights and impeding aid efforts.
Need for multi-stakeholder approach to protect internet access
Ernst Noorman
Cynthia Lesufi
Anriette Esterhuysen
IGF could establish best practices for protecting internet access
Importance of highlighting issues in WSIS+20 review process
IGF should explore roles and responsibilities of technical community
The speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in establishing best practices and norms for protecting internet access, particularly through forums like the IGF and WSIS+20 review process.
Similar Viewpoints
Both speakers emphasize the importance of international legal frameworks and norms in regulating state behavior regarding internet access and infrastructure protection.
Lama Fakih
Ernst Noorman
International human rights law requires internet restrictions be necessary and proportionate
UN norms prohibit damaging critical infrastructure in cyberspace
Both speakers highlight the role of non-state actors in developing technical solutions and providing connectivity during crises or shutdowns.
Kojo Boakye
Peter Micek
Private sector developing technical solutions like WhatsApp proxy
Humanitarian agencies working to provide connectivity in crises
Unexpected Consensus
Climate change impact on internet infrastructure
Anriette Esterhuysen
Climate change threatens internet infrastructure in small island states
Need for rapid response capabilities to repair infrastructure
While the discussion primarily focused on conflict-related disruptions, there was unexpected consensus on the need to address climate change impacts on internet infrastructure, particularly for vulnerable states.
Overall Assessment
Summary
The main areas of agreement include the humanitarian impact of internet disruptions, the need for multi-stakeholder approaches to protect internet access, the importance of international legal frameworks, and the role of non-state actors in providing technical solutions.
Consensus level
There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental issues surrounding internet disruptions and infrastructure protection. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for developing comprehensive strategies to address these challenges, though specific implementation details may require further discussion and negotiation.
Differences
Different Viewpoints
Role of private sector in addressing internet disruptions
Lama Fakih
Kojo Boakye
International human rights law requires internet restrictions be necessary and proportionate
Private sector developing technical solutions like WhatsApp proxy
While Lama Fakih emphasizes the legal obligations of governments under international human rights law, Kojo Boakye focuses on the role of private sector companies in developing technical solutions to maintain internet access during disruptions.
Unexpected Differences
Focus on climate change impacts
Other speakers
Climate change threatens internet infrastructure in small island states
While most speakers focused on conflicts and intentional disruptions, Mohamed Shareef unexpectedly highlighted the threat of climate change to internet infrastructure in small island states. This broadens the discussion beyond human-caused disruptions to include environmental factors.
Overall Assessment
summary
The main areas of disagreement centered around the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders (governments, private sector, international organizations) in addressing internet disruptions and protecting infrastructure.
difference_level
The level of disagreement was moderate. While speakers generally agreed on the importance of maintaining internet access, they had different perspectives on how to achieve this goal. These differences reflect the complex, multi-stakeholder nature of internet governance and highlight the need for collaborative approaches that involve all relevant actors.
Partial Agreements
Partial Agreements
Both speakers agree on the importance of international frameworks for protecting internet infrastructure, but they focus on different aspects. Ernst Noorman emphasizes UN norms prohibiting damage to infrastructure, while Cynthia Lesufi highlights ITU resolutions for rebuilding infrastructure after conflicts or disasters.
Ernst Noorman
Cynthia Lesufi
UN norms prohibit damaging critical infrastructure in cyberspace
ITU resolutions call for assistance in rebuilding telecom infrastructure
Similar Viewpoints
Both speakers emphasize the importance of international legal frameworks and norms in regulating state behavior regarding internet access and infrastructure protection.
Lama Fakih
Ernst Noorman
International human rights law requires internet restrictions be necessary and proportionate
UN norms prohibit damaging critical infrastructure in cyberspace
Both speakers highlight the role of non-state actors in developing technical solutions and providing connectivity during crises or shutdowns.
Kojo Boakye
Peter Micek
Private sector developing technical solutions like WhatsApp proxy
Humanitarian agencies working to provide connectivity in crises
Takeaways
Key Takeaways
Internet disruptions and infrastructure destruction have severe humanitarian impacts and violate human rights
There are existing normative frameworks and legal obligations that prohibit damaging critical internet infrastructure
Multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed to develop technical solutions and provide connectivity in crises
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) community has a role to play in establishing best practices and exploring responsibilities of different stakeholders
Resolutions and Action Items
Explore establishing an IGF best practice forum on protecting internet access in conflicts and crises
Highlight internet infrastructure protection issues in the WSIS+20 review process
Develop a working group to implement Global Digital Compact language on internet shutdowns
Freedom Online Coalition to continue coordination on telecommunications access in conflict
Unresolved Issues
How to effectively enforce international laws and norms against internet shutdowns
Specific roles and responsibilities of the technical community in protecting internet infrastructure
How to address content moderation and platform access issues during crises
Balancing legitimate security concerns with maintaining internet access
Suggested Compromises
Focus on implementing existing norms rather than developing new ones
Engage with governments to highlight economic costs of shutdowns while acknowledging security concerns
Develop rapid response capabilities for infrastructure repair while respecting state sovereignty
Thought Provoking Comments
Palestinians in Gaza have endured over a year of ongoing phone and internet disruption as a result of relentless airstrikes by the Israeli government and other actions that the government has taken. These actions have included damage to core communication infrastructure, cuts to electricity, fuel blockades, and apparently deliberate shutdowns through technical means.
speaker
Lama Fakih
reason
This comment provided concrete examples of how internet infrastructure can be disrupted or destroyed during conflict, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the problem.
impact
It shifted the discussion from general concepts to specific, real-world impacts, prompting further exploration of the humanitarian consequences of such disruptions.
Small island states, island nations, our connectivity to the rest of the world is really primarily these days with submarine cables. So if you take the case of the Maldives, we have a few submarine cables landing in the Maldives. Two of them connect us to India and Sri Lanka, and we have three more cables that we are working on connecting us directly to the Southeast Asia and all the way up to Europe.
speaker
reason
This comment introduced the unique challenges faced by small island nations in maintaining internet connectivity, bringing attention to the geographical and infrastructural aspects of the issue.
impact
It broadened the scope of the discussion to include climate change and natural disasters as factors affecting internet access, leading to considerations of how to build more resilient infrastructure.
We have a set of norms which are not non-legally binding and but they are based on and complement international law. So we have a recognized, we have recognized that international law applies in cyberspace. This means that we have some legally binding obligations under the Charter but also under international humanitarian law and human rights law.
speaker
Ernst Noorman
reason
This comment provided important context on the existing legal and normative frameworks governing internet access and infrastructure protection during conflicts.
impact
It shifted the conversation towards discussing implementation and enforcement of existing norms, rather than creating new ones, and emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder engagement in this process.
I think we need to stigmatize internet shutdowns so that it is, you know, it is the act of a pariah state to shut down the internet. The internet is so intertwined in our ability to realize our rights that undermining connectivity is, you know, so abhorrent that states in good standing do not exercise this kind of behavior.
speaker
Lama Fakih
reason
This comment proposed a strong stance on internet shutdowns, framing them as unacceptable actions by states.
impact
It sparked discussion on how to create social and political pressure against internet shutdowns, leading to suggestions for penalization and emphasizing the economic costs of such actions.
Perhaps we, as the Internet Governance Forum community, we have a good opportunity in front of us. I mean, next year, we’re talking about the versus plus 20 review process. And some of these ideas that I’m sharing here, perhaps there is a need for us to consider highlighting them or reflecting them in the versus plus 20 review process.
speaker
Cynthia Lesufi
reason
This comment connected the discussion to broader internet governance processes, suggesting a concrete way to move the conversation forward.
impact
It provided a practical next step for the IGF community to address the issues discussed, potentially influencing future policy discussions.
Overall Assessment
These key comments shaped the discussion by grounding it in real-world examples, highlighting the complexity of the issue across different contexts (conflict zones, small island states), and emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder approaches. They also shifted the conversation from describing problems to proposing solutions, including strengthening existing norms, creating social and economic pressures against internet shutdowns, and leveraging upcoming policy processes to address these issues. The discussion evolved from a focus on technical and legal aspects to include broader considerations of human rights, economic impacts, and the role of various stakeholders in ensuring internet access and protecting infrastructure.
Follow-up Questions
How can we ensure content policies are properly policed or managed across multiple languages and platforms in crisis situations?
speaker
Mike Walton (UN Refugee Agency)
explanation
This is important to address the challenges of content moderation in multilingual crisis contexts while balancing human and AI roles.
How can we address the issue of platforms deplatforming or restricting access to users from certain countries, especially those from the Global South?
speaker
Nadim Nashif
explanation
This is crucial to ensure equitable access to digital platforms and services globally, beyond just physical infrastructure.
What role can the technical community play in protecting internet access and infrastructure during conflicts and crises?
speaker
Anriette Esterhuysen
explanation
Understanding the technical community’s role is important for developing comprehensive strategies to maintain internet access in crisis situations.
How can we implement a UN-operated fleet of cable-laying ships to assist developing countries in maintaining and repairing submarine cables, especially after climate crises?
speaker
Online participant (via Peter Micek)
explanation
This proposal addresses the need for faster internet service restoration in developing countries affected by climate events.
How can we develop ESIM infrastructure and community networks that exist on top of a decentralized power grid?
speaker
Online participant (via Peter Micek)
explanation
This technical solution could provide resilient internet access in areas with unreliable power infrastructure.
How can the IGF community incorporate discussions on protecting internet access during conflicts into the WSIS+20 review process?
speaker
Cynthia Lesufi
explanation
This would help highlight and address challenges related to internet access in conflict zones at a high-level policy forum.
How can we better coordinate humanitarian aid agencies to provide populations they serve with access to the internet or secure and open communications tools?
speaker
Peter Micek
explanation
This is crucial for ensuring effective aid delivery and communication in crisis situations.
Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.
Related event
Internet Governance Forum 2024
15 Dec 2024 06:30h - 19 Dec 2024 13:30h
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and online