Can a layered policy approach stop Internet fragmentation? | IGF 2023 WS #273
Table of contents
Disclaimer: It should be noted that the reporting, analysis and chatbot answers are generated automatically by DiploGPT from the official UN transcripts and, in case of just-in-time reporting, the audiovisual recordings on UN Web TV. The accuracy and completeness of the resources and results can therefore not be guaranteed.
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Audience
The session on internet fragmentation, regulation, and governance explored several key arguments. One argument put forth was that the internet is inherently fragmented as a network of networks. This understanding recognises that the internet comprises various interconnected networks operated by individuals and companies. These individual fragments form the larger network that we know as the internet.
However, it was also acknowledged that harmful fragmentation poses a problem. Harmful fragmentation refers to instances where the fragmentation of the internet hinders its intended function. The session emphasised the need to address such harmful fragmentation to ensure the smooth operation and effectiveness of the internet.
The importance of adopting a layered policy approach was discussed during the session. A layered policy approach recognises that the internet operates on multiple layers, and different regulations may be required for each layer. This approach provides a framework to effectively govern the diverse aspects of the internet while accounting for the specificities of each layer.
The distinction between regulating on and off the internet was also highlighted. The Dutch government was cited as an example, as it has implemented a policy approach that distinguishes between regulations applicable to activities taking place on the internet and those occurring off the internet. By considering the borders and layers of the internet, policymakers can tailor regulations to ensure a balance between control and innovation.
Accountability within the public core of the internet was addressed as a challenging issue. It was noted that accountability issues related to the internet should be dealt with on an international level. The public core of the internet, due to its borderless nature, poses difficulties in terms of regulation. The session called for careful consideration and international cooperation to hold the public core of the internet accountable.
The importance of considering the public interest in formulating internet governance policies was emphasised. Policymakers were urged to make decisions that benefit society as a whole and create a better world. The session highlighted that public interest does not differentiate between different layers of the internet, and policies should reflect this holistic concern.
The session also touched upon the significance of global consensus in internet governance. It was argued that national interests should align with the interests of other nations to promote collaboration and cooperation. Finding a global consensus on matters of public interest was considered a crucial step towards harmonising internet governance frameworks.
The challenges posed by online bullying were discussed, particularly in relation to the internet’s amplification effect on the magnitude of bullying. The perplexing nature of dealing with bullying in the context of the internet was acknowledged.
The industry’s response to regulation proposals was also examined. The industry was criticised for frequently offering excuses when faced with new regulations. The need for the industry to mature and accept that it is not exempt from regulation, similar to other industries, was highlighted.
Technical knowledge was identified as essential in understanding the nuances of different technologies and their regulatory scopes. Different technologies operate at various layers of the internet and are managed by different entities. Understanding these distinctions requires deep technical knowledge.
The potential impact of internet censorship and the need to safeguard democratic values were also discussed. The session recognised that the battle for a global internet ultimately involves differing values that are not universally agreed upon. It was also noted that control mechanisms deployed to manage content in one jurisdiction can affect other jurisdictions, underscoring the need to consider the potential transboundary implications of these mechanisms.
In conclusion, the session aimed to address internet fragmentation issues and develop suitable approaches to internet governance. It recognised the natural fragmentation of the internet as a network of networks but emphasised the need to tackle harmful fragmentation. The adoption of a layered policy approach and the distinction between regulating on and off the internet were suggested as ways to effectively govern the internet. The session discussed the challenges of holding the public core of the internet accountable, the importance of considering the public interest, and the need for global consensus. The session also highlighted the complexities of dealing with bullying, the industry’s response to regulations, the significance of technical knowledge, and the potential implications of internet censorship. Ultimately, the session aimed to find solutions that respect individual rights, uphold democratic values, and maintain a cohesive global internet.
Nobuhisa NISHIGATA
In Japan, the government has implemented a layered approach to internet regulation, which is considered effective and clear in the country’s legal structure. This approach encompasses various levels of regulation to address different aspects of internet-related issues. The government is also actively involved in addressing challenges related to internet access in rural areas, aiming to secure reliable and accessible internet connections for all citizens.
However, the layered approach faces difficulties when it comes to content-related concerns, such as piracy and the distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). The government acknowledges that the current framework does not effectively tackle these issues and presents challenges in combating piracy and CSAM. Constructing legislation that adequately covers these problematic areas within the boundaries of a democratic society, considering factors like the rule of law and freedom of expression, is complex.
Moreover, the emergence of the internet has given rise to new types of crimes, posing significant challenges for law enforcement agencies. The use of end-to-end encryption, as seen in platforms like Telegram, makes it harder for authorities to trace and apprehend criminals engaged in illegal activities. This highlights the need for innovative countermeasures and international cooperation to effectively combat internet-enabled crimes.
While respecting the principles of freedom and the global nature of the internet, the Japanese government recognizes the importance of balancing these ideals with the rule of law. They take a cautious approach, avoiding a complete prohibition of general internet platforms like Telegram, and instead seek to find legal solutions to combat online crimes. Additionally, the government actively engages in international affairs, understanding that its duty extends beyond domestic borders.
Cyberbullying is a significant issue globally, and Japan is no exception. Various measures are being taken, including the creation of legislation to address internet-based humiliation. By implementing these laws, the government aims to protect individuals from the harmful effects of cyberbullying and provide a safer online environment.
Regulations concerning social media networks and internet service providers are considered necessary but complex. The government is working on establishing a legal system to define the limited liability of internet service providers, acknowledging the benefits and side effects of the social network services (SNS) ecosystem. Achieving a balance between regulation and the positive aspects of SNS platforms is crucial in ensuring a safe and secure online space.
The use of social media and the internet also brings forth the issue of echo chamber effects, where individuals are exposed only to similar viewpoints and information, leading to polarization and misinformation. This phenomenon challenges the fostering of a well-informed society and highlights the importance of promoting diverse perspectives and critical thinking in online interactions.
Constructing effective laws to combat piracy and CSAM is a technically challenging task. The government recognizes this complexity and strives to find appropriate solutions without introducing direct regulations or legislation. Instead, they encourage the industry and private sector, such as internet service providers (ISPs) and telecom operators, to take a leading role in countering piracy and CSAM. By leveraging the expertise and resources of these stakeholders, more effective measures can be implemented.
There is also a strong emphasis on the role of the internet community in combating piracy and CSAM. Nishigata, an advocate for collective effort, believes that while piracy can exist even without the internet, its scale is significantly smaller in comparison. More than 90% of the internet community is considered to be “good guys” who can play an essential role in supporting the fight against illegal activities and maintaining a safe online environment.
Despite the efforts made, it is highlighted that internet regulations and legislations have struggled to keep up with the rapid advancement of technology. The development of the internet has outpaced regulatory efforts and created challenges in effectively addressing emerging issues. Therefore, continuous adaptation and collaboration among various stakeholders are needed to ensure that regulations can keep pace with technological progress.
In conclusion, the Japanese government has implemented a layered approach to internet regulation, which has been effective in certain aspects, such as securing internet connections in rural areas. However, challenges remain in areas like content-related concerns, internet-enabled crimes, and cyberbullying. Balancing the principles of freedom and the global nature of the internet with the rule of law is crucial. Regulations concerning social media networks and internet service providers are complex but necessary. Collaboration and joint efforts between the government, technicians, industry, and civil society are vital in improving the regulation and safety of the internet landscape.
Moderator
The analysis highlights several key points regarding internet regulation, internet fragmentation, and related topics. One important finding is that a layered policy approach can potentially help prevent internet fragmentation. By considering all elements of the internet, such as the network layer and apps and other services, policymakers can create a cohesive and comprehensive policy that does not lead to internet fragmentation. This approach takes into account the potential issues that may arise if internet sanctions are applied to internet infrastructure, which can cause fragmented access.
The analysis also emphasizes the importance of governments using a layered approach in policy-making, particularly when applying sanctions. If not properly targeted, government sanctions can hamper internet access. A layered approach to policy-making on sanctions can help prevent these unintended consequences and ensure uninterrupted internet connectivity.
Japan is presented as an example of a country actively working on effectively regulating the internet. The country’s Telecom Business Law has a distinct structure to deal with internet regulation issues. Japan is also focusing on ensuring internet connectivity in rural areas and isolated islands, indicating its commitment to comprehensive regulation of national and international internet infrastructure, such as submarine cables and satellite frequencies.
Another important consideration highlighted is the need for governments to strike a balance between respecting internet freedoms and protecting citizens from internet-enabled crimes and violations of rights. Issues related to privacy and the presence of child sexual abuse materials on the internet are mentioned as examples of challenges that need attention.
The analysis also discusses the challenges arising from the growth and evolution of the internet. With more actors engaging across different layers, government intervention and regulation can create unintended global effects and potentially lead to the breakdown of the internet. This highlights the complexities and potential unintended consequences associated with internet regulation.
The balance between encryption for security and privacy and addressing its misuse for criminal activities is presented as an important challenge. Encryption is recognized as a vital protocol contributing to internet security and individual privacy. However, it has also been used as a tool for illegal activities. A solution is needed that does not compromise security and privacy while addressing misuse.
Understanding and identifying the technical aspects of the internet, including its layers, are fundamental for addressing internet fragmentation. The analysis stresses the importance of recognizing the different layers of the internet to find appropriate solutions for fragmentation.
Cyberbullying emerges as a significant issue that needs to be addressed in policy-making and legislation. It is highlighted that cyberbullying is not confined to Japan and is a global issue. The use of social networking services is recognized as a factor that can facilitate cyberbullying through echo chambers and filter bubbles. The intersection of the issue of cyberbullying with the concept of freedom of speech is also noted.
The analysis emphasizes the need for cooperation among government, industry, technicians, and civil society to catch up with the pace of internet evolution. This reflects the complex nature of internet regulation and the importance of involving various stakeholders in shaping effective policies.
In conclusion, the analysis underlines the significance of a layered policy approach in preventing internet fragmentation and the challenges associated with balancing internet regulation and freedoms. It highlights the need for comprehensive and balanced regulation to address issues such as cyberbullying and encryption misuse. The analysis also indicates the importance of cooperation and understanding among various stakeholders in effectively regulating the internet.
Alissa Starzak
During the discussion, the speakers delved into the intricacies of layered policymaking in relation to Internet content. They emphasized that understanding the complex network behind Internet content is crucial for effective policymaking. Different entities were identified as being responsible for delivering content to users, including registrars, entity-based content transmitters, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and browsers. The speakers highlighted that regulatory structures play a significant role in shaping how these entities can operate and collaborate.
The negative consequences of regulating the Internet through blocking mechanisms were brought to attention. They explained that attempts to block an IP address can inadvertently lead to the blocking of millions of domains, resulting in a significant proportion of internet content becoming inaccessible. This argument highlights the potential hindrance to access that could arise from overly restrictive Internet regulations.
Additionally, the speakers underscored the importance of considering both local and global implications when developing new structures on top of the Internet. They explained that implementing new layers or structures can potentially disrupt existing functions, and that taking into account the effects on both local and global levels can help prevent such disruptions.
The discussion also touched on the need to balance practicality and functionality when developing Internet regulations. The speakers argued that claims regarding data localisation of IP addresses, as outlined in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), can be impractical considering how internet infrastructure functions. They noted that policymakers sometimes lack a full understanding of the intricacies of the internet, which emphasises the need for careful consideration of practicality and functionality when crafting regulations.
Furthermore, the speakers stressed the significance of infrastructure as the initial gateway for internet access. They stated that individuals often turn to infrastructure first to gain access due to the internet functioning as a network of interconnected networks. This supports the argument that regulations on infrastructure should be carefully thought out, considering its critical role in enabling access to the internet.
The speakers also spoke about the importance of having a deep understanding of potential unintended consequences when crafting regulations. They emphasised that regulation writing involves considering trade-offs and potential side effects, enabling policymakers to develop effective and balanced regulations.
The industry’s role in explaining technical details during the creation of regulations was highlighted as essential. By providing expertise and insights, the industry can bridge the communication gap between the engineering side and the regulatory creation side, ensuring that regulations are well-informed and technically viable.
The discussion then shifted towards the impact of legislation beyond national borders. The speakers pointed out that nations typically legislate within their own borders. However, when it comes to infrastructure, legislation can extend far beyond national boundaries, impacting other nations as well. It was emphasised that understanding this reality and making legislation accessible can aid in comprehending legislative influences beyond borders.
Furthermore, the speakers noted that if a nation legislates on matters that affect areas outside its borders, other nations may reciprocate by legislating within its borders. This observation highlights a potential consequence of legislating extraterritorially, emphasising the importance of considering such implications and fostering international cooperation in legislative matters.
In conclusion, the discussion emphasised the complex nature of layered policymaking in relation to Internet content. The importance of understanding the multifaceted network behind Internet content, considering local and global implications, and ensuring the practicality and functionality of regulations were key themes. The potential negative consequences of overly restrictive regulations and the need for cooperation between government, industry, and civil society were also highlighted. Overall, the speakers advocated for a thoughtful and collaborative approach to navigating the challenges surrounding internet regulation.
Online Moderator
In the online discussion, the seriousness of cyberbullying in Japan is highlighted by the moderator. They express concerns about the harmful consequences of internet fragmentation, specifically in terms of communication. This fragmentation can lead to cyberbullying, which is seen as a negative outcome. The moderator seeks possible policy approaches to address this pressing issue.
Another speaker in the discussion acknowledges the link between cyberbullying and internet fragmentation. They argue that cyberbullying can be seen as a manifestation of internet fragmentation in terms of communication. This perspective emphasizes the need for policy solutions to counter cyberbullying effectively. The speaker suggests that policy approaches are crucial to address this issue appropriately.
The online moderator further reinforces the importance of policy solutions. Seeking inputs from the panel, they aim to gather diverse perspectives on potential policy measures to combat cyberbullying. By involving experts and stakeholders, the hope is to develop effective strategies for addressing this problem.
The analysis of the discussion reveals that cyberbullying is a significant concern in Japan, and internet fragmentation is identified as a contributing factor. The call for policy approaches highlights the need for formal measures to tackle cyberbullying effectively. This issue is aligned with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, emphasizing the importance of creating a safe and inclusive online environment.
Overall, the discussion draws attention to the seriousness of cyberbullying, demonstrates the link with internet fragmentation, and stresses the importance of policy solutions. By addressing this issue and implementing relevant policies, strides can be made towards a safer and more supportive online space.
Jean F. Queralt
This analysis explores various perspectives on internet fragmentation and its implications. One speaker urges caution when assuming that the internet was once unfragmented, questioning the evidence to support this notion. They challenge the assumption of a once-unfragmented internet and take a negative stance towards fragmentation.
Another viewpoint suggests examining fragmentation in terms of time and driving factors. The speaker emphasizes the need to consider how fragmentation evolves over time and mentions the role of faulty hardware or protocols. This argument takes a neutral stance.
Additionally, a proposed model for layering in the internet is presented. This model describes the layers from user interface to physical channel and highlights the role of the user interface in conveying information and user intention through the different layers. The speaker sees this model as a positive contribution to understanding internet structure and functionality.
The analysis also explores the benefits of fragmentation in organizations involved in internet governance. It suggests that organization fragmentation can serve as a barrier to nefarious actors and proposes addressing problems at different levels. This argument emphasizes the positive aspects of fragmentation and its role in resilience.
There is discussion about the confusion surrounding interoperability. The analysis outlines three models for interoperability – shared, ad hoc, and hybrid – and suggests that the current model is a mixture of the two. This argument takes a negative stance, highlighting the lack of clarity in the direction of interoperability.
Furthermore, the need for a term to describe positive internet fragmentation is highlighted. The term ‘splinternet’ has negative connotations, and alternative terms such as unified net, flow net, coherent net, cohesive net, and seamless net are proposed to capture the positive aspects of fragmentation.
The analysis also touches on the cognitive dissonance between public expectations of technology and other industries. Examples such as architects building stable structures and general users not worrying about technical aspects are used to demonstrate this discrepancy. The argument emphasizes the imbalance in expectations for the general public to understand complex technologies.
In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis provides insights into the different perspectives surrounding internet fragmentation. It emphasizes the need for caution when assuming the existence or non-existence of a once-unfragmented internet and the importance of considering time and driving factors. Additionally, it proposes a model for layering in the internet and discusses the benefits of fragmentation in internet governance organizations. The analysis raises concerns about the confusion regarding interoperability and suggests the need for a term to describe positive internet fragmentation. It concludes by highlighting the cognitive dissonance between public expectations of technology and other industries and advocates for equipping technology industry frontliners with the necessary tools.
Konstantinos
The internet faces various challenges, one of which is the fragmentation caused by a layered approach. This approach poses significant difficulties as more actors engage across different layers, making it tough to discern and comprehend these layers. Additionally, increased state intervention in response to emerging issues leads to regulations impacting internet infrastructure, further complicating matters. The prevailing sentiment regarding this issue is negative, as these challenges hamper the effective functioning of the internet.
Deciphering the specific layer of the internet involved in a problem is crucial for effective problem-solving. Lack of identification makes it difficult to determine who to engage in discussions and propose solutions. This issue holds a neutral sentiment but highlights the importance of understanding the different layers for efficient problem-solving.
Encryption, while foundational for internet security and privacy, presents a major policy challenge due to its potential for abuse. Various actors manipulate encryption for criminal acts, raising concerns about its regulation. However, engineers argue against modifying encryption due to its crucial role in privacy and security. The sentiment towards this issue is negative, as it poses complexities and conflicts in policy-making and regulation.
Internet fragmentation has gained recognition and discussion as an issue in recent times. The sentiment towards this issue is neutral, suggesting that fragmentation may have always been a characteristic of the internet. This recognition and discussion underscore the need to address fragmentation as a significant challenge faced by the internet.
Government intervention to mitigate internet-related challenges can have unintended consequences on infrastructure and evolution. In the past five years, several nations inadvertently affected internet infrastructure due to their reactions to challenges. This negative sentiment highlights the need for careful consideration and assessment of the potential consequences of government intervention in the internet realm.
Overall, the internet presents numerous complexities and challenges that require careful attention. The layered approach to fragmentation, encryption policy challenges, the need to identify and understand different layers for problem-solving, and the consequences of government intervention are noteworthy observations. These insights emphasize the importance of finding balanced and well-thought-out solutions to ensure the effective and secure functioning of the internet.
Session transcript
Moderator:
I am the founder of Digital Medusa and we are doing this workshop on can a layered policy approach stop internet fragmentation. And so and we are going to have a conversation and we are going to have a dialogue with you after our speakers remarks but a little bit of what is a layered approach well there are different interpretations of that but a layered by a layered approach we mean that we have these seven layers of the of the internet which the basic part of it is the network layer where the IP addresses and other critical properties of the internet that allow connectivity to happen there they are there and then they’re on top of that you have the apps and then you have other services but this was a very simplified version you can of course tackle me later on about like whether that definition was accurate but why is it important to talk about a layered approach to policy making and how can it stop internet fragmentation one of the one of the research research reports that I have done in the past was about internet and sanctions and I have used so the government and policymakers want to sanction human rights violators and and this is like a legitimate policy tool however when they do that they also can affect access to the internet if the sanction applies to internet infrastructure so I have used this kind of layered approach to in a report on internet and sanction to kind of show how the internet infrastructure can be actually affected by sanctions and how the government’s can that actually care about about the open global internet and want to avoid fragmentation can prevent that from happening by having more targeted and the layered approach to policymaking on sanctions this is one example of it I hope I’m trying to make this as tangible as I can I can see a lot of familiar faces so you know what the layered approaches you know what the OSI model is but for the policymakers in civil society in general when they make recommendations we are trying to make this session as practical as possible to kind of look at the layered approach and see if we can actually stop internet fragmentation and but also come up with policies come up with content regular regulation policies and other needed regulatory frameworks and of course recommendations of civil society how to adopt those so with us today we have and this is a this workshop is co-organized with Internet Society and today we have Nobuisa Nishigata he’s the director of computer communications division at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications MIC Japan he has a has been instrumental in convening IGF in Japan and and and there is a very long bio that I think Nobu can introduce himself a little bit more if he wants to and we have also Alisa Starzak the vice president and global head of public policy at Cloudflare with us today I’ll say can make it very tangible what’s internet infrastructure is involved when when we use the Internet and how we can come up with policies that consider that kind of division and we also have Jean Carralt I have practiced that the last name like a few times I got it right I’m sure and John is the founder and CEO of the IO foundation a nonprofit advocating for data-centric digital rights and then we have Konstantinos Komaitis as the commentator Konstantinos did not want resisted coming to the panel and sit here he wanted to be with the crowd in a bottom-up manner and he’s a non-resident fellow with the democracy tech initiative of the Atlantic Council’s digital forensics research lab he’s also a veteran of developing and analyzing Internet policy to ensure an open and global Internet before I go to the panels also I wanted to mention that Internet Society also has a Internet impact assessment tool that can be very useful in kind of like using this kind of layered approach in order to come up with policies that cannot that do not lead to Internet fragmentation but if you also like want to know why Internet fragmentation is bad my take is that in like we want the Internet to be global and interoperable and everyone on the Internet and in the world be able to access the global Internet and this and Internet fragmentation prevents that so without further ado I’m sorry I talked a lot we have Alyssa would you like to go ahead and start the conversation
Alissa Starzak :
sure I’m happy to hi this is Alyssa Starzak as I mentioned I am the the global head of public policy at Cloudflare if you haven’t heard of Cloudflare it is actually something very much in the Internet infrastructure side of the world so it’s worth explaining a bit about what we do and then we can talk a little bit about what layered policymaking might look like and why it matters so Cloudflare runs a big global network we use it to do a couple of different things most specifically we actually that what does big global network mean it means we have equipment in lots and lots of different countries where we can cache content to make Internet transmission more efficient but also protect people against cyber attacks so what that does is it allows us to look for problems in traffic cyber cyber attacks and allows us to sort of handle them for an entity online so we’re very much in the infrastructure space I think when we get into this layered idea of layered policymaking it’s worth understanding a little bit about how we see the world and what it looks like from our perspective so one of the interesting things about Cloudflare service is that we actually offer some of them for free so we have something like 20% of global websites that that use our services to help protect themselves against DDoS attacks from a practical standpoint that means we make a lot of the Internet more efficient which is terrific but when you get into the questions of layered policymaking it gets a lot more a lot more challenging so if you think about how the Internet is set up at the very top layer as was mentioned is all the content so all of the things that we all interact with online so that the websites that you interact with the platforms that you interact with those all sort of sit at the top and often when people talk about the Internet they mean that piece of content but they don’t think about the other components that actually get that content to you so think about the DNS system where people register domain names or where they so the registrars for those domain names or the registries for those for the for the TLDs the top-level domains like dot-com and dot you know that or the country-level ones there’s a whole world of that there’s a whole world of entities that that actually transmit that content which Cloudflare is a part of and then there’s the ISP side of the world as well so all of the different entities the browsers that make it accessible in your on your computer all of those play a role in getting that content to you and I think one of the challenges when we get into the layered policymaking world we really start have to think about what effect regulatory structures have on how those pieces fit together and how they don’t so I want to give you a couple of examples of what that means in practice so you know one of the things about the Internet that’s so interesting is that when it was set up it really wasn’t contemplating the world that we live in today it didn’t have privacy built in it didn’t have security built in nothing was encrypted and so people took advantage of that to do lots of often good things they screen for security threats they they potentially use it for content purposes but when you start building new structures on top of that often those things either stop working or get more challenging and so to give you an example people might block an IP address the challenge in that world of blocking an IP address so again in a country is that if you block a cloudflare IP address where we have millions of domains on us you potentially block millions of domains and so now you’ve created a world where a huge amount of content is not available and we see similar things where people are trying to do something because they think it’s going to be a way of addressing content and an effective way of addressing content but really what they’re doing is potentially cutting off components of the Internet so really trying when we get into that world of layered policymaking it’s really thinking about the effects both locally and thinking about collateral consequences but then also thinking about the broader global effects so what happens when this is done in a different country and with a different rule of law standard what happens when when it becomes the norm that that’s an acceptable thing to do those are all sort of questions that I think we need to think about an answer thank you very much
Moderator:
Alyssa so noble I believe that Japan government is the one of the major advocates for a global interoperable internet and how do you think that this layered approach can be useful or what are the challenges whether the thank you
Nobuhisa NISHIGATA:
good afternoon everybody my name is Nobu Nishigata from the Japanese government and the first of all welcome to Kyoto on behalf of the hosting ministry our ministry then thanks you coming for all then I hope you have good weather better weather tomorrow after tomorrow then you have some fun some time to find more not only the idea of things but also about the depth of the culture in Kyoto so then about the question maybe maybe start starting off by the layer thing I believe that the Japanese government is doing pretty good job in layer approach particularly once it comes to the regulation but this is only layer one two three this is our domain from our ministry voice then it may be after four five six seven then it’s more people came in comes in like just she said it’s not only the telecom things you know so one two three particularly for the domestic things and sometimes that the infrastructure connecting the us to with abroad like for example submarine cables or satellite frequency etc so then like we have very clear the structure in our law is a telecom business law in Japan we are doing pretty good job but then for the issues in infrastructure for example like it’s kind of away from this today’s topic but how we secure the internet connection in the rural areas even in Japan or like isolated island in the Japanese territory like that kind of things we can do that in a layer two or one type of regulation our policy approach we do that but on the other hand like once it comes to the content issue like maybe let me you know the since my assignment in the Japanese government includes some issue in the piracy or like a CSAM like that’s kind of content related issues then like of course we do the layer protein one two three but it doesn’t solve the problem we have to fight with that kind of the problem I mean CSAM is it’s more like a human right that we have to solve these things fight together or like a piracy it’s a only the some some people say it’s only the economic harm but it’s that the harm is big and you may see some Japanese the publishers industry in the manga like you can see the exhibition if you go there they are waiting for you to show how they fight against the piracy bad guys so I mean like she just provided the example with the shutting down the whole crowd the flare we don’t want to expect that to happen but still you know we have to do something I mean for example maybe moving other direction like of course I hope that you’ve already found that Japan is such a peaceful country in a society but still we have bad crimes going around and recently like the to some extent the internet enabled these new type of crimes I mean not a whole internet but for example one example be the telegram it’s a good tool and in the end to end encryption and that’s a good one but it’s quite hard for law enforcement to chase them up so of course we are I’m telling you that the Japanese government is smart enough not we are not gonna ban the telegram use in general in Japan but on the other hand we have to find some solution or maybe going out on the technology just only for the law enforcement but this is a I would say that the hardest part you know like it’s kind of arbitrary type of things but also from the government perspective we have some basic principle the first comes rule of law right it’s a fundamental principle in democratic society of course we respect the freedom open the global internet that these are the great values I admit and I respect to but on the other hand maybe I’m telling you you should be aware of that the government’s are not global as you guys in the internet we have the boundaries we do care about the boundaries you know so of course like the government you know we are paid by the tax so the our prime I would say subject to a customer I mean I shouldn’t say she is the customer but they are that the people within the border of course we do diplomacy we do some international affairs but the primary thing is within the border that the government is so then the other side on the other hand the reason that we have some international organization like OECD UNESCO and IGF and UN etc so we have to know we have to recognize some gaps between the internet and government and society etc then like just I had an opportunity to have some speech in the same place here then last month it’s 30th anniversary for the APNIC it’s Asia-Pacific Network Information Center and they they have it was just a 30 years anniversary is a congratulation again for them then like I just talked about the what was 30 years ago so that 30 years ago just I was an exchange student in the United States I was alone and then having the host family they are very kind and then having they helped me then I go to high school in the United States and at that time like of course like we do some communication with my family in Japan but at that time me it’s just letters and phones all right no smartphone no zoom no internet you know no emails so then the compared to that and then they go just the how beneficial the internet has been and then we couldn’t think more about the recent development of technologies but on the other hand unfortunately we see some new problems and then I would say like just very thinking for having me here then then like today be the first step to more like a get closer to have more dialogue between the internet and the government even in Japan so I would say Japan is internet environment it’s pretty good it’s free but compared to other countries sometimes but still it doesn’t mean that that we are satisfied as a government person we are not satisfied at this the situation right now so but still as I say that the Japanese government is smart enough to respect the free internet to global internet on the other hand we need your help to solve and this goes to the of course the other other part of the world so I hope that today’s gonna be the first step for the further dialogue and thank you for having me again thank you
Moderator:
thank you noble and that’s actually why we’re here to have this kind of conversation and see some for those who don’t know it’s child sex to sexual abuse imagery material and we go to John John you have some slides I’m yep
Jean F. Queralt:
when I was offered to to be in the panel I started trying to go a little bit down the rabbit hole of the the concept of fragmentation and how there’s so many definitions about it and I found that there were a number of elements that seem to not be very much investigated if you want or considered so the term bugs me a little bit because it does have some implications so think about a vase for instance if you say that the vase is broken it implies that at some point the vase was not broken so if we are going to be talking about an internet in a fragmented internet we need to make the assumption that it was not fragmented in the past and I’m not quite sure that we do have evidence to be able to sustain both claims with with perfect certainty of course we do all have a bit of an intuitive feeling that these things are going into that direction I will be just a little bit cautious about which directions we think is really going and so for instance when we think about fragmentation I feel that most of the time I never hear anyone talking about the concept of time so is that observed fragmentation happening in a short span of time is it something that maintains across time? Is it because it has been mandated by someone? Is it because there’s a faulty hardware or a protocol that stopped working for whatever reason? Those things seem to not really much be in the conversation quite often. And next slide, please. And so the approach that I like to take is the one that you see there in the slide. So that’s the layering that I like to follow, where you see on the top that there is a user ‑‑ sorry, the user should be on top, but I didn’t have space. Interacting with an application through a user interface, basically, and then you would need to be able to typically generate some kind of identification, which leads you to some data manipulation, which is then transmitted. You need to be able to identify the destination machine for that, and then you have some kind of physical channel to be able to do the transmission. Essentially, for the technical people, I would say that the UI is nothing more than an analog digital and digital to analog converter. It basically passes the information and the will of the user down the stack. I do see the need, even though there’s been a lot of conversation as to whether we need a layered approach or not, essentially because if we cannot pinpoint at which layer a certain problem is happening, it’s going to be very, very difficult to try to figure out who do you need to talk to in order to try to solve it. And so I don’t really mind if we use this kind of model or any other type of model, but there has to be a model for us to unite across, to be able to make sure that we know which stakeholders do we need to engage. And most importantly, I would say that there’s a little bit of confusion sometimes and overlap between different organizations, and it seems to me that we don’t have a clear taxonomy of mandates so that we again know who do we have to talk to, never mind the fact that some of those organizations may not be the most accessible for certain stakeholders. Next one, please. So when we also talk about interoperability, the only three models that come to mind is this shared situation where everyone is agreeing on how to communicate, let’s say a protocol, or an ad hoc one where every single piece, every device, every software requires to have ad hoc methodologies to be able to communicate with the rest of the systems, or a hybrid situation, which is pretty much what we have at the moment, kind of a combination of both of them. And so we are talking about interoperability, and sometimes I’m not 100% sure about in which direction do we want to go. Do we want to keep this hybrid model? Do we want to try to harmonize much more across systems? What do we want to do? Last one, please. Was that the last one? Oh, there was another one. It’s fine. I would also submit that when I was mentioning about the different organizations and trying to establish a very clear taxonomy of mandates, I know that it can be looked as we are dispersing the management of all of those layers. I somehow look at it from the perspective of the lack of concentration of one single organization where everything can be done is actually a virtue for resilience. So if you think about an actor who may try to have some kind of nasty attitude, let’s say, it would take them many more resources to be able to attend to all of these organizations and be able to participate in all of them so that they may be able to affect one of the layers, but possibly not the rest. So if anything wrong happens, you could try to rectify through the rest of the layers. I think there’s something to be said about resiliency based on fragmentation of organizations. Thank you.
Moderator:
Thank you a lot, John. And Konstantinos, start.
Konstantinos:
Thank you. Hi, everyone. Thank you. So my name is Konstantinos, or Connie, apparently, according to the transcript. And I think that one of the things that we heard, and it’s sort of coming across, is that the layer approach to internet fragmentation presents a lot of challenges, first of all, because currently the way, and especially the internet has evolved over the years, we are not really sure whether we can still use and talk about layers, right? And that is because there are more actors that are engaging, and they’re engaging across what used to be very discernible layers in the beginning of the internet. And also because more issues emerge that, of course, require state intervention, and we see regulation. So I think that starting with what Alisa was saying that, you know, and of course from Cloudflare’s point of view, their main challenge is how the regulation that is currently happening within the internet ecosystem affects infrastructure, right? And the ability to provide those services, whether it is about security, or whether it is about traffic efficiency, or whether it is, whether it allows users to be able and consume the internet in a more efficient way. And then, of course, then you have the broader global effects, right? I mean, those unintended consequences can create some sort of global effects that then spill over, and we are talking about a complete breakdown and splinter of the internet. Nob, on the other hand, coming from the government, I think that he raised the challenge that we keep hearing a lot of governments having. We understand that there is, there are some things that we should not be touching, and we do understand that those things are what make the internet what it is. But at the same time, we are facing everyday policy challenges as governments, and as part of our mandate, and the fact that we have been elected to provide answers to those challenges, we don’t know where to go. And I think the, well, Nob brought up encryption, which I think is perhaps the biggest challenge currently that policymakers are facing, especially in connection with SISM. I don’t think that we need to debate at all that everyone in this room, and in the world, hopefully, how they feel about SISM, but at the same time, because it involves, the conversation, better yet, involves issues around encryption, it makes it very difficult. Because if you hear the engineers, they will tell you there is really, do not touch encryption. It is a very, very important protocol. It is very important for the security of the internet. It is very important for privacy. It is very important for the security of people. But at the same time, the fact that encryption exists, and as a protocol, is getting abused, is being abused by various actors in order to do criminal acts. So, and I really liked, actually, Nobu, your call, effectively, to this, essentially, to this community, saying, we need your help. How can you help us find a balance, or provide at least a way forward, in what seems right now to be an impossible debate? And Jean, really, your opening really hit a really nice nerve with me, when you said, I’m not sure there was ever a time that the internet was not fragmented, right? And we really do not know. And we really do not know, because we only recently, if I can say that, we started thinking of fragmentation, and fragmentation sort of came in front of us, as an issue. But there might have been a time, even from the beginning of the internet, where fragmentation existed. And I think that depending on who you are, and where they’re coming from, they will tell you different things. The other thing, if I understood correct, and please correct me if I didn’t, is that we need to be able, and there is a challenge on that, on identifying which exact layer we’re talking about. And we need to be able to do that, because unless we are able to identify that layer, we won’t be able to know who to speak to, how to engage with that organization or body, and what actual solutions to give. And of course, you went back to the origins of the conception of the internet, which is decentralization, and the fact that decentralization hints, of course, to more resilience, and why this is important within the context of the internet. I think that the one thing that I can say is that fragmentation, for the past couple of years at least, has been the buzzword that everybody’s using, and rightly so in many, many ways, simply because it is a problem that can create serious challenges for the global, open, and interoperable internet. And especially in the past five years, we see governments stepping in to address some of those very hard challenges, and at the same time, in their effort to do so, there are unintended consequences that actually affect the infrastructure of the internet and the way the internet exists and continues to evolve. And I will stop here.
Moderator:
Thank you, Konstantin. So we want to have a dialogue, and at any time you want to ask a question, or comment, or if you need any clarification of what is this internet fragmentation, and why is it necessarily bad, it’s not a positive thing. Oh, and I can see somebody at the mic. Great. Go ahead.
Audience:
Hi, I’m Barry Lieba. I want to comment on the internet being fragmented from the beginning. The internet, by its nature, is fragmented. It is a network of networks. I have a home network that does not have open access to the rest of the internet. It’s a fragment. Companies have their own fragments of the internet. This is the way the internet was intended to work. So I like to think of what we’re talking about as harmful fragmentation, which is fragmentation that damages the way the internet was intended to work, and I think that’s a better way to approach it. The question that I got up to ask was, I know what OSI stack layering is, you know, and all that kind of stuff. What I don’t understand is what the purpose of this session is to talk about layered policy approach, and we’re now halfway through the session, and we haven’t talked about that part. So I’m looking to understand what the layered policy bit means. Are you talking about applying policy to the OSI stack layer? Are you talking about setting up a layered approach to policy? Please explain, and let’s have that conversation. Thanks.
Moderator:
Thank you. So for me, my impression is that, I tried to explain this in the beginning. For example, when governments want to regulate, not necessarily the internet, they can come up with a regulation that could affect the operation of the networks, and this could be, for example, the IP addresses of certain countries and regions, and governments don’t necessarily want that. If they want an open global internet, they don’t want to prevent access of countries to IP addresses, but the unintended consequences of that kind of policy, in this case sanctions, is that it could prevent network operators from having access to IP addresses, and IP addresses are not, which is at the infrastructure, as you know better than me, the infrastructure, and they are needed and necessary for online presence. So it’s not about accessing Zoom or accessing Facebook. It’s about accessing infrastructure that enables you to have an online presence and have access to the global internet. So I believe that the layered approach could possibly help at the moment. It could possibly help to tell the policymakers and civil society when they make recommendations that, hey, when you are coming up with these content regulation initiatives, with these sanctions initiatives, think about which part of the internet you do not want to actually affect with your policy so that it actually can be targeted and you can actually achieve that regulatory purpose. I hope that was clear, but I invite any other…
Alissa Starzak :
Can I just add one thing? I actually want to make it a little bit more concrete. I think there are two different sets of problems that are worth thinking about. One is when you have a general regulation that applies further down when people aren’t thinking about it. So to give you an example, the EU has passed GDPR, lots of very important things for privacy. One of the claims that has come out in GDPR is the idea of data localization of IP addresses. Now if you know how infrastructure works, that’s nonsense, that doesn’t work practically, but that doesn’t mean that a policymaker hasn’t thought about it because they don’t think about how the internet works. So I think there’s the general regulation applying and being conscious of that, and then I think there’s also a secondary piece which is thinking about infrastructure and actually what are you trying to regulate and how. Often what happens is that people go down to infrastructure first because you have, going back to I think Jean’s point, often that is a place where you can get access to something you might not otherwise have access to because we do have a network of networks. And so practically what you find are that people will go to an area where they have access. And so I think there are two components and I would sort of split them into two different ideas.
Online Moderator:
My name is Olaf Kollekman, I’m sort of co-organizer of this session and I’m now at the mic as an online moderator. So I’m forwarding a question from Chukio Kishida who is asking, I feel that cyberbullying is a serious problem in Japan. Cyberbullying is one of the internet fragmentation in terms of communication. What contribution do you think that can be made to address cyberbullying from a policymaking perspective? I think that’s a very hard question to answer, but I’m gonna add that a little bit. I’m gonna add some color to that question and change it a little bit for the panel. If you think of cyberbullying and you think of that layer approach, how would you, on what layer would you put that type of problem and at which layer do you think you will not be able to solve this? Is that a way you can work with that?
Moderator:
That’s great. Anybody from the panel? So I have one example of not good policy in order to regulate content. So for example, IP blocking is not proportional, cannot be done proportionately. And if we block IP addresses, it’s not just like one website, we might actually block access to a whole set of websites. And we have seen the chaos that happened in Europe when they came up with a regulation that for disinformation and IP blocking of the websites of Russia was mandated. And the network operators and ISPs had a lot of problem with doing that in a proportional way. So that’s where not to do it or also DNS blocking, I believe. And now the layered approach DNS is the application but still infrastructure and necessary for online presence. But anybody from the panel would like to add?
Nobuhisa NISHIGATA:
Thank you for the raising the issue of the cyberbullying and it is the big issue. But in my observation, usually, in the beginning, maybe it’s Japan’s particular problem. But now I see similar issues outside Japan as well. So maybe we have to think about it. It’s kind of beyond the scope of today’s narrow scope to the layered approach discussion. But however, we have to think that like echo chamber or like a filter bubble type of things that there’s some side effects using the SNS type of services. So of course, as I said, SNS also brought a lot of benefit to the society. On the other hand, there is some side effect. And then this cyberbullying issue is more closer to the, I would say, freedom of speech, those kind of things in a high level of definition. So it’s quite hard. But maybe, of course, Japan is working hard to do some legislation against the humiliation over the internet. Also, some legal systems about the limited liability for the internet service providers, those kind of things. So we are trying hard, but still, I admit that that’s an issue. Thank you.
Moderator:
We have a comment. John, do you want to go ahead and then we will have Marco.
Jean F. Queralt:
I wanted to do a follow up on your question. So when you were mentioning about maybe us talking about harmful fragmentation, I think it’s a good point that maybe we can also have a term for positive fragmentation. And so the term splinternet has been going around for some time, so it could be applied for the negative parts or the harmful one. And then I was just trying to figure it out, but English is not my primary language, so I’m possibly not the best one to come up with something such as unified net, flow net, coherent net, cohesive net, seamless net, whatever. Someone here can just raise your hand. It might be a good opportunity to actually try to pinpoint a name for something that points out to a positive fragmentation that respects the original intent of the internet.
Moderator:
Thank you. I have a comment on that, but I’m not going to let Marco wait. Go ahead, Marco.
Audience:
I’m always happy to wait, but yeah, I know you talk a lot. It’s Marco Hoogwoning, Dutch government. Let me, I’m not going to say anything about fragmentation and I’m also trying to refrain from saying whether we’re taking the right approach or the wrong approach, but I can speak from experience as a policymaker. In 2015, one of our government think tanks introduced the notion of the public core and with that, ever since, what we try to do is make a distinction on what happens when it comes to regulating the internet, we make the distinction of regulating off the internet and regulating on the internet. In my experience, so far, that is a helpful approach, we’ve also been advocating that to fellow governments and I do think it helps the discussion forward, especially in international policy where you can say like, okay, and I hear somebody say like, okay, yeah, some layers do not have borders, that’s correct, and that’s sort of what we see as the public core, is that layers that are practically borderless and are really hard to regulate from a national perspective. There is, of course, the content discussion and looking at sort of various remarks and I think that’s still where a lot of the challenge lies, is I heard somebody say, yeah, lawmakers don’t understand the internet and yeah, from where I stand, I think that’s also partially a good thing. Not everybody is an internet engineer and I used to be an engineer, I’ve stepped over to the dark side called government and, you know, keep it simple. That’s why we kind of try to keep it in that distinction of two layers, because if you delve in too many layers, it gets complex. Another thing I’d like to remark on and I think it was my Japanese colleague that sort of talked about accountability, yes. The fact that we make the distinction doesn’t mean that the public core and the people operating the public core should not be accountable. There are certain things happening on the internet where if you look at it from a neutral perspective, probably the only place to do something about it is that public core. And that’s a really hard thing to do, because that’s the discussion we need to have internationally and that’s usually discussion we need to have in a multi-stakeholder forum to find solutions for that space. Some things are relatively easy, because you know where it is, it happens on top of the layer. The point I’m trying to get to, we can divide it up into multiple layers. My advice is don’t do that, but also recognize that in the end, from a policy perspective, what we’re looking at is public interest and that public sits on layer 8 and layer 9. That public interest doesn’t differentiate between layer 3, 4, or 5. We’re trying to make the world a better place. Your challenge is find out which layer is the most appropriate to do the right thing to help us make the world a better place.
Moderator:
Which public are we talking about? Whose public interest? Is it the national public interest, are we talking about the global public interest?
Audience:
That’s a difficult one. Of course we always start with the national interest in mind, but I do hope that our national interest is other people’s national interest, and we can find consensus in the global space of what is the public interest.
Moderator:
Absolutely, and how to reconcile that is very important for the global interest. You have another… Please, go ahead. All my friends are here. Go ahead.
Audience:
We will fight to see who goes first. Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow. I guess I want to follow up a little on the previous comment. It’s clear that regulation that affects, that targets and affects layers where it wasn’t intended and is inappropriate causes problems. The discussion has considered a whole range of different technologies. We’ve had discussion of IP blocking, DNS blocking, and a whole bunch of other things. These obviously operate at different layers, they’re operated by different people. Understanding the differences requires pretty deep technical knowledge. Other ways of distinguishing those layers, distinguishing the technologies, and ways of phrasing those differences and describing those differences that are more accessible and don’t need that deep technical knowledge to perhaps help reframe the debate a little in a way which might make it easier to judge the applicability of regulation.
Moderator:
Thank you. Actually, Alyssa wants to respond to Colin, I’m sorry, bad one.
Alissa Starzak :
I think when we think about it, we actually try to think about who it affects, and so we actually describe it as effects. I think the challenge is that when we actually have those conversations, we think there needs to be a translation, so somebody who isn’t on the engineering side being able to explain what the potential unintended consequences might be is really important, and frankly, we certainly think that industry, which has some of the technical knowledge, plays an important role. I think sometimes, though, it can be really challenging to write things the right way, recognizing that there’s a gap between those two, because writing a regulation can be really hard, even when you’re trying to get at something specific, even when you understand the unintended consequences, that doesn’t mean there’s necessarily a better way to write something.
Audience:
Okay. I’m thinking about the bullying thing, because I think it’s a perfect example of where we need to look at this. Part of me says it’s entirely a layer nine thing. You crack down on bullies at the personal level, but the Internet has changed the way that works. When I was growing up, if somebody bullied me, it was that person against me, and that person might get a few of his friends to join him in bullying me, and so now maybe it was five or six people against me, and the administrators at school could deal with that. And now with the Internet, you have hundreds of thousands of people bullying me over the Internet, potentially. So that does change things, and we have to look at how that works, but at the same time, it’s still a layer nine issue. Do you stop the bully from accessing the Internet at all? I think it’s a very difficult thing to think about. So I like the idea of trying to think of that in layers, and I guess that’s the comment I wanted to make. I don’t have an answer to it, so…
Jean F. Queralt:
I wanted to make a comment. I feel sometimes there’s this kind of cognitive dissonance between the expectation when it comes to technology and the expectations we have in other industries. So unless there’s an architect in this room, nobody really knows why this building is not collapsing on our heads, and we don’t really care, because that job is done, and we just have put the trust into whoever is responsible for this to do the right thing. And so trying to explain certain technical things to the general public, yes, for those who are curious, of course, you shouldn’t be closing that door, it’s just it’s kind of assuming as well too much pressure for the general public to go up to that level of technical knowledge. If I’m using a phone, it shouldn’t be my responsibility to know, you know, the amount of ionizing radiation that I’m getting from the antenna. There’s mechanisms for that for me to not have to worry about it, just as when I go to a restaurant, I’m not checking as to whether the water is drinkable or not. So to a certain degree, the people who are involved in those industries are those that you would consider frontliners, and I would say that we need to make sure that the technology squad, being the frontliners for technology, do have the tools for that. And often enough, I don’t see that happening.
Moderator:
Thank you, John. I just wanted to add, so for the cyber, for the content regulation and conduct regulation issue that should happen, like we have been advocating for that, that that should not happen at infrastructure layer, and like the cloud services and CDNs and DNS resolvers and IP blocking, so these, and by we, I mean some of the, like the technical internet community, because that cannot be done proportionally. But on social media platforms, you might be able to take certain action and for trust and digital trust and safety and kind of like come up with like takedown mechanisms and stuff like that. The problem with doing that at the infrastructure level is that you cannot, you might actually hamper somebody, some innocent person online presence by doing that. So I just wanted to add that, and I see Andrew, right, Andrew?
Audience:
Yeah. Thank you. I’ll take that as my cue to ask a question. Andrew Camping, I’m a runner consultancy and I’m also a trustee of the Internet Watch Foundation. Just to give a couple of reflections, I would respectfully say the industry has got a lousy reputation for giving reasons why something can’t be done, starting with privacy. So each time something comes up, there’s a raft of excuses to say why not, and then when GDPR is enacted, it sort of seems to find a way of accommodating it. So I think you could replay what we’ve sort of discussed to say, okay, the industry is expecting legislators to do things in a way which allows for the efficient running of the industry, which I can see why the industry wants that, but most industries have to live with the regulations that are imposed on them. They don’t get to dictate the terms that they’re regulated, and I would respectfully say maybe with the maturity of the internet, we need to sort of face up the fact that governments are accountable to their sort of voters, not to the technical companies. So for example, to say you can’t do IP blocking because that would be more difficult for CDNs would be one approach. The other approach would be to say, if the governments decide you do need to block X, it’s up to the CDN to work around that so they can still function. So I think you just, the industry is trying to have it to dictate the terms of how, of the environment it operates in, and why should it be special compared to, say, car manufacturers. Thank you, Andrew.
Moderator:
We have a last like 10 minutes, so please be short in your remarks, and yeah, go ahead, Rafiq.
Audience:
Okay, I will be quite short, Rafiq Damark. So I want to ask a clarifying question to Nishikaga-san from MIC. So you said that MIC or Somosho is not taking or try to regulate a lot, but maybe I want to, if you can clarify more that how it’s left more to the industry, the operator, telco, internet service provider, in different area like anti-piracy, anti-piracy regarding manga in particular, or the CSAM to do, to work on countermeasure and so on. So maybe it’s kind of a light approach, but it might also raise some question about accountability, and particularly it’s not quite multi-stakeholder more, it’s more the kind of the private sector taking the lead here, and at the end also kind of presented like how Japan is maybe leading and respecting the rights and so on, but what are the safeguards for the future? So I wanted more clarification here. Thanks.
Nobuhisa NISHIGATA:
Let me quick answer you, we are not trying to introduce some regulation or legislation over the piracy or CSAM directly. It’s quite hard in the technical perspective in how you build up the law as a text, like a code. We have like a, you know, it is not just so easy, like just, you know, even our Prime Minister, he was here today, but just he says that the piracy is not good. We have to keep manga industry, then they do something, guys, right? He may want to say that, but still in the technical ways in how you construct a registration, it doesn’t work out that way. So we know that. It’s more, you know, we have to check about many things in a democratic society, for example rule of law, then freedom of expression, et cetera, et cetera. So it is not easy. And we are smart enough to do that. So then we are asking that, but somehow, I mean, you can do the piracy without the Internet, but the scale is much, much smaller than what we see in the Internet piracy thing. Then that the point that we need your help, like we have, we want to do something just only against CSAM, piracy, some bad guys. And of course we want to foster it and help them develop further from the good side. I would say more than 90, 90% in the Internet community are good guys, right?
Moderator:
Yes, exactly. And on that positive note, we can go outside. We can go to the next comment. Sorry, we have five more minutes and I promise we will be on time.
Audience:
Sure. No worries. My name is Zon Khan. I’m a member of the Internet Society Youth Standing Group. I wanted to talk quite a lot about my conceptions of Internet fragmentation, but you can hear me speak hopefully tomorrow in the Policy Network session. Just a quick question that’s directed towards, I guess, all of you. Ultimately the battle for a global Internet is a battle for global values, which we don’t have. We keep talking about, you know, democratic societies and multi-stakeholders, but not every single society is built like that. And one thing that I definitely note that everybody over here also knows but never dares to say is, well, the very same mechanisms that we use to control content and services and applications in one jurisdiction will be used in other jurisdictions as well. And that exactly is the problem that I feel needs to be discussed a little bit more, which is why we need to talk about, well, at what layer of the stack is this going to affect not only the jurisdiction where this may be legitimate, but other jurisdictions as well. And we’ve seen, and I want to end with a link that was presented in last year’s IGF, which is Protect the Stack, which talked about the role of infrastructure providers, and I can see you smiling over there, because there have been instances where infrastructure has been deployed or used as, you know, a layer to censor content or take down content, and Cloudflare has been on the other side of that. We have Kiwi Farms, we have Mastodon, and so on and so forth. So I just wanted to know your thoughts on all of that and what we should do going forward in this multi-stakeholder setting. Thank you.
Moderator:
So I want to use the last two minutes to think about where we are, what sort of processes we want to use to discuss these solutions, like layered approach and other solutions to prevent internet fragmentation. But Marco, very short.
Audience:
Very short, very final thought, I’m about to come from RFC 1925. Yes, it is always more complex than you think. But also watching this, be careful not to add multiple layers of indirection. I hear a lot of people pointing to each other, so then to tackle you on that last question, I think dialogues like this help to prevent that.
Moderator:
Final thoughts? Where can we go from here? How can we take this conversation and advance it forward? No, you don’t have anywhere.
Alissa Starzak :
You know, I actually think that last set of questions and comments, I think, is right. I think that we need to figure out how to make this conversation feel accessible. And also to understand that, yes, every nation wants to legislate within its borders. And sometimes when you start getting into the world of infrastructure, you are legislating far beyond your borders. And that is where some of the challenges come. And I think that’s, I guess, what we’re getting at, at the layered policy concept. If you are legislating to things that affect outside your borders, you should be thinking about that reality from a practical standpoint, because that means other people can legislate inside your borders as well, right? That are not accountable to you in any sort of way. And I think that’s where some of our challenges come. I will say on the bigger question, we have lots of challenges online. And I guess this is a shout-out on the optimism side. The best way to solve all of those is to think about how we work together, both from government to government, government to industry, civil society. All of those have a role to play. And I think that’s really where we want to sort of move forward.
Jean F. Queralt:
Just quickly to wrap up, as next steps, I would want to encourage that we start working on outcomes-based taxonomy, both for human rights as well as data management. That would be an interesting step to take.
Nobuhisa NISHIGATA:
Some final words, and then I’m impressed by the Dutch colleague, good for Dutch government, and then they have such a staff like him, like he knows both the policymaking plus the technology, and then to me, just to be honest with you, like I just talked about the telecom business in Japan, but it’s originally aimed at phones. Then the Internet came, and then of course we tried to catch up, update our regulation, but the Internet was much faster than our effort to do some regulation, legislation work. That’s the truth, I would say. So then we had to catch up, and of course we respect the freedom part of the Internet, so then now it’s time too that we have to catch up by other type, new type of a solution on the Internet, which is going to be brought not only by the government, but also you guys help us, and the technicians, and the industry, and the civil society, and everybody, so thank you.
Moderator:
Great. Another positive note to end this session on. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speakers
Nobuhisa NISHIGATA
Speech speed
170 words per minute
Speech length
1885 words
Speech time
667 secs
Arguments
Japan is doing a pretty good job in layer approach particularly once it comes to regulation
Supporting facts:
- The structure in Japanese law is clear and effective
- The government is active in issues like securing internet connection in rural areas
Topics: Internet Regulation, Layered Approach, Government
The issue of content related concerns is challenging to deal with
Supporting facts:
- The Japanese government is fighting against piracy and CSAM
- Layer one, two, three approach doesn’t solve content-related problems
Topics: Internet Content, Piracy, CSAM
Internet has enabled new types of crimes which are challenging for law enforcement to handle
Supporting facts:
- End-to-end encryption like in Telegram can make it hard for law enforcement to trace criminals
- Internet has enabled new type of crimes
Topics: Internet Crime, Law Enforcement, Challenges
Cyberbullying is a significant issue
Supporting facts:
- Bullying issues have been witnessed not just in Japan but globally
- There have been reports of humiliation over the internet
- Japan is working to create legislation against internet-based humiliation
Topics: Internet, Social Networks
SNS and internet usage can lead to ‘echo chambers’ or ‘filter bubble’ effects, a side effect to be considered
Supporting facts:
- Echo chamber effects occur when users are exposed to only similar viewpoints and information, leading to polarization and misinformation
Topics: Social Networks, Freedom of Speech
MIC is not trying to introduce direct regulation or legislation over piracy or child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as it’s technically challenging
Supporting facts:
- It’s challenging to construct a law in a form that effectively covers issues like piracy or CSAM
- There are many things to consider in a democratic society, such as the rule of law and freedom of expression
Topics: Regulation, Piracy, CSAM
Japan’s approach encourages industry or private sector, such as ISPs and telecom operators, to take the lead in countering piracy and CSAM
Supporting facts:
- He emphasises the important role internet community can play in combating piracy or CSAM
- He believes that more than 90% of the internet community are ‘good guys’
Topics: Internet Service Providers, Telecom Operators, Piracy, CSAM
Internet regulations and legislations didn’t keep up with the pace of Internet advancement
Supporting facts:
- Internet development outpaced the efforts to regulate it
Topics: Internet regulation, Legislation, Technological progress
Joint efforts from government, technicians, industry, and civil society needed to improve situation
Supporting facts:
- New solutions emerging on the Internet are not only brought by the government but also need support from technicians, the industry, and civil society
Topics: Government initiatives, Public-Private Partnership, Digital Transformation
Report
In Japan, the government has implemented a layered approach to internet regulation, which is considered effective and clear in the country’s legal structure. This approach encompasses various levels of regulation to address different aspects of internet-related issues. The government is also actively involved in addressing challenges related to internet access in rural areas, aiming to secure reliable and accessible internet connections for all citizens.
However, the layered approach faces difficulties when it comes to content-related concerns, such as piracy and the distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). The government acknowledges that the current framework does not effectively tackle these issues and presents challenges in combating piracy and CSAM.
Constructing legislation that adequately covers these problematic areas within the boundaries of a democratic society, considering factors like the rule of law and freedom of expression, is complex. Moreover, the emergence of the internet has given rise to new types of crimes, posing significant challenges for law enforcement agencies.
The use of end-to-end encryption, as seen in platforms like Telegram, makes it harder for authorities to trace and apprehend criminals engaged in illegal activities. This highlights the need for innovative countermeasures and international cooperation to effectively combat internet-enabled crimes.
While respecting the principles of freedom and the global nature of the internet, the Japanese government recognizes the importance of balancing these ideals with the rule of law. They take a cautious approach, avoiding a complete prohibition of general internet platforms like Telegram, and instead seek to find legal solutions to combat online crimes.
Additionally, the government actively engages in international affairs, understanding that its duty extends beyond domestic borders. Cyberbullying is a significant issue globally, and Japan is no exception. Various measures are being taken, including the creation of legislation to address internet-based humiliation.
By implementing these laws, the government aims to protect individuals from the harmful effects of cyberbullying and provide a safer online environment. Regulations concerning social media networks and internet service providers are considered necessary but complex. The government is working on establishing a legal system to define the limited liability of internet service providers, acknowledging the benefits and side effects of the social network services (SNS) ecosystem.
Achieving a balance between regulation and the positive aspects of SNS platforms is crucial in ensuring a safe and secure online space. The use of social media and the internet also brings forth the issue of echo chamber effects, where individuals are exposed only to similar viewpoints and information, leading to polarization and misinformation.
This phenomenon challenges the fostering of a well-informed society and highlights the importance of promoting diverse perspectives and critical thinking in online interactions. Constructing effective laws to combat piracy and CSAM is a technically challenging task. The government recognizes this complexity and strives to find appropriate solutions without introducing direct regulations or legislation.
Instead, they encourage the industry and private sector, such as internet service providers (ISPs) and telecom operators, to take a leading role in countering piracy and CSAM. By leveraging the expertise and resources of these stakeholders, more effective measures can be implemented.
There is also a strong emphasis on the role of the internet community in combating piracy and CSAM. Nishigata, an advocate for collective effort, believes that while piracy can exist even without the internet, its scale is significantly smaller in comparison.
More than 90% of the internet community is considered to be “good guys” who can play an essential role in supporting the fight against illegal activities and maintaining a safe online environment. Despite the efforts made, it is highlighted that internet regulations and legislations have struggled to keep up with the rapid advancement of technology.
The development of the internet has outpaced regulatory efforts and created challenges in effectively addressing emerging issues. Therefore, continuous adaptation and collaboration among various stakeholders are needed to ensure that regulations can keep pace with technological progress. In conclusion, the Japanese government has implemented a layered approach to internet regulation, which has been effective in certain aspects, such as securing internet connections in rural areas.
However, challenges remain in areas like content-related concerns, internet-enabled crimes, and cyberbullying. Balancing the principles of freedom and the global nature of the internet with the rule of law is crucial. Regulations concerning social media networks and internet service providers are complex but necessary.
Collaboration and joint efforts between the government, technicians, industry, and civil society are vital in improving the regulation and safety of the internet landscape.
Alissa Starzak
Speech speed
195 words per minute
Speech length
1515 words
Speech time
467 secs
Arguments
Layered policymaking requires understanding of the complex network behind Internet content
Supporting facts:
- There are different entities involved that are responsible to get the content to the users including registrars for domain names, entity that transmit content, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and browsers.
- Regulatory structures can directly affect how these entities can work together or challenge their operations.
Topics: Layered Policymaking, Internet Infrastructure, Content Regulation
Regulating internet through blocking mechanisms may hinder access to a large amount of content
Supporting facts:
- Attempts to block an IP address may result in blocking millions of domains.
- This can lead to a significant proportion of internet content becoming inaccessible.
Topics: Content Regulation, Internet Access, Internet Censorship
The need to consider practicality and functionality when developing regulations
Supporting facts:
- Claims regarding data localization of IP addresses in the EU’s GDPR regulations is impractical considering how internet infrastructure works
- Policymakers often may not fully understand the workings of the internet
Topics: GDPR, Data Localization, Internet Infrastructure
Regulation writing requires a deep understanding of potential unintended consequences
Supporting facts:
- The process involves careful consideration of trade-offs and potential side effects
Topics: Regulation, Policy Making, Unintended Consequences
There’s a communication gap between the engineering side and the regulatory creation side
Topics: Regulation, Engineering, Communication Gap
Making the conversation accessible and understanding legislation influence beyond borders
Supporting facts:
- Every nation wants to legislate within its borders.
- When you start getting into the world of infrastructure, you are legislating far beyond your borders.
Topics: Legislation, Policy, International Relations
Other nations can legislate inside your borders if you legislate things affecting outside your borders
Supporting facts:
- You should be thinking about that reality from a practical standpoint, because that means other people can legislate inside your borders as well, right?
Topics: Legislation, Policy, International Relations
Report
During the discussion, the speakers delved into the intricacies of layered policymaking in relation to Internet content. They emphasized that understanding the complex network behind Internet content is crucial for effective policymaking. Different entities were identified as being responsible for delivering content to users, including registrars, entity-based content transmitters, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and browsers.
The speakers highlighted that regulatory structures play a significant role in shaping how these entities can operate and collaborate. The negative consequences of regulating the Internet through blocking mechanisms were brought to attention. They explained that attempts to block an IP address can inadvertently lead to the blocking of millions of domains, resulting in a significant proportion of internet content becoming inaccessible.
This argument highlights the potential hindrance to access that could arise from overly restrictive Internet regulations. Additionally, the speakers underscored the importance of considering both local and global implications when developing new structures on top of the Internet. They explained that implementing new layers or structures can potentially disrupt existing functions, and that taking into account the effects on both local and global levels can help prevent such disruptions.
The discussion also touched on the need to balance practicality and functionality when developing Internet regulations. The speakers argued that claims regarding data localisation of IP addresses, as outlined in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), can be impractical considering how internet infrastructure functions.
They noted that policymakers sometimes lack a full understanding of the intricacies of the internet, which emphasises the need for careful consideration of practicality and functionality when crafting regulations. Furthermore, the speakers stressed the significance of infrastructure as the initial gateway for internet access.
They stated that individuals often turn to infrastructure first to gain access due to the internet functioning as a network of interconnected networks. This supports the argument that regulations on infrastructure should be carefully thought out, considering its critical role in enabling access to the internet.
The speakers also spoke about the importance of having a deep understanding of potential unintended consequences when crafting regulations. They emphasised that regulation writing involves considering trade-offs and potential side effects, enabling policymakers to develop effective and balanced regulations. The industry’s role in explaining technical details during the creation of regulations was highlighted as essential.
By providing expertise and insights, the industry can bridge the communication gap between the engineering side and the regulatory creation side, ensuring that regulations are well-informed and technically viable. The discussion then shifted towards the impact of legislation beyond national borders.
The speakers pointed out that nations typically legislate within their own borders. However, when it comes to infrastructure, legislation can extend far beyond national boundaries, impacting other nations as well. It was emphasised that understanding this reality and making legislation accessible can aid in comprehending legislative influences beyond borders.
Furthermore, the speakers noted that if a nation legislates on matters that affect areas outside its borders, other nations may reciprocate by legislating within its borders. This observation highlights a potential consequence of legislating extraterritorially, emphasising the importance of considering such implications and fostering international cooperation in legislative matters.
In conclusion, the discussion emphasised the complex nature of layered policymaking in relation to Internet content. The importance of understanding the multifaceted network behind Internet content, considering local and global implications, and ensuring the practicality and functionality of regulations were key themes.
The potential negative consequences of overly restrictive regulations and the need for cooperation between government, industry, and civil society were also highlighted. Overall, the speakers advocated for a thoughtful and collaborative approach to navigating the challenges surrounding internet regulation.
Audience
Speech speed
170 words per minute
Speech length
2050 words
Speech time
725 secs
Arguments
The internet is naturally fragmented as a network of networks
Supporting facts:
- The internet has always been a network of networks
- Individuals and companies have their own fragments of the internet
Topics: Internet Fragmentation, OSI Stack Layering, Network of Networks
The session should be discussing a layered policy approach
Topics: Layered Policy Approach, OSI Stack Layering, Internet Governance
The distinction between regulating off the internet and regulating on the internet can help frame the policymaking
Supporting facts:
- Dutch government has been following a policy approach that distinguishes between regulations on and off the internet
- The borders of internet layers were considered when shaping this approach
Topics: Internet Regulation, Policy Making, Public Core of the Internet
Lawmakers need to consider the public interest when formulating policies
Supporting facts:
- The task of policymakers is to make the world a better place
- Public interest does not differentiate between different layers of the internet
Topics: Public Interest, Policy Making
The national interest should align with other nations’ interests
Topics: Public interest, Global consensus
Inappropriate regulation targeting layers where it’s not intended causes problems
Supporting facts:
- Range of different technologies discussed including IP blocking, DNS blocking
Topics: IP blocking, DNS blocking, technology regulation
Reframing the debate in simpler, accessible terms can help judge the applicability of regulation
Topics: technology regulation, education
Internet has significantly amplified the magnitude of bullying
Supporting facts:
- In the past, bullying was typically confined to a small group of people, now with the internet hundreds of thousands of people can engage in bullying.
Topics: Online bullying, Internet, Social issues
Dealing with bullying in the context of the Internet is perplexing
Supporting facts:
- The speaker questions whether bullies should be prevented from accessing the Internet altogether.
Topics: Online bullying, Internet regulation, Legal issues
The industry has a poor reputation for giving reasons why certain things cannot be done
Supporting facts:
- The industry often comes up with excuses when new regulations are proposed
- GDPR was enacted despite initial resistance from the industry
Topics: internet regulations, GDPR, privacy
The industry should not dictate the terms of its regulation
Supporting facts:
- Most industries have to live with the regulations imposed on them
- Governments are accountable to their voters, not the technical companies
Topics: internet regulations, government regulation, accountability
IP blocking could be managed by the CDN
Supporting facts:
- If governments decide to block X, it’s up to the CDN to work around that
Topics: IP blocking, CDNs, Internet regulation
Rafiq Damark wants clarification on how MIC or Somosho leaves more to the industry and the operators like the telco, internet service provider in areas like anti-piracy, anti-piracy are dealing with manga, and CSAM to work on measures
Topics: MIC, Somosho, Regulation, Anti-piracy, Internet, Telco
The battle for a global Internet is ultimately a battle for global values, which are not universally agreed upon
Topics: Internet Governance, Censorship, Democratic Societies, Multi-Stakeholder Approach
The mechanisms used to control content and services in one jurisdiction can end up affecting other jurisdictions
Topics: Internet Governance, Jurisdictional Issues, Censorship
Recognition of instances where infrastructure has been deployed or used as a layer to censor or take down content
Supporting facts:
- Presentation at last year’s IGF on ‘Protect the Stack’
Topics: Internet Censorship, Infrastructure Providers, Cloudflare, Kiwi Farms, Mastodon
The need for dialogues to prevent internet fragmentation
Supporting facts:
- Marco suggested dialogues as a means to tackle internet fragmentation problem.
- He cautioned against adding multiple layers of indirection.
Topics: Internet fragmentation, Layered Approach
Report
The session on internet fragmentation, regulation, and governance explored several key arguments. One argument put forth was that the internet is inherently fragmented as a network of networks. This understanding recognises that the internet comprises various interconnected networks operated by individuals and companies.
These individual fragments form the larger network that we know as the internet. However, it was also acknowledged that harmful fragmentation poses a problem. Harmful fragmentation refers to instances where the fragmentation of the internet hinders its intended function. The session emphasised the need to address such harmful fragmentation to ensure the smooth operation and effectiveness of the internet.
The importance of adopting a layered policy approach was discussed during the session. A layered policy approach recognises that the internet operates on multiple layers, and different regulations may be required for each layer. This approach provides a framework to effectively govern the diverse aspects of the internet while accounting for the specificities of each layer.
The distinction between regulating on and off the internet was also highlighted. The Dutch government was cited as an example, as it has implemented a policy approach that distinguishes between regulations applicable to activities taking place on the internet and those occurring off the internet.
By considering the borders and layers of the internet, policymakers can tailor regulations to ensure a balance between control and innovation. Accountability within the public core of the internet was addressed as a challenging issue. It was noted that accountability issues related to the internet should be dealt with on an international level.
The public core of the internet, due to its borderless nature, poses difficulties in terms of regulation. The session called for careful consideration and international cooperation to hold the public core of the internet accountable. The importance of considering the public interest in formulating internet governance policies was emphasised.
Policymakers were urged to make decisions that benefit society as a whole and create a better world. The session highlighted that public interest does not differentiate between different layers of the internet, and policies should reflect this holistic concern. The session also touched upon the significance of global consensus in internet governance.
It was argued that national interests should align with the interests of other nations to promote collaboration and cooperation. Finding a global consensus on matters of public interest was considered a crucial step towards harmonising internet governance frameworks. The challenges posed by online bullying were discussed, particularly in relation to the internet’s amplification effect on the magnitude of bullying.
The perplexing nature of dealing with bullying in the context of the internet was acknowledged. The industry’s response to regulation proposals was also examined. The industry was criticised for frequently offering excuses when faced with new regulations. The need for the industry to mature and accept that it is not exempt from regulation, similar to other industries, was highlighted.
Technical knowledge was identified as essential in understanding the nuances of different technologies and their regulatory scopes. Different technologies operate at various layers of the internet and are managed by different entities. Understanding these distinctions requires deep technical knowledge. The potential impact of internet censorship and the need to safeguard democratic values were also discussed.
The session recognised that the battle for a global internet ultimately involves differing values that are not universally agreed upon. It was also noted that control mechanisms deployed to manage content in one jurisdiction can affect other jurisdictions, underscoring the need to consider the potential transboundary implications of these mechanisms.
In conclusion, the session aimed to address internet fragmentation issues and develop suitable approaches to internet governance. It recognised the natural fragmentation of the internet as a network of networks but emphasised the need to tackle harmful fragmentation. The adoption of a layered policy approach and the distinction between regulating on and off the internet were suggested as ways to effectively govern the internet.
The session discussed the challenges of holding the public core of the internet accountable, the importance of considering the public interest, and the need for global consensus. The session also highlighted the complexities of dealing with bullying, the industry’s response to regulations, the significance of technical knowledge, and the potential implications of internet censorship.
Ultimately, the session aimed to find solutions that respect individual rights, uphold democratic values, and maintain a cohesive global internet.
Jean F. Queralt
Speech speed
175 words per minute
Speech length
1415 words
Speech time
485 secs
Arguments
Caution around the idea of a ‘fragmented’ internet, questioning the assumption that the internet was once not fragmented
Supporting facts:
- Defined internet fragmentation
- Questioned the evidence supporting the idea of a once-unfragmented internet
Topics: Internet fragmentation, Internet history
Examining fragmentation in terms of time and driving factors
Supporting facts:
- Raised the need for considering time in discussions about fragmentation
- Mentioned the role of faulty hardware or protocols
Topics: Internet Fragmentation, Time, Causation
Proposed model for layering in the internet
Supporting facts:
- Described a model with layers from user interface to physical channel
- Discussed the role of user interface as a means of passing information and user intention down the stack
Topics: Internet Structure, Layering, UI, Data manipulation, Transmission
Confusion about the direction of interoperability
Supporting facts:
- Outlined three models for interoperability: shared, ad hoc, and hybrid
- Suggested that the current model is a mix of shared and ad hoc
Topics: Interoperability, Hybrid Model
A term is needed for positive internet fragmentation
Supporting facts:
- Term ‘splinternet’ has been used for negative internet fragmentation
- Some proposed terms for positive fragmentation are unified net, flow net, coherent net, cohesive net, seamless net
Topics: Internet fragmentation, Splinternet
Jean feels that there’s a cognitive dissonance between the expectation when it comes to technology and other industries. The expectation on the general public to understand the complex technologies is too high.
Supporting facts:
- Jean uses the example of an architect building a stable structure; most people do not understand why the building doesn’t collapse but trust the architect did their job.
- Another example is using a phone. A general user shouldn’t worry about the ionizing radiation emitted by the antenna.
- Similarly, when people go to a restaurant, they don’t check if the water is drinkable or not.
Topics: Technology, Cognitive Dissonance, Public Expectations
Report
This analysis explores various perspectives on internet fragmentation and its implications. One speaker urges caution when assuming that the internet was once unfragmented, questioning the evidence to support this notion. They challenge the assumption of a once-unfragmented internet and take a negative stance towards fragmentation.
Another viewpoint suggests examining fragmentation in terms of time and driving factors. The speaker emphasizes the need to consider how fragmentation evolves over time and mentions the role of faulty hardware or protocols. This argument takes a neutral stance. Additionally, a proposed model for layering in the internet is presented.
This model describes the layers from user interface to physical channel and highlights the role of the user interface in conveying information and user intention through the different layers. The speaker sees this model as a positive contribution to understanding internet structure and functionality.
The analysis also explores the benefits of fragmentation in organizations involved in internet governance. It suggests that organization fragmentation can serve as a barrier to nefarious actors and proposes addressing problems at different levels. This argument emphasizes the positive aspects of fragmentation and its role in resilience.
There is discussion about the confusion surrounding interoperability. The analysis outlines three models for interoperability – shared, ad hoc, and hybrid – and suggests that the current model is a mixture of the two. This argument takes a negative stance, highlighting the lack of clarity in the direction of interoperability.
Furthermore, the need for a term to describe positive internet fragmentation is highlighted. The term ‘splinternet’ has negative connotations, and alternative terms such as unified net, flow net, coherent net, cohesive net, and seamless net are proposed to capture the positive aspects of fragmentation.
The analysis also touches on the cognitive dissonance between public expectations of technology and other industries. Examples such as architects building stable structures and general users not worrying about technical aspects are used to demonstrate this discrepancy. The argument emphasizes the imbalance in expectations for the general public to understand complex technologies.
In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis provides insights into the different perspectives surrounding internet fragmentation. It emphasizes the need for caution when assuming the existence or non-existence of a once-unfragmented internet and the importance of considering time and driving factors. Additionally, it proposes a model for layering in the internet and discusses the benefits of fragmentation in internet governance organizations.
The analysis raises concerns about the confusion regarding interoperability and suggests the need for a term to describe positive internet fragmentation. It concludes by highlighting the cognitive dissonance between public expectations of technology and other industries and advocates for equipping technology industry frontliners with the necessary tools.
Konstantinos
Speech speed
162 words per minute
Speech length
921 words
Speech time
341 secs
Arguments
The layered approach to internet fragmentation presents major challenges
Supporting facts:
- More actors are engaging across different layers of the internet, making it difficult to discern those layers
- Increased state intervention in response to emerging issues sparks regulation that impacts internet infrastructure
Topics: Internet Fragmentation, Internet Infrastructure
Deciphering which layer of the internet is involved in a problem is crucial for problem-solving
Supporting facts:
- Without identifying the layer, it is difficult to know who to engage in discussion and what solutions to propose
Topics: Internet Layers, Problem-solving
The internet may have always been fragmented
Supporting facts:
- Recently, there has been increased recognition and discussion of internet fragmentation as an issue
Topics: Internet Fragmentation
Government intervention to mitigate internet-related challenges can lead to unintended consequences
Supporting facts:
- Various nations in the span of the last 5 years have inadvertently affected internet infrastructure and evolution in consequence of reacting to internet challenges
Topics: Government Regulation, Internet Fragmentation
Report
The internet faces various challenges, one of which is the fragmentation caused by a layered approach. This approach poses significant difficulties as more actors engage across different layers, making it tough to discern and comprehend these layers. Additionally, increased state intervention in response to emerging issues leads to regulations impacting internet infrastructure, further complicating matters.
The prevailing sentiment regarding this issue is negative, as these challenges hamper the effective functioning of the internet. Deciphering the specific layer of the internet involved in a problem is crucial for effective problem-solving. Lack of identification makes it difficult to determine who to engage in discussions and propose solutions.
This issue holds a neutral sentiment but highlights the importance of understanding the different layers for efficient problem-solving. Encryption, while foundational for internet security and privacy, presents a major policy challenge due to its potential for abuse. Various actors manipulate encryption for criminal acts, raising concerns about its regulation.
However, engineers argue against modifying encryption due to its crucial role in privacy and security. The sentiment towards this issue is negative, as it poses complexities and conflicts in policy-making and regulation. Internet fragmentation has gained recognition and discussion as an issue in recent times.
The sentiment towards this issue is neutral, suggesting that fragmentation may have always been a characteristic of the internet. This recognition and discussion underscore the need to address fragmentation as a significant challenge faced by the internet. Government intervention to mitigate internet-related challenges can have unintended consequences on infrastructure and evolution.
In the past five years, several nations inadvertently affected internet infrastructure due to their reactions to challenges. This negative sentiment highlights the need for careful consideration and assessment of the potential consequences of government intervention in the internet realm. Overall, the internet presents numerous complexities and challenges that require careful attention.
The layered approach to fragmentation, encryption policy challenges, the need to identify and understand different layers for problem-solving, and the consequences of government intervention are noteworthy observations. These insights emphasize the importance of finding balanced and well-thought-out solutions to ensure the effective and secure functioning of the internet.
Moderator
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
1829 words
Speech time
845 secs
Arguments
Layered policy approach can potentially help prevent internet fragmentation
Supporting facts:
- The internet consists of seven layers which includes the network layer, apps and other services
- Internet sanctions can cause issues with fragmented access if the sanction applies to internet infrastructure
- A layered policy approach consider all these elements to make cohesive and comprehensive policy that does not lead to internet fragmentation
Topics: Internet fragmentation, Policy making, Internet layers
Japan’s government is working on effectively regulating the internet, particularly in regard to national and international infrastructure like submarine cables and satellite frequencies
Supporting facts:
- Japan has a distinct structure in its Telecom Business Law for dealing with such issues
- Japan is also focusing on ensuring internet connectivity in rural areas and isolated islands
Topics: Government Regulation, Internet, Infrastructure
Internet fragmentation presents challenges due to the evolution of the Internet and the involvement of more actors across different layers
Supporting facts:
- The growth and evolution of the Internet has resulted in more actors engaging across what used to be very discernible layers
- Government intervention and regulation creates more issues and challenges
- The effects of regulation can create unintended global effects leading to the potential breakdown of the Internet
Topics: Internet fragmentation, Internet evolution, Regulation
Understanding and identifying technical aspects, including the layers of the Internet, is fundamental for addressing Internet fragmentation
Supporting facts:
- Decentralization is vital to the Internet’s resilience
- Without proper identification of the layer being discussed, it’s difficult to find appropriate solutions
- Different interpretations and perceptions exist regarding Internet fragmentation
Topics: Internet Fragmentation, Internet Layers, Decentralization
Internet is naturally fragmented.
Supporting facts:
- Home network not having open access to the rest of the internet symbolizes a fragment.
- Companies have their own fragments of the internet.
Topics: Internet, Fragmentation, Networks
Cyberbullying is a serious issue needing addressing in policy making.
Supporting facts:
- Chukio Kishida expressed concern that cyberbullying is a serious problem in Japan.
Topics: Cyberbullying, Policy making
Content regulation methods like IP blocking are not effective solutions.
Supporting facts:
- IP blocking fails to act proportionately and may unintentionally block access to a whole set of websites.
- The Network operators and ISPs had significant problems proportionately implementing a European regulation mandating IP blocking of Russian websites.
Topics: Cybersecurity, IP blocking, Content regulation
Cyberbullying is a global issue not confined to Japan
Supporting facts:
- Nobuhisa Nishigata has observed cyberbullying issues outside of Japan as well
Topics: Cyberbullying, Global Issue
The use of Social Networking Services (SNS) has side effects like creating echo chambers and filter bubbles that could facilitate cyberbullying
Supporting facts:
- Nobuhisa Nishigata recognizes the benefits of SNS but acknowledges the existence of side effects that could harm society
Topics: Social Networking Services, Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles
The issue of cyberbullying intersects with the freedom of speech
Supporting facts:
- Nobuhisa Nishigata suggests that cyberbullying is closely tied to high-level concepts like freedom of speech
Topics: Cyberbullying, Freedom of Speech
Japan is undertaking legislative efforts to address cyberbullying
Supporting facts:
- Japan is working to enact laws against humiliation via the internet and to revise the legal system regarding limited liability for internet service providers
Topics: Cyberbullying, Legislation
Difference between regulating the Internet and regulating off the Internet
Supporting facts:
- A government think tank introduced notion of public core in 2015
- Layers of the Internet that are practically borderless are viewed as the public core
Topics: Internet Regulation, Public Core, Policy Making
Lawmakers don’t understand the internet
Supporting facts:
- Bowmaker’s experience of being an engineer and policymaker
Topics: Law Making, Internet Understanding
Accountability in Internet’s public core
Supporting facts:
- Despite being borderless, the public core operators should be accountable
- Possible need to address it in international, multi-stakeholder forum
Topics: Internet Regulation, Accountability, Public Core
Efforts to balance public interest and multiple layers of the Internet
Supporting facts:
- Advice against subdividing into too many layers
- Internet users or public are usually at layer 8 and 9, and their interest transcends various layers
Topics: Public Interest, Internet Layers
Content and conduct regulation should not happen at the infrastructure layer
Supporting facts:
- These regulations cannot be done proportionally
- An innocent person’s online presence could be hampered if such regulations are applied at the infrastructure level
Topics: content regulation, conduct regulation, cybersecurity, infrastructure layer, technical internet community
The Internet sector often offers resistance to regulation citing issues such as privacy
Topics: Privacy, Internet Regulation, GDPR
Telecommunications regulation in Japan needs to catch up with the pace of internet evolution
Supporting facts:
- Internet was much faster than the effort to do some regulation, legislation work
Topics: Telecom regulation, Internet evolution
Report
The analysis highlights several key points regarding internet regulation, internet fragmentation, and related topics. One important finding is that a layered policy approach can potentially help prevent internet fragmentation. By considering all elements of the internet, such as the network layer and apps and other services, policymakers can create a cohesive and comprehensive policy that does not lead to internet fragmentation.
This approach takes into account the potential issues that may arise if internet sanctions are applied to internet infrastructure, which can cause fragmented access. The analysis also emphasizes the importance of governments using a layered approach in policy-making, particularly when applying sanctions.
If not properly targeted, government sanctions can hamper internet access. A layered approach to policy-making on sanctions can help prevent these unintended consequences and ensure uninterrupted internet connectivity. Japan is presented as an example of a country actively working on effectively regulating the internet.
The country’s Telecom Business Law has a distinct structure to deal with internet regulation issues. Japan is also focusing on ensuring internet connectivity in rural areas and isolated islands, indicating its commitment to comprehensive regulation of national and international internet infrastructure, such as submarine cables and satellite frequencies.
Another important consideration highlighted is the need for governments to strike a balance between respecting internet freedoms and protecting citizens from internet-enabled crimes and violations of rights. Issues related to privacy and the presence of child sexual abuse materials on the internet are mentioned as examples of challenges that need attention.
The analysis also discusses the challenges arising from the growth and evolution of the internet. With more actors engaging across different layers, government intervention and regulation can create unintended global effects and potentially lead to the breakdown of the internet.
This highlights the complexities and potential unintended consequences associated with internet regulation. The balance between encryption for security and privacy and addressing its misuse for criminal activities is presented as an important challenge. Encryption is recognized as a vital protocol contributing to internet security and individual privacy.
However, it has also been used as a tool for illegal activities. A solution is needed that does not compromise security and privacy while addressing misuse. Understanding and identifying the technical aspects of the internet, including its layers, are fundamental for addressing internet fragmentation.
The analysis stresses the importance of recognizing the different layers of the internet to find appropriate solutions for fragmentation. Cyberbullying emerges as a significant issue that needs to be addressed in policy-making and legislation. It is highlighted that cyberbullying is not confined to Japan and is a global issue.
The use of social networking services is recognized as a factor that can facilitate cyberbullying through echo chambers and filter bubbles. The intersection of the issue of cyberbullying with the concept of freedom of speech is also noted. The analysis emphasizes the need for cooperation among government, industry, technicians, and civil society to catch up with the pace of internet evolution.
This reflects the complex nature of internet regulation and the importance of involving various stakeholders in shaping effective policies. In conclusion, the analysis underlines the significance of a layered policy approach in preventing internet fragmentation and the challenges associated with balancing internet regulation and freedoms.
It highlights the need for comprehensive and balanced regulation to address issues such as cyberbullying and encryption misuse. The analysis also indicates the importance of cooperation and understanding among various stakeholders in effectively regulating the internet.
Online Moderator
Speech speed
148 words per minute
Speech length
162 words
Speech time
65 secs
Arguments
Internet fragmentation in terms of communication can lead to harmful consequences such as cyberbullying
Supporting facts:
- The online moderator mentions the seriousness of cyberbullying in Japan and asks about possible policy approaches to address this issue
Topics: Internet fragmentation, cyberbullying, communication
Report
In the online discussion, the seriousness of cyberbullying in Japan is highlighted by the moderator. They express concerns about the harmful consequences of internet fragmentation, specifically in terms of communication. This fragmentation can lead to cyberbullying, which is seen as a negative outcome.
The moderator seeks possible policy approaches to address this pressing issue. Another speaker in the discussion acknowledges the link between cyberbullying and internet fragmentation. They argue that cyberbullying can be seen as a manifestation of internet fragmentation in terms of communication.
This perspective emphasizes the need for policy solutions to counter cyberbullying effectively. The speaker suggests that policy approaches are crucial to address this issue appropriately. The online moderator further reinforces the importance of policy solutions. Seeking inputs from the panel, they aim to gather diverse perspectives on potential policy measures to combat cyberbullying.
By involving experts and stakeholders, the hope is to develop effective strategies for addressing this problem. The analysis of the discussion reveals that cyberbullying is a significant concern in Japan, and internet fragmentation is identified as a contributing factor. The call for policy approaches highlights the need for formal measures to tackle cyberbullying effectively.
This issue is aligned with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, emphasizing the importance of creating a safe and inclusive online environment. Overall, the discussion draws attention to the seriousness of cyberbullying, demonstrates the link with internet fragmentation, and stresses the importance of policy solutions.
By addressing this issue and implementing relevant policies, strides can be made towards a safer and more supportive online space.