DigiSov: Regulation, Protectionism, and Fragmentation | IGF 2023 WS #345

Audience

The analysis features three speakers who delve into different aspects related to the internet and its impact on global trade and regulation. The first speaker emphasizes the complexities of the internet and how it has transformed the world. They also discuss the influence of state trade policies on end users. It is noted that critical resources play a significant role in this realm. Additionally, the speaker highlights that not all critical resources are managed by states, providing the example of IP and IPv4 blocks. Overall, their stance is neutral.

The second speaker raises a question posed by Samridhi Kumar regarding a potential different approach to ADF fragmentation in the Global North and South from a regulatory perspective. The speaker focuses on topics such as ADF fragmentation, the Global North and South, and internet regulation. This discussion is closely linked to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Unfortunately, no supporting facts or evidence are provided, leaving their stance neutral.

The third speaker, responding to an inquiry by Amir Mukavi, explores the effects of internet weaponization, digital interference, and violence in campaigns from abroad. They also discuss the impact of these factors on internet fragmentation. The speaker suggests ways to avoid this situation, particularly by promoting cooperation between cross-border digital entities and national competent authorities. Their sentiment is concerned.

From the analysis, it becomes evident that the internet is a complex domain that has greatly transformed the world. State trade policies have profound effects on end users, while critical resources have a crucial role to play. Additionally, questions arise regarding the regulatory perspectives on ADF fragmentation in different regions of the world, highlighting potential disparities. The analysis also brings attention to the detrimental impact of internet weaponization, digital interference, and violence in campaigns from abroad, as they contribute to internet fragmentation. Cooperation between cross-border digital entities and national competent authorities is suggested as a preventative measure. Overall, the analysis provides insights into the multifaceted nature of the internet and its implications for global trade and regulation.

Neelesh Maheshwari

The analysis explores various aspects of digital sovereignty and internet regulations, discussing the importance of policies and regulations aimed at exerting state control over internet public policy issues within territories. Digital sovereignty has gained significant attention in recent years, with regulations having extraterritorial implications due to the nature of the internet.

The analysis argues for the need to address monopolistic tendencies of big corporations and promote the growth of small businesses, asserting that states have the right to combat these tendencies while ensuring a level playing field. The focus is on supporting small businesses and reducing inequalities in the digital economy.

Regarding data localization, the analysis suggests keeping restrictions minimal and opposes unnecessary constraints on the free flow of data based on security or information localization requirements. The example of the Indian government’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act is cited as a liberalized data protection regime.

The analysis emphasizes the inclusion of Global South countries in digital trade agreements and negotiations, recognizing their lack of infrastructure and institutional capacity. Capacity-building initiatives are seen as vital for these countries to benefit from big data, AI, and machine learning.

Regulations to combat the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation on the internet are deemed necessary, highlighting the real-life harm caused, particularly in the Global South. The analysis asserts the need for effective regulations in addressing this issue.

Concerns are raised regarding the potential limitation of fundamental rights due to regulations, cautioning against restrictions on freedom of speech and other fundamental rights when implementing regulations.

The analysis advocates for international norms and dialogue to address internet-related issues, promoting a standardized approach and providing guidelines for corporations facing state demands.

The potential risks of leaving public policy functions to private corporations are highlighted, citing surveillance capitalism and instances such as Cambridge Analytica, Snowden revelations, and electoral interferences. Regulatory oversight of public policy functions is advocated to prevent the misuse of power by private entities.

Different perspectives on the weaponization of the internet in the Global North and Global South are discussed, with cybersecurity and attacks on critical infrastructure being a focus in the North, while information security is a concern in the South.

Governance challenges in the digital age are addressed, emphasizing the need for novel approaches to address these challenges effectively.

The analysis stresses the importance of regulations that consider different contexts, allowing countries to pursue their own policies while ensuring a holistic approach to internet governance.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasizes the significance of digital sovereignty and regulations to exert state control over internet public policy issues. It advocates for the promotion of small businesses, reduced inequalities, and minimal restrictions on data flow. It highlights the necessity of regulations to combat disinformation, the importance of international norms and dialogue, and the potential risks of leaving public policy functions in the hands of private corporations. The differing perspectives between the Global North and Global South, as well as new governance challenges, are also considered. The analysis calls for regulations that consider different contexts and allow countries to pursue their own policies while maintaining a comprehensive approach to internet governance.

Andrea Beccalli

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of the internet and its governance, shedding light on several important points. One key highlight revolves around the principle of global accessibility of the internet, which is seen as essential and fundamental. It is emphasized that the internet functions as a network of networks, with approximately 60,000 networks operating as one single internet. Any disruption to the principle of global accessibility could result in the fragmentation of the internet, which would have significant implications for connectivity and communication worldwide.

Another point of concern raised in the analysis is the potential risk associated with policy development on the application layer of the internet. Discussions surrounding the application layer are gaining more attention, but it is crucial to consider the sovereignty of countries and ensure that public authorities handle any issues related to it. Disruptions in the application layer have the potential to disrupt the underlying technical layer, amplifying the need for careful consideration and policy-making in this area.

The geopolitical and economic context also plays a pivotal role in shaping the internet and its governance. The analysis notes that during the creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), globalization was on the rise. However, current global events and wars have dramatically changed the way we view and use the internet, which necessitates a reevaluation of its governing principles.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the need for the evolution of the internet governance model. The current model, established around 30 years ago, was designed when the internet was nothing like what it is today. With the growing complexity and usage of the internet, the model needs to adapt and evolve to effectively address the challenges posed by the modern digital landscape.

The impact of internet fragmentation is also explored in the analysis. It is highlighted that the size and development of a market can have varying implications when it comes to fragmentation. Fragmenting a market as large as the European Union, for example, can have a different impact compared to a smaller market in the global south. Fragmentation could potentially exacerbate the digital divide, particularly in underdeveloped regions and countries.

Additionally, the analysis delves into the potential consequences of regulations and policies on the internet. The influence of regions such as Europe, China, and India in shaping internet regulations is noted, with concerns raised about certain regulations being inconsiderate of the impacts on the global south. It is crucial for policymakers to be mindful of the potential ramifications of their actions and to consider the specificities of the internet landscape.

The analysis also highlights the importance of not taking internet access for granted. The internet serves as a tool for global connection, transcending platforms, languages, and time zones. However, it should be acknowledged that internet access often comes at a cost to users or through public means, and its value should not be underestimated or overlooked.

Lastly, policymakers are urged to be specific and mindful of the consequences of their actions in the realm of internet regulation. The internet has been weaponized and misused for purposes it was not initially designed for, which underscores the need for careful and well-informed policymaking in order to address issues such as free speech and cybercrime effectively.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of several crucial aspects of the internet and its governance. It emphasizes the importance of upholding the principle of global accessibility, while also addressing the risks and challenges posed by policy development, geopolitical and economic factors, internet fragmentation, and the need for an evolved governance model. Policymakers are urged to be mindful and specific in their actions, and internet access should be valued as a tool for global connection.

Bruna Santos

There has been a significant discussion about internet fragmentation, which has resulted in the creation of a policy network. This network aims to promote inclusive discussions and resource sharing on the topic. It focuses on addressing the challenges posed by fragmentation in different aspects of the internet, including user experience, internet governance and coordination, and the technical layer of the internet.

One of the key concerns raised in these discussions is the lack of inclusivity and coordination in internet governance. This could lead to decision-making without consensus, favoring multilateralism over multi-stakeholder participation. It is argued that an inclusive approach is crucial to ensure that all relevant stakeholders have a say in shaping the future of the internet.

Fragmentation can be caused by various factors, such as client-side instruments or legislative interferences, which can lead to negative outcomes like internet shutdowns or restrictions on access to certain content or apps. Striking a balance between security measures and preserving open access to information is essential.

Advocates for user experience on the internet argue that it should adhere to principles of equality, enhancement, choice, impact assessment, harmonization, and allowing users to shape their own experience. Empowering users and providing them with diverse options to customize their internet experience is considered crucial.

The discussions on internet regulation have gained traction in many countries and member states, with ongoing debates on topics like disinformation regulation. The potential impact of internet regulation on the way the internet is viewed and used is being closely examined.

While regulation may be necessary in certain areas, it is important for policymakers to consider the significant aspects of the internet before implementing wide-ranging regulations. Striking a balance between addressing concerns and preserving the open and innovative nature of the internet is crucial.

The need for inclusive and balanced international regulations for information security is emphasized. It is argued that these regulations should take into account the perspectives of victims and marginalized communities, who are often excluded from the conversation. By including their voices, power imbalances can be addressed, ensuring equal representation in discussions on information security.

In summary, the discussions on internet fragmentation have led to the establishment of a policy network to facilitate inclusive conversations and resource sharing. This network focuses on addressing fragmentation in various aspects of the internet. The importance of inclusivity, user empowerment, and balanced international regulations is highlighted to mitigate the challenges posed by internet fragmentation. Policymakers are urged to approach regulation carefully, considering the significant aspects of the internet and maintaining its open and innovative nature.

Venceslas Katimba

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has made significant progress in digital transformation and internet inclusion. In 2021, the country appointed its first minister in charge of digitalization, demonstrating its commitment to embracing new technologies. The DRC has also adopted a digital law to regulate the digital sector, ensuring structured and controlled digital activities. Additionally, the country has signed the Malabo Convention for cybersecurity and data protection, emphasising its dedication to safeguarding data privacy.

However, the DRC still faces challenges in connectivity and internet access. Over 50% of the population lacks coverage, highlighting a digital divide. Private operators like Facebook and Google are investing in infrastructure, including the construction of a second cable, to improve connectivity. The DRC aims to connect to five submarine cables, bridging the digital divide and enhancing access to internet resources.

In conclusion, the DRC’s digital transformation efforts are underway with the appointment of a digitalization minister and the adoption of a digital law. The country’s commitment to cybersecurity and data protection through the Malabo Convention is also commendable. However, improving connectivity and internet access remains a challenge. Nonetheless, investments in infrastructure by private operators and plans to connect to submarine cables show a determination to address this issue and promote internet inclusion in the DRC.

Turra Daniele

The analysis thoroughly examines the complex issues of internet fragmentation and governance. There is an increasing debate about the sovereignty of countries in relation to the application layer of the internet. This indicates a growing concern among nations about maintaining control over their respective internet spheres.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the impact of trade policies on the end users of the internet and the management of critical internet resources. It is evident that trade policies can have far-reaching consequences for the accessibility and affordability of the internet for individuals and businesses. Additionally, the analysis notes that the management of critical internet resources, such as IPv4 blocks, is not solely dependent on state involvement. This suggests the need for a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in addressing these issues.

A key argument put forth in the analysis is that protectionist policies made by states should consider a multi-stakeholder model. It stresses that critical resources are not solely managed by states, and emphasizes the importance of incorporating various stakeholders in policy-making processes.

The analysis also explores the potential consequences of internet regulations. It highlights the possibility of these regulations leading to changes in the current internet landscape. Moreover, the analysis notes that different countries and member states are actively enacting various aspects of internet regulation. This raises important concerns about the management of the multi-stakeholder model when it comes to specific risks of fragmentation, indicating the challenges associated with balancing regulation and maintaining an open internet.

Another aspect addressed in the analysis is the challenge of determining who should review specific policy requirements. It notes that it can be difficult to establish a central authority or body responsible for reviewing and shaping policy requirements. This highlights the complexity involved in ensuring effective policy management in relation to internet fragmentation and governance.

The analysis stresses the need to include all perspectives in the design of global policies. It highlights the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a valuable space for inclusive discussions and contributions from a diverse range of panelists from various countries. The analysis recognizes that issues of internet governance affect not only local communities but also have global implications. Consequently, including multiple perspectives helps mitigate biases and ensures comprehensive policies that cater to the needs and interests of all stakeholders.

Lastly, the analysis points out concerns about connectivity issues and their impact on internet policies and governance. The importance of connectivity is emphasized, with one of the panelists, Venceslas, experiencing connectivity issues during the discussion. This serves as a reminder that connectivity is central to effective internet policies and governance, and efforts must be made to address connectivity challenges to achieve a truly inclusive and accessible internet for all.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a detailed examination of the complex issues surrounding internet fragmentation and governance. It sheds light on the debates over national sovereignty, the impact of trade policies on end users, the management of critical internet resources, and the challenges associated with regulatory measures. The analysis advocates for a multi-stakeholder model in policy-making, emphasizes the need for inclusive global policies, and highlights the importance of addressing connectivity issues. Overall, it provides comprehensive insights into the multifaceted nature of internet fragmentation and governance.

Turra Daniele:
wherever you are in the world, whichever time zone. Welcome everybody. Welcome to our workshop, Digital Sovereignty, Regulation Protectionism and Fragmentation. Before we begin the session, just as a reminder, if you would like to step in during the discussion or during the question and answer session at the end, just please state your name and make sure to use English as a language. Also, if you are online and you would also like to step in, just please put your name in the chat and please make sure that there is a question mark at the end of your question. So without any further ado, welcome again. My name is Daniele Tura. I’m from Italy. I’m one of the Internet Society’s Youth Ambassadors for 2023 and I will be the on-site moderator for this session today. Also, we have Herman Lopez-Ardilla. I hope I pronounced it right. He’s our online moderator and he’s right here in the audience with everybody else. Also, we’ll have Nathalie as our rapporteur for today. So, worldwide, as an increasingly large number of networks are becoming dependent on proprietary protocols, we are experiencing the rise of national and private interests in cyberspace. So this and other phenomena suggest that IT procedures, standards, and access to data infrastructure could be used to raise technical barriers to trade or negatively affect the sharing nature of the Internet, actively shifting the equilibrium towards particular interests with an economic political in nature, therefore reinforcing again a protectionist approach. So today we will try to understand if the tension between the power exerted under conditions of digital sovereignty and digital protectionism may actually translate into an increased risk for citizens’ rights and the Internet at large. Particularly, we want to explore how different regions and stakeholders perceive the need to strike a balance between these two categories and how this creates new dimensions in the discussions on Internet fragmentation. In fact, despite the efforts to rightfully seek to protect elective interests through economic or social considerations, in some cases the broadness of these concepts has been used to promote censorship and raise trade barriers for foreign companies. Today, politicians and big businesses initiate fragmentation processes that the technical community alone can no longer control. Furthermore, if fragmentation were to be achieved, it will limit the Internet and its critical properties as an enabler of choice. So throughout the session we will try to tackle three main questions with our guests. The first one is what are the most impactful legal initiatives around the globe with potential fragmenting effects and what are their justifications? On a technical level, are there tools or protocols that promote data protection for a country’s citizens and companies? And the last one, what could increase the risk of unfair limitations to legitimate economic use of data restriction, free trade and the harm to physical infrastructure of the Internet? Of course, these are all relevant issues that cannot just be taken… from simply a global perspective, but it’s very important to keep regional differences in mind. So this is why today’s panel is composed from stakeholders coming from all over the world and from different groups. So together we would like to outline a typology of risks brought by different approaches to digital sovereignty in various regions and this will help the community in general identify a sketch of measures and actions for ensuring compliance with data regulations on a local level. So the overarching approach will respect multi-stakeholder guidelines on how to avoid internet fragmentation and digital protectionism and its hindering effects while advancing in legitimate protection of citizens. So we hope that through the sessions participants will be able to access collective knowledge by discovering answers to their concerns themselves within the context of their own working groups in their own regions. I invite you all to actively engage in the session, to listen to our esteemed panelists and to contribute your insights and your perspectives during the question and answer section. So let me begin by introducing our speakers. So we have Neelesh Maheshwari. He’s a PhD candidate from South Asian University in India. He’s been part of the Youth IGF India and was also a fellow of the India School of Internet Governance. His articles have been published in the Kathmandu Post and by the Stimson Center. Also we have a guest from the Democratic Republic of Congo. His name is Cetimba. He’s Chief Advisor for IT Infrastructure at the Ministry of Digitalization in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Congo. Bruna Martis Dos Santos is here at my left. She is Global Campaigns Manager at Digital Action. Welcome. She’s a current member of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group at the IGF, as well as a member of Council for the Generic Name Supporting Organization at ICANN. Also, we have another online guest. His name is Andrea Beccali, is Director for Stakeholder Engagement at ICANN in Europe. So, welcome everybody. So, I will now start presenting the first question and we’ll have Nilesh introduce his contribution. So, again, what are the most impactful legal initiatives around the globe with potential fragmented effects

Neelesh Maheshwari:
and what is their rationale? So, when we talk about digital sovereignty, what is the first thing that comes to our mind? Of course, it’s a new policy construct that has been formulated and this term has been used over and over again in the last two, three years. It has become a buzzword. However, how do we understand it in simple terms? We can say that digital sovereignty is about policies and regulations that aim at exercising state power and control on the internet public policy issues within their own territories, but owing to the nature of the internet, of course, such regulations and laws also have extraterritorial implications. So, this is not a phenomenon that is related to a few countries or a particular region. We have seen that overall, like all the countries and regions are coming up with such kind of laws. So, in Europe, we see GDPR, we have digital secure DSA, DMA. In China, we have PIPL. In India, we have Digital Personal Data Protection Act and there are such legal initiatives around the world. So, it’s not limited to anyone. territory or a region. Now, if we look at it, this is a departure from the erstwhile liberal regime where largely private corporations were supposed to deal with issues like collection of data, processing and the use of data. However, there was increased dissatisfaction with how private corporations were doing quasi-public policy functions with lack of adequate constitutional check and balances. So, we were seeing the rise of attention economy and the phenomena of surveillance capitalism, and today when we talk in the context of generative AI and synthetic content, the need to have adequate regulation is felt even more. So, on this part, in terms of regulation, we can say that, okay, there are legitimate reasons for states to have such regulations in terms of protecting and promoting their citizens’ rights. However, such laws and regulations also need to be critically scrutinized so that they don’t end up doing more harm than the positive benefits. For one, we need to assess whether these laws are following the standard tests of legality, necessity and proportionality, and not giving excessive power in the hands of government agencies. Now, this is not the only motive why states are coming up with such regulations. Of course, there are other motives as well. There are strategic, political, as well as commercial motives behind this. So, let’s go to the point of protectionism and fragmentation on that. So, in terms of fragmentation, of course, there are technical aspects to it, and we talk about having open standards in terms of that, and a few of my co-panellists will further touch on it. However, I’m going to touch upon the commercial aspects of fragmentation, as well as the political aspect of fragmentation. So, what we actually see is that, okay, the issues like misinformation and disinformation has to be dealt with. However, if we see that different states are coming up with their different sort of laws, we actually need to have some sort of global convergence in terms of having international norms and best practices to deal with these issues. And the good part is that on some of these issues, there has been, we are seeing a tendency that, okay, there are certain things like having grievance redressal mechanism which are coming up. And we can share all these global practices so that, you know, there are some standard common norms which can guide the states around the world when it comes to drafting over these issues. Now, coming to the issue of protectionism. Of course, there were certain countries which had the benefit of an early start and with most of the big corporations based in those places. We can say that a lot of other countries were excluded from the benefit of digital economy. And as we all say, the data is the new oil in the world. So if we look at where are the headquarters of big corporations, where are the data centers in the world? So, of course, the states have a right to fight against the monopolistic tendencies of big corporations and put in place mechanisms which allow small businesses to flourish. However, such mechanisms should not be discriminatory to foreign businesses. There should be an equal and level playing field. We also need that in terms of cross-border data flow. States should not put unnecessary restrictions on free flow of data on basis of national security or critical information localization requirement. The data localization requirements should be kept at a minimal. In these regards, we can say that digital trade agreements and negotiations like DIPA and G7’s Institutional Arrangement for Partnership can be a way in terms of harmonizing the cross-border data flow. However, at the same point, we also need to take into account the position of Global South in these negotiations. Because a lot of states in the Global South already are bereft of the digital economy, as well as they don’t have enough institutional and infrastructural capacity. So there should be capacity-building initiatives also, so that the countries around the world can take the benefit of big data, AI, and machine learning, and are not excluded further. In that regard, I would say that, to conclude my statement, that we need a more liberalized sort of regime when it comes to data flows and free trade. So for example, the Indian government recently came up with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. Now, let’s compare it with GDPR. While in GDPR there are certain positive obligations, like you need to have equivalent standards that are in place in Europe, if the cross-border data flow has to take place, or otherwise you need to have standard contractual clauses. So in that terms, okay, you have to pass a few tests, only then the data will be allowed to travel. Instead, in Indian government, what they have done, that they have said that, in general, we will allow the cross-border flow of data. There are no such positive obligations. However, in exceptional cases, we can put certain countries in negative lists, if there are certain problematic dimensions. So in general, it’s a largely liberalized regime, where certain countries will be put in the negative list based on the guidelines which the government will provide. It’s a recent act, so the guidelines are not there yet. So if we keep this sort of restriction to cross-border data flow to the minimal, I believe we can protect the legitimate interest of our citizens, as well as allow for a liberalized free trade in terms of digital economy.

Turra Daniele:
So thank you, Nilesh, for this. insights for perspectives on how handling worldwide resources on the Internet and how to engage with national actors worldwide without posing specific limits when it comes to capacity building especially, but still trying to keep local necessities and needs in mind. So speaking of which, especially when it comes to critical Internet resources, we have our next speaker. He’s Venceslas Katimba. He’s connected online and I don’t know if he can hear us. Can we hear him?

Venceslas Katimba:
Good morning everybody. Welcome. I think, yeah, thank you, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I’m a French speaker. I apologize, my English maybe cannot be very, very well. So I just want to tell regarding the point of Internet resources and to share the experience regarding what is happening in my country, DRC, to promote the digital transformation and the Internet, the inclusion of digital. So in my country, you see DRC is in the center of Africa and is a big country. We have like nine three neighbors and we are not too much far with the Internet. So since 2021 is the first time in my country there was a minister in charge of digitalization and this minister was created since 2021. And we started to build the foundation of digital in DRC with some action that the minister already did. We started to make the policy regarding the regulations. So in DRC before that, there was no regulation regarding the digital sector. There was, we work for the first law text, which is code numeric in DRC, and which is bring the regulation on the sector of digital in DRC. And this law has been adopted last year, and it already published. So this is the basic now on the regulation sector in my country. We have now a law which regulate the digital sector. We work also to make sure that my country is also in partnership with other country. And we signed the Malabo Convention regarding the cybersecurity and data protection. And so regarding this sector, it is already done. In my country, we have many challenges regarding connectivity. We have like more than 50% of the coverage, which is not already done. We have many projects to build fiber around the country, all infrastructure for the connectivity. to bring connectivity to all the people is a big country and many challenges regarding war and this which is not which affects a lot the promotion of the digital and we already work with other partners we have the telecom company for working for coming from voracom we have this airtel who are helping us to to to improve the digital sector here we have also regarding internet connectivity and a resource of internet here in drc regarding infrastructure drc is is now connected only to one submarine cable works but there is a big project with facebook google and other private operator they are now building the second cable two for africa which we will be land very soon in drc so before the end of this year we have two submarine cable and our plan is to have like five to be connected to five submarine cable we have also start many project to do the interconnection with other countries african countries neighbors we have some connection with uh with our neighbor it’s This is Les. We are starting to lose him.

Turra Daniele:
Yeah, I think unfortunately we are losing him. I think there are some connectivity issues there. So I will make sure to provide Vince Zesla’s reference, contacts to everybody who wants to keep in touch with him and maybe have a second chance to hear his contribution firsthand. And also for time reasons, we will proceed with Bruna and her introduction. So I will now give the floor to you. Thank you.

Bruna Santos:
Yeah. You guys can hear me, right? No, just my intent for today was to go over a little bit of the policy network on internet fragmentation discussions. It is a work that we have been doing together with the IGF community for almost two years now. We’re at the second year of the PNIF framework. I thought it would be important to bring that around here because the initial assessment was the idea that internet fragmentation discussions were rather something very technical. discussions that didn’t really include a lot of the community. Maybe because of some of the debates being placed in a lot of the technical community or more academic ones. So the first assessment and maybe the thing that motivated us to to bring up a policy network for that was helping share some of the resources or even like revisiting the discussions. And the PNIF has started developing a framework with three initial baskets. And we talked about fragmentation in three different ways. The first one is fragmentation of the user experience. Second one is fragmentation of internet governance and coordination, which talks a lot to the debates we’re having nowadays about the digital cooperation forum, OASIS plus 20, the IGF, where all of these spaces moving ahead. Are they moving together and how? And the last one would be fragmentation of the internet technical layer, which is the most classical one. And I think I’m going to leave a lot of the technical debates to Andrea, because I want to share this a little bit with him. But then I can go over both on the governance and coordination and user experience, as I was saying. But starting with the governance and coordination one, when we talk about this basket, we’re basically discussing that all of those four should be interacting with each other. Both standards and policy and internet governance spaces, they should coordinate, they should be inclusive. And if they stop to do it, the discussions might result in some level of fragmentation of the debate itself. We’re not saying it fragments the internet, we’re just saying it might be harder to follow up with these discussions. And the division of the debate would be something that would result in decisions being taken without consensus, lack of respect for the multi-stakeholder community, or even preference for multilateralism instead of the multi-stakeholder model of participation that we’re used to. So, we have a lot of questions about fragmentation. We have a lot of questions about fragmentation. We have a lot of questions about fragmentation. So, we have a lot of questions about fragmentation at the governance level. At the discussion paper that PNF put out, we also say it might create knock-on effects for fragmentation at the other technical and user experience areas. So, we basically have some asks for this debate and say that offering to implement a framework that’s likely to develop strategies that may improve coordination, avoid siloed, public policy discussions and also be fully inclusive to all stakeholders and enable participation. And also, that global Internet governance must engage the user experience. And that’s the one that relates more with some of the facts and things we see these days. We more or less define the user experience as the phenomenon by which different end users of the Internet when trying to perform the same action can be presented with different content, options, interfaces. And that can happen in both as a consequence of client-side instruments, so device and applications, but also some level of engagement. So, we’re not saying that it’s necessarily a bad thing. It might happen, it might be part of the user experience or how the web has been shaped in order to cater to our necessities or even, like, the whole information landscape. But at the same time, we’re also bringing up some bad sides and bad effects of that that could be Internet shutdowns or when legislations just simply block apps from existing or people from having access to the Internet. So, we’re bringing up some bad sides and bad effects of that that could be Internet shutdowns or when legislations just simply block apps from existing or people from having access to certain contents or people from having access to the Internet. And, just to wrap up on that, we’ll note when we talk about fragmentation of the user experience, we insist in five principles. The first one would be equality. Second one would be enhancement. So, we should be developing the same, allowing people to have the same level of experience when assessing the Internet. And also, allowing for users to make their own choices. Like, we know that the a lot of our choices nowadays are kind of, like, shaped by companies themselves in the space they dominate in markets. And, we also insist on impact assessment. So, whenever a government is considering some measure that might result in a different experience for the user, such as a jail blocking or a court order demanding to take certain content down, they should be able to perform some level of impact assessment and try to understand how that would affect citizens. And, which could be basically, like, a three-part test, just to see whether freedom of expression would be affected by that or any other things. We also insist in harmonization. So, every single new framework, legal framework, or public policy in this space should be talking to pre-existing policies, should be talking to company policies and so on. And, last but not least, going back to the third principle, which is that we should allow users to shape their own experiences instead of the other way around. So, I think I’ll stop around here a little bit, but just to flag that a lot of this framework will also be discussed tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. at the Policy Network for Internet Fragmentation main session. So, a lot of these debates will be continued. Thank you so much.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you so much, Bruna, for bringing, again, the perspective on end-users and to remember how fragmentation can also happen through Internet shutdowns, geo-blocking. And again, I think we are, we delved a lot into the applicational layer. So I would like also to hear Andrea, that is connected online, to maybe give us some more perspectives on the whole stack.

Andrea Beccalli:
Thank you, Daniel. Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Thank you. So I’m happy to be here, although virtually, and I hope you’re all doing well with the jet lag and you’re enjoying the IGF, and I wish I was there with you. So thank you again for inviting me, and this is a topic that indeed is very relevant for ARIFM, but it’s relevant that really uses the internet, and every time that I come to speak about internet fragmentation or to think about, I always see how by the day, the issue becomes on one side more complex, but at the same time, even a little bit more dramatic in terms of what is laying ahead with us, for us. So we tend to take the internet for granted. You open up your phone, you open up your computer, you connect your smartwatch, whatever you have, and you almost, you know, simply, you see that the internet is there, you connect, you don’t think about it. And it has been like that for at least the past 25 years But, you know, we take it as a given, and we don’t think that what’s going on underneath, beneath. And I personally think that if we look to the next 25 years, or even the next five years, You know, we should seriously consider whether we can keep taking this principle for granted. And so let me go, you know, through the, as you mentioned, we call it the stack, or, you know, the global ecosystem of the internet. So basically, when you speak about the internet, the internet is a network of networks, that they all look like one internet, because they all decide, you know, to use the same language, the same, technically, we call it system of unique identifiers. And it’s the way that those networks exchange data, strings of zeros and one, okay. And that’s, you know, the basic principle that keeps thousands of networks, around 60,000 networks, looking like one single internet, because they all adopt this basically fundamental principle that anything is accessible from anywhere on the internet. If you stroll around Kyoto, the venue of the meetings, you will see one of the fathers of the internet, which is Vint Cerf is there, you can ask him how destructive this principle was back then, and it still is today. So, but then we are speaking about the networks, we are speaking about how, you know, networks managed by different companies, by large private companies, they all decide to use the same protocols to exchange information to each other. 90% of the time, maybe less, I don’t want to go into the, into the statistics, but what we think about fragmentation, legislation, I heard some of the distinguished speakers mentioning GDPR in Europe, mentioning initiatives in India. the DSA and DNA packaging in Europe. We’re actually speaking at those, that we call the application layer of the Internet, which we all know as the web, the World Wide Web, which is the most known and most used one. So these are services, softwares, communication means that are built on top of the Internet, of these network of networks. And that’s where, you know, our daily life basically, you know, develops every day. You know, sending messages via WhatsApp or iMessage, making video connection with Zoom or any other services. That’s those services, those applications are the one that in the past years are gathering more and more attention. I mean, those has been following the IGF, maybe had the advantage of being looking at those issues with some advance from, you know, respect to many others. But that’s where the main policy discussion is happening. And that’s where there is also this interesting distinction between the Internet governance and digital governance. And this layer, that we call as the application layer, is the one where, indeed, issues relating to the sovereignty of countries needs to be dealt by public authorities in order to defend, promote the rights and the duties of his own citizens. But in doing so, there are increasing risks that you disrupt the layer that is underneath, which is the technical layer, which is the layer of the system of unique identifiers. And, you know, of course, as… in such a complex technology as it is and such as complex society as we’re living it isn’t always so clear-cut and so sometimes there is the real intention of disrupting these very same principles that I mentioned to you that is anything is accessible from anywhere in the internet sometimes that’s the objectives but sometimes that’s not objectives but you end up you know risk to be that one and that’s where at ICANN we want to you know raise the tension that’s where you know although we have very technical mandate to coordinate this glue we want to flag where the risks are you know I just want to leave you with a reflection a personal reflection you know if you think ICANN is this year is 25 years old okay was created in 1998 we are celebrating in a couple of weeks the 25th anniversary and if you look back at the world back then 1998 to the turn of 2000 some of you had the lack of not being born or very young but you know you may have studied that on the books you know there was a time where globalization was on the rise I was just thinking in the WTO because we’re speaking about protectionism the door around in 2001 is when trade barriers across the globe were being taken down and there was you know this push of integration of global markets this push of you know the idea of the trade it’s indeed good for the economy it’s good for the for the promotion of democracy there is there was a whole political geopolitical economically the political economy framework that that’s upheld that one and if you look at today you know, you know, just 24, 24 hours ago, we see another war breaking up in the Middle East, we see how, you know, the global context has changed, dramatically changed. And this is another warning, and it’s not to me to elaborate. But it’s something that we have to consider that, you know, things don’t happen in a vacuum. And even at the technical layer, we see that. So we have to be wary of those two dimensions. Thank you, Andrea, for underlying all these

Turra Daniele:
complexities that are inherent in the internet, but that also are strictly related to how the world has changed. So I think that one common thread that is emerging here is around the idea of critical resources, and how the state can have an impact in this with specific trade policies, but and therefore, at the end of this whole chain impacting end users. So there might be some food for thought there on specific policy recommendations, maybe keeping in mind the end user. But also, one thing I think it’s emerging out of this specific conversation is that not all critical resources are managed by states. For example, one little piece is also about IP, IPv4 blocks, that are a critical resource of the internet, but therefore, but are not also managed solely by states. So keeping the multi-stakeholder model in this and how protectionist policies are made by the state should actually relate to that is a key point of this discussion. So, Herman is telling me that we have one online question, so, two online questions, so I will ask him to read those out loud, please.

Audience:
Yeah, thank you very much, Danilo. So the two questions that we have online are the following. The first one from Samridhi Kumar, he is asking, do we see a difference of priorities or approach towards the ADF fragmentation in the global north and the global south, particularly from a regulatory perspective? And then the second question by Amir Mukavi is, what would be the effects of internet weaponization against other nations, digital interference in other countries, and enactment to violence in campaigns from abroad on internet fragmentation, especially when we cross-border digital do not cooperate with national competent authorities? What could be done in this situation to avoid internet fragmentation?

Turra Daniele:
So back to the panel. So I will ask now whoever of our speakers would like to reply to this, maybe both of the questions, and then we will have time for just one question from the audience, if there are any, and then we can try to close the session. Bruna, okay, thank you.

Bruna Santos:
Yes, thanks a lot. Just about the priorities, I don’t know if it’s possible to say whether there’s a difference on priorities and where it comes from, but we are seeing, right, like a lot of countries and like member states as well, like diving further on internet regulation aspects and discussions, right? Like DSA is one of them, AI Act on the EU is another one of them. In Brazil, we have been discussing for the last three to four years a proper like disinformation regulatory And the point is that a lot of these regulations might influence, might result in some aspects or even changes to the Internet as we see it today. And I think that will be the main challenge, right? When engaging with policymakers, when engaging with politicians. Just remind them of the core, the critical aspects of the Internet in general, or why is it important, or even to explain what a court order would be something that would be problematic or blocking an app or anything like that. So I wouldn’t know to kind of like pinpoint whether there’s a difference in priorities, but I just wanted to flag that we are seeing this kind of change in the mindset recently, whereas before a lot of states avoided regulation, and now we’re much more focused on regulating every single or maybe all of the Internet aspects that we have been flagged or have been pointed out as like places for abuse or issues in terms of speech and rights in general. So just to say that. Thanks.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you so much, Bruna. I encourage anyone who wants to speak up and maybe ask a question to our panelists. Okay, I don’t think we have any specific questions. I might have one, and again I will ask probably Andrea, I think is the most indicated person for this. So actually I wanted to know a little bit more about this idea of managing the risk of fragmentation given its multifaceted nature. So this can be hard to regulate. It’s very hard to manage the multistakeholder model, and when it comes to specific risks of fragmentation. Who do you think should be responsible for reviewing specific policy requirements that in this specific case might also take into account priorities and the end user perspective?

Andrea Beccalli:
So Daniele, yes, so indeed, the model that, as I said, underpins the internet, the protocol layer, is a model that is now 30 plus years old. And it was built when the internet had nothing to do with what we define internet as of today. And the sheer number of people that designed this model, of course, is not representative of what is the internet user base today. So there is a critical point, and you pointed out into the model that developed that, this multi-stakeholder model, this bottom-up model, that wasn’t designed to scale up to that level. And to include all the different interests, even geographically, positions into that. And that’s one of the challenges that Eigen has, and many of the technical organizations have. How to make sure that as the internet scales up in terms of users, in terms of application, in terms of complexity, the models that govern it, underpins it, even in the development of its protocols, of its technical applications, adapt to that. And for anyone that participates in Eigen knows that this is a constant topic, how to evolve the multi-stakeholder model. And what I can say is that, and what we always say is that, the model is far from perfect. It’s a bit like the famous phrase from Churchill, that democracy is a terrible form of government, but it’s the best of anything out there. So the multi-stakeholder model for the internet application layer, sorry, for infrastructure layer, is the one that works. It’s not perfect, but it’s open. It allows everyone to get in. When we look at the other layers, well, there it’s a whole different series of approaches. If you’re lucky enough to be born in a region where your government is accountable, you may have channels to go through a law that your government push to. But one thing that I want to respond was one of the questions there. There were two very interesting, but I only limit to one, is the different priorities of fragmentation from the global South, the global North. What I think is that, yes, there may be different priorities. And sometimes, you know, protectionism or harming a different country, it’s one of the priority. But what I’m actually worried about is the effects, because fragmenting a market that is 500 million strong as the European Union has a different impact on the economy and the society of a market, of a country that is in global South, it is 30 million users, okay? So the impact that that one has is way larger that you can see in Europe. So some regions of the world, in a way, can withstand fragmentation, can survive through that, because they have developed enough markets that in a way can survive through that. They can develop their applications, you know, will be awful situation, but can survive that. Others, you know, it’s yet a step more. of pushing this digital divide that used to be one of the, you know, main issues of the WSAS and the early IGF yet to a next level. So that’s one of the things that I hope that we are taking consideration. I’m sure that in the IGF community, this one is well ingrained. So not everybody can withstand the interfragmentation and the protectionism that we are seeing around. The effects are very much different.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you, Andrea. My bad, actually, we have another contribution also on this specific point of engaging the Global South and how we can tackle policy needs, also from Nilesh. So I’ll leave you the floor.

Neelesh Maheshwari:
Personally, I think that, okay, there is not an issue per se with regulating. In fact, I argue that we need regulations to find solutions to problems like dissemination of disinformation and misinformation. And these are critical issues that need to be dealt with. Because these are not only issues about harm in the digital domain. In Global South especially, due to the spread of disinformation, we have seen that people are losing their lives. There are riots because somebody posted something about a particular community and it got spread. So, of course, the state needs to deal with these low-end order situations. The problem only arises when these regulations go beyond the legitimate ends. And it’s used to curb the exercise of fundamental rights. It’s used to curb the dissent, the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression. So, in that regard, I would rather say that, you know, the convergence of policy at a global level on these issues. Dialogue at the international level is the way to go. If we have international norms regarding how to combat misinformation, what should be the role of the state, what should be the role of the technical community, what is the role of big corporates, then you know, if a state who has a lot of market power is asking Twitter or any of the corporate for that matter, that okay, you take down these accounts, otherwise we will deny you access. Those can also refer to those international guidelines and can say that no, we will try to follow what is there in international norms. The civil society of the state then can say that no, you are going beyond the internationally agreed upon norms. The government is going beyond and curtailing the rights. But so there should not be an issue with the regulations, but what kind of regulations we are going for. So I don’t believe that regulations are problematic per se. For me, I think that it was a wrong idea that we can leave this sort of public policy functions to private corporations and of course what it resulted in. We just saw that, okay, there was a rise of surveillance capitalism and also from time being we are seeing Cambridge Analytica, we are seeing Snowden revelations, we are seeing electoral interferences where private corporations are hands in hands with state as well. So that is like my understanding of this issue. So I would like to keep once again the attention to, there was another question regarding the weaponization of the internet and if this could actually be, I suppose, moved also through protectionists. policy, what’s your thinking in this regard? You know, the question about weaponization of internet is also, you know, if we look at global north and global south, there’s a different perspective on that. Because the global, in the global north, we see the talk about cyber security that, okay, if you are trying to harm the critical infrastructure in a particular country, you are launching a cyber attack, which can lead to the failure of critical infrastructure. But in global south, we see countries like Russia and China, which are more concerned about information security, they see that, okay, the information can also lead to harm to their society and the stability of their country. So, how we look at the weaponization in that term, we also need to assess that, okay, what are the concerns of the global south, because I don’t believe that there can be one global norm or one global solution for these things. We live in a world where we come from different societies and different contexts, and without underlining those contexts, we cannot come up with, you know, one single policy formulation.

Turra Daniele:
Yeah, okay, yeah, I also wonder if this is, maybe you’re also suggesting that cyber security frameworks might also include local identities and local needs again, but I will give the floor to Bruna that I think wanted to contribute something in this regard.

Bruna Santos:
Yeah, no, just about the international standards or norms for regulating this information and so on. This is a rather confusing, complex, and multi-layered discussion. We are still trying to make social media companies apply their own, like, policies and the things they decide on every day at the same level to every single state, and it doesn’t happen. I’m working in a campaign currently that’s talking about basically, like, safeguarding elections and users and, like, how do you actually ensure that every single voter gets to have the same level of protection all over the world. But at the same time, we still have, like, policies and decisions from companies and many other spaces that prioritize some spaces and countries instead of others, right? So I’m a little wary when we come and do a lot of, like, conversations about this, what will be a global and international standard or conversation for that, because often when we come to those spaces, it’s not, it’s much less my part of the world that speaks, it’s much less the global majority, it’s the richer countries, right? It is Europe, it might be the U.S., and these are the main players in this discussion. So the same level of, like, global standards or policy discussions for every single country won’t happen if we continue to insist in the same kind of, like, power imbalances in spaces. So we definitely need or might need something special here, something that brings in the perspectives of victims, of the communities that are mostly affected by these issues and by the things that we’re talking about. And that also means bringing in people from Ethiopia to talk about fragmentation or people from Congo to talk about the issues about connections, just like Vencesa was talking before. So we do need to do a lot more work on including perspectives in this conversation so we can move forward.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you, Bruna. I will take this, may I take this as a closing statement? I think you mentioned, again, capacity building, so especially in the Global South and trying to include them in this global discourse. I will give you one minute, Nilesh. to maybe doing your closing remarks, just one minute. Then we’ll have Andrea, and we can conclude.

Neelesh Maheshwari:
So I would just like to conclude by saying that we have to accept certain realities of the world. And these are the realities, that there are new governance challenges. We cannot just say that what worked 20 years before is going to work effectively even now. So since we have seen new challenges in the past five, six years, over a decade, we have seen what kind of harms misinformation can do, what kind of harms the electoral interference can do. So of course, we need regulations. But at the same time, we have to see that while there are certain global sets of norms which lead to convergence of these policies, also there should be space for various different contexts in which the states come from. So if we allow such kind of policy development, that would protect the fragmentation of the internet, as well as allow the countries to pursue their own set of policies. At the same point of time, in terms of trade, I believe that the localization requirements should be minimal. The cross-border flow of data should be promoted. And probably digital trade agreements may be a way forward. But they need to keep in mind the realities of the global south, that they are already excluded from the benefits of the digital economy. And they might lack institutional capacity. So this should be taken into consideration and in mind while going forward with these negotiations.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you, Nilesh. Andrea, I’ll give you the floor for one minute of closing.

Andrea Beccalli:
Thank you Daniel and thank you everyone, all of you. The impact of fragmentation to me is way larger in the global south and the effects it can have that you can see in Europe or even China or India itself. I’m sure that in Brussels when DSA or GDPR or the DMA or AI Act were designed, not much reflection was put into what are the impacts on the global south. That’s not really the priority, it’s pushing them. It’s we need to defend our markets, we need to defend our users and that’s understandable but still a certain point of where these actions actually risk to compromise something. Then if you look back, it’s something marvelous. We never had such a technology, we never had such a way to connect everyone, everywhere across platforms, across languages, across time zones. And as I said at the beginning, we took it for granted. The internet is there, you connect, you only pay for your internet service providers. If there is a public way, if you don’t pay, you just pay for the device. And no, I don’t think we can take this principle for granted any longer and we need to fight for that. But we need to fight seeing going out which are the right battles and which are the right layers. Often we see that policies, policy makers, elected officials, they mess it up with the layers. They think they are tackling some issue, free speech, cyber crime, and there was this question about the weaponization of the internet. no, that we arrive and we see it. The EDNS has been used as a way of attacking other countries, something that the technology wasn’t designed for. But you need to be specific, you need to know what you’re acting for and be mindful of the consequences. So hopefully we will have more chances at the IGF to do that because the spaces to discuss these issues are shrinking, unfortunately.

Turra Daniele:
Yes, exactly. Again, I would like to thank every speaker and every panelist for today. I would also like to thank everybody who connected in their own time zones. I would like to connect Pedro, one of our organizers, that is connected from Brazil right now. Pilar also just arrived from Spain after a super long trip. And I just wanted to point out that, again, it’s very important to try to include everybody and also in the design of these policies that seem to have local impacts. In fact, we might also have some unexpected global issues. So it’s important to include those other perspectives in spaces such as the IGF where we can actively contribute and talk about the specific issues as a community, as a global community. And also, I would also have been very happy to hear more from Venceslas. But again, this is also connectivity issues are, I think, at the center of this whole conversation. So there is a need also to include those perspectives and not lose focus. So we are out of time, unfortunately. We will share our report and our policy recommendations. as well as the contacts from our panellists, for everybody interested in following up after this session. So I would like to thank again everybody for this session. A little round of applause and have a good night. Good morning or continue your day. Bye. Thank you.