Digital sovereignty in Brazil: for what and for whom? | IGF 2023 Launch / Award Event #187

Audience

The concept of digital sovereignty is being examined from various angles. Brazil, known for its investment in digital sovereignty, has a long tradition of supporting it through the production of technological equipment and open-source code. This highlights their commitment to maintaining control in the digital realm. However, there are concerns regarding the practicality of achieving complete independence in technology, as no country can truly be independent in terms of technology, food, or energy.

Another point of discussion is the need for clarification on how the current project will relate to the research conducted by FGV-CTS, a prominent research institution that has been studying digital sovereignty for a considerable time. This indicates the desire to build upon existing knowledge and ensure consistency in efforts related to digital sovereignty.

The legitimacy of internet governance in a multi-stakeholder environment is considered a complex issue. This is because digital sovereignty and the involvement of various stakeholders in governing the internet raise questions about who should have the authority and power to make decisions and set policies. It requires careful consideration to strike a balance between different interests and ensure fair representation in decision-making processes.

It is important to note that the term sovereignty inherently denotes exclusivity. When people talk about digital sovereignty, they often focus on their own or their community’s interests, without considering the broader implications. This highlights the challenges of defining and implementing digital sovereignty in a globalized and interconnected world.

On a positive note, the removal of ICANN from the sovereign system is seen as advantageous for certain aspects of internet coordination. By separating it from the influence of individual nations, ICANN can operate in a more impartial manner, contributing to more effective and neutral coordination of the internet.

However, there are differing opinions on the feasibility of digital sovereignty. Some argue that it is a fantasy, as sovereignty in a political and legal sense implies exclusivity. They believe that true sovereignty cannot be achieved in the digital realm.

Misunderstood or poorly implemented digital sovereignty may have significant consequences for the fundamental characteristics of the internet. Legislative or regulatory measures imposed under the guise of digital sovereignty could jeopardize the open and decentralized nature of the internet, hindering innovation and limiting access to information.

In contrast, others view sovereignty as a means of reasserting control and empowering individuals in the digital sphere. It is seen as a process term that allows people to assert control over what occurs in the digital realm, enabling them to shape the digital landscape according to their needs and interests.

In summary, discussions around digital sovereignty are multifaceted. While Brazil’s investment in digital sovereignty demonstrates a commitment to control and independence, challenges regarding practicality persist. The relationship between current projects and existing research needs clarification, and the legitimacy of internet governance in a multi-stakeholder environment is a complex matter. The term sovereignty itself carries connotations of exclusivity, and differing perspectives exist regarding the feasibility and implications of digital sovereignty. Ultimately, the aim is to achieve a balanced approach that preserves the fundamental characteristics of the internet while enabling individuals to have control and influence in the digital world.

Flavio Wagner

Brazil, as one of the world’s top 10 largest economies, possesses a robust industry across a variety of sectors, including the digital sphere. this positions brazil as a significant player in the global economy. Brazil has also implemented laws such as the Marco Civil and the privacy law, which are similar to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. These regulations highlight Brazil’s commitment to safeguarding privacy and ensuring justice in the online realm.

However, there are growing concerns about internet fragmentation and digital sovereignty within Brazilian legislative bills and public documents. These concerns indicate a potential risk of unwanted internet fragmentation. Discussions on platform regulation and cybersecurity proposals often emphasise the importance of digital sovereignty as a motivation for proposed bills. The term “digital sovereignty” is increasingly mentioned in Brazilian legislative bills and public documents.

To address these concerns, a project in collaboration with CEPI aims to facilitate academic and public policy debates about sovereignty, connecting the in-depth analysis of the Brazilian context to the regional and global levels. This partnership with CEPI seeks to expand the understanding and knowledge of the academic and public policy discourse on sovereignty issues.

Moreover, the project collaborates with FGV Sao Paolo, a renowned academic institution with numerous groups working in different cities. The collaboration with Flavio Wagner aims to enrich the academic and public policy debates on sovereignty matters.

Despite diverse areas of focus, the project maintains an ongoing dialogue with various groups, including Lucabelli’s team. This continuous engagement enables the exchange of insights and perspectives, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of digital sovereignty within the Brazilian context.

By analysing public documents, bills, and policies, the project aims to comprehend the impact of digital sovereignty on the evolution of the Internet in Brazil. This comprehensive examination is crucial to evaluate potential implications of legislations or regulations tied to digital sovereignty, as there is a concern that they may threaten fundamental characteristics of the Internet.

As a precautionary measure, it is crucial to exercise awareness and discernment in comprehending how sovereignty is utilised and interpreted in relation to the digital economy. The project follows the approach advocated by the Internet Society to ensure a thoughtful and well-informed discussion on digital sovereignty.

Additionally, the project aims to educate and inform individuals about the diverse perspectives on digital sovereignty in Brazil, as well as the social, legal, and technological implications associated with different definitions of sovereignty. This comprehensive understanding will enhance the overall discourse on sovereignty, not only in Brazil but also in other parts of Latin America and globally.

Flavio Wagner recognises the importance of thoughtful evaluation when proposing public policies, regulations, or legislations to address sovereignty issues. This careful consideration is crucial in understanding the potential consequences and impacts they may have.

In conclusion, Brazil’s significant role in the global economy, along with its robust industry and commitment to internet regulation, has sparked discussions on digital sovereignty and its possible implications for the Internet’s evolution in the country. The project, in collaboration with CEPI and FGV Sao Paolo, aims to foster a comprehensive academic and public policy debate that encompasses various perspectives and potential consequences. By analysing the Brazilian context and connecting it to regional and global levels, the project strives to contribute to a more informed and well-rounded discourse on digital sovereignty.

Ana Paula Camelo

The term “digital sovereignty” is frequently mentioned in Brazilian legislative bills and other public documents. However, it lacks a shared definition, creating ambiguity and confusion about its meaning and implications. To address this issue, research has been conducted in partnership with the Brazilian chapter of the Internet Society and the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CEPI).

The research aims to map and discuss the various narratives and stakeholders involved in Brazilian debates surrounding digital sovereignty. This comprehensive analysis, based on desk research, study group discussions, and expert interviews, will contribute to a deeper understanding of the topic.

In addition, an online training course on the issues of digital sovereignty is set to be launched. The course, accessible through the websites of the Brazilian Internet Society and CEPI, will feature recorded lectures, suggested bibliography, and interactive discussion activities. This initiative aims to enhance knowledge and awareness about digital sovereignty among a wide range of individuals.

Digital sovereignty is considered essential for several reasons. It plays a crucial role in self-determination, the regulation of state power, national security, and technological and scientific development. It also intersects with areas such as artificial intelligence, misinformation, and fake news, and serves as a means of protecting the rights of citizens, including those belonging to consumer and minority groups.

Ana Paula Camelo highlights the importance of understanding the Brazilian context in the global discourse on sovereignty. By doing so, it becomes possible to contribute to a more comprehensive and inclusive global narrative. Camelo encourages individuals to engage with the ongoing research, offering feedback and suggestions to facilitate collaboration.

In summary, the term “digital sovereignty” is widely used in Brazilian legislative bills and public documents, but lacks a shared definition. Through research conducted in partnership with the Brazilian Internet Society and CEPI, a comprehensive understanding of the topic is being developed. An upcoming online training course will further promote knowledge and understanding of digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty is crucial for self-determination, state power regulation, national security, and technological and scientific development. Understanding the Brazilian context is emphasized to contribute to a broader, global narrative on sovereignty.

Raquel Gatto

The concept of digital sovereignty and its connection to internet fragmentation is a major concern for the Internet Society. They have defined fundamental principles and values for the internet and developed a toolkit to assess the impact on these principles. This approach involves continuously evaluating the situation in different regions and countries. They have created impact briefs that provide specific case studies, such as a proposed bill for a law regarding content moderation and fake news in Brazil. This highlights the significance of digital sovereignty in Brazil, where it is a major issue that has led to increased research.

Digital sovereignty encompasses political, technological, and economic aspects, and it is intricately connected to the issue of internet fragmentation. The Internet Society emphasises the importance of understanding different interpretations of sovereignty in the digital sphere. They recognise that capturing these interpretations is essential to safeguarding the fundamental aspects of the internet and ensuring that digital sovereignty does not compromise its core principles.

In their work, the Internet Society also focuses on the broader implications of digital sovereignty, including technological, political, and legal aspects. They highlight the need to consider the potential risks associated with claims of digital sovereignty and the impact they can have on industry, innovation, and infrastructure. By understanding these implications, they aim to contribute to peace, justice, and strong institutions in the digital realm.

Furthermore, researchers like Luca Belli have joined the conversation, bringing their expertise in cybersecurity and a nuanced understanding of digital sovereignty as part of national security protection. This highlights the significance of digital sovereignty in safeguarding nations from potential cyber threats.

Overall, there is a neutral stance towards understanding the implications of digital sovereignty. The Internet Society and other researchers place great importance on gaining a comprehensive understanding of its various dimensions. By doing so, they can contribute to the preservation of a free, open, and secure internet that upholds the fundamental principles and values defined by the Internet Society.

Raquel Gatto:
I’m going to introduce myself, my name is Raquel Gatto, I’m the vice president for the Internet Society Brazil chapter, and I have the pleasure here to have the president of the Internet Society Brazil chapter, Isaac Brazil, Flavio Wagner, on site, and online I have my colleagues who are going also to present this session, Ana Paula Camelo from CPFGV, Ana, welcome, and also online I have the pleasure to co-moderate this session with Pedro Lana, our director from Isaac Brazil. I also want to acknowledge Lohri Schippers, who is online and is our rapporteur, as well as other members from Isaac Brazil who are on site. Thank you very much for everyone joining. So without further ado, I just want to, as my role as moderator, I’m just going to give a little bit of context in terms of why this is one of the topics that Internet Society is tackling. First of all, in the flow of the global vision that Internet Society is putting forward, then I will have Flavio presenting about the Brazilian situation, the Brazilian scenario, and how we are going to tackle the research, and then Ana is going to give us the detailed version of this project, and then I’m opening up for questions, so we have 45 minutes to go all through. So let me just start by saying, so the question that was put on the table by the Internet Society, the international organization is, what is the biggest threat for the Internet? This is such a simple question in a way but with very complex answers and it’s interesting because there was one big concern that arises from the answers that were collected and the answer is SplinterNet. I’m not sure if everyone is familiar with that but SplinterNet is when you don’t have the network of networks. The internet is made of these smaller networks, voluntary adoption of a common protocol TCP IP that makes this the internet of you know the networks of the internet of the networks, the internet working, open, global, secure, trustworth internet and when it comes to the threats to divide it, to fragment the internet, there are multiple ways it can take place from political view, let’s say jurisdiction issues, it might be from digital sovereignty issues, digital national security issues, from technical challenges, infrastructure challenges but in all of those there is a pre-question which is what makes the internet the internet and what we are going to protect from not being divided, from not being splintered, splitted. So the Internet Society started precisely to define what are those fundamental characteristics, the principles, the main values for the internet to be what it is and it published a policy brief back in 2012. 2019, sorry, and then it followed up with an impact assessment a toolkit So it’s not only about Describing what it is to keep it open Globally connected secure interest to all worth internet, but it is also about How you can assess what is going on in your country in your region and and so on and then There are now The chapters and and and the global community is taking up and is creating this impact briefs Which are basically documents taking one case study. For example in Brazil. We had one case study about Proposal for a bill for a law Regarding content moderation. So and and and fake news. So that’s one of the Examples of those impact briefs there are being populated In this main project. So taking this lead on So here’s the biggest threat. Here’s what we want to protect then. What are the main? Overarching themes that that We are seeing this in the the public discourse So first of all, you have internet fragmentation, right? It is by nature in ISOC DNA to take the technical considerations for internet fragmentation so it’s when the Internet is no longer For example using a common protocol when the the Internet and those smaller networks are not connected to the whole Internet and so on but then It needs to be recognized that there are other forms being discussed, including here at the IGF, the policy network on internet fragmentation is also taking up on the other concepts for internet fragmentation, which will take also the user experience in the sense and the governance, the internet governance fragmentation, right? But we are not going to go for deep dive on those yet, but just to acknowledge that there is this overlapping between internet fragmentation and digital sovereignty, whereas digital sovereignty is one of the conditions, one of the situations where internet fragmentation is taking place or risks to take place. And then I come to the main topic of the session today, which is digital sovereignty and all the different definitions also that you can take in this in the sense that digital sovereignty is a political view when we take up the nation-state concept. It can be a technological matter when we are talking about the appropriation for example in developing countries to be more of producers than just receivers. It is also an economic issue and it is also a power struggle in historical terms for new shapes of digital colonialism. But this is something just as an overview that we wanted to bring in terms of how it has evolved the discussions in terms of assessing the risks for the internet, getting it to understand what is the internet that we want to protect and what are the shapes that is taking place in these discussions on the internet ecosystem. And then I’m going to give the floor next to Flavio, who is going to tell us how this is taking place in a Brazil scenario. Thank you very much, Flavio.

Flavio Wagner:
Thank you, Raquel. So, hi everybody. Nice to have you with us here this morning in Japan. So Brazil is a very large country, one of the 10 largest economies in the world with a strong industry in various sectors. And also in the digital realm, Brazil has a lot to show. And because of this context, Brazil, along the time, has proposed that they implemented various local regulations regarding the internet. For instance, the so-called Marco Civil, the Internet Bill of Rights, which was approved in 2014, setting a whole set of rights principles. It’s a principle-based law. Later on, in 2019, we approved our privacy law, very similar to the GDPR, for instance, in the European Union. And these laws are very compatible with international standards regarding rights and duties. There are many other discussions going on in Brazil. There are regulatory proposals being discussed in the National Congress, such as the Artificial Intelligence Bill, the Fake News Bill for content moderation. There are many discussions in the country regarding local law on cybersecurity, various discussions on dimensions of platform regulation, not only the question of content moderation and fighting disinformation, but also economic issues. And there are open discussions, not already in the form of bills in the Congress, but discussions about data sovereignty. This was a large discussion when we approved the Marco Civil many years ago. For instance, on data localization, so these are discussions that come again and again in the country. And the term digital sovereignty is increasingly cited in the Brazilian legislative bills and in public documents. If we take, for instance, current discussions on platform regulation and cybersecurity proposals, they include explicitly sovereignty as a strong motivation for the proposal of bills. But, of course, this is a question that’s not only a problem in Brazil, but is overall that there is no clear or shared definition of what sovereignty means. There are many flavors of sovereignty. For instance, the economic issue, as Raquel has presented before, the technological question, the data sovereignty, and so on. So, which was then our proposal? Next slide, please. Yeah, we partnered the Brazilian chapter of the Internet Society. We partnered with CEPI, a research center at the FGV, a very prestigious academic institution in Brazil, to develop a project which is partly funded by Internet Society Foundation. It started about one year ago, and it’s going on. And the main project objectives is to qualify the academic and public policy debate on sovereignty, and starting with an analysis of the Brazilian context, explore all the social technical dimensions of this debate and its technological and legal challenges. And because there are so many flavors of sovereignty, and sovereignty is invoked for various proposals in the country and elsewhere, we try to identify notions of sovereignty built from various stakeholders’ narratives from various sectors. taking into account the legal, social, economic and political implications and trying to connect this analysis of the Brazilian context connect not only to the local level but also to the regional and global levels. So, as concrete goals, the project aims to map and discuss first whether and in which sectors the discussion on digital sovereignty has emerged as a trend. Which, in second place, which narratives have guided this debate in an attempt to secure public support and based on which justifications? So, why is sovereignty being used as a motivation to secure public support for various proposals that are going on in Brazil? How, in third place, how the relationship between digital sovereignty and the internet takes place in the Brazilian debate? And the final goal is how the creation or change of policies and legislative instruments are linked to these narratives from the various sectors implies local and global challenges both in technical, political and social terms. As Raquel said, one of the global challenges we have is how we can avoid fragmentation and sometimes some regulatory proposals or legislative proposals motivated by a fair claim of digital sovereignty may have unintended consequences for the fundamental characteristics of the internet. And we are trying to explore those relationships. So now I go to Ana, which is online and will continue this presentation.

Ana Paula Camelo:
Thank you, Flavio. Thank you, Raquel, for introducing the broad and the Brazilian context that creates the great opportunity of our research. And I may say I could be with you in YouTube, but I’m glad that we have this online too and participation that allows me to be with you from Sao Paulo. So hello to everybody that is attending. Thank you for your time as well. As mentioned before, the digital sovereignty term is increasingly cited in the Brazilian legislative bills and other public documents, but without a clear shared definition, this is something that we are willing to work and deep our discussions. It creates for us as academic researchers and a great and important opportunity to identify and relate these understandings as Flavio has mentioned just before. And most cases refer to digital sovereignty related to internet. We are also open and interested to connect our local impacts and discussions to the global challenges. Being here is a great opportunity regarding our project related to this. If you could go to the next slide, Raquel, thank you. To achieve the goals and the objects mentioned, research is based on three main sources of data and information. First, I highlight the desk research to collect public documents and other types of publications from different sectors and to map narratives and stakeholders involved in Brazilian debates. This is our main base, the base of our research. The database built with all the documents collected has been studied for the methodical analysis, and we want to identify the narratives that are at play, who has been part of this discussion, which instruments are considered, and for what reason. In the end of the project, we will share an impact brief and other documents showing all these relations and all results of this goal. Alongside this effort, we have a study group on digital sovereignty and internet governance topics that happen monthly, and we have conducted several interviews with experts and researchers to advance some of these debates. I must say some of our colleagues are there with you in Kyoto and others here online attending this panel, so they are also welcome to join the discussion later. Then I can summarize this as our main methodological approach regarding the research. Now we are almost reaching the one-year project milestone, as Flavio mentioned, and our conversations and even the study group, I must say, were started even before the project, and now we are going to an important and second phase of the project. You can go to another slide, please, Raquel. Here you can see our project timeline to have as a reference. The preliminary results I will share in the next slide are based mainly on this great effort of the first year, so considering the documents mapping and the interviews and also the conversations and discussions with researchers and experts, and we are very excited that soon we will begin an open and free online training course exploring the digital sovereignty issues, some topics that we discussed and collected during the research. This is the first experience of this kind of course that CEPI and ISOC Brazil has been has powered together and it works with public calls for applicants that we want to attend the course and the people that the students that the participants are selected based on gender, race, sector, professions, regionals, diversity we want and we try to make a very diverse public to join the initiative with us. We are also working a lot to have public agents and also journalists with us so we can expand and help them to reflect the theme in their daily activities. The course will be based on record lectures, suggested bibliography and discussions activities and if you have interest in the end all the content and all the videos and the material will be shared at ISOC web page, ISOC Brazil and CEPI’s web page so it will be also open content to everybody that has interest in this theme and also focused on community outreach. We will have webinars, public events and the impact brief that I have mentioned that will be launched in the end of the projects. We will share if you the news you can follow us and you can know the updates about the project but I cannot stop and my participation here without talking about the main results until now that we have in the research. With the literature, the desk research with the literature review it brings us main challenges regarding the theme and mainly considering compatibility between traditional sovereignty of states and open and borderless nature of the internet, as Raquel has mentioned, but many of the concepts and the impacts discussed from the global north do not necessarily apply to the reality of the global south. So it’s a very important space for us to discuss our perspectives, our realities and to connect all these agendas. Our mapping effort is an ongoing task due to the theme of relevance nowadays in the country and by now we have more than 245 documents gathered and analyzed, as I mentioned, regarding our methodological approach. And this database contains bills, laws, reports for different instances and also news articles, media articles that help us to understand how the theme of digital sovereignty has been an important issue in the Brazilian context. Since the beginning of the mapping, it’s also possible to verify and to discuss that using the term digital sovereignty did not provide us meaningful results when we use this as a keyword. Then we needed to amplify our strategy and look for themes that were related to the thematic, but sometimes without the explicit use of the term, so we could reach more publications that are connected to the agenda. And after this, multiple and diverse understandings or are at stake and we bring them to some main contexts, some main understandings that it’s important to share with you that are relations between digital sovereignty and self-determination, data self-determination, states power to regulate, jurisdiction, technological or scientific development, national security, open source softwares, among others. So it’s just to highlight some of the key themes related to the discussion, but these are the main ones. And regarding the 15 semi-structured interviews that we carried out, they ratified, they confirmed some of the results we have collected and analyzed from the desk research. And the main one is that only one view indicated that he understood and he saw he could identify consensus about the definitions of digital sovereignty in Brazil and he associated it to the governance and to the government and to the society capacity to rule the development of the country and to use digital technology to collect data. But if he was the only one, the other 14 interviewees, they shared different perceptions and all of them were very clear saying we don’t still have a consensus, we don’t have a common, a shared definition or a shared understanding about it. But many of them associated to artificial intelligence and to misinformation, fake news agenda. as the context Flavio shared in the beginning of his presentation shows. So the interviews, they also provide us with very different perspectives related to political, legal and technical lenses, as Raquel mentioned. And it’s interesting to say that they related, at the same time, the digital sovereignty as an instrument to guarantee rights to citizens in different areas, such as consumer and minority groups’ rights. At the same time, they are very afraid of power imbalance and somehow the impact outside the Brazilian limits. So this is something that I would like to highlight. But I’m afraid of my time, so I’ll stop here, reinforcing that I would like to invite you, if you have interest, to follow us, CEPI and ISOC Brazil website and social network, so you can be updated about our next steps. And thank you all for your attention. I’ll be happy to answer any questions or comments later.

Raquel Gatto:
Thank you very much, Ana. And you were missed here in Japan, but next time, hopefully we are all together. So with that, we finished the presentations. And the idea, just to recap on this session, is to share the project that is ongoing between ISOC Brazil and CEPFGV, where we are looking into digital sovereignty, the documentation and the interviews that are being collected are going to draw a course and then materials and documents that we are shaping. to understand all the nuances and how digital sovereignty is understood in the country. But it’s also grounded into the Internet Society, the global work that is being done also in relations to Internet fragmentation and the understanding of digital sovereignty worldwide. And now, our intent was not only to share what we are doing, but also to collect inputs on your views and any other work that is underway that could be useful for us to consider in this project. So, I’m now opening up the microphone. Thank you. Mark is going. There are two microphones available. If anyone wants to make questions, please go ahead.

Audience:
Hello. Mark, Derisca speaking. I’m an Internet Governance Consultant. So, thank you for sharing the project. I have been following it. It’s actually very interesting and deep. One question that I do have is Brazil has a long tradition of not only the bills that we are discussing, but a prior investment in digital sovereignty in the production of technological equipment, in the development of open source code, and in a series of actions that predate the current discussion. So, in a way, the country was already ahead of the curve like some other countries that preceded this movement. So, has the group started looking into that more historical approach and trying to understand if that has any correlation with the current developments or if these are different phenomena that are happening in different places and time? Thank you. Thank you, Mark. I’m going to take both questions and then… I think we have time for one more question and then we can go back to the presenters. Raul? I have two questions. One is that I saw very recently a paper published by Luca Belli from FGV about digital sovereignty in Brazil and India. I wonder if it has any relation with this work or is it absolutely a parallel line? Okay. Good. Thank you very much for the question. I think it’s a very good question. I think it’s a very good question. Because I didn’t understand if it was related because it’s like an anticipation of the results of the work that you are doing. And the second question is that if you are considering as one possible or you are questioning the expression itself, digital sovereignty, within the framework of the lot which difficulty in the program, to consider this expression, but what about if the expression doesn’t make sense at all, right? In fact, every time that I read things about the salinity, it’s about the independence or technological independence, and I don’t know if there is any country in the world that has such thing like food sovereignty or energy sovereignty, because there is no any country in the world that is absolutely independent in everything about, in relation with everywhere, everybody. So I’m just open to questions. Thank you. ≫ Thank you very much, Raul, and very valuable questions. I’m going to go to Anna Flavio and I might contribute. ≫ It’s a really short one. has to do with how we just asked it. Ale, can you introduce yourself? Yeah, definitely. I’m Alexandre Costa Barbosa. I’m also joining discussions of the SAPI FGV-ISAC Research Group on Digital Sovereignty. I’m a fellow at the Weins and Mao Institute. It’s actually I’d like to hear a bit more about, allow me to ask this question, how is it going to really relate with the research conducted by the FGV-CTS? Because actually, the research group from CTS is working with digital sovereignty for a long time. So how can we combine the efforts that’s being conducted by Sao Paolo? Thank you very much.

Raquel Gatto:
Thank you very much, Ale. So I’m just going to give a brief putting my head as also part of the ISAC Brazil chapter to say that we invited Luca Belli. He joined one of the group sessions, the local group sessions, precisely so we could find some of the synergies in the project. But Luca Belli work is focusing on cybersecurity, so digital sovereignty understood as those of national security protection. And while we’re looking into this project into a wider and broad view of digital sovereignty, also including the technological issues and the political and legal implications. So I’m going to pass to Flavio and Ana if they also want to comment. But I think this is important to be clear on the parallel work that is being done. But it’s not a competition. It’s really that we are in this moment in Brazil where this is. It’s such an important issue that more and more research is blossoming, which is a good way. And then we are looking for the synergies on how to work together. So that’s my reaction. Flavio?

Flavio Wagner:
Yeah, Raul, maybe you are not aware, but FGV is a very large academic institution, with many different groups, and even in different cities. So Lucabelli is in Rio, it’s one group, and we are partnering here with FGV Sao Paulo, which is a different group. And so, as Raul said, we are trying to keep a dialogue with Lucabelli and his team. We invited him to discuss with us, but we are taking really different directions, I suppose. And regarding the question from Mark, we are looking for all documents, all public documents, and bills, and public policies that use explicitly the concept of digital sovereignty as a motivation, or are related to digital sovereignty. In this regard, of course, Brazil has a long past tradition of digital sovereignty approaches. The development of local technologies back in the 70s and in the 80s, we had a very strong industrial policy for the development of local technology. So, of course, this also is of interest for the project, for the mapping we are trying to build. But this is more a historical thing, so we are more interested in what’s happening now, which are the current discourses of different stakeholders, and how this can impact the evolution of the Internet in the country. And regarding the other question from Raul… Self-determination.

Raquel Gatto:
You want to… Let’s put Ana and then I can tackle this one if needed. And we have more questions in a moment. Milton, I’m just taking it. Ana, do you want to make any reactions? We have more questions coming from the floor soon. Yes, just a brief contribution regarding the historical approach that Mark has questioned. I can reinforce Flavio’s perspective about our short-term, I must say, interest looking to the present, looking to the ongoing controversy and debates going on. But we will be able, I’m pretty sure, to build an interesting timeline regarding the main topics and some trends related to the discussion in Brazil that I would say are very recent in the way you’re framing and what you’re looking for regarding the past. And also related to FGV, thank you, Raquel and Flavio, for introducing that we are a big institution and we have very different but connected centers. And I would say that we are very open and connected to the CTS agenda. They have great materials and research on this theme. But in our research, we are looking, I would say, in a broader approach. We want to have this kind of understanding and have this connection with the CTS approach, but not as the only approach on the table. We have seen other perspectives and controversial perspectives going on. So, we want to understand them and go deeper inside the narratives and the main… questions and issues in their background, so we can also even contribute to CTS research in some way. So this is something I would like to add. And finally, regarding the meaning that Raul shared in his question, that expression sometimes they don’t have a sense at all. It’s a very good point, Raul, thank you for sharing it. And it’s a personal perspective, I’d say, sometimes some expressions are used as a hype, as people bring them to make sense, to connect to very different reasons and subjects, and it lacks somehow the connection with the first or the main core it could represent or it could make sense. So this is one thing that we are very worried about, but the main issue, I would say, they are still connected to critical infrastructure, when you say, told about the food and the energy, and somehow they share this kind of relevance, they appear with this relevance and the need for let’s talk about it, let’s make it happen. But something that we have discussed is that we are still in the world’s place, not with concrete agendas, I would say, with concrete initiatives. Besides the discussions about AI and the fake news that we’ve mentioned, it’s still something more discussed, but without concrete impact yet, but many things are happening.

Audience:
Thank you very much, Ana. I think in regards to the second questions from Raul, if that’s going to be a patchwork, where you have an organized view of these meanings, or if that’s a crazy kaleidoscope, that’s going to be answered by the end of the research. And then we have Milton. You want to take the floor? Sure. I missed the first part of your talk, but I know that we’re having a conversation about the legitimacy of Internet governments in the multi-stakeholder environment and also digital sovereignty. And I think one thing I want to ask you about, when most people talk about digital sovereignty, they think about it only for themselves or their community, right? The problem with that is that the notion of sovereignty in a political and legal sense inherently means a kind of exclusivity, right? So if I have sovereignty as, let’s say, the United States, then you don’t, right? And if Brazil has sovereignty over its Internet, then Venezuela and Europe and the U.S. don’t. And so I would like to encourage you to think about the international relations aspect of sovereignty and not hold it up as some kind of fantasy where everybody can control everything for themselves, but they don’t have to worry about anything else. That’s just a fantasy. And the other thing is, you’re all involved in ICANN, so you all know that one of the best things we did when we created ICANN was we got it out of the sovereign system, right? We said names and numbers are going to be not governmentally run, and so that’s been very successful at making sure that So I think there is a lot of debate about what is the best way to do this. I think the best way to do this is to make sure that certain aspects of Internet coordination are not politicized. So I want to make sure people understand the term sovereignty has an appeal to people, but it’s not a one-way street. It’s going to be competing claims of sovereignty, and sometimes those claims are not necessarily going to be the same.

Raquel Gatto:
So I think that’s a good point, Milton. I just want to make sure that also to understand part of the work we are doing right now, the first phase, let’s say, is really capturing the photographs. So how it’s being used in the documents and how people are really seeing sovereignty. So it doesn’t mean that this is the understanding that we have, but it’s really capturing how it’s being used. So it’s very exciting that as a citizen and as business citizen our digital sovereign economy is being so and so I want to make sure that all the citizens who watch this, you know, have somebody heartbreaking memory, and the people who are watching this, they may be thinking about those claims of digital sovereignty possibly hurting some fundamental aspects of the Internet.

Flavio Wagner:
And, of course, most people, when they talk about sovereignty, about self-determination, about the local technological development or the local control of data of Brazilian citizens, of the people who are watching this, they may be thinking about that. But, of course, we are not aware of the possible implications of the legislations or regulations that can be imposed. And so we in the project are very much aware of those things and following the line of the Internet Society approach that digital sovereignty, if not well understood and not well implemented, may hurt some fundamental characteristics of the Internet and we are very much aware of this.

Audience:
Thank you very much, Flavio. And we have one last question before we wrap up. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Peter Bruck. I’m the chairperson of the World Summit Awards. I’m from Austria and I initiated the Data Intelligence Initiative and we talked a lot about the issue of data sovereignty, especially in the context in Europe. And what Milton was saying was very interesting because he gives us the legal definition and the legal implications. I see that the term sovereignty, and I think that this is also very much reflected in some of what you have said, is a way of asserting control in a situation where you don’t feel that you have control. So it is a process term in that sense, a process term on the way to see if you can empower yourself to get control over something. So you’re striving for sovereignty. And then I think what would be important is that you are then getting to a situation of negotiation with the others. And I think this is something which we need to really see. I’m very interested at the IGF and at all conversations here that we are looking at things which are doable and not fantasy. And I think it’s very important that this term sovereignty is seen as a term enabling people to claim their rights. control over whatever is happening in the digital sphere on many, many different levels. So I just wanted to add this to Milton’s intervention and thank you very much also for your smart conversation and reply.

Raquel Gatto:
Thank you very much for this contribution. And I think it’s important and adds to our goal here, which is precisely to understand how… first to understand how it’s being used and then to help educate where we want to take this from. And then I’m going to give one minute wrap-up to Flavio and Ana just to say a few thoughts and then we need to close the session and go for the next. Thank you.

Flavio Wagner:
Thank you, Raquel. And thank you all for coming and sharing your thoughts with us. As I said, we are trying to have a photograph of what are the narratives from the different sectors in this area in Brazil and try to relate this to the global discussion on sovereignty and just also as a mean to educate the people in Brazil. So we are collecting information and then we will spread the conclusions of the project to the wider community, not only in Brazil, but in the region, in Latin America and globally. So that people understand these different flavors of sovereignty and the legal and technological and social implications of those proposals and those definitions. So that we are really trying to contribute to the debate and show the implications of the different definitions of sovereignty and the different implications of public policies or legislations or regulations that are proposed to be implemented following this motivation of sovereignty. And I conclude here. Thank you.

Ana Paula Camelo:
Thank you, Flavio. Ana? Well, I would like also to thank you all for your contribution. You are very insightful and I want to reinforce that at the same time we want to look at the Brazilian context and the Brazilian debate somehow and their implication. We have this goal to not keep on looking only inside, to our reality, to our context. And this kind of dialogue with other perspectives and other realities, other understandings and impacts are very important for us. And we will keep this aim until the end of the project to make this discussion broader, but also to contribute, as Flavio mentioned, to our country. So I would reinforce you are very welcome also to share and send feedbacks and other suggestions and to be connected to our research, not only during this panel, but also after. It will be a pleasure to keep in touch with you. So thank you again. And Raquel?

Raquel Gatto:
Thank you very much, Ana, Flavio, also Pedro and Lori, who are supporting online. We need to wrap up because the next session is going to start soon. And thank you very much for everyone for the contributions. We keep here at the IJF available for any conversations you want to have and further inputs for the project. Next is a legitimacy of the multistakeholderism in IJF spaces. Thank you very much.