Internet fragmentation and the UN Global Digital Compact | IGF 2023 Town Hall #74

Arguments

Technical and policy issues are closely linked

---

There is significant expertise in the technical community

---

Annaliese Williams doesn't believe the decision was deliberate

---

Williams emphasizes the changing identity of the technical community due to the increased reliance on the internet

---

Technical stakeholders should be a part of the conversation while deciding on technological implementations

---

OUTA has recently published an internet governance roadmap

---

Strengthen collaboration between the policy and the technical stakeholders

---

Governments are not the enemy but there to protect their citizens

---

Report

The analysis explores the importance of the technical community's involvement in policy discussions and decision-making processes. Annaliese Williams, a government representative with extensive experience, actively participates in technical discussions and observes a common tendency among technical stakeholders to separate technical and policy issues.

However, she believes that these issues are closely linked. Williams argues that the technical community should have a more active role in policy discussions. She highlights that the Global Digital Compact, a comprehensive collaborative framework for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), does not necessarily prioritize technical stakeholders.

This lack of representation poses a risk of marginalizing their unique perspective in policy-making processes. Additionally, Williams emphasizes the significant expertise within the technical community. This expertise is crucial in facilitating conversations and decision-making processes related to technology, especially as the landscape rapidly evolves.

The increasing reliance on the internet has also transformed the identity of the technical community, making their involvement even more valuable. Peter, along with Williams, stresses the need for discussions on the role of the technical community. Both agree that engaging with governments and understanding the problems they seek to solve is crucial for effectively implementing technology.

Williams emphasizes that establishing dialogues and building relationships with governments can provide technologists with a deeper understanding of the challenges they aim to address. The analysis also highlights the importance of collaboration among technical stakeholders to improve coordination and governance.

It underscores the need for greater collaboration among existing internet institutions to ensure effective coordination. Governments play a significant role in the analysis. It emphasizes that governments are not adversaries but are responsible for protecting citizens. Their involvement in policy discussions and decision-making processes is vital for ensuring public security and maintaining peace and justice.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that technical stakeholders should consider and coordinate their contributions to public policy processes. Even if they choose not to engage, policy conversations will still occur, and it is crucial for them to participate in order to make informed decisions.

Lastly, the analysis mentions that OUTA, an organization focused on internet governance, has recently published an internet governance roadmap. This roadmap serves as evidence of the growing need for collaboration among technical stakeholders to effectively address the complexities of internet governance.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the significance of active engagement from the technical community in policy discussions and decision-making processes. It highlights the close link between technical and policy issues and the potential risk of marginalizing the voice of technical stakeholders.

The expertise within the technical community, the evolving identity due to increased reliance on the internet, and cooperation with governments play crucial roles in achieving effective technology implementation. The involvement of technical stakeholders in public policy processes is essential for informed decision-making and improved governance.

Arguments

Jean-François is concerned about the proposed change of the technical community merging with another community.

---

He questioned the reason behind targeting the technical community for the change.

---

He enquires about other communities' experiences on similar changes.

---

He wants to know who were consulted for this decision.

---

He is interested in the plans and strategies of the technical community to avoid possible merger.

---

Exclusion comes from the perspective of the GDC moving forward as a solely intergovernmental process

---

The technical community plays a critical role in internet governance, and there needs to be better understanding and recognition of this role.

---

The line between different stakeholder groups in internet governance is blurry.

---

The technical community's contribution has evolved with shifts in internet governance moving towards digital.

---

Demographics of negotiators for foreign ministries has changed significantly since 2005

---

The challenge is that the people that various communities want to interact with are not the same anymore.

---

There is a deficit of direct interaction between the technical community and their counterparts in the foreign ministry.

---

The GDC negotiations will likely start at the beginning of the new year and there's limited time for preparation.

---

Different member states are at different stages of readiness for negotiation.

---

Technologists should be included in policy discussions about technology because they are the ones to ultimately implement the policies.

---

Technical community should be involved in every conversation involving internet regulation.

---

The technical community and government are not two separate communities and should not be antagonistic towards each other

---

Report

Jean-François expresses significant concern about the proposed merger of the technical community with another community. He questions the reasons behind specifically targeting the technical community for this change. His argument highlights the negative sentiment towards this proposed change, stating that the technical community should not be treated in this manner.

Additionally, Jean-François enquires about the experiences of other communities who have undergone similar changes, suggesting that their perspectives could provide valuable insights. Peter Koch emphasizes the critical role played by the technical community in internet governance. He asserts that there should be better understanding and recognition of their contributions.

Koch suggests that instead of investing time and energy into the forensics of events, it would be more beneficial to focus on explaining the importance and contribution of the technical community. This positive sentiment stresses the need for greater appreciation of the technical community's involvement in internet governance.

The analysis also reveals that the line between different stakeholder groups in internet governance is blurry, as noted by Peter Koch. The technical community's ability to identify and explain potential side effects of regulations is crucial. This highlights the valuable insights that the technical community can provide in shaping effective and balanced internet regulations.

The analysis further shows that the demographics of negotiators for foreign ministries have changed significantly since 2005. There is a deficit of direct interaction between the technical community and their counterparts in the foreign ministry, indicating a need for closer collaboration and communication between these groups.

Overall, it is clear that there is a strong argument for increased collaboration between the technical community and policymakers. The analysis supports the notion that policymakers and the technical community should reach out to each other for more effective collaboration, as this will lead to better understanding and mutual benefit in achieving objectives in digital and technical sectors.

The analysis also highlights the importance of including technologists in policy discussions about technology. Technologists are the ones who ultimately implement the policies, making their inclusion critical for effective policy design and implementation. Examples from healthcare and architecture demonstrate the successful integration of professionals into relevant policy discussions, further reinforcing the argument for involving technologists in technology-related policy discussions.

Moreover, the technical community's presence and involvement in every conversation involving internet regulation is strongly advocated. This includes the need for a different approach in conveying their message, focusing on equipping governments with a clear narrative that enables them to defend the internet.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of recognising the essential role played by the technical community in areas such as internet governance and technology policy-making. Collaboration, communication, and a deeper understanding between the technical community and other stakeholders are crucial for achieving effective policy outcomes and better internet governance.

Arguments

Fragmentation and diversity can complement each other in discussions about internet governance

---

The proposed exclusion of the technical community seems to stem from a shift towards an intergovernmental process in the GDC.

---

The civil society gathering had a consensus that no conversation should move forward without the technical community.

---

Corporations' inclusion in tech regulation is necessary for the UN's buy-in

---

GDC process is problematic

---

Report

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the discussions around internet governance and digital cooperation, offering insights into the viewpoints and arguments of different stakeholders. One key point is the potential complementarity of fragmentation and diversity in internet governance discussions.

Different perspectives and approaches resulting from fragmentation and diversity can contribute to a deeper understanding of challenges and opportunities in the field. However, concerns arise about the tendency to bundle all stakeholders together without considering their individual contributions. This approach may disregard valuable discussions and problems from individual communities.

The recent suggestion that civil society should engage with member states as part of delegations raises concerns about multi-stakeholderism. Apprehensions surround the proposed Digital Cooperation Forum due to its potential exclusivity and costliness. The forum could amplify existing disparities and restrict participation for those with limited access or knowledge.

Ensuring accessibility and inclusivity is crucial for any digital cooperation initiatives. There are also concerns about excluding the technical community from decision-making processes. The shift towards an intergovernmental process in the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) sidelines their expertise and input, which is vital for effective governance and coordination.

Including corporations in tech regulation discussions is seen as necessary to address issues concerning information integrity and content moderation. The creation of a Code of Conduct for Information Integrity and involving social media companies and other content-related corporations highlight their importance in such discussions.

The abandonment of the multi-stakeholder model in tech regulation disappoints civil society and technical communities. The move away from a model that promised improvements in participation spaces and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is considered a setback, leading to frustration among stakeholders.

Transparency is a significant concern in the GDC process. Unanswered questions, limited stakeholder dialogue, and unequal speaking opportunities highlight the need for a more transparent and inclusive approach. In conclusion, the analysis stresses the importance of inclusive and transparent discussions among the technical community, civil society, and other stakeholders in internet governance.

Recognizing the value of fragmentation and diversity while ensuring the active participation of relevant parties will lead to more effective and inclusive digital cooperation.

Arguments

The internet is not fragmented, as the core technical layer is still intact and functional

---

The importance of trust in the root server system to avoid internet fragmentation

---

The technical community role should be well-defined, acting as the keeper of future freedom of the open protocols and interoperability

---

The technical community plays an essential role in helping countries understand the implications of potential policy discussions

---

There's a risk that future concerns of the technical community may not be fully taken into account

---

Attempts to regulate content problems through the mid-layer could lead to possible fragmentation and more issues

---

ICANN is actively working with government representatives to advise the ICANN board on public policies

---

ICANN, along with other technical communities, is preparing for the VISIS plus 20 review

---

ICANN is very active in addressing DNS abuse and communicates with the governments regarding the same

---

The risks of the fragmentation of internet are real and can be significant especially for developing countries

---

Report

The internet is a network of networks, defined by IETF-developed protocols such as IPv4 and IPv6. It is not fragmented, as the core technical layer remains intact and functional. The internet is defined by IP addresses assigned by regional Internet registries and the BGP routing.

Trust in the root server system is essential to avoid internet fragmentation. The DNS system, managed by IANA, defines the internet for end users and must be trusted to maintain its continuity and interoperability. Protecting the mid-layer of the internet is crucial for content and ensuring the smooth flow of information.

The mid-layer is critical for maintaining the interoperability and accessibility of the internet, and this should be acknowledged in discussions about a global digital compact. The technical community plays a critical role in preserving the freedom of open protocols and ensuring interoperability.

Their concerns should not be overlooked in policy discussions. Attempting to regulate content through the mid-layer could lead to fragmentation and more issues. ICANN actively engages with governments to advise and influence public policy related to the internet. Collaboration between ICANN and governments is vital for well-informed policies.

ICANN, along with other technical communities, is preparing for the VISIS plus 20 review to update and synchronize with the evolving world. ICANN takes measures to tackle DNS abuse and maintain communication with governments. Fragmentation of the internet could have significant consequences, especially for developing countries.

The internet is crucial for their participation in the global world. It is essential to celebrate and protect the successes of the internet for all citizens of the world. Having one internet for one world allows countries to participate actively in global affairs, share culture and knowledge, and achieve common goals through partnerships.

Arguments

The Global Digital Compact by the UN

---

The role of the technical community in the Global Digital Compact

---

The original definition of multi-stakeholder governance does not specifically mention the technical community

---

The academic community is not mentioned at all in the definition of multi-stakeholder governance

---

Historical laziness or oversights should not lead to the subsuming of the technical community

---

Michael Kende emphasized on the need for the technical community to foresee and discuss potential risks in relation to the Internet, rather than responding too late.

---

Michael Kende supports the idea of two-way engagement and believes that addressing a broader range of issues is a way to avoid internet fragmentation.

---

Report

The Global Digital Compact, proposed by the UN, is an initiative aimed at addressing key issues in the digital space, including connecting the unconnected, data governance, human rights online, artificial intelligence, and preventing fragmentation of the Internet. This compact promotes a collaborative and inclusive approach to digital cooperation.

However, there is ongoing discussion regarding the role of the technical community within this compact and internet governance as a whole. The technical community, including stakeholders such as ICANN, IETF, and the IGF, plays a crucial role in ensuring an unfragmented and interoperable Internet.

Questions have been raised about how to ensure the technical community's involvement in negotiations and the future of internet governance. It is argued that the technical community must ensure its active participation in these processes to safeguard its interests and expertise.

One concern raised is that the original definition of multi-stakeholder governance does not explicitly mention the technical community. This exclusion has prompted calls for a more inclusive approach that recognizes the importance of the technical community in shaping internet governance frameworks.

It is suggested that historical oversights or laziness in considering the role of the technical community should not lead to its subsuming within civil society. Michael Kende, a prominent figure in the discussion, emphasizes the need for the technical community to take a proactive approach in addressing potential risks related to the internet.

He argues that rather than being reactive, the technical community should anticipate and discuss potential risks in a timely manner. Kende proposes the concept of "forensics," which involves examining what is said and by whom. He highlights the importance of addressing potential threats before they materialize.

Furthermore, Kende advocates for a comprehensive and proactive approach to internet governance. He suggests that the technical community should engage on a broader range of issues, such as protecting citizens and human rights, in addition to fulfilling its own role.

By adopting this approach, Kende believes that the technical community can contribute to the development of an interoperable internet and help prevent fragmentation. In conclusion, the Global Digital Compact proposed by the UN aims to address various topics related to the digital space.

The role of the technical community within this compact and internet governance as a whole is under discussion. There are calls for the technical community to ensure its active participation in negotiations and the future of internet governance. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the exclusion of the technical community in the original definition of multi-stakeholder governance.

Michael Kende highlights the importance of a proactive approach in addressing potential risks and suggests a comprehensive engagement on a broader range of issues. By doing so, he believes that the technical community can contribute to avoiding internet fragmentation and promoting an interoperable internet.

Arguments

The fragmentation of networks was an issue from the start

---

Unified protocols, shared technical resource management, and shared governance are necessary for internet functionality

---

The Internet is defined by the IP addresses assigned by the Regional Internet Registry and trust of end-users in the root server system.

---

Fragmentation and diversity are not in opposition and they can complement each other.

---

Preserving the open, free, secure and globally interoperable Internet is best done when we have all the stakeholders

---

Technical community needs to engage with policy stakeholders and governments

---

The technical community plays a crucial role in discussing the potential consequences of policy decisions relating to internet regulation

---

Change in demographics of negotiators since 2005.

---

Technical community needs to engage and educate their foreign ministry counterparts.

---

Urgency to prepare for the upcoming GDC negotiations.

---

Language barrier and different perspectives between the two bodies.

---

Involvement of the technical community in internet governance has become crucial

---

The technical community needs to equip governments to defend the internet

---

OUTA has recently published an internet governance roadmap, calling for greater collaboration among the technical stakeholders to ensure better coordination and strengthen collaboration between policy and technical stakeholders.

---

ICANN working closely with Government Advisory Committee and has government engagement team in place

---

ICANN actively addresses DNS abuse

---

The technical community should foresee and discuss the potential risks and side effects of regulation before they become a tangible threat

---

Eva Gnatyshenko, a representative from the UK Government Department for Science, Innovation and Tech, believes that there shouldn't be a strong distinction between the technical community and the government sector.

---

Eva is seeking the right mechanisms for foreign ministries to engage with the technical community and vice versa.

---

Eva mentioned disappointment with the low participation from the private sector and the technical community in the GDC consultation.

---

The risks of the fragmentation of internet are real and the consequences are significant especially for developing countries

---

Governments are trying to protect their citizens and not trying to stop everybody having a good time

---

There is a need for a coordinated response into some of these public policy processes

---

Technical stakeholders should give consideration to what they can contribute and need to coordinate among themselves to provide input to these processes

---

The GDC process was open but had some issues.

---

Report

The analysis explored various aspects of internet governance, with a particular focus on the involvement of the technical community. One of the key challenges discussed was network fragmentation, which has been an issue since the inception of the internet. The primary aim of the internet was to enable separate and fragmented networks to collaborate effectively.

Resilience and scalability were identified as the main objectives in the early stages of the internet's development. To address the problem of fragmentation, it was stressed that unified protocols, shared management of technical resources, and collaborative governance are essential for the proper functioning of the internet.

Efforts have been made to further unify network protocols, such as through the ITU's Network 2030 initiative. Furthermore, the speakers underscored the significance of the technical community in achieving policy objectives, highlighting the importance of effective cooperation between the technical community and governments.

The analysis also explored the role of the technical community in shaping the internet. The internet is defined by the IP addresses assigned by the Regional Internet Registry, as well as the trust placed in the root server system by end-users.

While different countries may have varied user experiences, it was noted that fragmentation and diversity can coexist as long as the middle technical layer functions effectively. In addition, it was emphasized that the technical community should actively engage with policy stakeholders and governments instead of remaining passive observers.

Their expertise and perspectives should be heard and considered in policy discussions to prevent the potential fragmentation of the internet. The analysis also highlighted the importance of the technical community's involvement in discussing the possible consequences of policy decisions relating to internet regulation.

The analysis further touched upon the changing demographics of negotiators since 2005, with a call for increased engagement and collaboration between the technical community and foreign ministries. It also emphasized the need for timely preparation for upcoming negotiations, the impact of language barriers and different perspectives in interactions between the technical community and policy makers, and the importance of coordinated stakeholder responses to public policy processes.

Overall, the analysis underlined the critical role of the technical community in internet governance. It highlighted the necessity for their active engagement with policy stakeholders and governments, as well as their contribution to discussions on potential policy consequences. The pursuit of unified protocols, shared governance, and collective action from diverse stakeholders were identified as crucial for the preservation and functionality of the internet.