Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation | IGF 2023

Bruna Marlins dos Santos

During the session, a comprehensive presentation will be given on the Policy Network’s discussion paper. The paper examines various aspects outlined in the Policy Network framework, and debates will be held to delve further into these topics. The aim of the session is to foster a thorough understanding of the discussion paper and encourage insightful discussions among participants.

The presentation and subsequent debates are of significant importance to the Policy Network as they provide an opportunity to seek feedback, gather perspectives, and refine the framework. The Policy Network values the contribution of its volunteers and acknowledges their role in shaping the document. Bruna, in particular, expresses profound gratitude to all the volunteers who helped shape the document with their time and effort. It is heartening to note that some of these volunteers are present during the session, indicating their continued commitment to the Policy Network’s values and goals.

The discussions and presentations align with two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 16 and SDG 17. SDG 16 focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The Policy Network’s efforts to facilitate debates and discussions on the various aspects outlined in the framework contribute to these goals. Furthermore, SDG 17 emphasizes the importance of partnerships and collaboration to achieve the SDGs. The Policy Network recognizes the significance of collaboration and appreciates the volunteers who have worked alongside them, highlighting the importance of partnership for the goals.

In conclusion, the upcoming session will involve a detailed presentation of the Policy Network’s discussion paper, as well as debates on the various aspects outlined in the framework. The volunteers of the Policy Network are greatly appreciated and thanked for their invaluable contribution in shaping the document. The discussions and presentations align with SDG 16 and SDG 17, incorporating elements of peace, justice, strong institutions, and partnerships for the goals. By engaging in these activities, the Policy Network aims to further progress towards achieving the SDGs and creating positive change.

Olaf Kolkman

The discussion revolves around the topic of internet fragmentation and its implications on connectivity and global inclusivity. One aspect highlighted is the lack of a clear and operationalized definition for technical fragmentation, resulting in different frameworks for understanding the concept. While fragmentation is often seen as a negative phenomenon, certain types of fragmentation, such as decentralisation, lack of connectivity by choice, or temporary network glitches, are considered to be non-problematic.

However, the evolving nature of the internet and its changing routing behaviour may lead to a different kind of fragmentation, potentially increasing the digital divide. This digital divide could be more prominent in lesser connected parts of the world and could result in a disparity in user experience. Therefore, it is important to address and mitigate these effects to ensure global connectivity.

A key argument presented is the need to protect the critical properties of the internet for global connectivity. Fragmentation in the technical infrastructure is likely to be reflected in the user space, affecting the overall user experience. It is crucial to continually evolve the internet and avoid ossifying it in its current state.

Furthermore, a multi-stakeholder approach is deemed necessary to ensure global connectivity and prevent fragmentation. Stakeholders include the private sector, technical communities, civil society, and governments. By involving various stakeholders, it is believed that a collaborative effort can be made to address global connectivity issues effectively.

One notable observation is the call for a more nuanced understanding of the issues surrounding internet fragmentation. It is suggested that a broader perspective is required to fully comprehend the implications and consequences of different forms of fragmentation.

Another important point raised is the protection of an open internet architecture. This open architecture should be safeguarded to promote common protocols and interoperability. It is argued that an open internet architecture allows for the evolution of the internet and ensures its continued effectiveness and accessibility.

Additionally, the affordability and accessibility of the internet are highlighted as crucial factors in preventing the creation of a digital divide. Issues such as the concept of the “death of transit” and pricing disparities are mentioned, which can hinder individuals’ ability to access the internet. To prevent exclusion, it is important to address these affordability and accessibility challenges, ensuring that everyone who wants to connect can do so.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasises the need for a clear definition of internet fragmentation and a comprehensive understanding of its various forms. Protecting the critical properties of the internet, adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, preserving an open internet architecture, and addressing affordability and accessibility issues are crucial steps towards ensuring global connectivity and preventing the creation of a digital divide. The ultimate goal is to provide equitable access to the internet, ensuring that everyone who desires to connect can do so.

Rosalind Kenny Birch

Fragmentation at the governance layer of internet governance can have negative consequences, such as duplicative discussions and excluding certain groups from the decision-making process. This fragmentation occurs when global internet governance and standards bodies fail to coordinate inclusively. The lack of coordination can lead to redundant conversations and the marginalisation of specific stakeholders.

Furthermore, this fragmentation at the governance layer does not just impact that particular level; it can also have knock-on effects on other layers of the internet user experience and the technical layer. The issues arising from governance fragmentation can trickle down to affect the overall user experience and technical functionalities of the internet. This highlights the interconnectedness of the different layers and the need for holistic approaches to address fragmentation.

To combat fragmentation, inclusivity is considered a central approach. When multi-stakeholder community participation is limited or not fully empowered, fragmentation tends to occur. Therefore, promoting inclusivity becomes crucial in combating governance fragmentation.

Instead of introducing new bodies into the internet governance landscape, it is recommended that existing internet governance bodies focus on improving coordination. Introducing additional bodies may further complicate the already complex governance landscape. Therefore, enhancing coordination among existing bodies is seen as a preferable solution to address fragmentation.

Moreover, it is important to ensure regional nuances and cultural contexts are considered in global internet governance bodies. Internet governance bodies should strive to accommodate the perspectives and voices of all stakeholders, regardless of their cultural or regional background. This can be achieved through better coordination and utilising platforms like National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) or the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). These platforms provide opportunities to discuss local nuances, regional contexts, and ensure diverse perspectives are heard. For instance, the Africa IGF was identified as a fruitful opportunity to learn about regional perspectives and the importance of cultural and regional inclusions.

In conclusion, fragmentation at the governance layer of internet governance has negative implications, including duplicative discussions and exclusion of certain groups. Inclusivity is crucial to address this fragmentation, and existing internet governance bodies should focus on improving coordination rather than introducing new bodies. Additionally, considering regional nuances and cultural contexts in global internet governance is vital for inclusive decision-making processes. Platforms like NRIs and IGF can play a significant role in fostering regional and cultural inclusivity.

Suresh Krishnan

The internet is a decentralised set of networks that lacks a single point of control. It is a collaborative effort involving multiple individuals who have built this expansive network. This characteristic of decentralisation is a fundamental aspect of the internet, allowing for its widespread connectivity and accessibility.

Technology plays a crucial role in the internet’s functioning by enabling interoperability between these networks. It provides the means to bind different networks together, allowing seamless communication and data exchange. This interoperability is essential for the smooth operation of the internet and facilitates the flow of information across various platforms and devices.

Openness and incremental deployability are critical properties of the internet. The internet constantly evolves with the deployment of new technologies. This adaptability and openness enable the integration of innovative technologies onto the internet, keeping it up to date and capable of supporting new applications and services.

Content filtering is an important consideration in the context of the internet. It is argued that content filtering should occur at higher layers, taking into account the differences in laws across countries, states, and localities worldwide. This approach acknowledges the diverse legal frameworks and ensures that filtering is done in a way that respects local regulations whilst maintaining the internet as an open and inclusive platform.

The multi-stakeholder approach has played a significant role in the development and governance of the internet. This collaborative approach involves stakeholders from various sectors working together to shape policies and decisions regarding the internet’s management. The internet has thrived and evolved due to this inclusive approach, allowing for diverse perspectives and expertise to contribute to its growth and stability.

Efforts in internet measurement are critical for understanding and improving the internet’s performance. There is a need for more measurement points across the globe and a platform for individuals to conduct their own experiments and assessments. By increasing the focus on internet measurement, we can gain valuable insights into the network’s strengths, weaknesses, and overall quality, leading to targeted improvements and advancements.

However, a noteworthy critique is the lack of references in the document. It is important to provide credible sources and citations to support the arguments and claims made. For example, referencing RFC 1958, which discusses the architecture of the internet, would add credibility and depth to the document’s assertions.

In conclusion, the internet’s decentralised nature, enabled by technology’s interoperability, openness, and incremental deployability, has shaped its development. Content filtering should be approached in a way that considers the differences in laws worldwide whilst maintaining the internet’s accessibility. The multi-stakeholder approach has been instrumental in managing and evolving the internet. Finally, efforts in internet measurement are necessary for ongoing improvement, but it is crucial to provide proper references to support the document’s claims and arguments.

Sheetal Kumar

The Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation has spent the year exploring the complexities of Internet fragmentation. They have developed a comprehensive framework that allows them to understand and address fragmentation from different perspectives. The network aims to unpack the elements of the framework, identify priorities, and formulate recommendations for action. They advocate for a multi-stakeholder approach, recognizing the involvement of diverse stakeholders in fragmentation. Seeking feedback from the community, the network wants to align their priorities with the international community and ensure comprehensive recommendations. Their ultimate goal is to provide clarity to the complex and contentious issue of Internet fragmentation, foster ongoing dialogue and engagement, and contribute towards a more connected digital landscape.

Marielza Oliveira

User experience fragmentation refers to the division or segregation of users into different information environments or platforms, resulting in varying levels of access to content and features. This issue has both positive and negative aspects.

On the positive side, user experience fragmentation can include features and content that are specifically designed to benefit the user. For example, certain platforms may tailor recommendations based on the user’s preferences, resulting in a more personalised experience. Additionally, some users may appreciate being able to navigate through smaller, more specialised content ecosystems that align with their interests or values.

However, on the negative side, user experience fragmentation can restrict users’ access to certain content and limit their exposure to diverse perspectives. This can create information bubbles or echo chambers, where users are only exposed to information that supports their existing beliefs or biases. As a result, users may be deprived of opportunities to engage with differing opinions and challenge their own viewpoints. Moreover, this kind of fragmentation can lead to the reinforcement of social, political, or cultural divides, as it inhibits the free flow of information and impedes dialogue and understanding among different groups.

Negative user experience fragmentation affects all users and is a cause for concern. It has significant implications for the rights to access information and freedom of expression. When users are unable to access certain content or are forced into specific information environments, their right to freely seek and impart information is restricted. Additionally, non-targeted users, who may have diverse perspectives, are hindered in their ability to associate with those who are isolated in different information spaces. This ultimately curtails the richness of public discourse and limits the potential for fostering inclusive and diverse dialogue.

Furthermore, user experience fragmentation can be classified as either good or bad. Good fragmentation describes situations where fragmentation is achieved through a multi-stakeholder process and upholds principles of openness and accessibility. On the other hand, bad fragmentation tends to be the result of unilateral decision-making processes, disregarding the interests of users and reducing openness and accessibility.

It is argued that principles regarding user experience should be rooted in human rights standards. Human rights standards are globally accepted and provide a solid jurisprudence foundation for assessing the legitimacy of interfering with the freedom of expression. Adhering to these principles ensures that user experience is guided by ethical considerations and serves the broader goal of promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions.

To mitigate the negative effects of fragmentation, it is suggested that enforcing platform interoperability, data portability, and enhancing users’ media and information literacy can be effective strategies. Platform interoperability allows users to seamlessly navigate between different information environments, fostering exposure to diverse sources and perspectives. Data portability enables users to retain control over their personal information and move it between platforms, preserving their agency and reducing reliance on a single platform. Strengthening users’ media and information literacy empowers individuals to critically evaluate information and navigate the vast amount of content available on the internet in a safe and informed manner. These measures can counteract the negative consequences of fragmentation, such as echo chambers and the spread of misinformation.

In conclusion, user experience fragmentation has both positive and negative dimensions, with its impact extending beyond individual users to society as a whole. While it can provide tailored experiences and niche content, it also limits access to diverse perspectives and contributes to societal divisions. Adhering to human rights standards and implementing measures to mitigate the negative effects are essential in ensuring that user experiences are inclusive, ethical, and conducive to fostering an informed and democratic society.

Jordan Carter

In the analysis of internet governance, several key points were highlighted. Firstly, there was a strong argument for the need for broad-based participation in standards bodies and global internet governance organisations. The analysis acknowledged the Western bias in participation that currently exists and stressed the importance of greater inclusivity to ensure a more equitable representation.

Another critical issue discussed was the definition of governance fragmentation in internet governance. The analysis criticised the current definition, stating that it is too narrow. This suggests that a more comprehensive understanding of fragmentation is required to effectively address the challenges.

Further examination revealed that the narrow mandates of many technical internet governance organisations contribute to governance fragmentation. While these mandates serve important purposes, they can restrict organisations from adopting a systemic view of the internet. This limitation hinders their ability to address the complex governance challenges faced in the digital age.

The analysis also emphasised the need for better coordination between internet governance bodies. It highlighted the potential for meaningful collaboration among the individuals involved in global internet governance bodies, stressing that improved coordination would enhance effectiveness and outcomes.

Lastly, the analysis touched upon the relationship between the multi-stakeholder-driven internet governance system and the multilateral or state-based regulatory and legal system. It argued that these two systems should work together and influence each other positively. By shaping policies and practices collaboratively, a more effective and balanced internet governance framework could be achieved.

Overall, the analysis underscored the importance of broad-based participation, the need for a broader definition of governance fragmentation, and the significance of coordination and collaboration between internet governance bodies. It also highlighted the potential benefits of aligning the multi-stakeholder-driven system with the multilateral or state-based system. These insights bring attention to key areas where improvements are necessary to ensure a more inclusive, effective, and cohesive approach to internet governance.

Roswitharu

The issue of user experience level fragmentation is a complex one, with perspectives depending on one’s geographic and socio-economic context. People in Silicon Valley and the US West Coast express major complaints about actions taken by governments in authoritarian countries or the privacy laws of the European Union. Conversely, Europeans primarily complain about the actions of Silicon Valley platforms.

Maintaining a balance between the global nature of the internet and the preservation of local sovereignty is vital. The original vision of the internet was to unite the planet by enabling unrestricted communication. However, disparities in values, economic systems, and languages have caused tension and division.

Efforts to address these issues should focus on pragmatism and determining the existence of a problem rather than getting caught up in semantics. Rather than engaging in unproductive debates over definitions, it is more constructive to seek agreement on the existence of a problem. This pragmatic approach allows for practical solutions and avoids getting stuck in semantic disputes that do not lead to meaningful progress.

In conclusion, addressing user experience level fragmentation requires considering different perspectives based on geographic and socio-economic contexts. Acknowledging concerns raised by individuals in Silicon Valley and the US West Coast about governments in authoritarian countries or EU privacy laws, as well as addressing European concerns about the actions of Silicon Valley platforms, is essential for improving overall user experience. Striking a balance between the global nature of the internet and the preservation of local sovereignty is crucial. Taking a pragmatic approach that focuses on assessing the existence of a problem rather than getting caught up in semantics will drive progress towards resolving these challenges.

Wim Degezelle

Internet fragmentation is a complex concept without a clear definition, as there are different views on the subject. However, three categories or “baskets” of fragmentation have been identified: fragmentation of Internet user experience, fragmentation of Internet governance and coordination, and fragmentation of the technical layer. The complexity of the topic led to the abandonment of creating a precise definition for Internet fragmentation.

To facilitate discussions and understanding of Internet fragmentation, a framework was developed. This framework aims to provide a structure for discussing the various aspects of Internet fragmentation rather than providing a strict definition. It outlines the three aforementioned categories or “baskets” of fragmentation: fragmentation of Internet user experience, fragmentation of Internet governance and coordination, and fragmentation of the technical layer.

Multi-stakeholder discussions are crucial when addressing Internet fragmentation. These discussions involve various stakeholders, who may differ depending on the specific category of fragmentation being discussed. This highlights the importance of different groups coming together to discuss Internet fragmentation, with each category attracting different stakeholders.

To effectively address Internet fragmentation, it is necessary to have discussions that span across all categories. This is because guidelines for avoiding or addressing fragmentation may not be fully complementary between different categories. By having discussions across the “baskets” or categories, a cross-category approach can be developed to better tackle Internet fragmentation.

In conclusion, Internet fragmentation is a complex issue without a definitive definition. However, through the identification of three categories of fragmentation and the development of a framework for discussions, progress can be made in understanding and addressing this issue. Multi-stakeholder discussions that encompass all categories are essential to effectively navigate the challenges posed by Internet fragmentation.

Audience

The analysis delves into the topic of internet fragmentation and its various implications. It highlights the negative effects of technical fragmentation on the internet’s ability to evolve, innovate, and adapt. The argument is made that when the internet is split into different networks, its potential for growth and development is hindered. The analysis underscores the importance of maintaining the unity and interconnectivity of the internet to enable progress and positive outcomes.

The need for a uniform and unharmful user experience on the internet is also explored. It is noted that elements representing the user experience should be safeguarded to ensure a consistent and positive online environment. Additionally, the significance of interoperability is underscored. It is stated that interoperability is crucial for the smooth functioning of the internet, allowing different systems and devices to communicate effectively with each other.

The harmful effects of fragmentation are examined, particularly in relation to blocking user access to certain sites or content. This type of harmful fragmentation is seen as a significant problem, as it restricts users’ freedom and limits their ability to fully utilize the internet.

The analysis further delves into the impact of fragmentation on democracy and the digital space. It is argued that the integrity of the digital space is crucial for the defense of democracy. The risks associated with fragmenting the digital space are highlighted, bringing attention to the potential negative consequences.

Additional topics discussed include the ownership of IP addresses and the importance of decoupling IP addresses from networks. The analysis suggests that everyone should own their own IP address, allowing for more control and autonomy in the online space.

The involvement of regional or cultural leaders in internet policy formation is explored as a way to mitigate the impact of internet shutdowns and address the needs of specific communities. Engaging these leaders can lead to more inclusive and effective initiatives.

The potential widening of the digital divide due to the availability of satellite internet is also discussed. The rise of satellite and private corporate satellite internet is seen as a concern, as it could lead to the exclusion of certain populations and affect the quality of the online experience for many.

The challenges of implementing recommendations for internet fragmentation and the importance of internet governance are also addressed. The analysis acknowledges the difficulty in implementing recommendations due to the evolving and decentralized nature of the internet. It is concluded that there is a need to create governance to prevent internet fragmentation and ensure a cohesive and inclusive online environment.

Overall, the analysis offers a comprehensive examination of the topic of internet fragmentation, highlighting its negative effects and the importance of maintaining a unified and interconnected internet. It emphasizes the need for a uniform and unharmful user experience, interoperability, and inclusive internet policies.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th that we, the Policy Network, just put out. So the session today will be a little bit of a presentation of the discussion paper and also some debates between both the pen holders of the documents and some community commentators on the three aspects that we described in the Policy Network framework. So, and before we move on to that, I just wanted to start with a very big thank to every single volunteer of the Policy Network that helped us shape this document. Some of them are on the stage with us and some of them are also here in this room, so thanks a lot for joining the conversation and helping us construct this debate. I’m gonna hand the floor to you, Wim, right? And then we can move on

Wim Degezelle:
with the agenda. Thank you, and this is on, and as you see we have a presentation. I think the first, Bruna, thank you, you already gave the overview of the agenda, so I will give the brief introduction. My name is Wim de Gezelle. I’m part of the Policy Networks. They are an intersessional activity by the IGF. That means that they also receive support by the IGF Secretariat, and I’m with the Secretariat as consultant to help this Policy Network to start. So, a brief introduction on the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation. It is an intersessional activity. That means we not only work at this IGF meeting, but we start way earlier. We started working in May, and even before that, to prepare and work to this session and to the IGF. So, it is the Policy Network Internet Fragmentation. There are other Policy Networks also on the agenda, but this one on Internet Fragmentation has the So, what are the objectives of the policy network? The policy network is an open and interconnected network. It’s a network that wants to further the discussion and raise awareness on fragmentation on technical, policy, legal, and regulatory measures that may, and actions that may pose a risk to the open and interconnected, interoperable Internet. So, what are the objectives of the policy network? The first objective is to understand what is actually meant with Internet fragmentation. So, come up with a comprehensive framework and overview of what Internet fragmentation is. We look at case studies, what actually is happening, try to come up with examples or look for examples. And then the third question is what to do about it, how to address or how to address the issue. So, we try to avoid fragmentation. This, looking back to what we did last year, we actually dove into those questions, and as often is the case, you want to find the definition and try to define what you’re working on. Through the webinars, like you see, we had webinars during the year, asking specifically that question, what is the definition? What is the definition of Internet fragmentation? What does it actually mean to people when they talk about Internet fragmentation, and what should and what can be done about it, and who should be doing what? Very quickly, through those webinars and those discussions we had, it became clear that trying to come up with a definition is not really something that is still possible. It might have been possible earlier on, but at this how the people are discussing and trying to squeeze that all in one clear definition is not helpful. What we did instead, or through the work, it became clear there are different views on what fragmentation is, and that’s how last year, as the outcome of last year’s discussion, we came up with a framework, saying, actually, what is the definition of Internet fragmentation? What is the definition of Internet fragmentation? What is the definition of Internet fragmentation? What is the definition of Internet fragmentation? Actually, if we listen to the people, if we listen to the comments we get, we kind of can form three baskets of what people see and understand as fragmentation. What’s in those baskets, we will further discuss and hear from the panelists today. But that, and I think that was the main output of our work last year, that allowed us to come up with a framework. The framework you see in small, and this, I think, is a larger version. So a framework that says, well, we found that when people are talking about fragmentation, we can either form a basket that we can label as fragmentation of Internet user experience, fragmentation of Internet governance and coordination, or people really refer to fragmentation of the technical layer, technical architecture of the Internet. That were the baskets that we could form. With the important comment we got, those baskets are not alone, are not completely separate. There are interactions, there are overlaps between them, and that’s, they shouldn’t be considered as specific, as separate silos. One comment before I hand over to Sheetal to discuss what we actually did this year, is we labeled the framework as it is a framework for discussing Internet fragmentation. We don’t want to come up with a framework to define what it is, but we, from the beginning, say, well, we, this framework should help to discuss and further the discussion. Because I think that’s one of the main evolutions we saw in the work and in our discussions, is that people started to move from, well, we need to define something and then we need to discuss, in kind of an understanding. that it is important to discuss with stakeholders and have these multi-stakeholder discussions on Internet fragmentation. But these stakeholders are not necessarily always the same. It is possible in those three layers of our framework that you need to sit together with different stakeholders or different types of people, different organizations. And I think that’s one of the major or one of the main findings we had last year in our work. Together with, and that probably will become clear out of today’s discussion, the second point is that what those different groups are in those different layers, they come up with actually guidance or guidelines or ideas on how to avoid or address fragmentation, will not necessarily or does not necessarily, is completely complementary with each other. So at the end of the discussion, it will still be necessary to, across those baskets, have discussions on how to actually address ND. So that’s what we did last year. I hope that was clear. So I end here. This was a framework, and that was also the start of our discussions this year. So I hand over to you, Gita.

Sheetal Kumar:
Hi, everyone. Thanks, Wim. It’s great to be here and to be presenting our output for this year. And as Bruna said, we co-facilitate this policy network, and it’s really nice, I think, to now not be doing so much of the work, but to be hearing from you. Once we’ve heard from the drafters and the commentators who will be responding to the drafters of this year’s output, we really want to hear from you. So the work is going to be in the room, and then, as you can see from the agenda as well, we will also be looking for feedback after this session. So what have we done this year? As Wim said, we have been building on the work of last year, where we developed a framework to conceptualize what Internet fragmentation is understood as, as we have just discussed, in many different ways. And so this framework we developed is to support, it’s really a tool to support better understanding and clarification of what Internet fragmentation is. And in that sense, what we were able to do this year is further unpack what the framework is, and those three areas which Wim outlined, and those are the fragmentation of the technical layer, the user experience, and governance and coordination. And what we wanted to do in unpacking these areas was better understand what the priorities should be in each area, so what is actually harmful and negative, and from that, assess what can be done. So develop some recommendations for action, and where we are really, I think, looking forward to hearing from you all and from those who have been so involved already is… Well, really, whether or not you think that these recommendations are helpful, whether anything is missing, and whether you think the way that the different elements of the framework have been unpacked and what has been prioritized, it aligns with your view of what we should be focusing on as an international community when it comes to this issue. So, what we are going to do is take each element of the framework one by one, and I also invite you to go to the PNIF’s webpage and look at the discussion paper as we’re discussing it here, and consider also in the second part of this session how you may want to react to what is being presented. So, we’re going to do, first of all, a presentation of each track or each element, and so we have the very hardworking drafters of the output document here, and we’re going to go one by one, hear from them. They’re going to just present the top-level findings or the top-level points, so what priorities they found need to be addressed, and then some of the recommendations, and then we’ll have a commentator to respond. And so, we’ll do that for each, and then we will open up. So, without further ado, I’d like to hand over to Rosalind Kenny-Birch, who is with the UK government at the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology. And, Ros, you worked with others to develop the chapter in our document focused on internet governance and coordination and the fragmentation of that. So, in the next three or four minutes, would you be able to just provide an overview of what that chapter says and the recommendations that you have for addressing this element of fragmentation? Thank you.

Rosalind Kenny Birch:
Thanks very much, Sheetal, and great to see everyone. here today. I think one of the points of this panel discussion too is to really provoke a conversation. Our multi-stakeholder working group that worked on this chapter had quite a few different perspectives because fragmentation is such a complex topic it can be to discuss. So it will be really interesting to hear your insights here today from a wider group of perspectives and so I would really invite you to engage in the discussion, offer some of your own insights and challenge afterwards as well. But just to present on what we’ve written up in the preliminary draft chapter on fragmentation at the governance layer of the Internet, I’d first like to lay out a little bit of context. So our multi-stakeholder working group draft wrote that fragmentation at the governance layer primarily relates to the interactions between global Internet governance and standards bodies. When these bodies do not coordinate inclusively, it can and does result in fragmentation. This fragmentation can manifest in siloed or duplicative discussions, an exclusion of specific groups from participation, resulting in decisions being taken without consensus from the global multi-stakeholder community. And it’s important to note too that fragmentation at the governance layer can also create knock-on effects at the other layers of the Internet user experience and the technical layer. So there were a couple of different components to our analysis about where fragmentation can sort of emerge or come from at the governance layer. And one was duplicative mandates. So if part of specific Internet governance bodies mandate is unclear or may have overlapping elements with a different body, this could foster a competition for legitimacy or create confusion between bodies. And therefore that can make it difficult for stakeholders to know where and when they need to engage in a specific conversation. Another point we observed was when mandates are exclusive or don’t fully empower all elements of the multistakeholder community to participate. So we see inclusion as central to combating that so that people can participate on an equal footing. And then finally, taking actions at the right level. So individual governments’ actions can sometimes lead to divergence in the rules applied to the Internet and its management. And in that sense, it’s really important that national governments and Internet governance global bodies are closely conversing about issues, specifically when they’re being developed or discussed through multistakeholder processes already. So with some of those analytical points, we proposed a couple of different recommendations. And again, very eager to get a wide range of perspectives and feedback on this today. But one was not to introduce further bodies into the Internet governance landscape. The Internet governance landscape is already complex. And as we all well know, through all our travels, there are a lot of different conferences, events taking place that we engage with across bodies already. And people only have so much time and only so much financial resource to be able to engage in these. So further perpetuating that complex landscape could end up excluding people from discussions if they don’t have the resources to fully participate in more and more emerging bodies and spaces. However, that being said, another recommendation we made was, therefore, it is important to improve coordination between existing Internet governance bodies to help address perceived or real gaps in these spaces. So coordination between existing Internet governance bodies. governance bodies is needed to help address that as well. Thirdly, and in order to avoid siloed public policy discussions regarding internet governance, all internet governance bodies must be fully inclusive to stakeholders and enable meaningful multi-stakeholder participation on an equal footing. We also believed that that would help address instances of fragmentation at the governance layer. And then finally, we recommend that existing global internet governance bodies must engage more closely with national governments. So this goes back to our point of analysis before. There’s actually a two-way street here. National governments, when looking at proposed legislation, can actually really benefit from talking to global internet governance bodies about their plans and therefore receive important information and feedback. But equally, global internet governance bodies should be on the front foot about engaging with governments and ensure that governments know what activities are going on in the global space to help potentially avoid duplicative measures. So I’ll stop there. And again, an exciting part of this panel is we’ll now receive some challenge and other perspectives on this work. So with that, I hand over to Jordan Carter. Great to have you here.

Jordan Carter:
Thank you, Roz, and good morning, everyone. My name is Jordan Carter. I work for the AU Domain Administration, the ccTLD manager for .au. And it’s a pleasure to offer a few not very provocative provocations to the group to help the conversation happen. I am making some personal remarks. I’m not advancing an outer position here. Overall, I think this is a good start to the discussion around fragmentation. And my congratulations to the volunteers. I should disclose that aside from joining the email list a couple of months ago, I have not been involved in any way in this paper. I was reading it fresh to prepare for this session. And I agree with the analysis so far as it goes. So in the end, my provocation is relatively brief. of broad-based participation is vital, particularly in the standards bodies and in some of the global internet governance organizations like ICANN. The Western bias in participation is undeniable, and meaningful participation from around the globe and from the groups that are not participating is absolutely essential to within whatever framework that we have. When I read the very first box, the definition here, fragmentation of internet governance primarily relates to the interactions between global internet governance and standards bodies. My core thesis might be that that’s too narrow a definition of governance fragmentation, because one of the key agents of governance are governments, and if to not deal with government-driven, policy-driven fragmentation in this section, I think maybe complicates the picture, though I’m sure I can in turn be challenged about that. You know, and part of the challenge there is that the definition of internet governance itself is under challenge. You know, do we think that it’s just about the governance of the internet, which is a distinction that has been made, or is it the governance on the internet, or is it these broader questions of digital governance that get often tacked on to those infrastructure-level discussions today? Another challenge I think it would be worth taking into account in the governance fragmentation is that caused by the narrow mandates of a lot of the technical internet governance organizations. Those narrow mandates are there for good reasons, but sometimes they make it difficult for those organizations to actually deal with a systemic view of what’s going on in the internet. So you can have a situation where each silo is dealing with its narrow mandate, and none of them are prepared to take a view about the system as a whole, and so I think there are some institutional drivers there at the global internet governance level towards fragmentation. The paper talks about the need for better coordination, and I agree, and it suggests further research, and I agree, but quite a lot of the people who are involved in these global internet governance bodies could undertake meaningful coordination together without further research. They just need to start doing it. Some of it is being done, but the challenge not to this paper but to those organizations is get coordinating. Get coordinating in the face of the challenges that the internet is throwing up, and in the challenges to the governance model that we see today, and I really did appreciate the paper calling out the duplication and the risks with some of the proposals in the Secretary-General’s policy brief for a digital cooperation forum, for example. The last thing that we need is duplicative institutions being established with new resources going to fund them instead of the resources that the IGF, for example, is crying out for and could make good use of. And the last point I want to make, I guess, having argued that the governance discussion could use maybe a broader look, is the multistakeholder-driven Internet governance system and the multilateral or state-based regulatory and legal system, I think, need to be much better at working effectively together. The two can and should shape each other, and the multistakeholder dialogues in organizations like the IGF could usefully inform policy if more of the people doing public policy related to the Internet were aware of their work. So I’ll probably wrap it up there. I don’t know if that was provocative enough, but thank you for the chance to comment.

Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you so much, Jordan. And we will be going through each of the elements of the framework first before we open up. And I also wanted to let you know that we had some written feedback from the community when we published the paper and wanted to weave in some of that into this discussion as well. So there was one point of feedback relevant to the Internet governance and coordination chapter. It was really about providing concrete examples of how governance fragmentation causes Internet fragmentation, and just it was checking that what our understanding in the paper that you put out in the paper is of Internet governance and coordination fragmentation is essentially that the existence of multiple uncoordinated international processes is a source of fragmentation. So if so, why is that treated differently than governmental and corporate-sourced fragmentation which are both addressed under user experience, which we’ll come on to. So I think there’s a question there about what is the focus of this chapter? Is it on the existence of multiple uncoordinated processes, which I think you have addressed, and that is the focus. And then, Jordan, you mentioned the importance of ensuring coherence or at least engagement and coordination. And it might be interesting. to hear from you later, but also from everyone here and online, whether you have any ideas for concrete mechanisms or examples that are already existing for how that coordination can effectively take place. So without further ado, we’ll move on then before we open up to the second chapter, and we have here Vittorio Bertola, who was one of the co-drafters of this chapter within the group, and I know Vittorio wear many hats, so I don’t know how you prefer to be introduced, but please do provide your, well, please do choose your hat, and then an overview of the work that you’ve done in this year to assess the priorities in the user experience fragmentation that we we had outlined last year, and then also the recommendations that you put forward. It’s a very hefty chapter of the discussion document, so good luck with summarizing it in three or four minutes. Yes, it’s pretty hard. Well, I don’t know,

Roswitharu:
maybe my head is like having gray hair and having been for too many years in this kind of discussions, almost 25 now, but I work for Open Exchange, which is a German open-source software company, and so, I mean, I was one of the people that tried to tackle this problem of user experience fragmentation, which is, I think, the hardest and most vague one. It’s because the entire discussion of fragmentation started from the technical level, and then multiple stakeholders tried to add more things into it, and user experience things are mostly coming from this kind of approach. So we tried to go for a definition which is completely open and pretty broad, basically by saying that anything that makes two different users of the Internet see different things when they try to access the same service, website, whatever, or do the same thing over the Internet is a form of user level fragmentation. And of course, if you take this very broad approach, then there’s the need to tell between the positive cases and the negative cases, because there are many situations in which which actually this difference in experience is a good thing. It’s made to help the user, to customize content for them, or it’s made to protect the user, to give them rights, for example, through privacy laws in specific countries. Or it’s done, for example, to prevent them from accessing unhealthy, like malware websites or whatever. So you have to then define what is a negative case of fragmentation. There could be another approach, and some people have argued for it, of just finding a definition that covers only negative cases, but then we found this becomes harder and harder. So we’d rather take, then, a case-by-case approach. So by starting from this very broad definition, we identified several priorities in different cases, and then we want to work on them one by one, because they all have a different need and a different view to be taken into account. So we identified the two major sources of this kind of fragmentation, and it’s never the user. Usually, it’s either a government that, for some reason, wants to exert sovereignty and modify the experience for their own citizens only, or it’s a company, usually the global platforms, that wants to build like this kind of ecosystem, or world gardens, how you want to call them, that basically prevents users from going somewhere else, because they want, of course, to exploit them for business reasons. And so through these two opposite pushes, a number of phenomenon emerge. So we identified six priorities, and the three top ones, the ones we would start with, are, well, first of all, internet shutdowns. These are the principles, anyway. The internet shutdowns, we discussed a bit whether it’s a user experience level thing or a technical thing, but in the end, we decided we could discuss it at this level, and we think they are a negative thing. So we already received a comment of someone in the community saying that there’s actually something like a positive internet shutdown. I don’t know what it is, but it will be up for discussion. And then we We, the second priority we identified is the case in which national blocking or law enforcement orders have global effects. So spilling over to other jurisdictions and creating, let’s say, issues, I mean, problems to other countries and other citizens. And then the third case was the walled gardens I mentioned. So basically the building of barriers and the restriction of user choice and competition, both by governments when they have like laws that favor, for example, national problems over the global ones, but also by the global internet platforms. And then there’s more because we also would like to discuss national level censorship when content gets blocked for political reasons. We would like to discuss the violations of network neutrality, which are another issue. And the last one is the geo-blocking for intellectual property reasons. So as you see, there’s a long list of things to do and I encourage people in the community to participate even on specific issues. So we tried, I mean, we don’t think we can make suggestions for everything at the same time together, but we tried to identify five principles that are summarized in the slide. Basically the idea we would like to start with is that there should be a principle of equality, meaning the default should be that everybody should be able to access everything in the same way. And then the second principle is a partial correction to this, it’s a principle of enhancement. So when the differentiation, the customization is done in the interest of the user or asked for by the user, then it’s a good thing. And so we don’t need to worry about it. The problem is when this gets imposed onto users by a third party against their wish, and then in this case, you could have negative effects. So the first suggestion is that we should have an impact assessment whenever you do something that creates a deviation from the global internet, whether it’s a national regulation, national law, or even a business decision. Then there should be harmonization. So the idea is that, especially in regulatory terms, we should rely as far as possible on global agreements on how to tackle the same problem in the same way everywhere. And only go to national regulation when either the harmonization is missing or doesn’t take into account any national needs. But then the last, and maybe. the most important principle is that in the end, there should always be free choice. So the users should be free to choose how they use the internet and where to go. And unless there are very important reasons to make that, I mean, to prevent that from happening, in the end, the user should always be trusted to be able to do the good thing. So thank you. I think we have Mariela as a commentator and I give the floor.

Marielza Oliveira:
Very much. Thank you. I really liked your presentation. Well, let me start by saying Konichiwa, and my name is Mariela Oliveira. I’m the Director for Digital Inclusion, Policies and Transformation in the Communications and Information Sector of UNESCO. And this work for the policy network on fragmentation is particularly important to us because what my team and I do is essentially defend freedom of expression, access to information and privacy. And these are the rights that are most directly impacted by fragmentation. First, I want to say also a big congrats to Bruno, Chih-Tao and Wim who have been steering this work since the last year and it’s shaping up super well. So, well, let me say that to me, the user experience fragmentation is maybe the most interesting type just because it has this positive side when users are served with custom features or content that is set and the negative side when users are actually prevented from accessing certain features and service and content. And the discussion paper is actually concerned very much primarily with the negative side, which is essentially about how these features, these mechanisms actually impose barriers that isolate or trap users into an information environment from which they can’t really escape. And a consequence of isolation and a major source of the harms that happen as a consequence of this type of fragmentation is essentially that it enables serving trap users different world views than are served from other internet users. And that brings a really important point that maybe it’s not quite explicit in the paper yet, but I like that it was mentioned, alluded to in the presentation just made is that negative user experience fragmentation actually affects all users, not just the ones immediately deprived of access to the internet or to a specific content and services. Some of the users that are excluded are prevented from enjoying their human rights to access to information or their freedom of expression and other rights, but, and they may end up being driven to echo chambers and elements like that. But it’s also true that the non-targeted users who are deprived of their rights to freely associate with those who are isolated to seek information from them and impart information to them. And therefore, the consequences that these two groups end up kind of driven apart. There’s an increasing gap in the information and knowledge between them. And that separates people. And many times, especially when it’s done for political purposes, the likely consequences, polarization, which then spews beyond the internet and into the real world and actually may. affect even non-internet users. So I think that this is a particularly important topic. In UNESCO, we work with what we call the Rome Principles for Internet Development, in which the internet should be human rights-based, open to all, accessible by all, most stakeholder-led. And the user experience fragmentation is very much about the explicit decisions that reduce openness and accessibility, which then has consequences for human rights. And when we talk about bad fragmentation, it’s essentially not done by a most stakeholder process. It tends to be a very, you know, kind of a unilateral decision process. One of the things that I really liked about the paper is that it actually laid out principles specifically for fragmentation that were mentioned in the presentation, and particularly this issue of free choice and equality of access and enhancement of experience in others. These are very much in line with the existing principles and particularly with the human rights framework. And the paper actually received a number of comments already, including a suggestion that these principles regarding user experience be explicitly based in human rights standards and processes, which are already, you know, globally acceptable, accepted, and there is like a solid jurisprudence foundation around them. And particularly, it just said that we need to consider the three-part test on legitimacy of interferences with the freedom of expression. And so this is an element that I think it would be important to add to the paper as well. Some of the points that have been already made through comments is that there’s some content that actually is relevant to block, that is legitimate to block, because there’s a law that prescribes their blocking, they pursue a legitimate aim, and they are in line with a democratic society. And content like that, for example, has to do with child pornography, terrorism, incitement of violence, and things like that. And this has not yet been reflected in the paper on how we’re going to be kind of disambiguating between these different types. And the next type in the next draft, I think, would be, you know, should be including some of that, and maybe even making reference to the speech, you know, and debates around what is awful versus what’s lawful. And, you know, maybe just to finalize, I think that the paper would also benefit from bringing up some of the potential mitigation measures, including, for example, talking about enforcing platform interoperability, data portability, strengthen users, media and information literacy that can counteract the effects of the echo chambers and the disinformation and other, you know, that are created by fragmentation. And so, I mean, I’m going to end up here, because I know that you would love to hear the comments from our participants as well. Thank you very much for the chance to comment.

Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you, Marielsa, that was great. And you were very positive about the chapter. and I think you also very helpfully reacted though to some of the feedback that we got online, the written feedback which I have to say was really helpful and constructive, so you can also access it on the web page, but quite a lot of it focused on the need to be more explicit about the use of different terms, the connection between the human rights standards and negative user experience fragmentation and explaining the difference between what is called negative and harmful fragmentation in terms of user experience and as I said being more explicit about that, so it was great to hear you respond to that as well because I think when we come to you on the floor and online, please do sort of pick up some of those points or add your own, but certainly a lot of really helpful feedback already from you Mariel, so thank you for that. So we are going to move now to the chapter that looked at technical layer fragmentation and Olaf Kolbmann is here with us and to present the chapter and really looking forward to hearing from you Olaf and then you’re going to be joined afterwards or we are going to be joined by Suresh Krishnan from the Internet Architecture Board who will respond and then we’ll open up, so please do get ready with your reflections and questions. Without further ado, over to

Olaf Kolkman:
you Olaf. Thank you very much, my name is Olaf Kolbmann, I work with the Internet Society, I’m principal there. Chapter on technical infrastructure. When we speak about technical infrastructure of the Internet, that is the network of networks. that are internetworking to provide global connectivity, 80,000 networks that interconnect to provide global connectivity, and the supporting infrastructure that makes that happen. That’s for us the sort of internet technical infrastructure. Now a few ideas that we had in constructing this chapter, I want to highlight those without going to the details of the chapter itself. But first I want to urge people to review this. This is a work in progress and it becomes stronger when stakeholders engage with the document and provide comments. At this moment I feel that there have been too little eyes on this chapter and we can use help. Anyway, the chapter starts with saying that the technical fragmentation is not something that is clearly defined. There is an operationalized definition of fragmentation around. It’s a work by Baltra and Heidemann, but they have a criterion that says if 50% of the public IP addresses cannot reach the other 50%, then you have a fragmented internet. That’s a very, very fragmented internet. That means that half of the population cannot reach the other half of the population. I think we don’t want to be there. It’s like you’re losing your hair and at some point you’re bald and at that 50% point, that’s true baldness, I would say. So how to prevent getting bald? That’s sort of the question. What we also said is fragmentation is is not necessarily everything where people choose to not interoperate and not internetwork. And there are cases like that. Like my home network, my home automation network, my own home automation network does not need to be on the internet directly. That’s a choice. That’s a choice you can make. Yesterday in a session on fragmentation, somebody said you have good fragmentation and bad fragmentation. I sort of like that idea. Decentralization is not fragmentation. Lack of connectivity because you choose not to connect is not fragmentation. Temporarily having to reroute your traffic because of a network problem, so to speak, not fragmentation. But what is fragmentation? How do we define it then? Well, again, that’s very difficult. But the approach that we took is using the critical properties as one of the frameworks. There are multiple frameworks that we point to the critical properties that the framework that the Internet Society developed that basically defines the critical properties of the internet in non-technical terms. They’re inspired by the network architecture, and I won’t go into the details of them. But that’s one of the frameworks where you can say if you lose these critical properties, if you’re sliding down the scale away from these properties, then you run into the risk of fragmentation. So this is the approach that we took. Another framework you can look at and approach is that of the public core. The public core is a framework that was developed by a think tank in the Netherlands and later further analyzed and defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace. That’s another framework and lens through which you can look at the internet and say, OK, we’re impacting elements of the public core, and that might lead to fragmentation. I think one One of the things that we’ve done in this document is also by doing that, by using this type of non-technical frameworks, frameworks that do not specify exactly the technology that’s being used, we allow for evolution. Because the Internet really is still evolving, and I think that’s important, that we don’t ossify as we usually say, the Internet in its current state. We need to continuously be able to evolve it. Another aspect of fragmentation that we looked at was basically what I would call the evolution of the edge, whereby what we see is that there is a lot of changing in routing behavior. transit or building their own network compared to using transit to get close to the user. That might cause a fragmentation of a different sort, basically the digital divide, increasing the digital divide of users that are close to that type of infrastructure and users that are not. That has impact on the application layer. There might be users that have a very good user experience, and there might be users that do not have a good user experience, and that is due by the way that the Internet evolves in more richer parts of the world versus less connected parts of the world. Hard to catch within those critical frameworks that I just mentioned, but it is a point that we point out in the document. Going to the recommendations. So the recommendations are basically look at these frameworks. Use those frameworks, these critical properties or the public core, and make sure that together we protect these properties. Make sure that we can continue to network and provide a global network to everybody, that brings the opportunities to actually do all this user stuff. If we fragment on the user layer but still have a global network that connects us all, we have a chance to defragment on that user level. But once we have fragmented the internet technical infrastructure, that fragmentation will also be reflected in the user space. So it’s much more important, it’s not much more important, it’s very important to take care that those properties are protected and we have to do that together. There are very few ways to actually understand how that fragmentation is happening, there are very few measurements around that look into, on a longitudinal scale, on what the evolution is that impact fragmentation and how it’s caused and how it evolves. This is really a call for people to set up measurements and think creatively on how you would assess this fragmentation on a technical layer. Once proposals are introduced either on the policy or on the technical layer in standardisation efforts for instance, do assess them against these critical properties, do assess them against frameworks and see if we lose interoperability. See if we lose the ability to connect. If that is the case, perhaps it’s not such a good idea. Of course, we’re into this together and the multi-stakeholder approach is a good thing. in order to make sure that what is being delivered, both by the private sector developing these technologies and the technical communities working on these technologies, as well as by the civil society and the governments, to make sure that we stay globally connected and don’t split up this network of networks. I think that’s the summary.

Sheetal Kumar:
That’s great. Thank you, Olaf. And we have Suresh online. So let me check, actually, do we?

Suresh Krishnan:
Yeah, I do. I’m here. Please go ahead. Thank you, Sheetal. Thanks a lot. Like, thank you for that excellent summary. And there’s like very little fault in there. So I’m just going to go over a few things that I think are important and then kind of give you a little, some minor hints to improve. But I think the key part that this thing got right is that the internet is a decentralized set of networks. There’s no single point of choke point of control over this. There’s like multiple people who, I would say, collaboratively got together and built this large network. And I think that’s a key thing to protect. And that does not mean fragmentation. That’s by design that these networks are like independent and decentralized. And what really holds them together is the technology that offers the interoperability. I think that’s like something that you got like really like well done in the first piece of this, where we talk about the technology being the thing that holds stuff together and not really the administration of them. And I think that’s like a key point to emphasize. And the second thing is like on the critical properties of the internet, I think openness is one of them. And also the incremental deployability of stuff. And it kind of ties into your, I would say, lack of ossification, right? Like new technologies keep getting deployed on the internet. So for example, we had like IPv6 come in, you know, like at some point we ran into a situation where there’s like more than 4 billion people on the internet. And then we had like ways to kind of get around it. And it takes time, but we are able to build newer things on top. And we’ve had technologies on the internet now that the internet pioneers couldn’t have imagined, right? Everything depends on it. So the way in which like, you know, we can put like newer things on the internet and still expect them to work with people around the world is really because of the openness and the connectivity that’s there. So it’s something that we should strive to preserve, like you said. And so the other kind of key thing in there is that the layering principles of the internet as well. So like the internet kind of holds together at like, you know, the layer three and four kind of of the OSI model, like in a very high level. And there’s also applications that like we have a rich variety of applications, but as long as we keep the kind of technologies and the lower layers to like, I would say a globally interoperable minimum, I think like things are going to be good. And that’s what we should also look for. And also try not to push in, I would say. So I think like Mariel talked a little bit about the content in there, right? So the question is, should the content filtering happen in the lower layers or the higher layers? And I think like I would posit it should happen at the higher layers because it’s kind of, we are talking about like transporting, staying connected while enforcing like, you know, millions of laws, like, you know, state laws, like country laws and local laws are like very different around the world. So like, you know, instead of trying to like do this at like a lower layer, which the whole world shares, like, you know, we should kind of try to keep it at the higher layers where that belong. And that’s also alluded to in the document. One of the things is like the messaging was given as an example, Olaf, right? And we have like, you know, something very positive happening recently in the space with the multi-stakeholders architecture is that the Europe came up with this like Digital Markets Act, right? Like which opened us the gatekeepers to open up the communications and the IETF, we started work on something called MIMI, which allows like interoperating at the message layer. So like, you know, this is like a really good, I would say, blueprint to follow where like, you know, the governments and the policy organizations and the technical community, we all work together to have this common goals of increasing the openness of the Internet and people being able to connect. And for the measurement, I think that’s a critical piece, Olaf, and I think we need to put a lot more effort into it. Right. And we need to have a lot more. measurement points across the globe and like kind of be able to have a platform where people can use like you know it’s not just for us to do stuff but also build a platform such as like the right path less is a platform like that that exists today where people can run their own experiments on this platform with the probes that exist. So maybe we should like let other people with ideas to measure things could use the same kind of platform to build their own metrics on how they see the fragmentation as like instead of like us prescribing some metrics. So that’s something that’s actually really good as well. And I’m totally with you on like the multi-stakeholder approach. I think it has worked really well to bring the Internet to this level. And I think we should really continue going down that approach to like work collaboratively and make sure that we learn from the past lessons we’ve had. And that brings me to like my last 20 seconds to critique it. And the critic is really like we kind of need a little bit more references out of this document. And so like you know talk about like when so let’s say like RFC 1958 which talks about the architecture of the Internet and principles and so on. I think it’s like very interesting reading for a lot of people who are coming in from the policy sphere to look at like you know what are the technical things that led to the Internet being the way it is and why it’s like very good for growth. I think that’s probably going to be my only critique on this.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. Thank you so much Suresh and thanks for joining us online. That was really really useful to get your feedback on that chapter. But also you made connections to the other chapters as including the user experience one and that’s also key. We do see these different elements of the framework as intersecting of course. The point is to help to provide a lens by which to have this discussion. And so if if you all have comments on that please do do of course share and you also I think you made a point about referencing about clarity of terms but definitions which we also got in written feedback. So that is something we can certainly incorporate. But I’ll turn over now to Bruna and Bruna will be facilitating this part of the discussion which is really to hear from you. And so please do please do get engaged. We’ll also be looking at the online participants for any questions and reflections there. Thanks Bruna.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thanks so much. Yes as we said this is the feedback moment of the session right. So any questions or comments you might have are very much welcome. We have some microphones in the room so if you want to add some thoughts or just ask questions to the panelists you can come to them. But I guess I’ll start with one remote question who is from Foley Hebert from Togo. And his question is I would like to know how we can reach every how can we reach every citizen in the world. So, I think that’s the first one. The second one is a question about how we can protect the internet in a more secure world, especially how can we overcome language barriers if content can be translated into our local languages, that would be very good. So, and also, he made a comment about the more people are aware of splinter net’s damages and danger, the more they will be ready and prepared to fight against splinter net and to protect the internet in a more secure world. So, I think that’s the first one. So, I will take three rounds of questions, like three questions in one round, and then I will divert back to the panelists, so we can start there.

Audience:
Hello, my name is Mia Kuliv and I’m also a member of the Internet Architecture Board. It’s more a comment than a question. I would like to comment on the technical fragmentation part. Olof talked a lot about interconnectivity. And, you know, I think and I think we are on the way to getting there. So, to get to the point, if you have less than 50 per cent, it means you have the internet and you have another network which is not the internet which is just not connected, right? But at 50 per cent, you actually have two internets, you don’t know which one is real internet anymore, and there’s nothing like two internets, there’s only one internet. So, this is very mathematical, and that’s the point where it actually breaks, where there’s no way to get back to one internet, and we really want to have a more open internet, because if you have two internets and you have a lot of connectivity, it’s not easy to get back to one internet, right? So, yes, then you’re, then it’s too late. But what I wanted to say is that it’s not only about interoperability or interconnectivity, it’s also about the ability to innovate and evolve the internet, right? So, if we put barriers into place where we cannot evolve the internet anymore, we cannot introduce new protocols, because if we put barriers into place where we need to back up our ideas as a vertical group, we can’t do this. So, that’s the challenge here, and the reason why we are doing this is because internet bill expansion isn’t the only reason we are romanticising it, and it I think it’s a very good question. I think the problem is that we are still interconnected, and this is like all Internet protocols are designed this way. You always have to have a way to evolve, to go on, and if you put barriers in the way where we cannot evolve anymore, that’s, I think, where we lead to, which leads to whatever fragmentation or to a very negative outcome, because that means not only that we cannot change the technology anymore, we cannot adapt, we cannot make it more secure, we cannot make it more flexible, we cannot adapt to the Internet. And so, I think that whatever we do on top of the Internet will be limited, because we cannot adapt to it anymore, and then we’re stuck, and then all the benefits we get from the Internet, where we see this positive impact on the society, on our economy, and so on, doesn’t happen anymore. And that’s like, that’s the point where we’re still connected, but the Internet wouldn’t be as useful as it is today.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thank you. I think that’s a very good point. Right here in the middle, can we get a second question or comment? Thank you.

Audience:
First, I want to thank the policy network that they put the Internet fragmentation into perspective, and we understood today what is meant by Internet fragmentation. Obviously, we have three dimensions, the policies and procedures, we have the user experience, and we have the data, and we have the data, and we have the data. And so, if we think about the policy and procedure, we can understand the subject much better. And the policy and procedure level, first, what gives us comfort is that there is a general consensus and agreement that we don’t want the Internet to be fragmented. So, all our effort is toward not fragmenting the Internet, and this gives us a comfort in this matter. And, so, in the last three decades, we have seen, we thought that the internet on national level, there were, let’s say, treaties or commitments that represents the interest of that regions or represent the national interest and in terms of social and economic. And I wouldn’t say all of them, but whatever represents the interest of the into there. of the socio-economics of this region or national, and it is there. And so these commitments or these frameworks or these agreements or treaties represent the interests of these regions or these people, and there should be a thin line between saying that this represents a fragmentation or represents the interests or the benefit of that group. Maybe this is something that we need or something that needs to be addressed. At least in terms of that, if there are any regional or national arrangements, there is a certain level that they should not conflict with the overall of the unity or the unification of the Internet. Going back to the user experience and Vittorio as an advocate of user experience, he gave us a kind of trust that the indicators or the elements that has been identified, the five elements, represents really truly the user experience, at least principles that we don’t need to be harmed. And actually when it comes to user experience, there is nothing regional or national. Internet users should be all equal. So in that terms, we need to have a global understanding of that this is the minimum of what is known or what should be a user experience. Going to the technical side, thank you that you limited this to the interoperability and thank you that you clarified that decentralization or lack of connectivity or choice is not considered a fragmentation. What gives us assurances is that the industry or even the technical community built all its work toward interoperability. And this is something that at least we feel trusted that it will continue. But again, bringing the matter to digital divide, it means returning this again to the user experience. The third thing is that the third thing is that the third thing is that the third thing is that there is a problem with the user experience, which is now a wide open issue, and this may have implications. Why it has implications? In some parts of the world, this may be a controlled user experience means, let’s say, a negative aspect on the social status of that user, and the social status of that user, and the social status of that user, and so on. So, from all of that, really, while we have some arrangements on policies and procedures, and we have some arrangements on the technical side, we are wide open on the user experience so far, and maybe this makes the start of the dimension of user experience more important than going first to the policies or the technical side. Thank you. Everyone has delta data? Someone was waiting for the next speaker to speak. Farid? , OLAF referred to a comment I made the other day about harmful fragmentation versus the fragmentation that is part of the internet, the way the internet is intended to work, and what I think about it is that it’s a very complex problem. It’s a very complex problem. I’ve come up to comment about this sort of grey area. We think of harmful fragmentation as something where, let’s say, a service provider blocks its competitors, access to its competitors, or a country blocks certain websites at the IP level or DNS resolution level and that kind of thing. I’ve had a conversation with a Facebook user who has a Facebook account, and he has a Facebook page blocking off the content that Facebook users can see from people outside Facebook who can’t get to that content, and, of course, my Meta colleague thinks that’s not fragmentation. That’s just the way an application looks. layered on top of the internet works. And one thing that he says is Facebook is not the internet. The World Wide Web is not the internet. These are application layers that are put on top of the internet. But from the user’s point of view, that often is the internet. So this kind of gets to Vittorio’s area of fragmenting the user experience. So I just sort of want us all to think about that a bit more. These gray areas that change the user experience in other ways that we don’t normally think of as fragmentation. And maybe we should start wondering whether it is and whether it’s good or bad. Just more to think about, I think.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thank you very much. Next up.

Audience:
Hi there. Thank you. I’m Christopher Tay from Connect Free Corporation and Internet3. We think that the future of the internet is really having everyone own their own IP address. I think that up until now, there’s been huge amounts of cost involved in creating infrastructure that has led to ISPs and others owning blocks of IP addresses and having the difficulty of really getting these IP addresses out on the end. So by allowing everyone to generate their own IP address through cryptographic public key pairs, we can give everyone an internet IP address. And so we think that there’s something kind of really cool going on here in Japan. Because the government has implemented a law against NTT in the 1990s so that they had the entity on the network, but they weren’t able to become an ISP, they have fundamentally created a countrywide layer 2 switching network where all ISPs can enter onto the network. And so what that has allowed us to do is become a ISP of individuals. And what that means is that every computer on the entity network using our software can have an IP address and connect and build a presence on the network. I think there’s kind of an interesting thing about decoupling IP addresses from networks. Obviously it’s very hard to have individuals create networks, but we think that there should be a decoupling between the infrastructure, the actual hardware physical layer, and the layer 3 IP layer. We’ve proven that this is a possible thing. I think that there’s a lot of discussions to be had and we hope to join these discussions, so thank you for your time.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thanks so much for your comment. I didn’t see a fourth line there, so I’m very sorry. Please go ahead, Laura.

Audience:
Hello. First of all, I’d like to thank you for the panel and the report and the work of the network in general. My name is Laura Pereira. I’m a delegate from the Brazilian Youth Fellowship. We know that the defense of democracy, integrity, and information integrity is one of the main fields to actually adopt a more protective view of the digital space currently, and in that sense, sometimes to cause fragmentation and to risk the integrity of the digital space in general. Actually in the Brazilian chapter of Internet Society, we actually made an experimental application of the proposed concept of user experience fragmentation to collaborate on a public consultation by Brazilian Internet Steering Committee on platform regulation alerting to the unadvertised risks of platform regulation when it does not consider these kinds of harms to the critical properties of the network. However, as mentioned by your presentation, it’s not easy to balance democracy, integrity, defense overall in the general sense and harmful fragmentations. Is it possible to reach this sort of balance by using the concept of user experience fragmentation? Do you intend to advance on this perspective? Is it a goal of the network? how do you see this issue in a more detailed way? Thank you for your presentation.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thanks a lot, Laura. Just reflect that I’m closing the queue, but we’re going to take the last three comments. So please go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you for the panel. And I appreciate the discourse on internet fragmentation, but also just the difficulties surrounding understanding it. And so I can keep it very pointed to the discussion points that were listed. I am curious, as we progress with initiatives like this, do we continue to do so without engaging regional or cultural leaders in areas that experience shutdowns? Or, at the very least, massive hindrances to their freedom of access to open information? There was a point where it was national governments are what we are hoping to interact with, and no new stakeholders to involve in governance. However, there does seem to be valuable parallels between looking at the way that communities who have been oppressed in the past have also taken a stand and helped create legislation and international policy to curtail that from happening to any other group. And furthermore, I would like to raise a discussion point of meaningful connectivity, as is eluded to by the UN development goals. With the rise of satellite availability and private corporate satellite availability internet, and LLM sophistication, do we recognize the potential for not only fragmentation, but quality of online experience? Is this something where we see fragmentation leading from billions of people being priced out of meaningful connectivity? And does this appear to be a perfect storm for exasperating the digital divide, not necessarily closing it? So how does internet fragmentation policy design, like how does it design itself to effectively account for rapid development on these emerging fronts, taking into account their incredible potential to create disparity of access to meaningful connectivity? Thank you.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thanks a lot. Next comment.

Audience:
Thank you. My name is Michel Lambert, I’m coming from Montreal. I work with an organization called Equality, which is doing technology to support freedom online. This is my first participation to the policy network. I’m particularly interested by it. Hopefully, we will manage to create some governance that will prevent fragmentation. But I come from a background where we tend to believe that these discussions are difficult and sometimes they take more time. And we need to develop alternative technologies. So I’d like to use this floor now just to invite people to join us in Montreal. We are organizing a conference called the SplinterCon. And the idea is really to bring together the people developing new technologies, which are going to allow us eventually to, you know, build bridges or make holes into walls so that people can continue to enjoy the Internet. So if you are interested to be part of that process, please go to splintercon.net and join us in Montreal in December to develop those technologies. Thank you.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thank you very much. Next comment right here.

Audience:
Thank you. First of all, thank you for the excellent discussion on Internet fragmentation. I have a general question. We want the Internet to be inclusive and open, borderless, global network, which gives equal opportunities to everybody who’s connected and those who are to be connected. But because of a geopolitical situation, trade concerns, and other factors, the response of nation-states, some of the nation-states, is that they take certain actions and enact certain laws that may come under the ambit of digital sovereignty or digital protectionism, and which may result in either technical, commercial, or governmental fragmentation of the Internet. So my question from you would be that how do you… I mean, you’ve given some very good recommendations, but given the governance structure of the Internet, how do you see that how easy or difficult it would be to address this challenge of implementing those recommendations? And especially we see the Internet evolving, I mean, it’s becoming more decentralized, the Web 3.0, so how do you see addressing that particular challenge? And we talked about the five principles, the DFI principles, so if there are certain laws enacted which may compromise any of those principles, so how do you see addressing that challenge? Thank you.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thanks a lot. Last but not least, Raul.

Audience:
Good morning. My name is Raul Echeverria. I’m from Latin American Internet Association. I think that we are, sometimes we are in a loop trying to define what is Internet fragmentation or not, and it makes me remember when we discussed in the past about network neutrality and somebody introduced the expression, the concept, but we never had an agreed definition on that. So we lost a lot of energy discussing about what is network neutrality instead of discussing what we want to avoid. And if we look at the topic of this event, it’s the Internet we want. So instead of trying to define what is Internet fragmentation, we have to focus on what things we want not to happen. And so I think that the work that the Policy Network is doing is impressive, and it’s very good, and congratulations for that, and I have been part sometimes in the discussions, but we should focus also on more clear recommendations, whole things that, for example, for governments, don’t block apps, don’t adopt policies that create different experiences in Internet for users in the same country, that is, or in the globe. This is the kind of things that we have to recommend. Of course, I heard what the colleague said about when we don’t participate in a platform or in a given space, we don’t have access to the information that is there, but the point is that if I want to be I can’t do it. I can’t do it because I don’t want to be part of that, I can. But in some places, or due to some policies, even if I want to be a TikTok user or buy something on Amazon or whatever, I can’t do it. So this is fragmentation, but we will be in a loop if we try to say, oh, this is fragmentation, this is not. But there are things that we clearly don’t want to happen, because that’s the Internet we don’t want. Thank you.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thank you very much. I think we have a lot of time, but I would like to ask the panelists to leave the room at 10.30, because we’ve closed the line, and we have a deadline to leave this room at 10.30, right? And at the same time, we also have the process for bringing inputs to the discussion open until the 20th of October, but we really want also the panelists to be able to comment on that. So Olaf, Jordan, Ross, Vittorio, do you guys would like to add anything, since it’s the talks of the day and a time we have that Kevin have already started, Jasper, and then Jason?

Olaf Kolkman:
Yes. Well, not a lot. I think that a number of points were made that are relevant and critical. One of the points that was made was by Mary asking for more nuance, and I think that’s a fair comment. I think that’s a good point, and I think that’s a good point. I think that’s a good point, and I think that’s a good point. Myriam made a good point, the ability to innovate and evolve is one that we should protect. That is, indeed, the idea. I made reference to the critical properties, and one of the critical properties that we have defined, and that we sort of introduced also in this paper, is having an open architecture that consists out of building blocks, and protecting that open architecture whereby we can evolve, I think, is important. That sort of speaks to the general idea that we need to protect that open architecture, and I think that’s a good point. The gentleman that I forgot his name, but I know from the metro advertisement, he invented something new. I don’t know if that works. I don’t know how that will scale across the Internet. And as Mirja also pointed out, we did this transition from v4 to v6. That could have failed. There is technical fragmentation between v4 and v6. And the onus has been on the people who developed and are implementing v6 and give everybody their own IP address, because that was the intention of the v6 address space, to make sure that that interoperability with the v4 Internet continued to exist. And that has been 20 years of hard engineering work. Introducing something new will mean that the onus is on the entities that are introducing something new to make sure that that interoperability exists. The critical properties says there are common protocols. They don’t say it’s IPv4, IPv6, yet another protocol. The Internet should be able to continue to evolve. But we have to agree on something to keep that interoperability going. Finally, the comment on meaningful connectivity. When I talked about that evolution of the edge, this is a point that we’re making in the paper under the name of death of transit. The idea is indeed about having meaningful connectivity. If the Internet evolves in haves and have-nots, then there will be fragmentation, too. And being priced out of the market. is indeed a way to be fragmented. And, mind you, we have a fragmented user experience nowadays. There are many people who cannot afford being on the Internet. I think that’s something we all have to work on, making sure that people who want to connect can connect.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thank you very much, Olaf. Roz?

Rosalind Kenny Birch:
Yeah, thanks so much. And that’s actually a great transition line, Olaf, because I wanted to come in on some of the first comments about local languages, for example, and whatnot. I think this goes back to the broader thematic point we tried to capture in our chapter, talking about the importance of inclusion in global Internet governance bodies. And I think local languages, making sure people can participate despite their cultural or regional background is so important. So I really wanted to pick up on that point in particular. And there were further points about particular regional contexts and whatnot. Absolutely. I think I really wanted to highlight the role of the IGF’s national and regional initiatives in this regard. I think these are great multi-stakeholder spaces where people can come and talk about those local nuances, regional contexts, absolutely. And I think better coordination between Internet governance bodies, as we’ve been talking about, can hopefully help capture those and bring those different voices together as well. So not only just having these regional spaces, the NRIs, I was lucky enough to attend the Africa IGF two weeks ago, which is an absolutely fantastic opportunity to hear about some of these perspectives, but also to make sure that these are captured in the broader global discussions within these global Internet governance bodies themselves as well. So thank you so much. Just to say in general, a big thanks to the audience for the participation here. And please do, if you think of anything else, feel free to grab me on the sidelines throughout the rest of this week. Thank you.

Bruna Marlins dos Santos:
Thanks so much, Roswitharu.

Roswitharu:
Yeah, very quickly, a couple of points. There’s no time for everything. So please join the discussion on the mailing list in the call. Well, first of all, I think some of the comments pointed out what is the problem that we had to deal with when discussing the user experience level, which is that the user experience, as mentioned, fragmentation is really a big elephant as big as the planet. And people only see a very tiny bit of it and believe that that is fragmentation. And so if you talk to people from Silicon Valley, from the US West Coast, mostly they complain about what governments are doing in authoritarian countries, or even in the EU with the privacy laws and whatever. And if you talk to my friends in Europe, they complain about what the Silicon Valley platforms do. And everybody thinks that’s the big problem in terms of user fragmentation. So the first step is agreeing on whether something is a problem and why, and then starting to work together on that in a very pragmatic way. Because if we focus on definitions, we will not go anywhere. And the other thing I wanted to say is that, in the end, what we are facing now is the tension between the original dream of a united planet, borderless, and everybody talking with each other freely, and the reality of differences of values, interests, economies, and whatever, and languages throughout the planet. And so to a certain extent, you do need to preserve the local level, and even the national sovereignty, because that’s also a way to preserve the independence of peoples, something that was often hard fought. And to give them a way, to give each citizen of the world a way to have influence over the network, and not just give it to the people that manage the network globally and have more influence on it. But on the other hand, you have to avoid breaking the globalness of the internet. And so this is what we have to be concerned about, finding a balance. Thank you.

Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. And I’m sorry that we don’t have time to provide the commentators from the earlier part of the session with the opportunity to respond. But the good news is that there is still time to respond after this session via email. Or indeed, you can come and talk. to us, and we are giving a deadline of the 20th of October, and you of course have time to look in detail at the paper online, and the slides will also be available. I think they really nicely summarize the in-depth work that has been done. So what we wanted to do, what the original mandate and intention of this policy network was to provide some clarity to an incredibly complex and indeed controversial topic. I hope that you agree that we have to some extent done that, but it is not over. It is an evolving, just as the internet is, an evolving framework and an evolving piece of work. Please do join us in continuing that work, and I think that is it apart from thanking you all for being here, for your contributions to the panellists, to the drafters, to the very active members of the network who gave their time to put this paper together. Thank you. And please do continue to be engaged. We will be here during the IGF, but you can also email us. Bruno, is there anything I missed?

Wim Degezelle:
No, thank you. Maybe we can just have the slide, because there was the link to the web page. And there you can see, because on the web page of the PNF there is a link to the discussion paper and there is also explained how you can react. So looking forward to your comments. And the only thing I want to add is thank you to everyone. Thank you.